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):

Fabius Maximus is a troll. Ignore him. Please don’t feed trolls like Fabius Maximus.

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.

  1. If this was his reply, what did the post say?
  2. Is it logical to say “Fabius Maximus is a troll”?
  3. What does Mclaren consider strong evidence?
  4. 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.

  1. Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking“, Brian Angliss (electrical engineer), Scholars and Rogues, 23 July 2007.
  2. Skeptical Arguements“, John Cook (undergraduate major in “solar physics”, an “ex-physicist”), Skeptical Science, no date — Gives a brief rebuttal to each.
  3. Top 10 Global Warming Myths Debunked“, Nicole Hughes, posted at “takepart”, 7 April 2008.
  4. Climate change: A guide for the perplexed“, Michael Le Page, New Scientist, 16 May 2007.
  5. 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.

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 on the FM site about climate change

  1. A look at the science and politics of global warming, 12 June 2008
  2. Global warming means more earthquakes!, 19 June 2008
  3. An article giving strong evidence of global warming, 30 June 2008
  4. Worrying about the Sun and climate change: cycle 24 is late, 10 July 2008
  5. More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
  6. Update: is Solar Cycle 24 late (a cooling cycle, with famines, etc)?, 15 july 2008
  7. Two valuable perspectives on global warming, 4 August 2008
  8. President Kennedy speaks to us about global warming and Climate Science, 7 August 2008
  9. Solar Cycle 24 is still late, perhaps signalling cool weather ahead, 2 September 2008
  10. Update on solar cycle 24 – and a possible period of global cooling, 1 October 2008
  11. Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008
  12. One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature!, 27 October 2008
  13. “Aliens cause global warming”: wise words from the late Michael Crichton, 15 November 2008
  14. A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming, 17 November 2008
  15. Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?, 22 November 2008
  16. Weekend Reading, watching the world change before our eyes, 29 November 2008
  17. Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!, 1 December 2008
  18. Mystery solved, providing an important insight about the global warming debate., 2 December 2008
  19. This week’s report on the news in climate science, 7 December 2008

20 thoughts on “The definitive rebuttal to skepticism about global warming!

  1. Dear Fabius,

    After taking a brief look at your interaction with Mclaren, it’s pretty obvious that you two have very divergent notions of what constitutes a discussion or debate. You (Fabius) think that one should state an argument, then wait for your opponent’s rebuttal. Mc thinks that a list of journal articles is sufficient unto itself. Personally, I favor the Fabian model of discussion, as I appreciate intelligent argumentation; Mc’s mode of discourse simply leaves me speechless (and vastly bored). This is not because Mc’s arguments are unanswerable, but because it does not make arguments, it only gives reading lists. And what can one say to a reading list? Well, perhaps “No, I haven’t read any of them. Can you give me a good argument why I should?” –But of course you will never get an argument from someone like Mc; only contempt.

    Which leads me to ask you, Fabius, why are you talking to this person? It’s obviously not interested in talking to you. I don’t think you’re a troll; you’re a masochist.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I answer him because the pro-AGW comments — like those of Mclaren (here, here, and here) and Juan Andrés Delmastro (here and here) — illustrate so well IMO the level result of the intensive pro-AGW propaganda. We have so many ntelligent people who deeply believe something that they not only cannot defend with anything beyond assertions but also cannot explain with any detail.

    I could just state this, but it is these detailed posts which show it to be true.

    On another level, I get to be Nick Charles from The Thin Man movies. As he says, if you let someone (the bad guy) talk long enough they will reveal their true colors. And so it has proven.

    The deeper question is why? What compels these people to defend AGW with such ferocity — but without first reading the skeptical literature? As we saw with Delmastro attacking “by the way” as “a valid rebuttal” to AGW (see this). My guess is that this results from religious fanaticism. As traditional faith has faded in our civilization, the low of the sacred has sought new homes. Like the green faith. They “know” — and see no reason to expose themselves to writings of Satan in order to better fight them.

  2. Modern universities often do not expose students to more than one side of important issues (monorail universities). Graduates of such programs are not prepared for the type of debate that FM and many other educated bloggers provide. Such university graduates are really little more than high school graduates, lacking the rigorous habits of reasoning that universities of times past generally inculcated in their students. One suspects that McLaren attended a monorail university.

    FM might do well to offer a “school of reasoning” for such backward thinkers.

  3. This link states a new peer-reviewed anti AGW or GW paper is coming out tomorrow. {FM note: see the text at the end of this comment}

    I have a feeling that the tide is turning on this debate (along with sea levels receding again!).

    This would be good news if it happens, because we need to put a lot more thought into basic social-economic structure and not be dazzled by hyper-conceptual ‘global’ or macro theories that distract from dealing with far more basic, and important, nuts and bolts issues.

    “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”, Marc Morano, posted at the blog of the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 10 December 2008 — Opening:

    The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

    The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ]

    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Thank you for alerting us to this!

  4. Well, if we can get past this global warming scare, policy makers can start looking into initiatives like this, which seem promising: “Truck-delivered Micro-Nuclear Reactor for Clean Energy Within Five Years“, Edwin Black, The Cutting Edge, 10 November 2008.

    I like the notion of creating a States-based network of large stations each generating sufficient heat to also transmute coal (which the US has oodles of and is in state of continuous remanufacture via natural processes) into oil.

    For me the big issue has always been pollution, which is more a process of paying attention to a process from beginning through to end versus allowing the ‘market’ or profitability to determine everything; and also I suspect that certain things like deforestation, over fishing and so forth should be far better monitored. But here again the real issue is the degree to which money drives policy in the absence of a more sophisticated underlying societal philosophy.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I agree strongly — very strongly — with this: “For me the big issue has always been pollution.”

    As for new nuke technology, you can see more about this at “An atomic solution to the energy crisis” (11 November 2008). Also there are several excellent articles about nuclear power on the FM reference page about Peak oil and energy – studies and reports, section 2.

  5. This also is an interesting story which is tangentially related to GW in that involves switching energy-use paradigms: “Honda Hydrogen Hoax: Carmaker Says Hydrogen Car Must Await Filling Stations While Suppressing Home Refueling Device“, The Cutting Edge, 6 October 2008.

    About Honda’s ready-to-go hydrogen cars using either home NG generators (widely used already in Japan) or water-derived hydrogen (something which I have done personally – albeit admittedly with only crude $25.00 experiments – and am fairly certain is not all that hard to do).

    I suspect the issue here, not mentioned in the story, is political, i.e. power plays, the same reason the EVI was pulled. This relates to the GW issue because it is quite likely that that the science is indeed pulled towards various consensi for political/financial reasons and that the scientific ‘method’ itself is unable to stand alone free of such over-arching influences.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I suspect the issue probably not mentioned is that hydrogen-powered cars are bizarrely impractical, given any technology we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. For more on this see:

    * “The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs“, Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, National Research Council, National Academy of Engineering (2004)
    * “The Hydrogen Hoax“, Robert Zubrin, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007 (12 pages)

  6. (cont.) as per this quote – one of many, many like it – in the GW debate: “U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims“, 11 Deember 2008:

    Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    Leaving aside issue pertaining to the validity of the science involved, what we have here is further evidence of widespread institutional failure, aka decadence.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Please post comments about this report on this post: “The Senate Minority report is out: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”

  7. I suppose you’re right; thanks to your endurance, we have an insight into how the new generation of scientific “fundies” believe. I noticed throughout Mc’s postings the refrain “this is how science is done”. As if the way science should be done were not itself an open question, as though the philosophy of science had simply never existed as a form of inquiry. The new age is dark, indeed.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: What’s worse is that this is not how science is done. Mclaren’s lack of understanding of science’s history — or the theory of how science operates — is astonishing and disturbing.

  8. How can you be certain to state that “Your comments have proved enlightening about the nature of lay belief in AGW” ?

    This clearly is no argument but a non argumentative statement, particularly supported out of thin air, since as of today I am truly no advocate for AGW neither Con-AGW. Hence, how can my comments provide enlightenment about lay belief in AGW?

    Further, how can you know better than me, about my position into these subjects?

    You start talking real nonsenses of others when you prove yourself wrong. Outstanding !
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: None of this makes sense to me.

    (1) “This clearly is no argument but a non argumentative statement, particularly supported out of thin air”

    In English the full form of the sentence is “Your comments have proved enlightening to me.” It is a subjective statement, and as such not subject to arguement — nor does it contain any heavy meaning worth arguement.

    (2) “Hence, how can my comments provide enlightenment about lay belief in AGW?”

    Until today your comments on this site,all 2200 words, were 100% strongly pro-AGW. Also, they were broadly consistent with the other pro-AGW comments on this site (many thousands of words). Can you cite a counter-example from your words here to prove me wrong?

    (3) “how can you know better than me, about my position into these subjects?”

    Lacking telephathic powers, I did not say anything about your views or positions, just about your words on this site.

    (4) “You start talking real nonsenses of others when you prove yourself wrong.”

    I suggest you follow my practice of exactly quoting in rebuttal. It would avoid these repeated instances in which you mischaracterise my comments and then declare me wrong.

  9. For Comment#2. PartA:

    Outstanding…free accusations and “branding” to my name!! -due to my comments??

    I do pro-AGW comments and also Con-AGW comments whenever I think is reasonable ever since the GW literature (i.e Pro or Con AGW) is not a fully established scientific conclusion yet. To check my current position on this topic, readers can dig properly in my blog “The Contingency Monitor”, at Climate Change and Global Warming Debate (1 Dec 2008), where I specify:

    “…I can say I agree that there is an extremely small degree of controversy in “neatly specific points” in the AGW scientific research, 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 due to AGW or Con-AGW, and, you may call this the “consensus” I would support”.

    I consider without fundamentals from your behalf to illustrate with me the “intensive propagandist pro-AGW”. Why “intensive”? From which records or evidence do I qualify as an “intensive propagandist”? As of today, on GW, I believe my personal position to be “reasonable” nothing more, or less, than that.

    For Comment#2. PartB:

    I would say at this point this categorization from Fabius is beginning to sound like a “cheap branding strategy” to make me fit into an “extremist category” -the ProAGW- to use me as a categorization for the readers, meanwhile he is able to criticize a position I DO NOT TOTALLY ENDORSE and hence inflame sort of “false debate”.

    I can save time and “illustrations” to you Fabius, and tell you to look for others that accurately serve your “illustrations of the IMO level of the intensive pro-AGW propaganda”.

    I only have curiosity for the reasonable “scientific construction” in this topic as I learn further into it. And as I said before, I do change my thinking and understanding due to new scientific evidence which I came to acknowledge in your blog honestly. Totally in accordance to the “scientific method” and to common sense.

    I believe you are granting accusation on me somehow “freely”, without the proper fundamentals of your ‘reasonable’ records in this blog, which btw, by now flip before my eyes.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Broad characterizations (like mine that you quote) are always suspect, but a necessary step along the road to drawing useful conclusions. It would be helpful if you quoted an actual statement of your on this site as counter-evidence, rather than just saying I am wrong.

    I do not know what you mean by a “cheap branding strategy”. None of those 3 words — individually or collectively — fits well into this discussion. However, my comments are “free”, as you note.

    You have posted 6 comments here (perhaps more), for a total of over 2200 words. I have posted as many words in analysis of your comments. While not book-length, IMO that provides a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions. Compared to the typical Internet discussion, these are like doctoral disserations!

    Also — I believe that, correct or not (that’s for others to determine), my conclusions are well-supported by direct references to your words.

  10. “Fabius Maximus replies: I suspect the issue probably not mentioned is that hydrogen-powered cars are bizarrely impractical, given any technology we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. For more on this see:”

    Well, the interesting thing here is that
    a) the home generation units (NG powered) are already up and running now for several years in Tokyo households. The hydrogen add-on I believe simply refills a tank in the car overnight. Several hydrogen-powered vehicles were around decades ago (water electrolysis). The man who invented traffic lights (Garrett) drove one in the 1930’s. The Honda car prototypes – according to the article cited at least – have been driving around for some time now and work perfectly well.
    b) if Honda went ahead with this in communities with NG supply, they would be undermining not only the oil but also the power utilities since these generators provide power for the entire home. So Honda’s new car represents a potentially massive paradigm-shift. They have not provided a reason why they have stopped the roll out. Could it be political? We wonders, aye we wonders….

    Again, the key issue here is not technology, but money and power. Corporate and government authorities prefer centralised systems which control distribution. The problem with the air compression and water-electrolysis alternatives (speaking of vehicles) is that you cannot control air and water access very well to easily enjoy virtual monopolies in the supply chain for commercial and/or taxation purposes. This is such a given that more local-based solutions are rarely considered. And given our largely urban environment, there is good reason for this, but still…

    Hydrogen, I believe, is a huge challenge in terms of mass distribution because of its molecular properties making it hard to pipe etc. But if locally generated it is far more workable.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replie: You did not provide links, but the key phrase in your text is “natural gas powered.” Hydrogen is just an intermediate step in the process. Natural gas is just another petroleum product. As north american natural gas production is near peaking, that does not help much.

    The potential of hydrogen is central generation from cheap grid electricity, pumped into cars at filling stations — burned with little or no pollution. Unfortunately that is a dream at our current level of technology.

  11. For #9:

    free “acussations”…the people that read, understood well the point. Indeed both, yours and mines. Exactly as we meant. For “cheap branding strategy”…you can figure that out quite well I presume.

    Altogether, I do also comment in retro analysis of your own comments. And I would say, I do it in a very “good shape” -as readers can easily determine- using the same logic and reasonable quoting of your references as the basis, and also from your words and phrases.

    Finally I apologyze for the 2.200 words if they are worth some penies, I hope, for the gentlemen in here, they stand alone by their full argumentative meaning despite the length.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: There is not need to apologize for the length of your comments. I mentioned that to show that there was a reasonable basis on which to draw conclusions. Your comments have proved enlightening about the nature of lay belief in AGW.

  12. “As north american natural gas production is near peaking, that does not help much.”

    Again, if you are correct you make sense. If the recent finds are indeed ‘paradigm-changing’ then you are not. The initial link was the Honda article cited earlier; a follow up article is here.

    The key points here are that
    a) the cars work
    b) they can be fueled from NG-powered home generation units that also work
    c) the company has decided not to go forward with manufacture and distribution for reasons that are clearly bogus (lack of infrastructure).

    The author of these two articles surmises that the reason is because they have too much invested in existing cars that are not selling in the current downturn.

    I am surmising (guessing) that the reason has more to do with politics, i.e. they are basically not allowed to go forward with this because it would engender on its own too much of a paradigm shift too quickly before a national paradigm shift has been determined and put into place. So again: it’s not about technology, but politics.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: There is no point in continuing since you are not hearing anything I am saying. I am not sure even what you are saying.
    * These vehicles run on natural gas as fuel, not hydrogen.
    * Natural gas powered vehicles are nothing new (various fleet owners have tested them); their popularity varies with the price of natural gas vs. gasoline. Nothing paradigm-changing there.
    * You can — without any knowledge of the field — casually dismiss their conclusions as bogus. Absurd.
    * Future natural gas prices in North America are a big question, and might rise far more than oil (oil being far cheaper to transport).

  13. Part A:

    (1) “In English the full form of the sentence is “Your comments have proved enlightening to me.” It is a subjective statement, and as such not subject to arguement — nor does it contain any heavy meaning worth arguement”.

    – Hence you are saying, "Juan’s comments have provided enlightening to Fabius about the nature of lay belief in AGW. Which is this nature of "lay belief in AGW"? What is its difference from its counterpart if any? What is the meaning of a "lay belief"?

     

    (2) “Until today your comments on this site,all 2200 words, were 100% strongly pro-AGW. Also, they were broadly consistent with the other pro-AGW comments on this site (many thousands of words). Can you cite a counter-example from your words here to prove me wrong?”

    – Mmm…this one was easy, that I am starting to believe Fabius is on vacations. Where is this 100% Pro-AGW if I have written in your blog these statements or arguments?:

    (a.-) “…I can say I agree that there is an extremely small degree of controversy in “neatly specific points” in the AGW scientific research, 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 due to AGW or Con-AGW, and, you may call this the “consensus” I would support”.
    (b.-) "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)".

    (c.-) "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".

    Can you tell me exactly where in (a,b,c) I am "100% strongly Pro-AGW"? Please if you can quote me at the least.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: No need for more evidence, your quote nicely supports my conclusion.

    (1) First, I said:

    Until today {12 December} your comments on this site, all 2200 words, were 100% strongly pro-AGW. Also, they were broadly consistent with the other pro-AGW comments on this site (many thousands of words). Can you cite a counter-example from your words here to prove me wrong?

    That was, of course, expressed said so as not to include your comment #10 of 12 December, which was unlike (perhas even contradictory to) the 2200 words your previously posted on this site. You then have the nerve to cite #10 as contradiction of my statement. Bogus, really bogus.

    (2) But, ignoring that bit of outrageousness… I said that your comments here were 100% supportive of AGW. Your quote acknowledges the possibility — an “extremely small” possibility that there is “controversy”. That reads very strongly pro-AGW IMO — you barely concede even the existence of another side to the debate.

    The meaning of the rest is unclear to me, but I assume you are expressing a willingness to accept scientific proof that your position is incorrect. Again, that’s nice — shows that you are reasonable about the debate, which I never doubted — but hardly shows any substantial doubt about your pro-AGW comments.

  14. Part B:

    (3) “Lacking telephathic powers, I did not say anything about your views or positions, just about your words on this site.”

    – Given number (2) as "a real nonsense", I think it would be advisable for you to develop such powers as telepathy since your ‘reading and quoting’ has proven not 100% accuracy from your part.

    (4) “I suggest you follow my practice of exactly quoting in rebuttal. It would avoid these repeated instances in which you mischaracterise my comments and then declare me wrong.”

    With my previous responses I would suggest you to be honest and recognize you have lost this particular argumet…you have been totally rebutted.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: There is just snark (slang for a combination of “snide” and “remark”). I don’t reply to such things, and do not encourage snark on this site. IMO it is a pollutant in a discussion.

    A stylistic observation: note how often you declare that you are right; this is common in pro-AGW comments on this site. Do you believe that those makes you case stronger, or that anyone finds such statements of value — as opposed to your comments presenting evidence and logic?

  15. FM replied:

    * These vehicles run on natural gas as fuel, not hydrogen.
    * Natural gas powered vehicles are nothing new (various fleet owners have tested them); their popularity varies with the price of natural gas vs. gasoline. Nothing paradigm-changing there.
    * You can — without any knowledge of the field — casually dismiss their conclusions as bogus. Absurd.
    * Future natural gas prices in North America are a big question, and might rise far more than oil (oil being far cheaper to transport).

    Clearly, you didn’t read the article I first cited. Here are the first two paragraphs again since it seemed you missed them:

    Japanese Honda is delaying for years a national rollout of its dynamic new Clarity hydrogen car, and manufacturing just a handful of test cars, mainly for the Los Angeles area, because the company claims cities lack hydrogen filling stations. But the claim is an apparent hoax. Honda’s Clarity was designed for home refueling and was developed with a companion Home Energy Station, now undeployed and forgotten.

    Unquestionably, Honda again achieved the alternative energy limelight with the rollout of its sleek and stylish hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the Clarity. Boasting kinetic body styling, an exquisite interior, par excellence handling and roadability, the Clarity is a feat of automotive engineering. Most remarkably, the car uses no petroleum. Instead, its fuel cell uses hydrogen reformed from natural gas or electrolyzed from water. Hydrogen can also be made through a bacterial reaction, and several laboratories are trying to improve the yields.

    Later on this paragraph explaining a little more about the home generation power supply:

    For years before the rollout, Honda’s hydrogen car, then known as the FCX, was pictured in advance promotions as a vehicle connected to a box, a little larger than a backyard air conditioner. That box is Honda’s Home Energy Center, designed to “reform” ordinary household natural gas, providing the electricity needed to run an entire home as well as fuel at least one hydrogen vehicle. Like the CNG car, the hydrogen vehicle was designed to require no public infrastructure.

    These home generation units are already in use in Japan. The new twist for the Clarity was an additional capability to charge hydrogen tanks in the car somehow. Alternatively they could use water electrolysis to generate the hydrogen. So these are not, as you keep saying (scornfully) NG cars.

    My ‘bogus’ claim is based on the simple fact that Honda said they were not going forward simply because of lack of infrastructure whereas their home powering capability actually contradicts that. Of course, if these tanks only have a 50 mile range and need regular refueling that is a valid concern, but this was not clarified in the article. Certainly the author of the article stated that this could not possibly be the real reason. He could be wrong, but it is a point worth considering.

    What is ‘paradigm-changing’ about this is not the use of NG obviously, but the use of individual home-based power sources. Yes, they are fed from a national NG distribution source so not truly independent, but it really would change things alot if most cars were powered from the home along with electricity as well since it might make our current electrical grids redundant if widely adopted. Furthermore, we could even decide to adopt this as the dominant model, which in essence is very similar to what Edison was working on around 1913(?) when his workshops suddenly exploded one day and this initiative fell by the wayside.

    So again, we seem to be discussing at cross purposes here unfortunately.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus: Not at all. It’s that you appear not to understand the relevant issues, and have conflated two distinct issues.

    Issue #1: “Paradigm shifting” Hydrogen as a fuel for cars, from your comment #6 on this site.

    That is, hydrogen is loaded into the car and burned. The referencesI gave in reply to your initial comment explained why that is not commercially feasible with today’s technology. Every experiment has failed, for obvious reasons. That is why I said it was absurd to dismiss the concerns so lightly, as you do in your comment #10:

    Again, the key issue here is not technology, but money and power.

    The concerns pertain to use of the hydrogen in the car, not the source of the hydrogen. That is why the vast majority of programs developing fuel cells for vehicles rely on reformers in the car, to avoid the danger and cost of carrying hydrogen.

    Reformers (natural gas to hydrogen) are an estabilished technology. Getting them small, light, and cheap enough to put in vehicles has been a major obstacle to developmet of fuel cell powered vehicles.

    Putting reformers in the home is not paradigm-shifting. The advantage of natural gas reformers vs. electrolysis units in the home is not clear, and (guessing) probably depends largely on the relative prices of grid electicity (esp. off-peak rates) and natural gas. It’s a minor issued relative to the game-stopper of carrying hydrogen in cars. The article says that the choice is minor in the 2nd paragraph.

    Most remarkably, the car uses no petroleum. Instead, its fuel cell uses hydrogen reformed from natural gas or electrolyzed from water. Hydrogen can also be made through a bacterial reaction, and several laboratories are trying to improve the yields.

    (2) Issue #2: “paradigm-shifting” new natural gas supplies, from your comment #10 to “Alert for a potentially interesting report from the Minority members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.” You (confusingly) brought that into this thread in your comment #12.

    This is not “paradigm-shifting” either. Not even remotely so, for reasons discussed several times on this site.

  16. FM. Well, we have a simple and honest disagreement here and one not worth discussing overmuch since I do not claim to have definitive information nor (I suspect) do people including yourself who know far more. However, I do find it interesting that each time I introduced these things you seemingly did not understand the thrust of the articles.

    The paradigm shift viz. the natural gas article was that they had found a huge ‘paradigm-changing’ amount of it recently. Your response was that they would have to keep digging it up in far more expensive, difficult places, pipe it in from Alaska etc. All of this is true usually except that the article I cited was claiming that all that sort of concern had just changed. That was (what I thought) was the point of the article. Now it may be wrong, or I may have misunderstood it, but you did not state this in any precise fashion, just contradicted it by citing different arguments from earlier data points which I was not using.

    Similarly with the Honda business it seems I still have not made clear what I was saying: if indeed they have a home-based power generation solution THAT is what is paradigm changing. Potentially. Imagine a world (like the one Edison and Ford were working towards for a while) where electricity does not come through a centralised grid mechanism but via home-based generators. The shift here is that all that is needed is the energy-source to be mass distributed but then electrical power is used from on-site generation. I read somewhere years ago (cannot verify) that something like 75% of our national electricity usage is in the wires from the power plants to the home, i.e. 75% is essentially wasted. With a natural gas infrastructure this would not be the case. 0% wastage in the pipes, 100% usage on site. Different appliances would develop, more low-amp solutions and so forth.

    But not only that, the entire distribution of gas for cars would be unnecessary, so that is a huge shift right there. No wonder they couldn’t introduce this thing so easily!

    Your objection to this is that hydrogen can’t be carried safely in cars and the whole thing is something only fools (including apparently the Honda engineers who have made operating vehicles for real) would consider seems to ignore the stated fact in the article that
    a) the cars and home generators and hydrogen-charging capabilities have already been built and
    b) they have been proven to work. So saying they can’t work doesn’t address the thrust of the information being offered. You might be right, but do just state that without relating to the points made gives me the impression that somehow you didn’t read the articles or don’t understand.

    Are you, for example, contending that Honda’s hydrogen cars (which you first stated were not hydrogen but NG cars) don’t work? You seem to be. I thought it was a given from the article that they did and was discussing the potential paradigm-shift that home-generated electricity and power for automobiles would represent.

    Then the news about HUGE finds in North American NG just happened to pop up as recent news.

    Anyway!

  17. FM, at the risk of irritating you, our kind and much appreciated host, I go one step further in explaining why I think this is significant. I realise that because it seems so obvious to me I never spelled it out.

    Right now we have electrical grid fueled by combination of nuclear, coal, NG, hydro, possibly wind, solar etc. This is collected mainly in large power stations where it is sent out through a humongous network of cables to every structure in the country. It is a modern marvel but note how you need several phases.
    1. Energy/fuel source
    2. Power station
    3. Distribution.

    In addition, there is transporation: apart from commercial/industrial transportation, most of us drive cars or use trains and buses mainly fueled by gasoline for which we need same or different
    1. Energy fuel source often imported from far away
    2. Transportation of that fuel to refineries
    3. Distributed mainly by trucks to gas stations
    4. Individuals fill up in gas stations once a week or so.

    There are many industries and sub-industries in all these processes, not to mention red tape, legal/standards issues, types of fuel etc. etc.

    Instead we could have:

    1. Natural gas piped from source directly through national pipe ‘grid’.
    2. This single source powers most electricity and transportation.

    The reduction in various steps, legislative issues, standards issues, technological issues would be greatly simplified. The need to refurbish national grid is obviated. Fuel emissions issues obviated. Pollution obviated. Only fears of global warming are real stumbling blocks (hence pertinence to thread).

    That and supply issues which I think one can reasonably say have yet to be fully determined since we don’t have a national NG ‘grid’ or system and for that reason have never had the demand for NG that might encourage and justify significantly more exploration and far more efficient technology using it.

    I do not claim to be right on all this, however I do think that single-fuel sourced national energy ‘grid’ featuring home-based electricity and vehicular energy production would indeed represent a significant ‘paradigm shift’.

    Of course, I don’t mind at all if you disagree but just get the feeling that you don’t understand my thrust (possibly because I was unable to spell it out clearly when trying to keep the posts as short as possible unlike these two for which I apologise).

    To me the only two issues here are
    a) long-term abundant supply (where we disagree, fair enough)
    b) politics/national vision/will.

    Not technology feasibility.

    Although this would not be my preferred solution, I think it is workable for political reasons because the supply of NG is ‘cartel-controllable’ and thus open to be controlled by corporate oligarchies. Without this, no solution can fly in political reality. It has to be something that is subject to cartel control as was wood, coal and then oil.

    (Edison apparently was working on wireless electrical generation and transmission when his factories mysteriously burned up one day. That was clearly a far superior end point than anything we have yet considered. I wonder what he was working on?!)

  18. For comments #14 and #15: I would have wanted from your behalf more profesionalism regarding the quotations I asked for in #14 and #15, which you did not provide.

    Then, I will let the readers of this blog, to come to their own conclusions regarding the logic and argumentative basis at #14 & #15 -fair enough.

    FYI as I have said in this blog and also in mine ‘The Contingency Monitor’:

    I am “…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 -due to AGW or Con-AGW…”.

    In honor to all the readers like me.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Good-bye. The the nature of your conversation nicely illustrates the speciousness of your techniques for supporting AGW.

    * your attack on “by the way” as a theory (here),
    * the dubious (to put it charitabily) of your defense when caught attacking “by the way” as a theory (see the update in the same post),
    * and finally the twisty bit at the end (comment #14).

  19. (THIS COMMENT IS NOW WELL WRITTEN – PLEASE DON’T CONSIDER THE PREVIOUS ONE: Comment by JAD — 14 December 2008 @ 4:31 am)

    For #14 and #15 comments:

    1) I would encourage you again to “honestly” quote me in #14 and #15 to see where is the “100% strongly Pro-AGW” I represent. And do consider this new evidence from December 1st, 2008.

    2) As I have clearly stated for all readers here, using the quotations from my historical comment records in your blog:

    a) You do not understand my position regarding Global Warming,
    b) You do not understant my position regarding Pro-AGW
    c) You do not understand my position regarding Con-AGW
    d) You continuously mistake me for a Pro-AGW

    As I have said before in your blog, ie on December 1st 2008, (13 days ago !!): “Reading your sources, I give credit to the skeptics of AGW [the Con-AGW], 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 Con-AGW”.

    3) Since you are not hearing anything I am saying, I assume you are expressing a willingness to now accept “publicly” the proof that your arguments are incorrect and that you have lost this particular debate.

    At this point readers clearly can see that you are behaving strange, since you are not providing any evidence that I am “100% strongly Pro-AGW”. And this is the real “bogus” that I see coming from your behalf.

    4) It becomes difficult for you to recognize when you are totally wrong, and when you have totally lost an argument. I conceive this kind of reactions as the most dangerous weakness of Fabius Maximus, and evidently (now demonstrated) a problem you should work into.

    In honor of all the readers like me,
    Juan Andrés Delmastro

Leave a Reply