BPSDB The other shoe has dropped as Bjorn Lomborg publicly admits his intellectual bankruptcy. Not in so many words, but he may as well have.
What he actually said was directed to Al Gore, as follows:
“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked Mr. Lomborg. Goracular
(another installment in the Wall Street Journal’s war on science and reality)
Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate matters of fact and science?
People who have facts, evidence and reasoned analysis simply lay it out for the world to see. Did Einstein offer to debate? Hell no! He just published his work for the scientific community to assess. Newton? No debates, just published.
There were debates about evolution, but these were at the insistence of the Deniers like Bishop Wilberforce. Darwin himself would have nothing to do with them.
His work spoke for truth. His attitude was that if they could fairly dispute it with actual evidence then they should do so.
In matters normally determined by fact and evidence, those who have nothing to offer but performance want to “debate.”
Such challenges are the intellectual equivalent of a loser who has lost everything pathetically pleadingc to play for “double or nothing?” They have nothing to lose and want to gamble that chance and popular opinion will give them something.
Fact apparently little known to Deniers, scientific fact and reality are not subject to polls of popular opinion.
The reasons such debates are nothing more than cheap theatre were discussed recently in relation to that other clown The dud Czech Vaclav Klaus, and I refer you to that post for more on why debates are the favoured tactic of frauds and charlatans.
“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore replied. He then proceeded to say Mr. Lomborg’s work had been discredited.” Goracular
Indeed it has, repeatedly – as the WSJ would know if they bothered checking, but apparently they went to ‘The George Will School of Journalism‘ .
Most recently discredited in Climate change sceptics confuse the public by focusing on short-term fluctuations, with some good commentary here “Lomborg yet again tries to mislead on SLR, gets taken to the woodshed by Rahmstorf”
But see also:
- Willful Idiocy: Unpacking Lomborg’s Climate Nonsense
- The Australian’s War on Science XXVI
- The Australian’s War on Science XXI
- “BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon”
- Bjorn Lomborg: How did you get those numbers?
- Global Warming and the Posture of Skepticism
- Lomborg skewers the facts, again
- The Copenhagen Consensus
- So what’s wrong with Lomborg?
- A few reviews of Lomborg’s “Cool It”
- Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It” Spouts More Hot Air
- Hot Air
- Bjorn Lomborg’s Apples and Oranges Argument
- Correcting myths from Bjørn Lomborg
- Bjorn Lomborg is neither sceptical nor an environmentalist
- Lomborg’s $10 Billion Question? Silly, Really
- Bjorn Lomborg Bibliography
- Bjorn Lomborg
- Never mind the investigatons for scientific dishonesty
Biologist Kåre Fog even has a most excellent website devoted to Lomborg’s errors and distortions.
So here is a challenge for Lomborg, if you actually have anything of substance (which under the circumstances seems highly improbable), publish it in the academic literature.
Publish without distortions, misrepresentations or cherry picking.
Publish so that it may be fairly and intelligently assessed by the scientific community. Publish and stop with the juvenile theatrics.
And if you are as intellectually bankrupt as you seem to be, for God’s sake run off and join the circus with that other clown Klaus!
“The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake.” Al Gore Goracular
Indeed,
World’s leading scientists in desperate plea to politicians to act on climate change 13 Mar 2009
HOUSEKEEPING: I have had to insert the following amendment to the post on “Deniers vs Septics.”
Stoat has taken umbrage (a fine purgative, good for gout, shingles, and high in vitamin D) at perceived plagiarism of his coining of “septic” to refer to Deniers.
He offers the indisputable evidence of The septics are cr*p (part XVII…) and Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians, although his REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING reference is a bit dubious, it may be a typo
And a couple more Heartland gems:
- Global Warming Deniers, Delayers Gather for Unreality Check
- Move over Heartland, there’s a new kid on the denialist conference block
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 139 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
Charles Darwin by G. Richmond from Wikipedia
Didn’t you say you wanted to debate Vaclav Klaus just a week ago?
—-
Kukyoma, point being?
Just one point.
Neither Lomborg or Gore are scientists and there were plenty of debates by ‘third parties’ about Einsteins and Darwins work. [1]
Although a lot of American deniers think Gore has a theory and that the scientists are supporting him??!??!
That would be the same theory that thousands (now millions) of environmentalists have been campaigning about since the 1960s, but those clever deniers think Gore is the author. [2]
Really, we should take some heart that Gore takes a lot of flak, it just proves how poorly informed most deniers are. [3]
—-
By turning back to lock horns with sceptics, maybe people concerned about global warming lost the day.
—-
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid…
—-
My, swittersb, what an excellent job addressing Mike’s points or even the topic of the post itself. Good job.
The thing that frustrates me to no end is that for people like Lomborg to twist the facts, they must know the facts.
Those that cherry pick, alter graphs and add out of context information have a common starting point…the actual true state of the climate. Where it’s been and where it’s going.
To make a buck or two, they are willing to sell our future…
And swittersb…
I don’t mind Kool-Aid, but off hand I’d say you must like Flavor Aid…
Thanks Greenfyre for putting up the flowchart! 🙂
It’s clear now: the idea of “settling everything in one debate” is nothing but an illusion. While the actual scientific debate continues to rage in the scholarly publications, the bigger ‘debate’ for people’s hearts and minds is being conducted day after day in the media and the halls of parliament worldwide.
Like it or not, we’re already in a middle of a Vast Worldwide Debate. The Opposition has brought out their usual tools of the trade: lies, the Gish Gallop, noise campaigns, cries of persecution, double standards, bluffs, and pure illogical nonsense.
What does the Proposition have? Facts? Calculations? Logic? Not enough, definitely not enough.
— bi
—-
🙂 🙂 🙂
Mike referenced it above (B.L. Wizard of Misdirection…), but seriously, Lomborg is quite clever … as a political advocate, and the Copenhagen Consensus effort was carefully constructed to give the exact results that various conservatives thinktanks love.
It is sad but true that Lomborg’s misdirections work so well.
—-
Illusion is a good word to describe Lomborg.
Another illusion I’ve stumbled across are trees in the tropics.
I’ve noticed on a number of sites passing mention of trees in the tropics getting “fatter” because of increased CO2 levels.
So I checked it out.
According to metoffice.gov.uk this is indeed happening. Over the past 40 years these trees have absorbed 200 billion tonnes of CO2 that otherwise would have caused a 10% higher rise in CO2 levels.
But as I read on one your side links late last night (Climate Ark which directed me to Mongabay.com) the Amazon forest is on the brink of massive loss. Potentially a 85% loss by 2150.
A huge CO2 sink becomes a huge source of CO2.
I refuse to go to denier sites, but I’d give good odds that they are harping about “fatter” trees.
An illusion…
Hi Tom G
You say you refuse to go to denier sites. For twenty or so years I believed in global warming until I stumbled upon some of the sites below and learned several perspectives on the topic that believers in global warming could not refute: [1]
http://icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.iceagenow.com/
One difference you will find between the websites of the believers in and the deniers of global warming is the high level of nastiness and negativism at the believers websites. Their personalities are so acidic that their urine could etch glass.
While some deniers apparently want to debate believers I think it may be a waste of time. Very often folks with such nasty dispositions (like the guy who runs this website) self-destruct on their own. [2]
—-
Fred g, you’re a phoney. I don’t believe for one second that you once “believed in global warming”. Not a chance…
But I’ll admit I’ve been to icecap and watt’s dump. I didn’t know they were denier sites at the time….but I quickly found out. Select, cherry-picked, doctored tripe.
Global warming, or climate change if you prefer, is not open to debate. A debate revolves more around the skill of the debaters not the subject at hand. If you guys have something…publish it in a proper scientific journal. And don’t give me this bunk that you’ve been suppressed or censored. For being suppressed, deniers certainly get a lot of coverage in the media. George Wills? How about that character named Rush? Fox?
As far as “nasty dispositions” are concerned…you denier types think they’re nasty simply because they disagree with you and have backed up they’re arguments time and time again with nasty facts.
fred G said:
“One difference you will find between the websites of the believers in and the deniers of global warming is the high level of nastiness and negativism at the believers websites. Their personalities are so acidic that their urine could etch glass. ”
Paul:
Erm, maybe i’ll go and copy and paste some remarks made about me by climate change deniers on other sites and see if you think the same way.
Of course if i told you that your comment is a load of rubbish and bull. You would accuse me of being nasty and negative.
So really it seems you are presenting a leading question that would result in the answer you want. eg. a nasty and negative reply!
—-
Fred, just how closely did you analyze the points made on those sites? Did you compare them with the actual papers referenced? Did you look for cherry-picked data? Quote mines? Adherence to physical laws? Understanding of physical laws? Appropriate use of statistical methods?
If all those sites do is present negative information then they are no different than the creatards fighting evolution and have a big job on their hands.
It isn’t enough to point out random errors, or to whine about a conspiracy or bias, or to make claims about the 2LoT; they have to show the globe isn’t warming or come up with a well researched alternative theory (I do mean theory here, not hypothesis) that explains the warming. Speculating that it is solar, or Milankovitch cycles, or prevailing wind direction change, or anything else, must be backed up by science.
For an example of what not to do, visit AiG (Answers in Genesis). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis
Shorter fred g: Lies said nicely trump evidence-based accusations.
Watts, for instance, constantly puts up the veil of being a “gentleman” and acting hurt and persecuted if someone yells at him, even as his lack of expertise with analysis has led to some amusing blunders that deserve the criticism they got. Once that becomes clear, his gentlemanly behaviour changes in context to the snake-oil salesman who insists his product is genuine and the expert opinion is incompetent.
Yes, those are separate links. I suggest you check them out.
Mike, I keep thinking that discussing Braman et al in context would be an excellent mini-essay on why people act like paul s (or the centrist I met the other day who embraced climate denialism out of a dislike of Al Gore). It seems to be more widespread amongst social issues than just climate science, but the advantage climate science has is that there is an objectively verifiable empirical reality to compare one’s perceptions to.
—-
Er, correction in my last post (which is now held up in moderation due to a proliferation of links): It’s Fred G, not Paul G or Paul S. I got my denialists confused with a prolific (and similar-sounding) one off of DeSmog, probably because I saw Paul’s post and didn’t realize he was quoting Fred. Sorry, all.
@Mike, cc: Magnus Westerstrand
Just thought it was funny that you’re calling someone intellectually bankrupt for wanting to debate an issue when you yourself wanted to debate another public figure.
To a casual observer you might have been saying that you were bankrupt as well. [1] Lucky for us we have reason to believe otherwise.
I strongly disagree with your odd your assertion that issuing such challenges constitutes intellectual bankruptcy… Much of your argument is highly flawed from a historical perspective. We will ignore the fact that scientific ideas did not spread the way they do today. Newton, Keill, and Leibniz were involved in their own dramatic controversy and debated, criticized and chastised each other in various ways well into their final years. [2] Though I believe it wasn’t settled until after they had passed away. Another good counter-example would be the rivalry of Tesla and Edison.
As far as the theatre aspect of your argument, I agree. However, I believe you’re holding double standards, again. [3]
—-
kukyona,
I believe Mike’s challenge to debate Klaus was intended as irony. For instance, read the following lines:
“I know nothing about economics, so I am as qualified to debate economics as you are to debate climate science. I confess that I have not yet picked my argument. It may go along the lines that theories of economics always result in poor people, poverty is bad, therefor economics is wrong.
Whatever I pick I assure you it will be as fact free, irrelevant, and idiotic as your own climate arguments are.”
kukyona, did you read past the debate headline? [1] Mike’s challenge included direct transparent discussion of his strategy, which was built on the same premises that Klaus’ challenge was based on. The absurdity of it was an attempt to showcase the stupidity of letting Klaus publicly debate about climate while also trapping him in the intellectual bankruptcy of the technique.
An analogy would be this “clean coal” ad, which uses the same basic argument that the ACCE uses, just with the spin stripped away to illustrate how fallacious the position is.
Compare this to your defense of Lomborg: He honestly wants a debate (or at least appears to honestly want a debate — I urge you to see John Mashey’s piece cited in the article as “Wizard of Misdirection”), even though it’d add nothing to the issue (the topic being science, yet science isn’t settled in public debate, and neither opponent would be a climate scientist).
I’m reminded of the Dilbert strip where Dogbert puts on two people who don’t understand economics yet complain about it anyway. The punch panel shows two smug-looking men in suits saying “So, I heard the Fed increased the money supply, but I checked my bank balance and it’s the same as before.” If that sounds absurd to you thanks to a basic understanding of economics, then you know precisely how most climate deniers sound to people with a background in science. These are also the kind of people who routinely cite Bjorn Lomborg.
—-
@Brian D
You make a very good point. While I did not intend to defend Bjorn Lomborg, I can only ask you to consider how much of Mike’s argument was aimed at that individual versus how much of it was aimed at the concept as such. Perhaps we are to take for granted a specific view of Lomborg? [1]
In my opinion we ought not throw out the baby with the bath water simply because we think the bath water is foul.
I do not think it would be hard for an honest reader to confuse the misguided emphasis on theatre in this post as mere hypocrisy on the part of climate change proponents who have, in the past, given much praise to other theatre, hyperbole, showmanship and propaganda, (not speaking of Mike specifically,) such as certain movies, politicians, books, etc.. [2]
@Lars Karlsson
So are we to ignore everything Al Gore has said, or might say in the future? Klaus is a politician. Al Gore is no longer a politician but was when he started fighting as an environmental activist. Double standard. [3]
Are we to ignore people who happen to specialize in other fields of knowledge? If so, are we suppose to ignore the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who happens to be an economist? Double standard. [3]
It’s one thing to say specific individuals are lacking an acceptable understanding of the science involved. In that regard you have my agreement and sympathies depending on the individual. However, the flawed argument that only economists can understand the economy will get you nowhere in my book. [4]
—-
@Mike
[1] This post seems to be primarily focused on what you see as the problem of “debates.” As you see it, scientists should just let their work speak for them… everything else is basically cheap theatre. Lomborg is the context but this is the main substance of your post? Am I wrong or did I misunderstand some point? [1]
[2] To name just a few movies: The Day After Tomorrow, Wall-E, The Happening, The Day The Earth Stood Still. All those are fairly recent, and all highly inaccurate. Again, I wasn’t calling you out specifically here. I have no idea what your opinion on any of these movies might be, or what you think about this type of advocacy. Of course these are movies presented as fiction, they are not trying to pretend they are science. [2]
If you want to talk about showmanship presented as science? How about when Al Gore got James Hansen to talk before congress when at the time NASA’s official position was basically “we don’t know yet.” [3]
I’m sure there are a lot more examples but you’re putting me on the spot. It’s not like I get paid to research this kind of thing, or have the time and/or inclination to prepare canned responses with a large repository of links at my disposal.
I’m not sure why you include Al Gore in the “never debate” category that must be for _real_ science only. Gore is not a scientists but you still think he shouldn’t be debating sceptic. At least that is what I inferred when you called Lomborg intellectually bankrupt for challenging Gore to a debate over a specific point. Personally, I’d prefer the experience politician with years of debating experience, and a large enough budget to hire a team of researchers, to be debating each and every one of the sceptics and deniers. That would only be theatre though, not science.
[3] [4] I give you credit here, it seems I misread what Lars was quoting.
Lars, I am sorry for accusing you of something you are clearly not guilty of in your post.
[4] I will stick to my point but direct it away from Lars since I think it is valid, even if it was misplaced.
This part of my message was not directed at you so I’m not sure why you expect me to come up with specific citations of you saying such things. However, It is not uncommon to hear remarks like these on your site:
“… is a severely deluded, self-important individual with zero scientific qualifications.”
“… is a journalist with a degree in philosophy (I think therefore I am). Why should we be concerned with what he writes?”
“Neither have any background in climate science (though … is a meteorologist).”
“It appears that …’s background in the area of climate science is non-existent.”
I removed the names to keep people from confusing their particular evaluation of an individual being talked about with the charge that was being laid against that individual. [4]
If you’ll accept some vague generalities then I would point to the fact many of the sites you have linked to in the past that have tried to discredit the Infome list, do so (in part) by pointing out how few have a climate science background. While a valid point to a certain degree, this is still an example of putting qualifications over individual understanding. i.e. Only _real_ _climate_ scientists count. [5]
I know we’ve discussed this before and you said you were going to prepare a post on that. Did you get around to that or did I miss it?
—-
The reaction to my little post about the nastiness of global warming believers proves its point. “Bullshit.. blatant lies and frauds.. phoney” etc. etc.. Thanks for giving me all the evidence needed about your disposition. [1]
As for Tom G’s not believing that I ever accepted global warming, I first was exposed to the theory in the early 1970’s during my undergraduate days at the University of Chicago. That may be before you were born. I accepted it as fact until a couple of years ago.
Some of the arguments that changed my mind were the finding that CO2 levels followed, not preceded temperature change, undercutting the main thrust of global warming theory.
http:// —- climaterealists.com/news.php?id=1041
Studies showing that solar effects on climate cannot be ignored are persuasive:
http://www. — sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698
http://www. — ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
Prof. Willie Soon has done some interesting work:
http:// — http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork08/audio/Monday/soon.mp3
The work of the Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv on how decreased solar activity increases cosmic ray flow which can cool climate is especially interesting:
http://www. —- sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www. —- sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
I have not seen this work refuted or even acknowledged on most global warming sites.
Recent work undercutting the idea that CO2 creates a positive feedbacks has been damaging to the theory as well.
http: —- //jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/#more-4314
Finally, over the last several years, despite increased CO2 concentrations, it has not been getting warmer.
http:// —- scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/warming_not_happening.pdf
Organizations like England’s Met, apparently relying on global warming theory, have issued predictions for “hottest ever” seasons which turned out not to be hot, or even as warm as normal.
http:// —- wattsupwiththat.com/2008/ 12/ 12/ dr-roger-piekle-sr-on-uks-met-office-press-releases-on-climate/
This also damaged the credibility of the global warming viewpoint in my view.
Ironically, some of those following the solar view of climate change appear to have called recent weather/climate events more accurately:
http://www. —- weatheraction.com/id10.html
I am also concerned about the economic effect of cap-and-trade:
http://www. —- ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=321228358224458
I get suspicious when a group arrogates the mantle of science as somehow exclusively theirs, as so regularly happens at the websites of believers in global warming.
—-
Another for the annals of idiotic comparisons. Maybe if someone said “I challenge you to watch The Day After Tomorrow! What? You refuse to watch it? You must be afraid of its message! I win! Haha! Global warming is real!”… if someone said that, then you’ll have a point.
But you don’t.
@frankbi
What are you talking about? I’m referring to the use of non-scientific means as a method of climate advocacy.
This argument started as my disagreement with Mike over whether or not it is a good idea for climate realists to debate climate sceptics/deniers. I take that back, it started as a knee-jerk joke aimed at Mike that others took seriously. I decided to go along with it and challenge Mike’s position on never debating. One of his reasons was that it is mere showmanship. I don’t think that is something that should be or is being avoided.
I went on to argue that if you want to make it about pure science then you can not hold a double standard and call people intellectually bankrupt for doing the same thing that others are doing. If we want to chastise showmanship than we should equally call out those that exaggerate for the purpose of entertainment, or those that strengthen their argument with hyperbole, or those that make bold claims so they will be picked up in the news. We should also stop all public demonstrations as they are also showmanship and not science.
I strongly think that if science is right then when the sceptics and deniers were confronted in more public facing debates they would lose. Yes, I know that scientists are not debaters, but who says they had to be the top scientists? Surely among the vast number of scientists that make up the consensus we can find a few that are charismatic enough. The reality driven side has nothing to fear.
Your baseless insinuations notwithstanding, Gore didn’t “get” Hansen to say anything to Congress.
Also, I think making Congressional testimonies are a good idea — while they don’t really advance the science, Congress is a venue that actually matters — it’s where laws are decided. Is Lomborg willing to join the ranks of Pachauri and Hansen and inactivists such as Spencer and Happer, and pay a visit to Capitol Hill where he can get his ‘facts’ cross-examined?
— bi
And my point was precisely that Lomborg was not “doing the same thing that others are doing”.
Do you get it?
Also, nothing — and I mean nothing — prevents Lomborg from submitting a paper to the climate science literature, even if he’s not a climatologist by profession. Yet he’s not doing that.
Why?
— bi
@frankbi
I’m sorry, replace the word “got” with “asked”. Does that work for you?
“Also, I think making Congressional testimonies are a good idea — while they don’t really advance the science, Congress is a venue that actually matter…”
So basically you agree with the bulk of my argument, that it can’t be all science, but disagree which venues are worth while?
“Also, nothing — and I mean nothing — prevents Lomborg from submitting a paper to the climate science literature, even if he’s not a climatologist by profession. Yet he’s not doing that.”
The argument I’m making is not “Is Lomborg intellectually bankrupt or not” its “Is doing things outside of just science make one intellectually bankrupt.” Remove Lomborg from the picture and put Mike Kaulbars’ name in its place and see if it makes sense. If Lomborg is bankrupt, the fact he offered to debate some specific point is not the reason why.
—-
Then it’s a strawman argument.
It’s simple really:
If Lomborg thinks a non-scientific procedure is the proper way to resolve a scientific question, then yes, he is intellectually bankrupt.
— bi
Early 1970’s? Before I was born?
I wish….
I started working in the late 1960’s and it should be noted that in my particular trade one quickly realizes where the bs is coming from.
Lomborg has it in spades and friend fred g is trying to spread it here.
I just love fred’s reference sites. My dog has found road-kill with better aroma…
—-
@Mike
I think everyone here seems to assume I’m attempting to defend Lomborg, which I am not.
The problem has been a typical one. You are right but for the wrong reasons. Lomborg may be intellectually bankrupt, (again, something I find beside the point for what I’m trying to get at,) but he certainly isn’t because he dared to challenge a political activist to a debate regarding the issues the activist was promoting.
Mike said, “Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate matters of fact and science?”
frankbi said, “If Lomborg thinks a non-scientific procedure is the proper way to resolve a scientific question, then yes, he is intellectually bankrupt.”
Frankbi comes much closer to driving home a very good point, but it isn’t supported by the article either. For starters, Lomborg did not challenging a scientific fact. He was challenging a values assessment regarding priorities. Second, no where in the article does it even suggest Lomborg thinks that debates are valid procedure for resolving scientific disputes, again this wasn’t a scientific dispute, or that debate is all that he has to offer.
Don’t misconstrue that as a defence of Lomborg, rather pointing out further incongruities regarding your arguments in this post.
Why am I only nit-picking on you and ignoring Lomborg? Lomborg’s dishonesty is important, but this isn’t Lomborg’s blog or Lomborg’s post. This is Mike’s blog so I will discuss Mike’s post and Mike’s arguments inside Mike’s post.
I thought you asked me to leave comments here instead of on digg, was I wrong? If you want me to stop, I will.
News flash: YES HE DID.
According to John Fund, he claimed that the fear of global warming is “exaggerated”.
He claimed that the effort to deal with global warming will be “futile”.
If these aren’t scientific facts, then what kind of facts are they?
If Lomborg doesn’t intend to deal with facts, then what does he intend to deal with?
YES YOU ARE.
First you say that Lomborg is just doing what the “climate activists” have been doing, and when I showed that this is false, you move the goalposts and say that yes, Lomborg is being more dishonest than the actual scientists, but he’s not talking about scientific facts so it’s OK.
If that’s not a defence of Lomborg (and a totally lame defence too), then what is?
— bi
@frankbi
FTA: “The next question came from Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician who has assembled a group of Nobel Prize winners who say many other global problems such as clean drinking water merit attention before futile efforts to deal with an exaggerated fear of global warming.”
You said, “If these aren’t scientific facts, then what kind of facts are they?”
I really don’t want to answer this but I’m afraid you’ll take that to mean I concede your point. So I will simply say that these are value judgements, not scientific facts.
You said, “First you say that Lomborg is just doing what the “climate activists” have been doing, and when I showed that this is false, you move the goalposts and say that yes, Lomborg is being more dishonest than the actual scientists, but he’s not talking about scientific facts so it’s OK.”
Yes its a lame defense because it was not meant to be a defense at all.
My points have been that debate is of value, that one is not intellectually bankrupt for challenging ideas, that debates are part of our scientific history, and that non-scientific advocacy has value. I also tried to show the double standard involved in saying sceptics and deniers are intellectually dishonest when using non-scientific forms of advocacy because its something that climate realists have also benefited from. I have also suggested that Gore would be a good candidate to debate Lomborg, et al. because he isn’t a scientist, has experience with public debates, and has the resources needed to provide a very strong argument. When others were stuck on the concrete, I tried to add that a Gore v. Lomborg debate would not a scientific debate, because I agree with Mike’s (correct) premise that kind of debate would be worthless as far as science is concerned, but disagree that it would worthless from an advocacy standpoint.
Everyone has been so hung up on Lomborg that they have failed to see that what I have been suggesting has had absolutely nothing to do with Lomborg. Only after the issue was pushed did I even bring the actual contents of the article into the discussion.
If you took the time to re-evaluate what I have said, I am confident you would see that I’m not trying to defend the sceptics and deniers so much as I’m trying to strengthen the arguments against them. However, I’m starting to believe that is a lost cause.
—-
kukyona:
You’re not responding to what I said. You’re just repeating yourself.
Good day.
— bi
Tom G:
> The thing that frustrates me to no end is that for people like Lomborg to twist the facts, they must know the facts.
I have a fairly low (ahem, understatement) of all professional Deniers, but Lomborg is one of the most loathsome. He knows what he is doing – and his tactic of claiming to be an environmentalist really brings out an urge to punch his smiling, innocent face whenever I see a picture of it. He’s also one of the more persuasive Deniers – I can easily see how he might convince people of his “do nothing, things aren’t that bad” argument. So everyone who makes the effort to discredit and expose him is vitally important.
At the other end of the scale there are comedy shows like [Viscount Monckton](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange) who undermines the whole Denial campaign because he’s blatantly batshit loony. Similarly, I think Klaus undermines the Deniers by being an obvious right wing ideologue who’s still ranting about Soviet Russia.
This discussion is between global warming deniers, and global warming partial deniers. Some people deny global warming; some deny we are past the tipping point. In practical terms, there is little difference in these positions.
Instead, consider Sterns new position….
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-stern-on-global-warming-its-even-worse-than-i-thought-1643957.html
or that at MIT:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-stern-on-global-warming-its-even-worse-than-i-thought-1643957.html
It reminds me of Lao Tzu – “What is the difference between a yes and a yeah?”
from http://pastthetippingpoint.ca
—-
Yup!
kukyona:
> I’m referring to the use of non-scientific means [Wall-E] as a method of climate advocacy.
Did you think that ‘I Am Legend’ was advocating that scientists are going to turn humans in to zombies?
> Why am I only nit-picking on you and ignoring Lomborg?
The reason you’re ‘nit-picking’ (and misrepresenting and moving goal posts and cherry picking and ignoring arguments and…) is because you’re desperate for ACC to not be true. You therefore choose to spend your time pulling at loose, irrelevant threads in the massive tapestry of science and evidence that confirms ACC. You’d rather waste time (yours and other peoples) conjuring up irrelevant, fallacious arguments than address the science and the mitigation that is *urgently* required.
There’s a good reason realists call Deniers “nasty names”, like ‘idiot’ and ‘liar’ – it’s because their arguments are idiotic and dishonest.
Mike,
Your reply to my earlier post, besides a lot the usual nastiness and vitriol, in substance amounts to a link that contains refutations of the proposed link between cosmic rays and climate. Lets look at this and my other points:
1. Cosmic rays – This is an area under active debate. Rejoinders to the studies at the link you supplied can be found at:
http:// — landshape.org/enm/henrik-svensmark-2009/
http:// — motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
http:// — http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view
The next several years will tell who is right. The debate on this point is not over.
2. Solar influences on climate – Even apart from the proposed link between cosmic rays and climate other scientists have detailed clear connections between solar changes and climate. See my earlier references or just Google Willie Soon of Harvard. No refutations for this point in your post.
3. CO2 follows temperature levels – I mentioned that when better temporal resolution for the ice core data became possible that it was found that CO2 levels followed rather than preceded temperature shifts. See my earlier link or the mention of it in the recent testimony of Princeton’s William Happer:
http:// — http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/629.pdf
No refutation of this point.
4. No positive feedback – The theory that CO2 can cause significant warming depends on positive feedback from other processes initiated by the increase in CO2. This view is coming under criticism. See my earlier reference or read about it in the link to Happer above. No refutation here.
5. It is not warming now – In recent years there has been a negative correlation of -.14 between USHCN temperature data and CO2 levels. This from the DiLeo link in my earlier post. It has stopped getting warmer in the last several years. This is in line with the solar activity theory and contradicts the CO2 theory.
I don’t think it is me that is selling “frauds and lies.”
—-
fred g, I’ll ask this question:
Which scientific papers by Hansen, Rahmstorf, Lockwood, etc. have you read?
Or are you only willing to read material which supports your pre-conceived notion that global warming isn’t a serious problem?
— bi
frankbi,
I have read several of Hansen’s scientific and more popular papers. A good source for them is
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
I read Towle and Lockwood on cosmic rays.
That I must read both sides should be apparent from my hanging out at a site like this which is highly critical of deniers of global warming.
Believe it or not, I have no axe to grind in this debate. My bread is not buttered by either side.
Fred G
fred g,
Why do you think it is that you can’t find any credible, peer-reviewed science to refute the decades of accumulated evidence and science that all support the theory of ACC?
Why do you think you need to go to websites run by:
1. icecap.us – a retired TV weatherman / meteorologist who has been repeatedly discredited by real climate scientists, e.g. http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/unreliability-at-icecapus.html
2. wattsupwiththat.com – radio weatherman who claims to be a meteorologist but isn’t and whose output is proven again and again to be scientifically illiterate, cherry-picked, distorted shite
3. iceagenow.com – pfft. A sideshow, wingnut blog that appears to be a clearing house for any piece of denial idiocy that gets published anywhere by anyone. Here’s a similar site that ‘proves’ the Xian god created us all in 6 days a few thousand years ago – creationism.org – it’s similarly persuasive
Why do you need to make such a song and dance about “nasty names” and studiously ignore everything and anything that proves your position wrong? Why do you need to roll out the same arguments again and again and again that were demonstrated long ago to be wrong?
If the answer to these questions is eluding you, I’ll help.
It’s because you have nothing better to argue with. It’s because science and reality are not on your side. That’s why you need to distort and lie. That’s why you need to cherry pick.
And that’s why people call you nasty names – you *are* an idiot and a liar.
You obviously do have an axe to grind, since you ignored Svensmark and Friis-Christensen showing cosmic ray decrease correlates with global warming if you ignore the global warming.
The irony here is that you yourself linked the final version of that paper (it’s your third link). From that source:
After the removal of confusions due to El Nino, volcanoes etc. and also a linear trend, as in the middle panel of Fig. 2, the negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and tropospheric air temperatures is impressive.
The caption for Figure 2:
The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade).
Removing El Nino and the NAO is fine, since those are known to have an entirely planetary description and as a result are just noise on a comparison to cosmic rays. However, the linear trend he removes is very close to the linear trend noted in the temperature record itself (I don’t have the tools at this computer to check, but I suspect it’s the same as the temperature trend once you remove El Nino and NAO).
So, after he removes things that aren’t influenced by cosmic rays, including a linear warming trend virtually identical to the observed warming trend, he finds a strong correlation between cosmic ray decrease and whatever’s left, and goes on to claim this means the warming trend which he removed is due to cosmic rays. I shouldn’t need to remind you how fallacious this is.
The cosmic ray argument is scientifically dishonest, by Svensmark’s own admission.
I suggest you also see this article, which (unlike Svensmark’s tripe) doesn’t read like an op-ed and doesn’t tell bald-faced lies.
fred g:
Which ones specifically? And can you explain what exactly are wrong with them?
Or perhaps you can’t?
— bi
fred g:
No, you never ever “read”, you just keep dumping whatever talking points you have at hand regardless of the topic of the blog entry.
This thread is a case in point. Greenfyre talked about Lomborg. So where’s your discussion of Lomborg? All I see are a pile of irrelevant talking points from you.
You obviously weren’t reading anything.
— bi
While I’m waiting for my earlier comment to clear moderation (with just one link?! Summary = fred g deserves to be called nasty names):
FYI: I’ve changed my moniker from ‘DavidONE’ to ‘DavidCOG’ to be consistent with other sites I post at, e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/DavidCOG – which I had to do because someone else had ‘stolen’ ‘my’ usual nom de plume.
frankbi,
Are you nuts? Who are you to demand that I detail exactly which papers of Hansen’s that I have read and “explain exactly what are wrong with them.”
As a former believer in global warming I set out some of the objections to the theory I have learned to see what response I would get here.
frankbi, I surmise that you are unable to respond to or refute them and in your frustration and intellectual impotence have sunk to an absurd focus on my reading habits.
—-
fred g,
So you can’t explain what’s wrong with the science laid out by Hansen, IPCC, et al? Instead you employ weasel rhetoric and avoidance. We know why you do that.
Also, you’ll need to construct more persuasive strawmen than frankbi is “focusing on my reading habits”. The focus is on what you think you know and why you think the world’s climate scientists are wrong. So far all you’ve demonstrated is that you have *nothing*.
Fred G:
You have repeated a standard list of anti-science wrong arguments. They are so standard they are cataloged by popularity, each with a description for hte general audience,. and links to peer-reviewed research in credible journals:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
From your list:
[1] cosmic rays => #18
See also for more detail:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don’t-die-so-easily
Svensmark has an idea, it keeps not getting support, but he keeps the idea. I’ve read his book. The fact that a few people support an idea forever doesn’t prove much. The great astrophysicist Fred Hoyle fought the Big Bang forever also.
[2] sun => #1
[3] CO2 follows temperatures => #11
You may note that the ice-age termination effect you refer to was predicted by Lorius et al around 1990, and then confirmed by later ice-core records.
[4] There’s no specific entry for that, as it’s long-established, and really simple physics.
See Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming at AIP website:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Specifically http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm, and search for “feedback”, but really, read the whole thing.
[5] => #4 or #9, and of course, it helps to have even a slight understanding of the statistics of noisy time series, for which tamino’s website http://tamino.wordpress.com/ is really educational.
All-in-all, 5 is not a bad score, although David Bellamy managed to get a dozen of these wrong things into a short newspaper article once:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece
(You can find my notes if you search through the comments.)
DavidCOG,
What I saw when I came to this site was an article on debating global warming. I put forward an initial post. Mike’s response included the line “Notice how you said absolutely nothing relevant to the article, nor related to climate science? I did.” I took that as a challenge to post several ideas contradicting global warming theory I learned about. Those posts were yesterday at 8:49 PM and today at 11:27 AM.
As I mentioned, I too once believed in global warming theory and thought those who didn’t believe in it were hopelessly uninformed. In my search for the truth on global warming I think it is interesting to put arguments from the deniers before the believers to see whether they can refute them and how they handle themselves. These points in themselves are in direct opposition to those of Hansen and the IPCC et al.
My purpose is to see whether believers can refute the several points I made as to why I have come to doubt global warming theory. Apparently you cannot and my belief in them therefore is strengthened. [1]
I am not here to critique Jim Hansen’s papers. That is your agenda, not mine. I could not care less whether you think that amounts to something or nothing.
—-
fred g,
More unconvincing sophistry:
> My purpose is to see whether believers can refute the several points I made … Apparently you cannot and my belief in them therefore is strengthened.
They’ve been refuted – again and again and again. But still you persist with them. That makes you delusional. Or stupid. Or a liar. I’m putting my money on all three.
It’s evident you’re so far down the rabbit hole of denial that no evidence or science will allow you to see out. That’s OK – every ‘uncomfortable’ scientific truth, heliocentrism and evolution for example, exposes a thicket of humanity that are unable or are too scared to accept the truth. As time passes they become irrelevant to the conversation – and that’s what is in store you: irrelevance.
P.S. No scientifically literate person ‘believes’ in ACC, they *accept* it due to overwhelming evidence and science.
John:
Thank you very much for your post. Without recounting the points on each side of the arguments, I now have more information to follow up on. This what I came here looking for. I’m not sure that I will agree that the balance of the evidence is on your side, but I am sure I will be more informed on this issue after reading the information linked to in your post.
I have also Googled your name and discovered that you have written several very interesting papers on this topic, including:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
and
Click to access monckton%20schulte%20oreskes%207%200%20(2).pdf
As I have the time I will be reading these. Again, thanks for your post.
Those on this website who called me “idiot, liar, stupid, delusional” can all go to hell.
I said:
Folks:
it sometimes really happens that someone who has *not* studied climate science in detail gets pulled into the self-referential whirlpool of the denialist smog-machine, which:
a) Is always certain, and cross-references itself strongly, and plays to the “anchor effect” in human psychology.
b) Has the advantage that it is much easier to create confusion than clarity.
c) Usually seems *friendly*, especially since negative comments sometimes get disappeared, and there is the shared camaraderie of “knowing” more than real scientists. See PSYCH-2 in reasons for anti-science.
I have seen even rational people get pulled into this … and helping them out was not accomplished by quickly telling them how dumb they were. There have been several long discussions with well-educated people who really doubted climate simulations, because they had experience with other kinds of simulations having problems, and didn’t understand the differences. Insulting them wasn’t useful, but serious dialog could be:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#comment-97878
SUMMARY:
a) If someone is honestly confused, jumping to insults is not particularly useful. Giving them references *might* be useful. Not everyone confused is very tactful.
b) If someone is really a troll, inducing insult-fights is often their goal, in which case quickly recognizing them and then ignoring them seems better.
Of course, it is not always instantly obvious which is which.
One has to decide whether one’s goal is to help educate people about the real science and learn how to detect anti-science …
or to enjoy the pleasure of engaging in insult-fights.
John Mashey:
I think fred g was not being merely honestly confused, and I think his last response was a calculated way to make climate activists ‘in general’ look nasty and closed-minded, even as his own lies were being exposed.
If I’m right, then we’ve stumbled upon a pretty interesting rhetorical technique, and we should try to come up with a way to effectively counter it.
— bi
DavidOne:
>1. icecap.us – a retired TV weatherman / meteorologist who has been repeatedly discredited by real climate scientists, e.g.
Paul.
I did come across a graph from the Icecap site a while ago that was clearly edited to indicate a specific short term ‘weather’ view. You didn’t have to be a scientist to see what was wrong with it, but you did have to see it for what it was. If you had looked at the full data, you got a different picture of what was going on.
John,
Thing is, people like ‘fred g’ *are* dishonest. He’s evidently not new to the conversation and he will have used those Denier talking points before and knows that they have been conclusively debunked. And yet he uses them again. He enters the conversation with no intellectual honesty and I don’t see the value in giving him false respect. To do otherwise would be to play the same dishonest game of faux civility that the likes of Watts employs.
If fred returns and admits that he was wrong and demonstrates that his position can be changed with science and evidence then I will be the first to apologise – after I’ve I’ve picked myself up from off the floor.
I will gladly help anyone who is looking for information or who is genuinely seeking the truth, but it was evident from fred’s first post that that was not his intention here – and demonstrated with each subsequent post.
And I wouldn’t classify exchanges, such as this, as “insult-fights”. I think it’s important that the dishonesty and hypocrisy of these people are exposed for the ‘lurkers’ who might otherwise be taken in by their spiel.
Also, there’s room for various forms of defence and attack against the Denial Machine – polite refutation and ridicule.
Cheers,
David.
It is really true that for decades I accepted and believed in global warming theory. I am committed to environmental preservation. A couple of years ago I came across denier websites that I found intriguing. I kept reading and my views changed.
Putting denier viewpoints before those who accept global warming reminds me of an incident from my youth. Around my freshman H.S. year I stopped believing in God. Two Mormon missionaries came to the house and my parents invited them to stay for dinner. I relished bombarding them with my arguments against the existence of God that I read in Bertrand Russel and Walter Kaufman. I was very interested to see how they would handle my arguments and themselves. They acquitted themselves quite well. I don’t remember them defeating my arguments but I do remember that they conducted themselves with dignity. They respected my viewpoints without losing their cool and getting angry. I was impressed.
Those Mormon missionaries did better than most at this site. However, in my eyes, John Mashey came through in style. The first of his papers I linked to intertwines the personal and the scientific in a novel and remarkable way. Finding his stuff was worth being called names by idiots.
I have gone to some of the sites he linked to that deal with the points I put forth. One point asserted is that the recent cooling over the past decade is due to La Nina. The deniers point out that under a solar induced cooling such events would be expected to be more frequent.
The denier point that over geologic time CO2 changes follow rather than precede climate changes and therefore can hardly be seen as driving climate change is dealt with, but in a contorted, hard to believe fashion. If CO2 accentuates an already developing trend then why would there ever have been turning points toward cooling and further ice ages? Lots to think about. Fortunately, John Mashey gave me some good leads on topics related to global warming and beyond.
Paul, I do like THAT trollpoint. For instance, when I said denialists were market fundies who depended on dogmatic assertions and axioms derived from them instead of being data oriented (which I think describes Objectivism and von Mises’ economics succinctly and is hard to dispute), one of them called me a serial killer. Another said I was one of the 7 reasons global warming was wrong(!)
reality has a well-known liberal bias – best saying of the oughties.
fred g opens with:
> …believers in … global warming … nastiness and negativism … Their personalities are so acidic that their urine could etch glass.
and finishes with a meandering, sanctimonious spiel about respect and dignified debate. Blind hypocrisy writ large.
DavidCOG:
Indeed. Also, fred g doesn’t have time to read John Mashey’s “interesting papers” which he said he’d read, but he has time to write 5 paragraphs of content-free rubbish.
— bi
The denier point that over geologic time CO2 changes follow rather than precede climate changes and therefore can hardly be seen as driving climate change is dealt with, but in a contorted, hard to believe fashion.
This just in: Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from eggs.
The analogy I usually use is simpler: Fire causes heat, but heat can also cause fire (that’s the whole magnifying-glass-ignition trick). It’s the same way with pretty much any coupled system.
For the record, claiming “CO2 follows temperature geologically” as a disproof of CO2-induced global warming is logically equivalent to saying that CO2 cannot cause a temperature increase. This is patently absurd and follows from basic physics that have been understood for over a century, and can be tested experimentally. (Most simple experiments will leave off feedbacks, so the *amount* of warming you get won’t be analagous to the globe, but you will get a temperature increase.)
If CO2 accentuates an already developing trend then why would there ever have been turning points toward cooling and further ice ages?
All you need is an external forcing to flip past a tipping point and different cycles kick in.
As I understand it, the best explanation lies with the
Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbit, combined with the distribution of land vs. water on the planet. You can read about the relevant history and a layman explanation of the mechanism here.
Also, one last note: As John Mashey said, Lorius et al (1990) predicted the CO2 lag in the ice cores from basic climate science. (One of the “et al” names is James Hanson, by the way.) This was roughly a decade before we were capable of actually measuring the lag. It’s safe to say that if climate science predicts something, then that something isn’t contradictory to the science, no matter how loudly the denier sites scream that it is.
Marion Delgado
As for deniers not being data-oriented consider recent studies and events as to how pro-global warming folks handle data.
The study linked to below examined a 2007 IPCC report and found 72 violations of empirically-determined forecasting principles. They conclude “Claims that the earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying it will get colder… Based on our literature searches, those forecasting long-term climate change have no apparent knowledge of evidence-based forecasting principles.”
They focus on topics like the mistaken use of complex models with “noisy” data and expert opinions. They also discuss the need to validate models on “out-of-sample” data before they can be considered valid. Papers by pro-global warming folks almost universally violate these principles of scientific forecasting.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html
Then consider the “hockey-stick” episode. As the article below puts it “…the hockey stick, the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
Organizations staffed with pro-global warming folks also appear to have difficulty handling temperature data:
Also, consider the ludicrously inaccurate forecasts put out by pro- global warming theory folks in recent years. For example, see:
They have predicted 2009 to be one of the warmest on record:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BT49G20081230
It will be interesting to see how that “expert prediction” plays out.
All in all, it is very hard to see pro-global warming folks as “data oriented.”
So, fred g still can’t find time to actually read John Mashey’s writings which he said he’ll read.
And he can’t find time to name even one paper by Hansen, Rahmstorf, Lockwood, etc.
But he can find time to spew 19 paragraphs of inactivist talking points.
So much for having read ‘both sides’ of the ‘debate’.
And of course, fred g’s way of finding out “pro-global warming folks” actually do is to simply ignore their actual writings.
So much for having read ‘both sides’ of the ‘debate’.
fred g, why do you keep telling lies?
— bi
Brian D
An interesting post! My concern is with these sentences:
If CO2 accentuates an already developing trend then why would there ever have been turning points toward cooling and further ice ages? (mine)
All you need is an external forcing to flip past a tipping point and different cycles kick in. (yours)
What could such an “external forcing” be? It would have to overpower the warming effect of CO2. If it could be what’s involved in Milankovitch cycles, could it also include other forcings such as solar ones? I thought CO2 levels determined climate and overruled any other influences.
Still, we are left with the fact that over geologic time changes in CO2 levels followed temperature changes. Basic rules of cause and effect state that if something does not happen until after something else it cannot have caused it. [1]
I have read the information in your post through the link Mashey supplied. I am certainly no climate scientist, but it still seems like a stretch to me to say that an external forcing kicks off warming and then CO2 rises afterwords and fuels the bulk of the movement.
How do we know that the initial forcing did not account for all of the change in temperature with CO2 rise afterwords as an epiphenomenal side effect? This would seem a more parsimonious view.
—-
fred g:
Brian D already said it:
fred g, you’re not responding to Brian D, you’re just repeating yourself.
— bi
I forgot to list ‘cowardice’ as one of fred’s traits. He has studiously ignored every refutation of his Denier talking points and simply moved on to the next one on his checklist.
He continues to lie and distort – re. the Reuters article fred gives us “They have predicted 2009 to be one of the warmest on record” – which it certainly will be – but ol’ fred chooses to ignore what the scientists really said:
“…global warming had not gone away despite the fact that 2009, like the year just gone, would not break records. “What matters is the underlying rate of warming,” he said. He noted the average temperature over 2001-2007 was 14.44 degrees celsius, 0.21 degrees celsius warmer than corresponding values for 1991-2000.”
And his links out to melon head Watts, proves nothing other than Watts is a cherry-picking, distorting idiot who can’t work out (or chooses to ignore when it suits him) the difference between weather and climate. Which was proved beyond any doubt a long time ago.
Surely this troll has had his fifteen minutes of fame?
P.S. “epiphenomenal”? “parsimonious”? He’s beginning to sound like that pompous buffoon, Monckton.
Frankbi,
It is no lie that papers by pro-global warming folks violate many rules of scientific forecasting including making the mistake of using complex models with noisy data, relying on expert opinions, and not testing models on out-of sample data. These are fatal errors. The article I referenced details many more.
If a modeler committed these errors in an area where the feedback from such mistakes was in dollars and cents and immediate, such as constructing models for financial markets, he/she would get carried out feet first in a hurry.
Global-warming proponents can get away with such shoddy practices because the time horizon they forecast is largely long-term, where accountability is delayed, if it is there at all.
When global warming proponents have ventured forth with testable short-term predictions over the last several years they have fallen flat on their faces. See the references in my post addressed to Marion.
Until some recent backpedaling, pro-global warming folks have insisted that temperatures would rise in lockstep each year with increasing CO2 levels. Some still insist this. Like the “experts” who are predicting that 2009 will be one of the hottest years ever. Note, again:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BT49G20081230
On the other hand, those who follow the solar theory of climate determination have predicted that this year will be relatively cool: [1]
http://www.weatheraction.com/id10.html
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2009/03/15/news/local/1loc03_taylor.txt
Who do you think will be right about 2009? Who was right about 2008?
John von Neumann wrote:
“The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.”
The models constructed based upon global warming theory have not worked:
http:// — wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/dr-roger-piekle-sr-on-uks-met-office-press-releases-on-climate/
Since they are constructed in ways that disregard scientific principles of forecasting there is little/no reason to believe global warming models will work in the future. I venture to guess that few if any “climate modelers” have ever constructed a serious model for a noisy time series where there are any real consequences of the accuracy/goodness of their models.
—-
DavidCOG:
My major points of solar influences on climate, CO2 following temperature levels, no positive feedback, not warming now, (or for the last 10 years) and in the most recent posts that global warming climate modeling eschews consideration of scientific principles of forecasting have held up well, in my opinion.
The only real refutation of them has been Mashey’s post and the links in it. Great stuff from a brilliant person. Without writing a book on this site going over them, I don’t think they really refute the theory of a solar influence on climate. I also believe that it is untenable to think that CO2 is more than a minor greenhouse gas whose accumulation will not have a substantial effect on climate. The positive feedback models necessary for CO2 to have a major impact on climate are coming under heavy criticism. Climate is clearly not continuing to warm and has not for the past ten years. [1] Climate models made by global warming proponents violate laws of scientific modeling and it is laughable to think they can predict anything.
Have a great day!
—-
Fred, I’m on the move (typing on an iPod) so I can’t be as thorough as I want, but I will challenge you to find one scientific citation saying CO2 is the sole determiner of climatw, as you suggest in your reply to me. Only the denialists present our case that way – it’s called strawmanning.
Consider an acrobat standing on top of a tiny post. His mucles, gravity, friction and so on all work to keep him in equilibrium. Add a gentle breeze, and suddenly he may fall over. The breeze is many times weaker than the force of gravity- but gravity was formerly in equilibrium, while the wind forcing wasn’t.
That’s how Milankovich cycles work. In VERY layman terms: From a warm phase (equilibrium) you shift the orbit, which reduces insolation (lower solar forcing, meaning slight drop in temperature). Lower temperature means the oceans can dissolve more CO2, as solubility is temperature-dependent. This process takes centuries, leading to the lag predicted by Lorius et al 1990. The lower CO2 concentration in the air means alower greenhouse forcing, further reducing temperature, and so on. This eventually stops due to nonlinear feedbacks. Note that the solar forcing only changed once, and that was a very small change. Repeat this process in reverse (slightly more sunlight) to see an interglacial at work.
See the chicken/egg or heat/fire link now?
—-
Hey Brian
Haven’t followed up on it yet, but have you seen this “Antarctic drilling yields global warming insights” – seems apropos.
fred g:
> …it is untenable to think that CO2 is more than a minor greenhouse gas whose accumulation will not have a substantial effect on climate.
What’s ‘untenable’ is your grip on basic scientific reality. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=co2+greenhouse+gas
I won’t waste time on the rest of your drivel. It stands as its own testament to how deluded you are.
‘fred’, you’re a dishonest, cowardly, ignorant person. I’m confident that any intellectually honest person of average intelligence who followed this thread would draw that conclusion.
And, please, shove your “have a great day!” up your puckered, credulous and ignorant arse. I’d rather receive honest insults than disingenuous civilities.
Mike:
> …it is handy to have some stereotypic examples [of Deniers] close at hand.
Agreed. fred has provided some good material here: claims of wishing for honest discourse while revealing a constant tactic of avoidance and distortion, and culminating in a rant that demonstrates complete detachment from all scientific understanding.
Thanks, ‘fred g’ – you’ve helped the cause no end!
Follow your own advice, stop whining about how your claims are reacted to and focus on refuting what was said.
That tells us little about how well you understand the issue, and gives no weight to what you say. I used to believe in god, now I don’t, does the fact I used to be a believer give my arguments against god any more weight? Of course not, it is irrelevant
This assumes that, through observation of past events, CO2 cannot lead. This is known as the genetic fallacy. What evidence is there that CO2 cannot lead? What in physics (atmospheric or other) prevents CO2 from leading? Making the assumption that because we have not observed it lead in the past, and in spite of the physics which says it can lead, is ignoring the complex factors that can and have changed.
Where do you get the idea it has been ignored? Where has it been said that only one factor is involved? If several people add straw to a camel’s back one at a time until its back breaks, which of those straws is responsible? Is it the largest straw? The smallest straw? The first straw, or the last straw? They all contribute.
Humans can’t control the sun, we can’t control Milankovitch cycles, but we can control how much CO2 we produce. Even though there are other factors, the only straws we can control are those we personally put there.
Has he shown that CO2 has no effect?
The feedbacks are caused by warming, any kind of warming, from any cause.
So you are saying that natural variability (noise) is the trend (signal)
Shouldn’t you be trying to tease a signal out of the noise? What is the optimum time for us to do that, 2 years? 5 years? 10, maybe 20? How about 1000?
If you can’t answer this question, why would you take anyone’s word on the direction of the trend, even those deniers you like.
Pielke is playing semantics and blowing errors out of proportion. 2007 was one of the warmest years on record. 2008 was one of the warmest years on record, even though it was colder than the previous few.
I didn’t bother to look this up, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Which group has the better record of predicting this complex system?
Whether the consequences of action are good or bad, they have absolutely no impact on whether the science is accurate or not.
Isn’t this doing what you just castigated us for, attacking the messenger rather than the message?
Who better to view as an authority than those who practice the art? Scientists do science, climatologists do climate, dentists do dentistry. Would you trust a climatologist to fill your cavities? (Yes, it is a tired old argument but it is valid)
Elaborating briefly on my last reply:
This graphic is an example of what I mean when I say that CO2 is not the only forcing the climate scientists consider. (There’s a similar, better one in the IPCC AR4 SPM that breaks it down by continental region.) The short answer is that anthropogenic forcings (which include cooling forcings like aerosols) alone do not explain the temperature trend (they tend to miss mid-century cooling and volcanic drops). Likewise, natural forcings alone don’t match (they dramatically miss the warming trend of the last 30 years). Only when you consider them together do you get a match — and yet that doesn’t stop denialists from basically saying “it’s anything but CO2”. (Side note: At the recent Heartland conference, Richard Lindzen said that the world was warming but to attribute it to the sun would be a mistake. That didn’t stop several denialists at the conference from saying it’s the sun, nor did it stop denialists on the blogosphere from citing Richard Lindzen in defense of the sun.)
Furthermore, with my acrobat-on-a-pole analogy, a better description would be that the acrobat’s balancing his lateral motion through shifting his weight and extended arms and legs. Add the wind, which is still much weaker than his own balance system, and the imbalance is enough to tip him off-center, at which point his extended limbs shift his center of weight out of line and gravity pulls him off the pole. The wind, at no point, was strong enough to blow him over, but it was enough for the other forces acting on the acrobat to knock him flat. Similar lines of reasoning happen with the Milankovich cycles or similar long-term systems.
You’ll note all of this follows from basic principles of physics and chemistry, enough that the lag was predicted a decade before it was observed.
See here for a nice layman introduction to this entire process.
As for solar forcings, there are three pieces of evidence that any “solarist” needs to address. I’m running low on time, but will provide citations the next chance I get.
1) Temperature increases at night are faster than they are during the day.
2) Temperature increases are lower at the equator than they are at the poles.
3) The stratosphere is cooling.
None of these would be true if the sun were the primary driver of the modern warming trend. All of them are expected due to an increase in greenhouse gasses (in the troposphere).
…
Mike, I don’t use Digg, so I hadn’t seen that link. I’ll check it out and get back to you.
Has anyone seen my previous rather lengthy post? It went missing and it was an family heirloom with sentimental value to me.
Maybe I need new glasses.
—-
Fred G
If you are still around, I’d advise that it is *crucial* for people to read a few books to obtain a *coherent* basic framework of knowledge. Starting with blogs, even good ones, is a good way to get confused, especially if you read blogs that are intended to confuse.
For about $30, you could get 2 books I’ve reviewed on Amazon:
a) David Archer, “The Long Thaw”, 2008.
and
b) William Ruddiman, “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum”, 2005.
Each is about 200 pages, very readable, and very well written. They overlap somewhat, and so illustrate slightly different treatment. Ruddiman’s book illustrates the process by which hypotheses may or may not become strong theories, and the care with which real scientists calibrate what they know and what they don’t. Chapter 18 (on the strange alternate universe in which physics doesn’t work) is important.
Almost everything you’ve written is well-answered in coherent way between these two and Spencer Weart’s book that I’ve already mentioned to see the history.
Let me add something to what John Mashey said. I have to point out that the denial-bots virtually never ARE making any point whatsoever OR raising a real objection of any sort.
This is for the non-posting readers. I stopped pretending to engage the denialbots many years ago and am much the better for it.
In addition to any points you might have gleaned that were similar to actual objections on the merits, most of which are indeed answered in the books Mashey reccommends or, for a short course, in Mann and Klump’s Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming.
But I need to point out that what I say is TESTABLE. For instance, our own denialism bot here denies that bots like him are simply spamming market fundamentalism in place of science. What’s the very first “citation” the little bot pulls out of its most-accessed database?
Public Policy Forecasting.com. And what is it? It’s a fake web site, pretending to be an institute. It’s mostly the property of one person, J. Scott Armstrong, assisted by Kesten Green.
So, what sort of scientist IS this J Scott Armstrong, that he’s in a position to refute the combined research papers of tens of thousands of real climate scientists?
Note in advance that it wouldn’t matter how good a scientist he was in whatever fields, it would simply be unlikely that he would prevail factually. This fulfills part of my prediction – the complete ignoring of data – in this case the data that the IPCC is a compilation and consortium of thousands of scientists from all over the world presenting their largely separately published and peer reviewed work, simply reconciling and merging their conclusions to provide reports.
But what was the other prediction inherent in what I said?
That the denialism bots substitute MARKET fundamentalism for science.
Well, J Scott Armstrong, the man who single-handedly refutes the ENTIRE BODY OF SCIENTISTS involved with the IPCC is …
A PROFESSOR OF MARKETING.
This is probably the quickest confirmation of a theory you’re going to see all week in the climate denialism vs. reality feud.
Kukyona,
You seem like a nice guy but in general you do not understand nearly as much as you think you do (sorry). I’m being honest because I think you may be interested in philosophical and scientific questions. The difficulty is that you do not realize that you in fact have a fairly weak understanding of the science, the social context, the policy issues, and also contemporary philosophical issues. From Rand to climate change, you demonstrate an interest in current topics; however, I encourage you to continue to develop your critical thinking skills and conceptual understanding.
Fred and sharp — you have not read the historical discussions or the hyperlinks on this education site. That is obvious – not because of your position, but because of the points you make in support of your position. In referring to your ‘position’, I am being generous. You would not last two minutes in a class that examines argument and fact. Your points have been addressed ad nauseum in discussion and linked information, and shown to be (mostly) based on thinking errors, self-interest, poor evaluation skills, social deception, negative personality traits i.e., stimulated by interpersonal power struggles, and a weak understanding of the technical science. In that order, my brothers. To be sure, there has been a problem with barriers to accurate public information on the issue(s) — but not anymore. Your interaction makes it absolutely clear that a discussion of the technical points of the science is not what interests you. You are a very good illustration of the first 5 deficits leading to crap sandwiches.
Those with good reasoning ability, access to credible information, developed evaluation skills, other-regarding attitudes, a social analysis, pro-social traits, and a strong understanding of the science, seem to accept the fact of AGW — even though it may not be neither psychologically nor socially easy to do so. The implications for change and for care for others goes against the grain of much of the modern structure of society.
The moral irony may be that care and concern for others can also direct self-interest in certain conditions. I think Kukyona understands this, but Fred and sharp — not so much. 😦
p.s. GreenFyre re. Lomborg. Agreed. 😉
Has anybody considered that fred g might be the representative of a think tank and is here to spread the “word”?
I’m certain I’ve witnessed this guy and his performance on some other site, maybe it was DeSmogBlog.
Tom G,
Yep, my thoughts too. It’s encouraging – they’re on the defensive when they need to come and spam the comments of realist blogs.
I’ve found this thread instructive. Our guest Denier has demonstrated one of the more effective tactics – ignore anything that undermines his argument / credibility and stick to his own talking points. I can see how it could sway someone new to the conversation.
It’s also interesting to see how we all respond. I respect John Mashey’s patient attempts at education – although I believe there’s a place for ridicule and ‘straight talk’ in the conversation. For example, PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) is very effective (popular) at undermining creationists with his combo of science / ridicule.
bsharp55
Hi, there, please accept my apology — you probably realize I mistakenly stuck you in with Fred. So sorry! My comments are re. Fred g only.
Tom G and DavidCOG
We’ve had bob c, now Fred. What if he is, for example, Fred Goldberg? You know — the welder from Hearland who self-refers as a climate consultant? 🙂
Or perhaps he’s just a denier big boy wannabee: certainly he knows ‘fred g’ is suggestive of Fred Goldberg because it’s all the same crap.
Regardless, I suggest the response should be the same, namely, filter or ignore attempts to engage excessively harassing and repetitive disinformation. It serves little purpose to waste one’s own energy on it or to give this crap the desired continuous airplay in the commons.
Referral to the discussions and information on this site and to additional information via hyperlinks to other credible and current research sites is sufficient for anyone seriously interested in the issues. You’ve both done that. 😉
[…] the larger issues of economic-biosphere realism. Anyway, here’s the meat of it: Greenfyre has this part of it right on. He [Lomborg] does not take his own arguments […]
DavidCOG,
I have a low tolerance for practiced stupidity.
A person should learn from an error, not continuously flaunt it like some sort of badge of honour.
And being paid to be stupid is unconscionable.
Deniers such as Watt use only the data that they like and ignore the rest. They lie.
Lomborg takes the data and twists it, distorts it and gives you false choices. The sneaky lie.
I value sites that use ALL the data and presents so it’s understandable…even if I don’t like it.
DavidCOG:
thanks for the kind words, and there are of course many good approaches, but I think there’s a useful general rule:
when one participates in a blog discussion, there are Y readers, of whom X<=Y actually post, and possibly X << Y.
I don’t know the stats for this blog, but I follow qa rule of assuming that X << Y, that there might be many silent readers, and try to write to address them as well.
This is of course (somewhat) akin to politics, in which some people can be guaranteed to vote along party lines, and others are swing voters. The question is: who are you trying to convince, and how do you write to do that?
Mockery certainly has its place, and I’d offer an example:
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-journal-publishes-plagiarized-paper
Scan down until you find a comment ‘”Dr” John Mashey’ by Monckton of Brenchley, and then later, “Reality check” and “Oops, forgot” by me.
Tom,
Yup, my tolerance level for being lied to is also set very low. I can’t even comprehend the mentality of it – lying and distorting to win an argument? Where’s the pride, satisfaction or integrity in that? Unfortunately, we’re going to be stuck with individuals, like fred g, for a long time to come and the need to expose them so that their propaganda doesn’t pollute any further than it already has. “We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.”
—
John,
Yeah, I try to remind myself I’m not arguing with the ‘fred gs’, but instead communicating with the lurkers – but sometimes the urge to let loose is too much. 🙂
It does appear to be game of politics – for the Denial team. Score points by any means, fair or foul. It’s effective to a degree, but we’ve fortunately got a few decades of accumulated and (effectively) incontrovertible science to send in to battle. I find the tricky part is making sure I get to use that science and not get bush-whacked by rhetoric and sophistry.
Ha! Very good response to The Magnificent Viscount. Although, best be careful by sharing that here – you don’t want to breach your doctor-patient confidentiality – again. 😉
Talking of good ol’ Monckton, his latest masterpiece is comedy gold: http://www.theclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2009-02-10-lord-monckton-speech-at-heartland-climate-conference1.pdf There’s a comedy German accent that may have been plagiarised from Basil Fawlty! He refers to Obama as ‘Osamabamarama’ who wants to take away our right to light fires in the caves we must live in! It’s a work of genius – deranged, ranting genius.
Cheers.
Actually, it is not as if I (or most people) accept the science based on our own testing of it. Most people are not experts in the field, publishing in the peer reviewed literature.
What sets most of us apart from Verds (the Vernons and Freds of our recent discussions) is who or what we recognize as credible or valid. We do this through reasoning and critical analysis and a consideration of many things — including, for me, the policy implications, the social and political realities associated with climate change, and the actual uncertainties in some areas.
Denialism is not just about lies or stupidity. Verds use an appeal to a few fringe individuals and their ideas, and nothing more, so apparently the choice of authority is largely at the root of the problem.
Actually, industry interest may be the easier thing to tackle head-on. The attachment of Verds to the usual suspects is harder to explain and engage.
While we are trying to participate in intervention on climate change and facilitate the process of change at both personal and political levels, many Verds are clearly working out some personal issues via climate denial. What other type of explanation could there be, when we observe their behaviour? I wonder how difficult it will be for them to maintain their believs as time goes on, or what they’ll do when the current recession is revealed as a precursor to the climate limits we are now facing.
As has been noted by others, it really is no accident that the fringe tends to have conservative political beliefs and they (mis)perceive the scientific consensus as the product of socialism: the former relies on the absolute authority of an individual, no matter how false or stupid; and the latter relies on a process of collective learning that tends to result in new knowledge and understanding.
p.s. What I was trying for was an explanation of how the Lomborgs, etc., manufacture their role in all this.
They’re happy to be the authority that these fringers seek.
They are not debating for the sake of public discussion. They are in it for the theatre that generates their self-importance, as GreenFyre suggests. They have to create the appearance of authority because they don’t have correct information nor do they care about having correct information, and they have no real responsibility to develop the relevant policy directions and plans with the public. As such, they can only maintain the role they have created for themselves if they have personalities with well-developed b.s. skills.
The deniers’ approach to career-building and self-esteem seems to generate unusual loyalty amongst followers who have a psychological attachment to individual authority (in addition to the more obvious need to believe that all is well, I suppose).
No debates with these guys. I completely agree with GreenFyre.
A good post, and everyone’s discussion (including some learning from mistakes) was really interesting to me. Thanks! 🙂
Martha, you are forgiven 😉
To repeat something I’ve said many times over the last few years, people like Fredg have to be addressed in every venue they pop up in. Their stories are being spread by more and more public figures in a world becoming more conservative. They use the Gish Gallop because it is easy to do, difficult to refute in short sound bites, appeals to ‘common sense’ worshipers (who apparently don’t apply critical thinking to their worship), and of course reinforces their fears.
Unfortunately simple tactics work extremely well with simple people. I don’t mean stupid here, I mean people who tend not to view the world as complex nor take the time to consider complexity, but view everything as a clear cut, yes/no, right/wrong reality.
bsharp55
Thanks. 😉
And your commentary is insightful. Thanks for that, too.
M
[…] Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate matters of fact and science? – Bjorn Lomborg admits his intellectual bankruptcy […]
>Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing
>of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate
>matters of fact and science?
The public figure was Al Gore. In his movie he alluded to AGW as a cause of: Mt Kilimanjaro (science–not to mention history–says this is wrong. For than matter a court case determined it was wrong, including the defense expert conceding it was wrong). Lake Chad (ditto on all accounts). Warnings of a sea level rise that science tells us is “physically untenable”. Pacific islands being overcome by rising seas, more…
You’re right–if you can only offer to debate Gore on matters of fact and science, not much substance is required.
—-
>you pick on Gore’s film which is now quite dated and not in the least relevant
Oh–so you think it should get pulled from schools then?
>Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”
To be more precise, the judge said that he had no doubt the defendant’s expert was right when he said that AIM was broadly accurate. The judge goes on to note that the claimant idid not address that issue (broad accuracy), but addressed specific errors on scientific claims in AIT, and the judge further notes that even the defendant’s expert concedes some of those point. You can say it’s broadly accurate because it says greenhouse gases are expected to make the planet warmer, and man has been adding greenhouse gases. I’m fine with that–broadly accurate. But polar bears, Kilimanjaro, Lake Chad… you know what the judge said about those claims.
>”Kilimanjaro… presumably you refer to the disappearing snows… still being debated”
Documentation of substantial and rapid glacial retreat of Kilimanjaro dates back to the late 19th century. The loss is indeed attributed “rapid climate change”–that started around 1880 (first noted by Meyer in 1898, when he observed a retreat of 100m from 8 years earlier). In modern times, the current problems have been linked by recent studies to deforestation, resulting in loss of humidity. (As an aside, temperatures are down at Kilimanjaro over the past 20 years, and the glaciers have been growing according the their government. No claims from me–maybe they’re lying for the tourist trade 😉
‘According to Nature’s Betsy Mason, “Although it’s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.”‘ Nature, Nov 24, 2003.
>Lake Chad
Yes, greatly increased population, irrigation, damming of tributaries for power. And Lake Chad as gone through these cycles in the past by itself, much less having these huge land-use issues. So why say global warming is killing it?
From the court ruling: “… it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
>“in the near future”, which in climate process is decades to centuries
First, you must realize (as does the IPCC) that a melt of that magnitude would require millennia time scale, not a few centuries even. Still, Hansen (consultant on AIT) has hinted at 2100-ish, and it’s hard to get around Gore’s animations of our modern cities, complete with current skyscrapers, and water rising meters. It doesn’t seem like “in the near future” meant many hundreds of years. Pretty subjective, yes, but a rational person would tend to think he meant “in the near future”, and one would think that Al himself intended viewers to think he meant “in the near future” when he said “in the near future”.
Would I get a bail out if I too claim intellectual bankruptcy?
“Bjorn Lomborg publicly admits his intellectual bankruptcy. Not in so many words, but he may as well have.”
When you look at that cold, it really is an intellectually bankrupt statement, no matter what side you are on.
Let me get this straight; it is perfectly fine to run away from debates but intellectually bankrupt to want to debate? In which world does that make any sense?
Vangel, you’re not getting it straight. The key lies in that Lomborg doesn’t actually want debate, he uses debate as a tool to get NOISE. Science isn’t settled in public debate. If Lomborg has an issue with the climate science, he’s welcome to submit it to peer review instead of writing popular science books with distortions averaging once a page.
To put this in perspective, if you are Dr. Stephen Hawking, and Miss Teen South Carolina challenges you to a debate on black holes, what would be the intellectually honest thing to do? And what possible reason would Miss Teen South Carolina have for issuing such a debate challenge in the first place — what would she hope to prove?
Debates often go to the participant with the most persuasive rhetoric, even if he’s dead wrong about the facts. In order to get around this problem in science, the “debate” is managed by paper (analagous to ‘argument’ or ‘rebuttal’), rather than by participant, and it is rigorously moderated at each and every step through peer review. Public debates bypass all of this, freeing the participants from the burden of being supported by facts, and instantly placing people without any credibility on the same level as noted experts. It amounts to a PR stunt — one that will also serve as an excellent seed for a story for the “grassroots noise machine”.
There’s a reason it’s the same technique used by creationists and other cranks the world over. I’m not sure of the original source of this quote (I believe it was Steven Jay Gould, but I could be wrong), but it hits the nail on the head: A scientist challenged to a debate by a crank replies “It would look good on your resume, less so on mine.”
Sorry Briand D but the AGW movement has been running away from the challenge to debate precisely because it can’t support its claims. As much as the movement may wish to think of people as being stupid the average individual is quite capable of looking at clear arguments and thinking about which ones make sense. And that is where the AGW movement fails to convince. It is hard to have a public debate about the dangers of global warming when the actual data coming from the buoys shows that the oceans are now cooling and when the radiosonde and satellite measurements shows atmospheric cooling trends over the past decade.
Most people actually understand that the argument of unprecedented CO2 driven warming rings hollow when Viking farms that were productive 800 years ago are still under permafrost and old English vineyard areas are too cold to grow grapes.
No matter how you may try to spin it, the AGW case has fallen apart. Its first smoking gun, the ice cores, show that it is temperature trends that drive CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around. The radiosonde and satellite data show that the predicted equatorial mid-troposphere warming that has to take place if the IPCC model is correct is missing. The palaeoclimatology efforts to do away with the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age have been exposed as invalid by the NAS. And the latest news about low solar activity and the shift in the PDO has the AGW apologists scrambling for narratives that would explain how you can have a global warming crisis when we are measuring cooling trends.
I think that what is needed is something more serious than just a debate. What is needed is a judicial review in which sworn testimony from both sides goes on the record.
Paul
Just one point.
Neither Lomborg or Gore are scientists and there were plenty of debates by ‘third parties’ about Einsteins and Darwins work…..
There is a huge difference between Gore and Lomborg. Lomborg has a PhD and is an expert in the use of statistics. Gore is a politician who was a C student in his undergraduate program and failed out of Vanderbilt’s Divinity School. Lomborg is an environmentalist but believes that all statements need to be supported by rational and rigorous analysis. Gore does not seem to act as if he believes what he is pushing. As he asks others to have a small carbon footprint he owns a number of homes, one of which uses more energy in a month than the average family does in a year. He takes private jets everywhere, uses limos, etc. In the past eight years his environmental ventures have made him around $100 million and he stands to make billions if carbon trading schemes go into effect. What Lomborg does, point out the errors in many of the environmentalist arguments will never pay as well as Gore’s gig.
Does Vangel have even one original thought in his head? All he can do is cut and paste from denier sites.
Does Vangel have even one original thought in his head? All he can do is cut and paste from denier sites.
LOL The facts are facts. Just because I don’t make stuff up as you do does not mean that I cannot be original. There is just no place for making stuff up in what should be a scientific debate. You can leave that for Gore’s divinity courses and his political and business ventures.
Facts are not facts when they are lies cut and pasted from denier sites. You are so ignorant you don’t know the difference between lies and facts. Hint: just about everything found on denier sites are lies.
Facts are not facts when they are lies cut and pasted from denier sites. You are so ignorant you don’t know the difference between lies and facts. Hint: just about everything found on denier sites are lies.
This seems like a dumb statement. The effect of gravity does not depend on web sites. Neither does the temperature trend. Like I said, it is a fact that the ice cover hype was unwarranted because global ice cover is above the average. It is a fact that there are more polar bears today than there were when the latest warming phase began in 1976. It is a fact that the planet’s climate is never in equilibrium. It is a fact that the ice core data show that CO2 changes follow temperature changes after 800 years. You can choose to make up stuff and be creative but that would not be meaningful if your intent is to discuss science instead of theology or politics.
Your ignorance of science becomes more and more obvious with every nonsense post.
You are just a denier troll who should not be allowed to spread your disinformation on a serious blog such as this.
I love this infographic, they are a great way for spreading ideas. I read the QuickSprout blog and Neil talked about them last week.
This is a great blog, great following, and posting this graphic is a powerful way to communicate what is really going on with the global warming issue.
Keep up the Great Work.
Joe In Michigan
I just read this whole thread and it wasnt until I got to the end of it that I realised it was a year old. Bummer, it was really getting good. Shame it did not carry on in light of the more recent conferences on global warming.
I just read this whole thread and it wasnt until I got to the end of it that I realised it was a year old. Bummer, it was really getting good. Shame it did not carry on in light of the more recent conferences on global warming.
Given the embarrassing revelations about CRU, GISS, NOAA, and the IPCC it is not surprising that the AGW proponents are hiding.
I agree with Vangel. I wish there was a lot more to read. Global warming is something we must deal with now.
Global warming issues are not explained in a good manner.The pros and cons related to global warming are countless and post will not explain even main which help individual to be aware about this.
—-
There’s a difference between the disagreement of deniers, and rational, argumented disagreement. If somebody comes with statement after statement that is long refuted and/or has no basis in reality, this is denial. The person doing this is a denier.
And how many heretics have been wrong in the past? Ah, yes, you don’t here much about them, now, do we? I wonder why that is…
Nobody likes using that word, and we use it when its accurate and necessary.
Yes, heretics have been right, so have deniers, however, that wouldn’t change the fact they were dishonest and relying on false information, lack of evidence, and opinion in the meantime.
Nobody is saying a denier, liar, heretic cannot be right, we are saying they are not honest and would not hold their standard elsewhere.
“I for one am sick of people applying labels such as ‘denier’ to people who disagree with them. It’s the same as calling people a heretic.”
No, it really isn’t the same at all. They aren’t called deniers for disagreeing with scientists, they are called deniers because they are in denial of the scientific evidence. Heresy is a religious concept completely foreign to this debate. So-called “skeptics” are the ones who accuse scientists of bringing in heresy, while it is actually the same so-called “skeptics” who invariably introduce the term (in an attempt to label climate science religion). The same thing happens in debates with creationists. This is not a coincidence.
Well, I should have realized that a long dead thread would probably be resurrected by a spammer. “Grant” is spamming a dating website; I would just delete his post and the followups.