That was quick.
Was it was just three days ago that I said apropos of climate change that “Since it is a given that we can expect more lies from Will…” and already here they are.
The content of Will’s continued dishonesty is more than adequately dissected, corrected, and commented on in the posts below so I will leave it to them and comment afterwards.
“Whenever George Will sets his pen to paper with words “climate change” or “global warming” anywhere on the page, the BS detector alarms should be going off. In today’s Climate Change’s Dim Bulbs, Will launches deceptive broadsides at compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), using “facts” to pander truthiness and confuse the public discussion on energy issues.”
George Will, Now With Misleading Links!
“There’s a lot of dismally wrong coverage of global warming these days … But the way global warming gets treated on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post–particularly by George Will and his enabling editors–is particularly exquisite.”
Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt and George Will: Stupid, Lying, or Craven?
“The correct answer of course is, “Yes.“
Stupid: Reminiscent of my complaints back in a recent Lomborg post, one of the most infuriating things about the denialists is that they don’t bother putting even minimal effort into their attacks on mainstream climate science, and often make worse arguments than someone even passing familiar with the subject could make.”
Will-Fully Lying, Again WaPo Fact-Checkers AWOL
“…the WaPo’s poster boy for journalistic lack of integrity, George Will, today repeats one of the lies he was already called on from his previous assault on climate science.”
All are being added to George F. Will goes platinum, as are:
- Checking George Will: The Perils of Time Travel
- Ice Never Sleeps: George Will, Jr.
- Glaciers and Electrons
- George Will must hate the blogosphere
which has become your one stop shop for exposing Will’s climate frauds.
—-
What I do want to underscore in the strongest possible terms is that Will and the Washington Post are knowingly and deliberately lying. Given the uproar over his most recent (but far from first) misrepresentation of climate science there is no way they can feign innocence about their selective and deceptive reporting.
They are lying, and they know it.
Such a callous and flagrant abandonment of even the pretense of being anything other than the propaganda wing for vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry is a measure of how polarized and incoherent the climate debate has become.
It does not bode well when the alleged “free press” wallows in lies so transparent and blatant that they would have embarrassed a Stalinist commissar for their pure clumsiness.
I have little doubt that the motivation is ideological. That is to say that Will and WaPo have somehow convinced themselves that they serve a greater ‘Truth’ before which mere reality must be subject. Undoubtedly they believe that they are telling truths even as they deliberately lie. Surely there is no other way they can preserve the illusion that they are somehow journalists serving the public interest.
Whether ideologues, stenographers to the powerful, or simply idiots, it suggests that the climate change issue is not even merely a political one, but rather an ideological struggle.
For all the parallels to the tobacco issue I fear that it was a mere skirmish compared to the death match we are now engaged in.
That may seem an overstatement given the rather trvial nature of Will’s topic, viz lightbulbs, but I suggest rather that his willingness to yet again corrupt himself over this issue, and so soon after the last fiasco, shows the depth of the corruption. Not financial corruption, but ideologically, morally, and ethically corrupt.
Given that, Will can be expected to continue to lie and dissemble, and it looks very much like the Washington Post can be expected to continue to publish it. They will burn in their shoes before they change their tune.
Our concern must be with those who are the targets of Will’s propaganda. It is a legitimate question as to how many may be influenced by us, and how many simply look to Will and his ilk to affirm their dogma.
To date the science based crowd has largely treated this as a matter of education vs ignorance, but if it is indeed an ideological struggle then we need to seriously rethink our approach.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Frederick Douglass
And of course I am struck by the irony of using light bulbs as vehicle to spread ignorance and darkness.
“What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight.”
~Joseph Joubert
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 159 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
trend watch : George Will, sock puppet or lap dog? « Greenfyre’s…
[…]In today’s Climate Change’s Dim Bulbs, Will launches deceptive broadsides at compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), using “facts” to pander t[…]…
Dixítque George Will, FIAT LVX! Et facta est tenebræ.
Besides global warming, it seems we also have a case of global screaming (by George Will and other denialists). How does one tackle this problem? Mitigation? Adaptation? Annihilation?
— bi
Or perhaps more correctly, factæ sunt tenebræ.
— bi
As normal, excellent piece with thoughtful ‘twists’ — the point about the irony of light bulbs in this story is worth repeating.
And, thank you for keeping up the “Platinum” list … it truly is hard to keep up with all of this.
thanks for helpful post 😉
> “They are lying, and they know it. … convinced themselves that they serve a greater ‘Truth’…”
This is the only way I can make sense of ‘these people’. They have convinced themselves that ACC cannot possibly be true because the implications of it being true run counter to their conservative / libertarian / whatever political / social ideology. They’ve become certain that it’s only a matter of time before the *real* evidence is uncovered, and while they’re waiting for that, it’s perfectly justifiable to ‘bend’ the truth a little – anything to stop the leftists / Marxists / socialists making a big land grab.
And there is no antidote to that. There is no evidence or rational argument that will sway them.
> “…the death match we are now engaged in. … That may seem an overstatement…”
Not really when one reads things like http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity.html?full=true We’re playing Russian Roulette with tipping points – and the conservatives are pulling the trigger with grim enthusiasm.
And outside of the public battle for truth, I see little or no sign of our ‘leaders’ doing anything to save us from the coming tsunami. Over here in the UK, PM Brown has made many fine speeches, but his actions don’t match. £120 million for renewable investment, £2,300,000 million for bailing out car makers. And more of the same from the G20 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/apr/02/1. These people think we can consume our way out of the problem.
The problem being, scientists are much better suited to addressing problems of education than of ideology. Unfortunately, I think it is indeed a problem of ideology. [1]
What thoughts do you have on how to deal with ideology? [2]
—-
How to deal with ideology?
Follow the money:
WaPo Wall of Climate Shame
[…] bookmarks tagged checkers George Will, sock puppet or lap dog? saved by 1 others YOitskat bookmarked on 04/03/09 | […]
I’m a firm believer of ‘What goes around, comes around.’
George Will and others of his kind have released these waves of falsehoods on an unsuspecting public who are no doubt lapping it up because if George Will says it…why, it must be true. Not…
These lies are going to come home to roost and when they do George Will’s career will be effectively over. In my opinion you could have stuck a fork in him awhile ago….but that’s just me.
Two items that may upset his apple cart: According to CTV.ca there is a report by Muyin Wang and James E Overland to be released today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The CTV article was brief but it stated that the report will reveal that Arctic summer sea ice has a very dire future indeed.
Temperatures in the Central Arctic 5C above normal….something they expected in the 2070’s are already happening…ouch.
Secondly the Australian Government ENSO Wrap-up is stating la Nina is done and a growing number of models are predicting the start of an el Nino during the upcoming Southern Hemisphere winter. One to watch…
Well, I know it will shock everyone that I agree, the 1998 comment falls into the factually accurate but untrue catagory.
About the light bulbs, I do not know if what he said was true or not, but I tried them and decided that I do not care for them. I get enough eye strain from the ones at work. I was not too thrilled about having to wait for them to start working either.
I read all those crazy doomsday 2012 people and thought utter loonies. But what will the consequences be when the masses realize how thoroughly we have been lied to?
2012 could well be the year that reality sets in when we realize that there will not be anything like 9 billion people around in 2100; that the cull of humanity is going to be well beyond catastrophic.
How will people behave when they realize that there is no future for the majority of humanity?
This doomsayer is scared.
George Will need not fear me, he should be very afraid of those who currently believe him.
Wang and Overland Abstract.
Years ago we made the change to CFLs because I got tired of risking my neck climbing on chairs every few weeks changing light bulbs. We won’t go back to incandescent bulbs.
We made the change by slowly replacing the incandescent bulbs as they burned out and trying different brands of CFLs.
There are CFLs whose light has the same color temperature as incandescent bulbs and even ones that match the color temperature of daylight. The light does not have to be harsh.
I really don’t understand the objections to CFLs.
A bit off topic but:
I know ,why not use wind turbines to extract oil!
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/04/prweb2293944.htm
Why didn’t i think of that?
Nice clean energy.
And no it isn’t an April Fool joke.
My CFLs are fine.
My local utility offered them at a lower price through the Home Depot and I took advantage of the lowered price. They do this about once a year; at least they have up to now.
I’ve found that as long as the output rating between the CFL and the incandenscent is matched there is no difference between the two.
Two premature failures, but the rest are doing very well.
I do have one that is a little harsh, but it was a freebie and is replacing 3 standard bulbs in a hallway fixture, so I think I’ll keep it.
A good deal of the resistance to CFLs seems to run along the lines of “I tried a Model T. Cars will never replace horses.”
It’s been a long time since I’ve used a CFL that takes a long time to get to full strength.
Well, except for my original CFL that’s now living in a seldom used lamp. I bought that one 10+ years ago.
(Then there’s the FUD folks….)
Greenfyre:
Well, we also have the recent AIG bonus brouhaha, which is probably the best example of people being spontaneously galvanized to drown out the wingnut noise machine. Synecdoche at work, maybe?
— bi
Berblang: if you sell coal, CFLs have no obvious benefit, since all they do is reduce electricity usage.
Over at Accuweather they have posted their best Earth Interviews over the last couple of years.
Well worth a visit with great ones on Hansen, Mann, Alley and Keller.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/
This was such a good format and Katie Fehlinger was doing a great job. But now she has been sideline somewhat. The MSM should have picked up where she was on the issues and presentation back then.
Now I know why there were so many trolls on this site…. It was popular and well done and so they clobber it.
George Will, America’s wimp
Pass it on.
It seems to me that Will is closer to the truth than the AGW proponents who were claiming that all of the ice will melt, that polar bears would die out or that the ice core data shows CO2 drives temperatures when they actually show the opposite relationship.
Will is also right about the fact that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. Many people will just dump them in the trash and our landfills will be contaminated with the toxic metal. The quality of light given off is poor and many people get headaches and eye strain. If a bulb breaks inside your house it will contaminate your living environment and you will need special equipment to clean it up. The process will likely cost you your carpet if you want to eliminate the contamination risk and a great deal of money if you hire someone to clean up your mess. Another unintended consequence will be a loss of jobs. As incandescent bulbs are phased out many of the factories that make them in North America will close. Given all of the costs associated with the handling of toxic metals the producers of these bulbs will move production off shore where their compliance costs will be much lower. Personally, I am looking to LED systems that are manufactured in China. While they have not been approved yet and are quite expensive they can produce better quality light and are very cheap to operate, even when compared to compact fluorescents.
A good deal of the resistance to CFLs seems to run along the lines of “I tried a Model T. Cars will never replace horses.”
Not quite. Some people care about their environment and are worried about exposure to mercury.
Shorter Vangel:
Shifting from American-made incandescents will be bad for American jobs, so I look forward to Chinese-made LEDs.
Brian D
Shorter Vangel:
Shifting from American-made incandescents will be bad for American jobs, so I look forward to Chinese-made LEDs.
So do I. A friend and I are looking into import opportunities for LED bulbs. Sadly, most American workers who will lose their jobs for no reason won’t benefit as much as I will.
Thus saith Vangel:
Easy to make claims. How about supporting them from scientific references. If not scientific, then at least a nonscientist of at least as large an audience as your syndicated friend.
1) “all of the ice will melt”. Of course it will — at some time in earth history. On the hundreds of millions of years time scale, it’s unusual to have significant ice on the planet. For this claim to be already shown wrong, you need to provide the source which says all ice would be melted by 23 April 2009.
2) “polar bears would die out” Of course they will. Polar bears are not immortal. Species are not immortal. On the other hand, for this claim to be shown false already, you need to find a source which was saying that all polar bears would be dead some time before 23 April 2009.
3) “the ice core data shows CO2 drives temperatures when they actually show the opposite relationship”. There you almost have something relevant. During the ice ages, CO2 and temperature fed back on each other, with temperature leading. But during the last 150 years, CO2 has been driven by human activity. See Jan Schloerer’s FAQ CO2 Rise for how we know this. To apply the ice age claim to present climate, you’ll need to present the science which disproves the scientific sources cited by Jan.
Vangel, you aren’t familiar with the Shorter (X) Internet Tradition, are you?
That, and your selfishness undermines your lack of understanding of economics. It would work out better for everyone involved — except your own short-term profits — if Americans competed with the Chinese rather than just imported.
It sure looks like you’re against American jobs and a competitive market because you think you can make a few fast bucks. Your ignorance of when you’re being mocked doesn’t exactly help your credibility.
Oh, and I await your response to our esteemed Grumbine.
Easy to make claims. How about supporting them from scientific references. If not scientific, then at least a nonscientist of at least as large an audience as your syndicated friend.
Do you mean to tell me that you have not seen the ice core reports and do not know that they show that the temperature change came first and CO2 followed about 800 to 2,800 years later? If you don’t that would explain your confusion. If you do than what is your problem?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B757C-48CFYGJ-2RC&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1395bce31bd1c13d7b1b8cff06e2b5b2
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C+D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+records+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glacial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
And he is certainly right to point out that compact fluorescents have toxic mercury and that there is a contamination problem if they are disposed in a land fill or if they break at home. Why you don’t seem to care about your immediate environment today but seem to worry about unproven effects that are supposed to happen 50 to 100 years from now is a mystery that only you can solve.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4217864.html
That, and your selfishness undermines your lack of understanding of economics. It would work out better for everyone involved — except your own short-term profits — if Americans competed with the Chinese rather than just imported.
All human beings pursue their interests. As long as they do so in voluntary transactions there is no problem because both sides of the transaction choose an action that they find preferable to other possibilities. We don’t need to regulate voluntary transactions because there are already laws against fraud or the initiation of force.
It sure looks like you’re against American jobs and a competitive market because you think you can make a few fast bucks. Your ignorance of when you’re being mocked doesn’t exactly help your credibility.
I am not the person who is helping to shut down American factories by forcing consumers to make purchases that they would not choose to make on their own or by making producers uncompetitive. That is what the AGW side is doing by forcing American made products to be pulled from the market and by supporting higher taxes on inputs in order to lower the standard of living.
For the record I support voluntary transactions. That means that I do not believe that people are so stupid that they need governments or well meaning busybody activists to run their lives for them. But as a mindful human being I know that the supporters of meddling are in the majority and that they will use the power of government to force the malinvestment of capital. Because I understand economics I am able to protect myself from the stupidity of such actions even as they harm others. I am certainly not responsible for that harm because I have consistently opposed the activities that hurt individual consumers and producers and have always opposed robbing the taxpayer so that special interests and businesses with political connections can be rewarded.
Given the fact that there are so many terrible government policies I have no trouble making a pretty good living by getting ahead of the curve. That allows me to protect my family by getting a lot richer by the very activities that and policies that hurt most of my fellow citizens.
That said, I have a soft spot for individuals who set goals and work hard to meet them. I have no trouble risking my own capital to help provide jobs for people in poorer countries and am very happy to see that it has allowed workers in those countries to greatly increase their standard of living by producing goods that they can trade with others at a profit. I am pleased to support the construction of good schools, local hospitals and to help build useful infrastructure that will help countries become much more productive. By doing so I help increase the standard of living of American workers because the increased productivity permits them to be able to purchase more goods and services with their after tax income.
What do you do to help people other than treat them as simpletons and force them to do things that they would not want to if they had a choice?
Vangel, like any theory, libertarian economics is based on a series of assumptions. Within those assumptions, it works just fine, as you note. The problem with libertarian economics is that the assumptions don’t line up with reality.
Explain to me how you would handle externalities under this system. I’m particularly interested in any explanation that doesn’t break down if you have a good lawyer (i.e. it’s cheaper to hire a good lawyer than to deal with the externality itself).
To date, no libertarian — not even candidates for the US Libertarian Party whom I’ve contacted — has been able to answer this.
Also, to date, you have ignored Robert Grumbine.
1) “all of the ice will melt”. Of course it will — at some time in earth history. On the hundreds of millions of years time scale, it’s unusual to have significant ice on the planet. For this claim to be already shown wrong, you need to provide the source which says all ice would be melted by 23 April 2009.
I never claimed that anyone suggested that all of the ice will melt by 23 April 2009. I pointed out the ice crisis hype that was all over the media last year. The AGW movement was making many claims that have been proven to be incorrect already because the ice cover has now recovered. That is why the AGW movement has moved the debate once again and is no longer talking about ice cover but about ice age.
2) “polar bears would die out” Of course they will. Polar bears are not immortal. Species are not immortal. On the other hand, for this claim to be shown false already, you need to find a source which was saying that all polar bears would be dead some time before 23 April 2009.
The bears did fine during the MWP. That means that the current bit of warming is not an issue. The data shows growing polar bear populations that coincide with warming and there is no data to suggest that the global population is in danger.
3) “the ice core data shows CO2 drives temperatures when they actually show the opposite relationship”. There you almost have something relevant. During the ice ages, CO2 and temperature fed back on each other, with temperature leading. But during the last 150 years, CO2 has been driven by human activity. See Jan Schloerer’s FAQ CO2 Rise for how we know this. To apply the ice age claim to present climate, you’ll need to present the science which disproves the scientific sources cited by Jan.
You have it wrong. The ice cores show that there is a lag. I could try to explain the increase in CO2 by pointing at the MWP and saying that we are seeing the expected increase that followed the lag noted in the studies.
And please do not divert attention from the actual point of the ice core studies. The studies showed that temperature changes were the cause of changes in CO2 concentrations. CO2 is no more responsible for temperature change than cancer is a cause of smoking.
Vangel:
1 and 2) you claimed that there were people claiming that all the ice would melt, and that all polar bears would be dead
a) you’ve presented no evidence that there were any such people
b) for such a claim to be rejected based on evidence, you have to point to observations that the ice has not melted, or polar bears are not dead. You only have evidence up to today.
Note:
Your belief that ice will not melt, and polar bears will not die does not constitute evidence. It certainly does not constitute evidence that the people you dislike, who, so far, seem to exist only in your imagination, are wrong.
3) Obviously you believe I’m wrong. Merely repeating yourself, however, is not going to do any good. At least not if you are interested in an honest evidence-based discussion.
What will do some good is for you to present scientific evidence that the rise of the last 150 years is not due to human activity. In the link I provided already, there are citations to the scientific literature documenting how it is we know that the recent rise is indeed due to human activity. The carbon from human sources, mainly fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture, bears a distinct isotopic fingerprint. This is what is seen in the atmosphere.
Or, at the very least: provide a citation where anyone actually does claim that ice cores show CO2 leading temperature. Yet again, you rail against ‘those people’, but have yet to show that any of them exist.
Robert Grumbine
Vangel:
1 and 2) you claimed that there were people claiming that all the ice would melt, and that all polar bears would be dead
a) you’ve presented no evidence that there were any such people
b) for such a claim to be rejected based on evidence, you have to point to observations that the ice has not melted, or polar bears are not dead. You only have evidence up to today.
My argument is about the hype. Yes, scientists in the AGW movement were warning that there would be no polar ice in the Arctic summer. One link is given below but there were countless stories on it last year.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
The story continued because as the ice melted the polar bears were supposed to go extinct.
Click to access WWFBinaryitem10044.pdf
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030008220241data_trunc_sys.shtml
Of course, this is all nonsense. The AGW movement keeps making up scare stories to scare the kids and the gullible.
Note:
Your belief that ice will not melt, and polar bears will not die does not constitute evidence. It certainly does not constitute evidence that the people you dislike, who, so far, seem to exist only in your imagination, are wrong.
I don’t need to prove that the ice will melt. You do. All I have to do is to show that there is plenty of ice just as there was previously in the Arctic and that there is nothing unusual going on. The simple fact is that the Viking farms are still under permafrost. That proves that places like Greenland were warmer in the past when there were no SUVs for you to blame for the warming. And it is very clear that the number of polar bear has been going up, not down as your side claimed falsely.
3) Obviously you believe I’m wrong. Merely repeating yourself, however, is not going to do any good. At least not if you are interested in an honest evidence-based discussion.
I don’t have to rely on belief because the data shows that global ice cover has gone up over the past year and now stands above the average during the satellite measurement era. It also shows that the population of polar bears has increased substantially, which means that the two decades of warming did not harm the bear population.
What will do some good is for you to present scientific evidence that the rise of the last 150 years is not due to human activity. In the link I provided already, there are citations to the scientific literature documenting how it is we know that the recent rise is indeed due to human activity. The carbon from human sources, mainly fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture, bears a distinct isotopic fingerprint. This is what is seen in the atmosphere.
LOL. I have provided links on this site to a much better explanation than CO2. And it is you who make the claim that CO2 is the cause so it is up to you to prove your case. The fact that you have failed miserably speaks volumes.
Or, at the very least: provide a citation where anyone actually does claim that ice cores show CO2 leading temperature. Yet again, you rail against ‘those people’, but have yet to show that any of them exist.
Here you go. Here is a nice paper on the subject:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
You can find the raw data at the two links below:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat
It seems to me that the fact that you are not aware that there was a lag proves your ignorance on the subject. If you don’t know about something as fundamental as the ice core data what else are you misinformed about?
Brian D
Vangel, like any theory, libertarian economics is based on a series of assumptions. Within those assumptions, it works just fine, as you note. The problem with libertarian economics is that the assumptions don’t line up with reality.
You mean that when you protect people from the initiation of force or fraud something bad happens?
Explain to me how you would handle externalities under this system. I’m particularly interested in any explanation that doesn’t break down if you have a good lawyer (i.e. it’s cheaper to hire a good lawyer than to deal with the externality itself).
What externalities? In a voluntary transaction the only issue is fraud and we already have laws against that.
To date, no libertarian — not even candidates for the US Libertarian Party whom I’ve contacted — has been able to answer this.
Also, to date, you have ignored Robert Grumbine.
I think that in your country Ron Paul has answered most of your questions. And I have not ignored Robert. I answered his specific points.
One more time.
Robert Grumbine
Vangel:
1 and 2) you claimed that there were people claiming that all the ice would melt, and that all polar bears would be dead
a) you’ve presented no evidence that there were any such people
b) for such a claim to be rejected based on evidence, you have to point to observations that the ice has not melted, or polar bears are not dead. You only have evidence up to today.
Here you go. This is typical of the hype.
Click to access WWFBinaryitem10044.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Both sets of claims were shown to be false.
Note:
Your belief that ice will not melt, and polar bears will not die does not constitute evidence. It certainly does not constitute evidence that the people you dislike, who, so far, seem to exist only in your imagination, are wrong.
My “belief?” Belief has nothing to do with it. Bear populations have increased and the total ice cover is above the average in the satellite era.
3) Obviously you believe I’m wrong. Merely repeating yourself, however, is not going to do any good. At least not if you are interested in an honest evidence-based discussion.
But you are wrong. When bear populations are rising it makes no sense to say that they are going extinct. And given the fact that ice cover is above the average for the satellite era and that polar temperatures are very cold in the winter there is no way for you to justify the claims that the ice is melting away. The bottom line is that there are cycles and natural variation in nature and what we are seeing is not unusual.
What will do some good is for you to present scientific evidence that the rise of the last 150 years is not due to human activity. In the link I provided already, there are citations to the scientific literature documenting how it is we know that the recent rise is indeed due to human activity. The carbon from human sources, mainly fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture, bears a distinct isotopic fingerprint. This is what is seen in the atmosphere.
It is the other way around. It is up to you to support the claim that the increase is due to CO2 emissions. I can falsify your thesis by simply pointing to the cooling trends that took place even as CO2 emissions were rising. Given the fact that you claim to be knowledgeable about climate change I assume that you know that there was a strong cooling trend from 1945 to 1975 that scared Hansen so much that he claimed that the world would experience an ice age. If you don’t I suggest that you look it up.
Or, at the very least: provide a citation where anyone actually does claim that ice cores show CO2 leading temperature. Yet again, you rail against ‘those people’, but have yet to show that any of them exist.
Your lack of knowledge is showing. Here you go.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
Even the RC people admit this but as usual they have another tall tale to explain it away.
Is there a reason why responses to Robert are not going through?
Here you go Robert. This i the link to the CO2 lag. Why aren’t you familiar with this basic fact? After all, even RC has admitted it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1
Robert
I am having trouble getting my responses accepted so I will try this one more time.
On the CO2 lag question look up in Google the following:
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2
That will provide you with the link to a paper discussing the lag. Or you could try the RC link and see that the lag is common knowledge in the AGW community. Of course, the RC community makes up a nice excuse but it won’t work. After all, the cause comes before the effect in the real world.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
Robert
Given the fact that the posting above was accepted I am assuming that the previous responses were rejected because of the links involved. Here are two more links to the extremist claims about extinct polar bears and no ice cover in the Arctic.
Click to access WWFBinaryitem10044.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
The two examples are typical of the alarmist hype designed to scare little children and the scientifically naive.
Robert Grumbine
Vangel:
1 and 2) you claimed that there were people claiming that all the ice would melt, and that all polar bears would be dead
a) you’ve presented no evidence that there were any such people
b) for such a claim to be rejected based on evidence, you have to point to observations that the ice has not melted, or polar bears are not dead. You only have evidence up to today.
Note:
Your belief that ice will not melt, and polar bears will not die does not constitute evidence. It certainly does not constitute evidence that the people you dislike, who, so far, seem to exist only in your imagination, are wrong.
3) Obviously you believe I’m wrong. Merely repeating yourself, however, is not going to do any good. At least not if you are interested in an honest evidence-based discussion.
What will do some good is for you to present scientific evidence that the rise of the last 150 years is not due to human activity. In the link I provided already, there are citations to the scientific literature documenting how it is we know that the recent rise is indeed due to human activity. The carbon from human sources, mainly fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture, bears a distinct isotopic fingerprint. This is what is seen in the atmosphere.
Or, at the very least: provide a citation where anyone actually does claim that ice cores show CO2 leading temperature. Yet again, you rail against ‘those people’, but have yet to show that any of them exist.
I provided the links to support my statements above. Here I want to point out something that is very simple. I need no justification for my view because the data shows that polar bear populations have gone up and because the ice measurements show global ice cover to be above the average for the satellite era. We also know that the Northwest Passage was navigated by a wooden ship early last century and that there were many reports of open water into the far north in the 1930s. We also know that the Viking farms that were operational during the MWP are still under permafrost, which means that it isn’t as warm now in places like Greenland as it was then. Please note that the warmer temperatures did not kill off the bears even though they lasted for more than two centuries.
Hey, Robert 🙂
Vangel from Mississauga imagines he is a polar bear biologist. As you can see, he imagines many things. Since he lives in Canada, he might want to access a Canadian research site. We have prominent polar bear experts at the University of Alberta, for example, and he could read the most current research by Andrew Derocher or Seth Cherry.
There is presently no definitive data on population trends
in Canada, or Nunavut, as a whole, but they do have data for two areas: Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea.
Observation: Decline. Population down, hunting has not been sustainable, evidence of starving bears.
Interpretation: These animals are suffering the effects of early thaws and late freeze ups due to climate change. Other bear populations seem to be following the receding ice further north, for the time being. Each population will be affected differently, depending on what is happening with the sea ice. The overall habitat is however at risk.
Vangel likes to say that our people in the North are reporting an exploding polar bear population. That’s not true. People in the community are seeing more bears, seeing more bears swimming, seeing more female bears making dens on land, and seeing bears scavenging whale carcasses. Canadian bear biologists are working with Inuit leaders to interpret this information. The biologists think our people are seeing more bears, because the bears are coming inland to settlements because they are hungry.
Disappearing sea ice equals disappearing bears.
Most deniers cite Lomborg’s 2007 book, which cites a Times reporter. Vangel is a frequent flier at denier sites.
“I provided the links to support my statements…I need no justification for my view because the data shows that polar bear populations [either specific populations, or the population as a whole] have gone up.”
False. He has provided no such link to any published science paper that makes any such statements based on the available data.
All the rest of his statements have similar problems and he is not worth the time.
Apart from his bogus science, he has shown himself to be an idiot.
That is of course not an Ad hom. It is separate from any of the reasons that his ‘science’ is b.s.
Cheers!
You mean that when you protect people from the initiation of force or fraud something bad happens?
No. I meant that reality doesn’t jive with assumptions like this:
What externalities? In a voluntary transaction the only issue is fraud and we already have laws against that.
Because, of course, no deal ever affects anyone except the negotiators, right?
The classic environmental example is dumping the byproducts of the transaction into a commons in whatever form that commons may take; here, it’s the atmosphere but it’s intuitively more simple to consider the case of a factory dumping effluent in the river. All people who have a stake in the river, including people far downstream who have had no say in (and potentially no knowledge of) the factory’s processes are impacted by the results of the transaction. (Pollution of one’s own property isn’t affected by this argument, naturally, but several types of pollution tend not to stay on one’s property, especially if it’s atmospheric in nature.)
One example I like to bring up is acid rain. Industrial processes dumped sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which was causing unprecedented environmental damage. This is an externality — there was no fraud involved here, yet there was an impact on those who were not party to the transaction, in part because the commons was bearing part of the cost of the transaction instead of the participants (i.e. the cost of dealing with SO2 — it was written in as “free” as long as they could dump it in the air, which is economically identical to having a third party with no say in the transaction bearing part of the cost. Not all price controls come from governments.).
I acknowledge that markets do what they do very well. The issue is that what they do doesn’t encompass everything we need, in part because of incomplete information. In order to deal with that, the trick is to set up market signals — that is, place and enforce a price on the externality in question, such that it becomes economical to actually deal with it without destroying the commons. (That is, make sure that the transactions’ cost and value are honestly recognized. Or, if you prefer, defend against fraud in the Enron ‘cooking the books’ sense. )
There are numerous ways of doing this — but I’d like to note that in the case of my earlier example, the US set up a sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade system, which allowed the industry to continue but made it prohibitively expensive to go beyond certain limits, which were ratcheted down over time. The details about resource allocation under this new signal were worked out by the markets themselves, now that they had the true cost of their activity on the participants in the transaction instead of on the commons.. I would like to note that this system WORKED, and is the model for the EU carbon trading system (which also works, albeit very slightly (~4% reduction, IIRC) due to problems in allocation of permits) and assorted bills in Congress right now, such as Waxman-Markey. (I personally think Waxman-Markey is too cumbersome; I’d prefer a smaller, simpler bill that’s harder to cheat on. There are a couple of these in Congress already (for instance, this one), but they’re not getting the same press.)
Under the libertarian theory, there are no externalities. This is patently false. Also under the libertarian theory, conflicts (such as this) are resolved in the courts. One cannot rely solely on the courts for handling externalities — consider what happens if the scale of industry grows to the point where the cost of cleaning up is higher than the cost of hiring good lawyers and getting a ruling in their favor. The industry would be acting irrationally if they chose to foot the bill for their actions over hiring a lawyer or fake expert to convince a judge that there’s no harm done. (If you think this can’t happen, look at the tobacco trials. It was easy to find several contrarian scientists who were willing to say ‘nicotine isn’t addictive’ and ‘second-hand smoke has no link to cancer’ if they were paid enough.)
Clearly, regardless of whether your goal is the collectivist “protect EVERYONE’S rights” to the libertarian’s market honesty with no fraudulent price controls, the ideal choice (having the true cost of doing business show up rather than some deflated cost buffered by destroying the commons) is undercut if left solely to the courts. This is why I’m interested in hearing a libertarian solution that isn’t dependent on courts.
I think that in your country Ron Paul has answered most of your questions.
He can’t tell the difference between weather and climate, but since you can’t tell the difference either you don’t see this as a problem. (You wouldn’t trust him if he couldn’t tell the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics, would you?) There are elements of Ron Paul’s economic plan that I actually like (such as a return to a hard currency standard, not necessarily gold but it’s one example), but a lot of the rest of it is downright bizarre, and I don’t think even you understand the true consequences of some of his idealistic claims.
For instance, he’s on record as saying “If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.” I’d like to note that since CO2 has a long residency time, it’s a well-mixed gas, and thus crosses *all* country borders, so Ron Paul would be in favor of a global agreement.
Also, it’s not my country. My country just follows what the US does rather than having any plan of its own, and its current government is known for basically being bed-buddies with Bush.
To date, I haven’t heard any libertarian tackle this problem at all. Some say “leave it to the courts”, in the most perfect example of utopian idealism I’ve ever seen. Most do what you did — deny that externalities exist, despite their obvious nature. Do you do this because it conflicts with your ideology?
Look, just because it was Keynes who said “When the facts change, I change my mind” doesn’t mean it’s an incorrect sentiment.
Brian D,
Very nicely written.
“Most do what you did — deny that externalities exist, despite their obvious nature.”
I would say that is an excellent one-line summary of Vangel’s simpleton application of a libertarian perspective to important issues.
It is not that a more comprehensive analysis from his perspective is impossible, just that we have seen he is not even remotely capable of such an analysis.
Too bad.
Best to cut our losses and hope that we can talk with other visitors are a tad smarter.
Hey, Robert 🙂
Vangel from Mississauga imagines he is a polar bear biologist. As you can see, he imagines many things. Since he lives in Canada, he might want to access a Canadian research site. We have prominent polar bear experts at the University of Alberta, for example, and he could read the most current research by Andrew Derocher or Seth Cherry.
There is presently no definitive data on population trends
in Canada, or Nunavut, as a whole, but they do have data for two areas: Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea.
Observation: Decline. Population down, hunting has not been sustainable, evidence of starving bears.
Please back up the claim that the total Arctic polar bear population has shrunk over the past 20 years with a citation to a credible source that does actual counts instead of model simulations. The Inuit have not been buying the story about the bear population decline and have been reporting more and more bears wondering into settlements even during periods when there was plenty of ice cover. They are pissed off that southern governments are making rules without understanding the reality.
Interpretation: These animals are suffering the effects of early thaws and late freeze ups due to climate change. Other bear populations seem to be following the receding ice further north, for the time being. Each population will be affected differently, depending on what is happening with the sea ice. The overall habitat is however at risk.
Update. The ice cover has recovered and temperatures are still well below freezing even as I am writing this in late April. This year’s melting is proceeding at a much slower rate than what was observed last year and even NASA admitted that last year’s ice cover issue was one of wind and tides rather than air temperatures. This may be a surprise to a scientific illiterate but you cannot ignore changes in the NAO when you are looking at ice cover issues. And the NAO, like the AMO and PDO are very important factors in this debate that the AGW has conveniently ignored.
And stop making up stuff about polar bears and cite the statistics that support your claim that global populations are declining. Keep in mind that more than 60% of the polar bears are in Canada and that all but one of the subgroups are found in Nunavut where the population is estimated to be around 15,000 out of a global population of around 25,000. For the record, when I was a young environmentalist in university the global population of polar bears was estimated to be around 5,000 (although some were claiming 10,000 as a better esitmate) and we were worried about extinction. Well, populations have increased by so much that we are now making money by eco-tourism that focuses on showing middle class individuals polar bears wondering on the outskirts of northern communities.
Vangel likes to say that our people in the North are reporting an exploding polar bear population. That’s not true. People in the community are seeing more bears, seeing more bears swimming, seeing more female bears making dens on land, and seeing bears scavenging whale carcasses. Canadian bear biologists are working with Inuit leaders to interpret this information. The biologists think our people are seeing more bears, because the bears are coming inland to settlements because they are hungry.
But it is true. For someone who claims to be from the North you seem to be very ignorant of the Northern News Services and its take on the subject. Try reading the northern publications and you will learn that there is a great deal of scepticism towards the USGS review of bear populations, not only by the local scientists who have been studying bear populations but among the people in the region, who see many more bears than they used to.
http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html
Disappearing sea ice equals disappearing bears.
But the measurements show that the ice is not disappearing. I think that we are at a seven year high this years so what exactly is the problem.
Most deniers cite Lomborg’s 2007 book, which cites a Times reporter. Vangel is a frequent flier at denier sites.
“I provided the links to support my statements…I need no justification for my view because the data shows that polar bear populations [either specific populations, or the population as a whole] have gone up.”
False. He has provided no such link to any published science paper that makes any such statements based on the available data.
All the rest of his statements have similar problems and he is not worth the time.
Apart from his bogus science, he has shown himself to be an idiot.
That is of course not an Ad hom. It is separate from any of the reasons that his ’science’ is b.s.
Cheers!”
You fail to mention that British High Court judge, Mr Justice Barton, ruled that Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, was guilty of ‘alarmism and exaggeration’ when it made a number of claims, including the plight of polar bears. As I have said on a number of occasions, don’t use limited local observations when making statements about the whole. When I was a kid the estimates for polar bear populations ranged from 5,000 to 10,000 depending on who was doing the research. Now it is over 25,000 and growing. What you guys missed was the fact that the greatest growth happened in Alaska, the place that saw the greatest increase in temperatures when the PDO went positive in the mid 1970s.
And if you guys were so worried about the bears why don’t you do as Lomborg suggests and stop allowing people to shoot them for sport? I suggest that the answer is obvious; once northerns communities figure out the damage you intend to do them and cut off their earnings (about $20K per bear taken) they will blow the whistle on the scam.
Vangel:
Your claim was that certain claims had been disproven by evidence. You’ve presented no such evidence.
When you finally provide a source for claims about polar bears, the WWF, it turns out that their prediction was for extinction (under certain assumptions) in 45-75 years. You do not have evidence that the bears did not go extinct 75 years from now.
Again, your opinion, your prediction, that they will not do so is not evidence.
Regarding sea ice, the article you link to a) did not refer to the entire Arctic — though you lie and say that it does, and b) raised it as a possibility, not a certainty. It also noted that the north pole itself is not especially significant scientifically (the Serreze quote:
)
And still you fail to address the rise in CO2 of the last 150 years. You can present however many studies you like of what happened 6,000-600,000 years ago — before human activity became significant — and it still means nothing as to the current rise. The current rise is well-observed, and observed to be from human activity.
Martha et alia:
Myself, once I see that someone is truly mistaking his personal opinion for evidence about the real world, I’m pretty well done with them. (Aside, perhaps, from morbid fascination.) But I’ll suggest, if you continue to engage, pursuing the reality of his claims. As happened to the ones I asked him to support, his sources don’t say what he claims they do.
Now on the sea ice, in addition to him being unable to distinguish between ‘north pole’ and ‘the entire Arctic’ — even when citing an article that does, don’t let him cherry pick. The choice of 7 years is quite suspect. If you (he won’t) look up the figures at Cryosphere Today, you see that the Arctic ice is still well below climatology — as it has been every day since early 2003. 6 solid years below climatology starts to suggest something.
For me, it was about a decade ago that I knew of professional biologists’ interests and concerns about polar bears. They started using some of my professional work to understand what was happening, and we had a couple of lengthy discussions as I tried to understand what was important about my work for their problem.
Robert Grumbine “For me, it was about a decade ago that I knew of professional biologists’ interests and concerns about polar bears. They started using some of my professional work to understand what was happening, and we had a couple of lengthy discussions as I tried to understand what was important about my work for their problem.”
Robert, thanks. 🙂
Vangel Vesovski “Please back up the claim that the total Arctic polar bear population has shrunk over the past 20 years.”
Vangel, see above. That’s obviously not a claim that was made. But then, you know that.
For me, providing you with additional or repeated links is irrelevant. On the rare occasions when you actually follow them, you cut and paste and make up false conclusions that are completely unethical. I refuse to assist you in this. There is more than enough credible information, both general and specific, offered on this site and other science and research sites.
The overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change is not going to convince you. I think we all get that, at this point, with you.
On a political note related to the science, your attempts to repair your racist statements with projections of sudden solidarity with Inuit people (projection? how unusual, in a denier!) are futile. The implications of current polar bear research, in all its complexity, is presently part of the dialogue between Inuit leaders and the Canadian government. Dialogue takes time. Climate change is something apart from the natural rhythms that our people in the North know expertly from their own experience and collective memory. Yet communities report all kinds of observations that fully support the data and models showing massive losses of total area of ice in the Arctic, and are participating as partners in gathering information. See above.
GreenFyre,
I look forward to the possibility that Vangel’s b.s. regarding science, his compulsive and harassing posting behaviour, and his racist ass will be banned from this site.
Martha
Robert Grumbine “For me, it was about a decade ago that I knew of professional biologists’ interests and concerns about polar bears. They started using some of my professional work to understand what was happening, and we had a couple of lengthy discussions as I tried to understand what was important about my work for their problem.”
This shows a lack of perspective. The concerns about the viability of polar bear populations run to the 1960s and 1970s when small populations of around 5,000 and brutally cold winters had scientists worried about extinction. While some were less concerned the highest estimate for bear populations was around 10,000. Today we are looking at more than 25,000 bears thanks to a less harsh environment, more access to food and less hunting.
Vangel Vesovski “Please back up the claim that the total Arctic polar bear population has shrunk over the past 20 years.”
Vangel, see above. That’s obviously not a claim that was made. But then, you know that.
See what above? Provide a link to a credible source that does not rely to model predictions. In the real world what counts is real data and the studies that I have looked at show that only a few local populations have shrunk while most are either stable or increasing. Given the variability of local wind and current trends it is expected that some areas will see shrinkage while others will grow in numbers so we have to look at the total population. And as I said, the numbers from the 1960s ranged from about 5,000 to 10,000. Today we have more than 25,000 bears, we run eco-tourist operations to see the bears just outside of human communities and have many more reports of bears near human settlements than we used to. The bottom line is that the hype is not supported by the evidence.
The overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change is not going to convince you. I think we all get that, at this point, with you.
Model predictions are not scientific observations. Like I said, the auditable data clearly shows no warming problem or ice cover crisis. That is exactly why the debate has been moved by the AGW side towards climate change instead of warming and ice cover age rather than total ice cover.
On a political note related to the science, your attempts to repair your racist statements with projections of sudden solidarity with Inuit people (projection? how unusual, in a denier!) are futile. The implications of current polar bear research, in all its complexity, is presently part of the dialogue between Inuit leaders and the Canadian government. Dialogue takes time. Climate change is something apart from the natural rhythms that our people in the North know expertly from their own experience and collective memory. Yet communities report all kinds of observations that fully support the data and models showing massive losses of total area of ice in the Arctic, and are participating as partners in gathering information. See above.</b.
Why is it that when some people are losing the debate they resort to calling people racists. For the record, the northern communities agree with my position about polar bears. They are tired of some white politicians in the south screwing up their livelihood and threatening to cut hunting tags that generate income even though bear populations show an increase in numbers.
Like I said, stop pretending that you know the north and look at what the local communities are reporting. In case you haven’t noticed it wasn’t exactly warm this winter and local communities prefer -25C to -75C.
Robert Grumbine
Vangel:
Your claim was that certain claims had been disproven by evidence. You’ve presented no such evidence.
When you finally provide a source for claims about polar bears, the WWF, it turns out that their prediction was for extinction (under certain assumptions) in 45-75 years. You do not have evidence that the bears did not go extinct 75 years from now.
Again, your opinion, your prediction, that they will not do so is not evidence.
Below is the Arctic ice cover data for April 17 for the past seven years. Do you see any problem with melting?
4 17 2004 12,879,531.00
4 17 2007 12,954,063.00
4 17 2006 12,997,813.00
4 17 2005 13,111,563.00
4 17 2008 13,378,906.00
4 17 2003 13,535,313.00
4 17 2009 13,601,094.00
source: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
And if you look at the global anomaly which is what you should do if you are talking about global climate change you see that global ice cover is above the average. Well, no matter how you spin it, above average ice cover is not evidence of an ice crisis.
Neither of those links remotely says what you say they say.
Vangel, you have been relentlessly spamming this site and you continue to violate copyright laws and data-sharing policies on credible research sites.
For the sake of anyone who has just stopped in, you have posted this particular crap in two other locations here – most recently on the March 07 I want to debate Vaclav Klaus thread. Not to mention all over the Internet.
You make a completely false summary of a small data set also reproduced in a fraudulent manner on Watts and McIntyre.
Recovery is most certainly NOT the interpretation of the overall data and longterm trends given on the actual research site(s).
FACT: the IARC-JAXA site claims that the loss trend is in the Arctic is BEYOND the predictions of the IPCC AR4.
The IARC-JAXA data and link you provide is a collaborative project and the partners are the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the International Arctic Research Center, and the Japan Aeorospace Exploration Agency (which owns the climate satellites and the data).
The goal of the site is to monitor the longterm changes in the Arctic and increase the accuracy of predictions on climate change. The objective is to contribute to the research on climate change in order to help develop international plans to address the crisis, especially in the Arctic.
YOU ARE BOUND TO THE SITE POLICY when you download or link or refer to any of the data on the research site. I’ll paraphrase the policy for you, again:
You may not create a link that causes misunderstanding of the data or IJIS activities; you may not link in a manner that damages the credibility of the site; and you may not link in a manner that damages the sites’ reputation or the reputation of specific individuals associated with the research (IARC-JAXA Information System. 01 April 2008. Site Policy Page. 01 April 2008. 19 April 2009. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/sitepolicy.htm
You have done all three.
The Arctic Climate Research (University of Illinois) data you cite most certainly does NOT say there is no loss.
FACT: the site reports decreases in sea ice area in the Arctic consistent with other station information. In fact, they report overall losses over the past 50 years at 30% (summer). Their projection is for the trend of loss of sea ice area to continue.
The current crisis in the Arctic is not identical to the current situation in the Antarctic where there are different protective factors in relation to ice loss – although it’s clearly down on the west side of the peninsula.
FACT: You are not the brightest individual. No one here has time to do your work for you.
FACT: You have proven yourself to be an unethical piece of shit.
INTERPRETATION: Your sorry ass needs to be removed from this site immediately.
Eighty percent of success is showing up.
Shifting from American-made incandescents will be bad for American jobs, so I look forward to Chinese-made LEDs.
You are missing the point. Destroying American jobs by killing incandescent bulbs and pushing CFLs on consumers that do not want them is wrong.
I could care less who made LEDs, because like most rational consumers, I will look at the total cost involved when I replace my bulbs. If the US government gets out of the way and allows capital accumulation in the US I would have no problem buying American LEDs. Since it does not I have to look at alternatives and the best ones that I have seen so far are from China.
[…] 2 April 2009, The Washington Post published George Will's Climate Change's Dim Lightbulbs. The second paragraph from this ode to climate science consensus: Reducing carbon emissions […]