Valley Forward Remarks
Below the fold are my remarks to the Valley Forward lunch today — I only had five minutes, so I was fairly limited.
It’s popular among those who want to cut off debate to call skeptic’s “deniers,” in large part because it evokes the term “holocaust denier” and therefore marginalizes criticism of catastrophic man-made global warming theory.
But I will accept the denier label, as long as we are clear what proposition it is I am denying. I do not deny the world is warming. The couple of hundred years ending around 1800 were among the coldest in the last 5000 years, so it is natural we should see a warming recovery since this period. Glaciers are retreating and sea levels are rising in part because they have been doing so every since this little ice age, long before man put CO2 in the atmosphere in earnest.
Further, I don’t deny greenhouse gas theory, that man’s CO2 can cause some incremental warming. The Greenhouse gas theory has to be real, or the world would be much colder right now.
No, what I deny is the catastrophe, that temperatures a hundred years hence will be five or ten degrees Celsius higher due to man’s co2
Interestingly, I think most everyone on the scientific end of the debate agrees that the direct warming from man’s Co2 acting alone will be relatively modest – on the order of a degree Celsius by the year 2100 according to the IPCC. Yeah, I know this seems oddly low — you never hear of global warming numbers as low as 1 degree — but it is actually a second theory, independent of greenhouse gas theory, that drives most of the warming. This second theory is that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold, and increase a modest 1 degree C of warming from man’s CO2 to catastrophic levels of 5 or even 10 degrees.
The example I use is to think of climate as a car. Co2 from man provides only a nudge to the car. The catastrophe comes from a second theory that the car (representing the climate) is perched precariously on the top of a hill with its brakes off, and a nudge from CO2 will start it rolling downhill until it crashes at the bottom.
When people say the science is settled, they generally mean greenhouse gas theory. But that means only the nudge is settled. What is far from settled is the second theory of strong net positive feedback in the climate, ie the theory the climate is perched on top of a hill. It is unusual for long-term stable but chaotic systems to be dominated by such strong positive feedbacks. In fact, only the most severe contortions allow scientists to claim their high-sensitivity models of catastrophic warming are consistent with the relatively modest warming of the past century.
Historically, the effects of a degree or so of warming have been small and generally positive. Times of warmth have been times of prosperity. Unfortunately, we seem to be suffering under a massive case of observer bias in assessing any current effects of climate change. Extreme events, which have always existed, are used by both sides of the debate as supposed proof of long term global trends. But there is little useful we can learn about trends at the tails of the distribution, and it turns out that the means of key weather events in the US, from droughts to wet weather to tornadoes to hurricanes, show no meaningful trends.
Climate observation is hard enough without this confusion. Imagine we wanted to look at customer visitation of the old Pink Pony Steakhouse in Scottsdale. If we watched for only a few hours, we might miss the huge variability of the crowds from early morning through each mealtime rush. Watch only for a day, and we might miss the seasonal variation, as snowbirds pack the restaurant in March. Watch for just a year, and we might have missed the long, slow decline in visitation that eventually led to the restaurant closing. In climate, we are trying to decide if there is a long term decline at the Pink Pony after watching for the equivalent of only a few hours.
My fear over the last several years is that the obsession with trace levels of CO2 has sucked the oxygen, so to speak, out of the rest of the environmental movement. Things that used to matter – water quality, wilderness preservation, hygene and public health in poorer nations — seem to get short shrift. In fact, in the name of CO2 reduction, we have subsidized, even mandated goals like corn ethanol that are destructive to the environment, and diverted money and attention from other causes.
Our obsessive focus on CO2 has real costs, and the current Administration’s position that CO2 abatement can be a net positive for the economy via green jobs creation is simply a fantasy. It is Bastiat’s broken windows fallacy writ large, this contention that obsoleting our perfectly good energy infrastructure and replacing it with something more expensive will be cost-free. I have to laugh every time I see the logic that Arizona wants to be a leader in solar manufacturing because, uh, we have a lot of sun. This makes as much sense as saying radio manufacturers should all relocate to New York City because it has the most radio stations. But the real problem is that every city and state in the country is chasing the same alternate energy manufacturers, competing with each other to subsidize this small industry the most.
My sense is that all of this public and private money chasing the same small industry, combined with an emerging reality that global warming forecasts are likely greatly exaggerated, may be leading us into yet another disastrous bubble.
dfbaskwill:
Great read. Measured, succinct, easily understood essay. I can see Mr. Gore scratching his head in wonderment saying, “But it’s settled!”. I cannot wait for his bubble to burst. (And take Mann with him, please!)
March 24, 2010, 3:30 pmWaldo:
*****”Measured, succinct, easily understood essay.”
Yes, but this in and of itself means nothing. I could write a measured, succinct, easily understood essay on how CO2 is warming our planet into a irradiated wasteland – but does that mean that what I’ve written is correct?
*****”I can see Mr. Gore scratching his head”
Do you doubt AGW science? Or do you just dislike Al Gore?
****”I cannot wait for his bubble to burst.”
Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But most of Mr. Meyer’s essay is mere conjecture.
March 24, 2010, 5:17 pmharrywr2:
Very Good!!
March 24, 2010, 5:31 pmHartley:
An excellent essay, sir!
Waldo, that is truly funny – you do realize that one of the major points of this essay is that the majority of “climate science” is just conjecture, based on a very limited amount of trustworthy information?
March 24, 2010, 5:40 pmADiff:
Actually very little of it’s conjecture.
That AGW’s feedback mechanism is central to any projection of catastrophic global warming is simply a matter of fact.
That the accuracy of theories imputing large positive values to this are speculative and a matter dispute is, also, simply fact.
That all suggested policy programs for reducing Co2 are very expensive is, again, simply a matter of fact.
That the alarmist projections of AGW catastrophe theorists have not been reflected in the actual climate and the projected trends (at least so far) failed to materialize, are, like it or not, simply facts.
Meyer’s contention that AGW alarmism has diverted attention and resources for most other aspects of ‘environmentalism’ is, of course, a matter of opinion, but seems intuitively difficult to deny.
His analogy criticizing catastrophic AGW advocates for basing too much, too certainly, on far too small a sample set, is just an observation of the obvious.
His criticism of the rhetorical argument for subsidizing solar power in Arizona is just a statement of sound economics.
It seems to me your objections seem less an appraisal of his commentary than an expression of your distaste at having to hear them.
Just because his remarks were summary does not make them conjecture.
His remarks, within his allotted five minute time limit, certainly addressed the central issues clearly and effectively with brevity, and probably very persuasively.
Anyway, at this point advocacy of catastrophic AGW theory is clearly more about ideology and politics than science….if it was ever really about anything else all along.
I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear that even the French have now dropped all plans for taxes and regulations to restrict Co2 emissions…at least for now, anyway….
So, cheers!
March 24, 2010, 5:49 pmWaldo:
*****”the majority of “climate science” is just conjecture,”
Sure, as is most science. Including how many scientists? How much lab time? How many studies over how many years over the years on AGW? Not all conjecture is created equal. And Mr. Meyers is a small business owner from Phoenix who has no lab and a very pointed political bias.
****”based on a very limited amount of trustworthy information?”
Who says so?
****”your objections seem less an appraisal of his commentary than an expression of your distaste at having to hear them.”
Nope. Said it I dunno how many times – I am an AGW agnostic. What I find distasteful is the manner in which denialists engage in the “debate” and their general lack of credentials and experience which does nothing to mute their whining.
*****”more about ideology and politics than science”
Right. Like dfbaswill’s comment at the head of this thread. Which you also object to on the same grounds. Like Mr. Meyers numerous postings of a political nature. Like numerous of your fellow denialists on these threads and ones like it. You also object to the nature of their political commentary. Right?
March 24, 2010, 6:44 pmHal:
Waldo, the “AGW agnostic” is a paid shill, who outed himself with the statement:
“numerous of your fellow denialists”, then it (Waldo is not sexually specific) slipped right into ad hominem.
They are using a new “reasoned” sounding approach to support their crumbling agenda.
March 24, 2010, 8:38 pmThere is lots of money behind the warmist agenda and it will fought for tenaciously.
Ike:
Waldo is playing the Sophist. Let him have his fun.
And Warren… you left out ocean acidification. That’s one of the items environmentalists started ignoring when it appeared they could go “All In” on the AGW hand. (What do you MEAN you let Michael Mann keep track of the card counts?!?)
March 24, 2010, 8:39 pmADiff:
Hal,
I have to agree that anyone who’d use the term “denialist” must be a catastrophic AGW advocate with a vested interest of some kind or other in the policy it’s assumed must follow from the theory.
Using such a blatantly propogandistic term, right out of the advocacy NGO’s handbooks, makes it clear than the speaker’s agenda, whatever it may be, isn’t objective.
Ad hominem seems inseparable from the AGW advocacy community, with respect to comments about Mr. Meyer’s academic credentials and political views. Interestingly I’d never been real negative about Al Gore before his film. I even voted for him once! And even now it isn’t his “rather pointed” politics I differ with, nor his lack of academic credentials…it’s just that there were too many inaccuracies in his presentation that a reasonable person should have known were wrong. That and his refusal to entertain even consideration of those mistakes when they’re pointed out repeatedly. Mistaken is one thing, lying another. And even there I believe lying can be excused when it’s in the best interest of the people of the United States, as often seemed the case with his senior partner who I actually admired (however much such view will no doubt be deprecated by many commentators here)…but to persist in claims clearly subject to serious question when it’s only in the interest of his own personal sensitivities and (pseudo-religious) beliefs, lying to all the world the way Bill used to lie to the Europeans or the Arabs for example, is inexcusable.
March 24, 2010, 9:40 pmhunter:
Ike,
Exactly.
ADiff,
March 25, 2010, 5:42 amAGW is nothing without historical illiteracy, fear mongering and ad hom.
klem:
I am a skeptic regarding AGW. However, I have been an environmentalist for 40 years and I believe that the result of our narrow AGW focus will ultimately be the most damaging thing to ever happen to the environmental movement. I have been saying this to my environmentalist friends for years, but they do not hear me. They are sticking to the ideology rather than cleaning up the earth.
I have fought nuclear power all my life, but now my environmental brethren have embraced it. I am in shock. Nuclear is expensive, destructive, dangerous and nuclear power never pays for itself; every plant is a welfare case. Fossil fueled Electric power is cheap, safe, reliable and old technology, the only problem is the smoke. Why can’t we fix this one concern? It would cost billions to clean up smoke stacks but nuclear would cost trillions. We propose to build 20 nuclear plants in the USA, with the danger, destruction and the cost because we don’t want to bother cleaning up smoke stacks? This is insane. I will remain an environmentalist for the rest of my life, but it looks like I will be fighting my green friends on yet another issue.
March 25, 2010, 6:15 amDarko Butina:
Waldo,
First of all, to the question ‘do you doubt AGW science’ – everyone outside the small group of mainly modellers doubt that science. the released emails very clearly show that EVERYTHING possible has been done to prevent people check their results and theories. They replaced editors of key journals, completely control reviewing processes so of course, since there is no unbiased assessment possible, nobody trusts their science. If you read latest news on McIntyre’s site, new editor (one mentioned in the emails) of the journal that Bob Carter published recent paper, allowed one of the AGW scientist to publish criticism of the paper BUT denied right to replay! I am not sure whether you are scientists, but in 30 years that I have been involved in the science (publishing, reviewing papers) I have never heard of such a case. I have been working in drug discovery over 30 years, and in many way I find similarities with the climate research – in both fields we don’t know more than we understand, and to say ‘the science of global warming has been fully understood – consensus of millions of scientists’ it is absolutely rubbish. All the world experts in experimental side of climate say – the models do not make sense, and we are not seeing the predicted trends. But all those experimental specialists also highlight – we still do not know so many things about the climate. So how can you possibly come with this line that seems to be repeated so many times that people ‘believe’ – can anyone doubt AGW science!!!!
March 25, 2010, 6:45 amWaldo:
*****”everyone outside the small group of mainly modellers doubt that science.”
Reeeeeaaaly? Seems to me that might not be such the case, mon frere.
****”the released emails very clearly show that EVERYTHING possible has been done to prevent people check their results and theories”
Again: Reeeeeaaly? I’ve seen said emails. In fact, there have been a number of posts on Climategate here on CS. I’ve yet to see an email that is particularly damaging unless someone, like any number of the CS tribe, goes to the extent of making some sort of exaggerated, paranoid deduction on what MIGHT be implied in the CRU emails. Again, gotta disagree with you there.
****”to say ‘the science of global warming has been fully understood”
Never said that. No one said that until you just posted it. See the difference?
*****”– consensus of millions of scientists’ it is absolutely rubbish.”
And I don’t know about “millions” of scientists, but there are thousands of them. Go to the IPCC. They have lists of the contributors.
****”All the world experts in experimental side of climate say – the models do not make sense, and we are not seeing the predicted trends”
Reeeeaaly? All of them? Nope, nope, nope. Think you are factually wrong there.
I’m sorry, Darko, after that post I do not believe you are a scientist with 30 years experience (“drug discovery”?… perhaps). Don’t bullshit a bullshitter, my friend.
March 25, 2010, 10:04 amWaldo:
****”Waldo, the “AGW agnostic” is a paid shill”
My checking account begs to differ.
You people crack me up.
March 25, 2010, 10:06 amWaldo:
*****”Waldo is playing the Sophist. Let him have his fun.”
I do kind of see myself standing in the shade of a date tree and you all sitting around my feet, if that’s what you mean.
March 25, 2010, 10:10 amdfbaskwill:
Thanks Waldo. I do enjoy a good chuckle even from those politically divergent from me. My checking account concurs with yours! Let’s just not examine the rings on that date tree! hehehe
March 25, 2010, 10:33 amhunter:
Do please tell us more about date trees, and of those sitting at your feet under it.
March 25, 2010, 11:15 amOne is impossible and the other improbable.
netdr:
The points he makes are very well accepted by the climate community even the AGW believers.
Like him I am an AGW believer just not a catastrophic AGW believer.
Without huge positive feedback there is no need to scrap a functioning energy system and create another one at enormous cost. Policy considerations make alternate energy attractive enough on it’s own. Global warming doesn’t enter into it !
Cap and trade has worked poorly in Europe so they are trying to raise the price.
Since it is a pain based system no pain no gain.
The argument about “green Jobs” is a fallacy too, unless there is a real catastrophe being averted.
It is like hiring 100,000 people to dig holes and 100,000 to fill them up.
We could give PhD’s in “hole theory” and lead the world.
March 25, 2010, 11:53 amDouglas M. Chatham:
I’ve never seen a good discussion of how the Global Warming Potential of CO2 (without feedbacks) is calculated. Is it based on IR absorption data or is it based on the ratio of temperature increases to CO2 concentration as measured by ice-core data (such as Vostok)? I would appreciate any references that could be provided.
Thanks
March 25, 2010, 1:29 pmWaldo:
O you funny little pedants – fine: Phoenix dactylifera – Date Palm Tree. You are all reclining on lawn chairs and I’m on a megaphone. The shade is sparse and our togas are getting sweaty since it is a palm with pinnate leaves, and it is a rare find since we are in ancient Greece.
And I’m still waiting for my first deposit from the IPCC.
March 25, 2010, 2:04 pmDarko Butina:
Waldo,
March 25, 2010, 3:10 pmDo you have any scientific background at all or you are just natural? It seems that you fill pages of comments without making any scientific point?
Darko
Waldo:
Well Darko, you’ve now entered a conversation mid-stream asking a question that I long ago answered. But I suppose this is inevitable on a blog such as CS. So I see that I am retreading old ground, but oh well.
I am a layperson. I don’t know what “just natural” means. I also don’t know if AGW is a real phenomenon or not. But as a layperson I am forced to determine who I believe based upon their credentials and trustworthiness; the latter I am forced to judge by the demeanor of the commentator in question. Which leads me to…
ADiff’s implication that my criticism of Mr. Meyer’s is an “ad hom” attack –
I would not attack Mr. Meyer personally, nor would I question his abilities as a businessman or his natural intelligence. He is clearly very intelligent, accomplished, and articulate. So, my ad hom comments (because they are ‘to the man’) are not based on Mr. Meyers as a person but on his relative merits as a commentator on AGW – and these are notably weak.
On several occasions, actual scientists have looked at his postings – they are posted here on the blog. And on each occasion Mr. Meyer’s has been vague and inaccurate, has not properly understood the science in question, and has resorted to his own level of ad hom and defensive posturing (the latter is quiet ironic given the number of times he attacks the science community).
In other words, I do use an ad hominem approach to Mr. Meyers because, quite frankly, the man deserves to be challenged.
We’ve been round and round on this subject, but again, the analogy stands between a medical professional and a layperson who runs a business in Phoenix, AZ. If the Phoenix businessman claims that the scientists of the world have misdiagnosed cancer and are “riding the gravy train” off their misdiagnoses, I want to know that the Phoenix businessman knows what he is talking about. If I find that said Phoenix businessman primarily takes information from other blogposts or misquotes or misunderstands actual scientists in the world of cancer research, then I am not very likely to believe him. Furthermore, if said businessman appears to have a very politically minded take on the subject of cancer research, I would have to factor that in to my estimation of him – clearly anyone who is politically motivated is going to come to a politically motivated conclusion. I would use the same criteria for AGW.
So sure, I am happy to make an “appeal to authority” and ad hom arguments here – they are perfectly valid in this case.
What I find endlessly fascinating is how many intelligent people fall rank-and-file in line behind a guy who is demonstrably unqualified to make the claims he makes. I have to conclude that there are more than scientific reasons for the existence of the CS tribe.
Of course, now comes the calls of “you only believe people if they have PhDs” or the like – but honestly, sure, if I hear of a PhD in climate physics who disagrees with a small business owner, I’m going to take the word of the climate physicist over the businessman. The reason why should be fairly self apparent.
But in case it’s not: no one is saying that the climate physicists / PhDs of the world are any smarter or better than anyone here. But I am suggesting that, because they have spent a great deal of their time and energy acquiring expert knowledge on the climate and then professionally studying the clime, they might actually know a thing or two about the climate. Again, this seems extraordinarily apparent.
The most deplorable thing about Mr. Meyers is that he takes his limited knowledge and skill sets public – as he does above – as if he is a legitimate, competent expert on AGW and has a bona fide stance. And that is shameful.
For all these reasons, I take my arguments to the man in the case of Warren Meyer and even a number of people here on the threads.
Did that answer your question, Darko?
March 25, 2010, 10:01 pmADiff:
And there you have it Darko, it all boils down to an Appeal to Authority and Ad Hominem. Proving, yet again, an old adage about feeding Trolls.
It should be pretty clear at this point that catastrophic AGW, whatever it may be, isn’t “climate science” (to perhaps give more credit to that essentially social science than it deserves), it isn’t even science at all.
It’s political advocacy, plain and simple.
The sooner Climate Science can shed itself of this excrescence the sooner it will be able to actually define itself as something resembling a real science…you know the kind that has to demonstrate the veracity of its speculations in actual physical reality. At this point the worst obstacles to that are ‘scientists’ effectively involved in ideological ‘issues advocacy’ like Mann and Jones, and political and economic profiteers like Pachuri and the IPCC and NASA and, let’s not forget, snake-oil politicians like Al ‘Chicken Little’ Gore.
March 25, 2010, 10:41 pmOtter:
I for one can see Waldo under the date trees. Surrounded by his worshippers… drinking his hemlock.
March 26, 2010, 3:19 amhunter:
Otter,
March 26, 2010, 4:12 amInteresting vision. I think that with belief systems like AGW, and given Waldo’s feelings towards skeptics, the more likely vision would involve his getting his worshipers to drink the hemlock for him.
ADiff,
When Wall St. was eaten up by the phony models of risk they were using, the contrarians were very unpopular. After all- the modelers had won Nobel prizes, and they were working really well. Why just ask Stanford or Bernie Madoff.
Waldo:
“And there you have it Darko, it all boils down to…Ad Hominem.”
Thank God you don’t don’t stoop to such levels, ADiff.
For instance, writing something like, oh I don’t know, “scientists’ effectively involved in ideological ‘issues advocacy’ like Mann and Jones, and political and economic profiteers like Pachuri and the IPCC and NASA and, let’s not forget, snake-oil politicians like Al ‘Chicken Little’ Gore.”
Yeah, that’s for trolls.
March 26, 2010, 7:02 amWaldo:
****”Surrounded by his worshippers… drinking his hemlock”
Hmmmm…wasn’t Socrates forced to drink hemlock after the oracle decided he was the wisest of all men? And didn’t Socrates prove the oracle correct by making the Athenians look foolish, essentially by pointing out the basic human hubris of conflating their self-delusional pride with wisdom? Didn’t Socrates refuse to recant the truth which made the Athenians even madder?
Yeah, okay, I’ll take the allusion to Socrates for $10,000, Alex (after all, I’m a paid shill).
March 26, 2010, 7:29 amTeaner:
There’s a guy works down the hall from me. He’s got a nameplate that includes all the letters representing his degrees and certifications. He’s a lazy idiot and the most incompetent person in the building. But he’s politically connected, so he keeps his job. If anyone can’t discern what I’m alluding to here, please reread some of Waldo’s smartass comments.
March 26, 2010, 8:03 amWaldo:
Teaner, riiiiiight. Those lazy idiots and their advanced degrees! (As opposed to you who are burning up the corporate ladder, right?) This really makes me think about AGW in a new light.
March 26, 2010, 8:33 amhunter:
Opinions seem to have varied on Socrates, but I think this one is pretty interesting:
“Aristophanes’ play The Clouds portrays Socrates as a clown who teaches his students how to bamboozle their way out of debt.”
But this seems to make it impossible for any AGW sheep to ever be a Socratic figure:
March 26, 2010, 9:15 am“Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of immorality within his region, Socrates worked to undermine the collective notion of “might makes right” so common to Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the “gadfly” of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung Athens), insofar as he irritated the establishment with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the Athenians’ sense of justice may have been the source of his execution.”
After all, if you simply suck up to the authoritarian consensus, you are hardly going to be a gadfly.
Sorry Waldo, that hemlock will not make you immortal, except in your own mind.
ADiff:
It’s most likely the real reasons behind Socrates’ execution was his support for Spartan hegemony over Athens, especially his support for Critias regime (the ‘Thirty Tyrants’) led by a relative of one of this students, Plato. According to Plato he objected to democracy since it refused to adhere to his view society should be strictly ordered according to his views of ‘virtue’, as defined by an elite of philosophers (himself definitely included). His views endorse socially enforced anti-materialism and individual subordination to the State, similar to the organization of the Sparta of which he was apparently enamored.
The ‘squishy’ sciences, like the social sciences, and including the newer multi-disciplinary fields like ‘Ecology’ and ‘Climate Science’ are replete with highly credentialed idiots, touting ponderous theories that are much more philosophical than scientific in the sense they aren’t, or can’t be, demonstrated experimentally. To the extent ‘Climate Science’ is a social science, it’s mostly just academic hogwash of no particular practical value. To the extent it’s real observational fact-driven science, it should ‘butt-out’ of policy advocacy, as it’s not properly any part of science and inevitably corrupts.
March 26, 2010, 9:36 amnetdr:
Most climate alarmists don’t understand the science involved at all.
Their only belief is in “consensus consensus consensus”!
Here is a quote from a book about people that are easily lead around.
“It doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t use your mind. Ideologues forgo independent judgment in favor of having their views handed to them. To succumb to ideology is to put your brain on autopilot.
Ideology preordains your reactions to issues, ideas, and people, your view of politics, philosophy, economics and history. For the true believer ideology is the Rosetta stone of everything.
It provides stock answers conditions responses, and delivers one size fits all explanations for complex political and cultural questions. Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak they are intellectual weaklings – joiners- who defer to systems of belief for charismatic gurus for their ideas.
Why bother thinking when the guru provides all the answers? What’s the use of examining the facts when the system has already determined the real truth. ”
I also recommend “The True Believer “ by Erick Hoffer. I read it while in college and it has shaped my thinking greatly.
I see the climate alarmists as just a modern day incarnation of the true believer.
March 26, 2010, 10:17 amnetdr:
The author of this book must be able to read my mind.
“The primary and most obvious reason people join mass movements and follow ideology is the issues they address.
To view all ideologies as entirely tricked or self-deluded overlooks the fact that at the core of many ideologies is a laudable idea, whether it is the need for a clean environment, a better understanding of other cultures, or equality of opportunity .for the sexes.
Naturally people want to correct the failings they see around them. But dangers arise when the perceived morality of the mission allows immorality- lying for the cause, forcing the “good” upon the society self-righteousness, and so on- to corrupt crusaders.
I have read countless “studies” which seek to magnify the problem not to quantify exactly how big the problem is.
Problems also occur when activists mistake any cause bearing their ideology’s name for a noble one. It is intentions not outcomes that matter for such people. Thus we must separate ideological nonsense from the good idea it clings to.
March 26, 2010, 10:20 amWaldo:
Great quotes. But netdr, don’t you find these same traits in the critics of AGW science? Even a little? It is pretty ironic out here to read that sort of commentary applied only in one direction.
And “consensus” is important to those of us who don’t understand the science because, very simply, we have to choose who we believe. Why should I, a layperson, be asked to believe a handful of outlaying legitimate scientists (because there really are only a handful of legit scientists who viably challenge AGW science)and the amateur blogosphere over the consensus of professional government scientists world-wide? ‘Thinking for oneself’ in these instances implies that one understands the science well enough to deduce its legitimacy – which, you charge, the average proponent of AGW does not – but are you sure that Mr. Meyer and the people here understand the science well enough to ‘think for themselves’ on this count? Look over the posts. Be honest.
Why does your moniker link back to CS?
March 26, 2010, 11:07 amAFineDay:
The idea ‘ordinary’ persons can’t “understand the science” is either a telling indictment of our educational systems, or an inapt insult to ‘ordinary’ people.
March 26, 2010, 11:15 amBargHumer:
@AFineDay
The concept of an “ordinary” person is perhaps quite central to this debate.
What is an “ordinary” person? – I guess by definition it is someone who is not “extra-ordinary”. So who is “extra-ordinary”? surely these are just “ordinary” people who excel in some particular skill. If this is true, then an “ordinary” person is someone who does not excel in anything.
If the “ordinary” person does not excel in anything, it can be because their education was “ordinary”, or absent, or the person had no ability or desire to understand. However, someone may be able to speak 10 languages but not be able to do simple arithmetic. Someone else can make beautiful paintings or carvings but cannot read or write. It starts to make “ordinary” a bit difficult to define.
Anyway, it is clear that many of these scientific discussions are incomprehensible to both the “ordinary” person, and the non-scientific “extra-ordinary” person unless there is someone to teach them, and they are wiling to listen, willing to understand, and are both willing and able to change their mind.
As we get older, our “world view” gets more entrenched and it becomes difficult to accept that it may be wrong. Our experience, selective reading, selective studies, and selective friends tend to re-inforce the “world view” we have “opted” for, or been “conditioned” with.
So where does the “ordinary” person get their “world view” from? TV, newpapers, internet, pub chat, work chat etc,. Mostly from “Mass media” information sources one way or another, with the reliabilty test being “If it’s on the BBC then it must be true”.
Finally then, is the “Mass media” trying to help the “ordinary” person (most of us) to understand the debate or is it trying to force one particular view? If it is one particular view then why and who makes such decisions for the “ordinary” person?
As an “ordinary” person, I am able to understand that there are two sides to every debate, but I also understand enough to see that debates such as this are stifled (or weighted) in the “Mass media”. As Solomon said, “The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.” There is no cross examination!
It seems clear that debate is not wanted, and the “ordinary” person is therefore excluded from any alternate views.
March 26, 2010, 12:51 pmWaldo:
*****”The idea ‘ordinary’ persons can’t “understand the science” is either a telling indictment of our educational systems, or an inapt insult to ‘ordinary’ people.”
Neither. Science is tough stuff. It is takes years of work and expert knowledge to understand properly. This is why we give people M.S., M.D., and PhD degrees – so we ordinary people understand that some people have extraordinary knowledge and insight.
I am an educated, “ordinary” person. I know a little bit about science and a little bit about the scientific method. I do not understand science enough, however, to decide how I stand on a complex issue such as AGW. And I know I don’t know enough.
And I must disagree with BargHummer on one point – there is lots of “cross examination,” in the mass media and elsewhere – but how valid this cross examination is is up to debate.
March 26, 2010, 12:58 pmJack:
Waldo,
Your analogy about the businessman going up against the world of medicine is a little too quaint, I’m afraid. First off, Warren has plenty of credentials behind him in those areas of CS that he focuses on the most. (e.g., feedback, data management, etc.) Secondly, there are many climate skeptics out there — not just one lone heretic. And thirdly, your analogy presupposes that the consensus must be void of any ulterior motive.
You can do better, I think.
March 26, 2010, 2:25 pmhunter:
One of the tactics of the AGW trolls is to pretend that skeptics are not supported by any science, or that all that scientification is just too much for itty bitty lay-people to squeeze into their heads.
March 26, 2010, 2:59 pmIt is obviouisly bogus, and no matter how many times they are shown to be full of used cow food, the trolls stick to it. Obviously, their diet of choice.
AFineDay:
Credentials are just ‘markers’ for knowledge, not knowledge itself. Acquaintance with a lot of recent college post-graduates makes that painfully clear. PhDs by themselves lend no credence or authority, at all. They are entrees to work, but work has to stand on its own, without any appeal to authority. If not, I don’t know what it is, but it ain’t science! Expertise credits persons presumption to competently seek answers, but that don’t mean folks without credentials have to take any on faith. That kind of science has no credibility at all, and we’d be as well off to base our decisions on Religion, since both are then just as reliable, and just creatures of their priesthoods. A bunch of PhDs can come up with any theories they want about nuclear physics, but until they can demonstrate it’s real, with something repeatable like X-Rays or Atom bombs, they can just kiss my ass because I’ve already seen Cold Fusion before. And I ain’t paying 10 cents for that, much less a mega-billion! At least we don’t yet have a Stalin who can tell us we have to accept Lysenko-ism.
March 26, 2010, 3:38 pmWaldo:
Jack, I think you could do a little better. Actually I think you could read my post a little better.
*****”First off, Warren has plenty of credentials behind him in those areas of CS that he focuses on the most. (e.g., feedback, data management, etc.)”
Sure, but does that mean he is the same caliber commentator as a Hansen or a Mann or any of the other world renown experts on climate science? (Yup, you may not like it, but they are world renown) It may be quaint, but it is also accurate. Mr. Meyer, for all his credentials, is still an amateur who must logically devote most of his time to running his small business, not studying climate science. No matter how smart or credentialed he is, he is still not someone who should be a pretender to the throne.
*****”Secondly, there are many climate skeptics out there — not just one lone heretic.”
Never said that. You said that. I said “handful” of “legitimate scientists.” There are plenty of skeptics out there – “legitimate scientists,” not so many.
*****”And thirdly, your analogy presupposes that the consensus must be void of any ulterior motive.”
Yup, the siren call of the conspiracy theory. Which has yet to be proven to anyone but those who want very badly to see conspiracy in science they disagree with (for probably political reasons).
March 26, 2010, 4:14 pmWaldo:
*****”PhDs by themselves lend no credence or authority, at all. ”
We may have to agree to disagree here, FineDay, but I am much more willing to listen to a Ph.D. in climate physics who talks about climate physics than I am a small business owner whose knowledge of the subject is already questionable.
****”They are entrees to work, but work has to stand on its own, without any appeal to authority.”
You do realize that one must do original scientific work to get a Ph.D. don’t you? It must have research, be peer reviewed and accepted by a university science department. From reading you entry, I’m not sure you understand what Ph.Ds are, how one is awarded, or what they do. “Theories,” for instance, only come from demonstrable science (and, yup, AGW has plenty’o'data to support it).
March 26, 2010, 4:23 pmWaldo:
*****”pretend that skeptics are not supported by any science, or that all that scientification is just too much for itty bitty lay-people to squeeze into their heads”
Never said either. hunter hunts strawmen.
But all that “scientification” would be better coming from a scientist. And skeptics are supported by a few legitimate scientists and a great deal of questionable blog-science, which is hunter’s main hunting ground.
March 26, 2010, 4:25 pmJack:
Waldo: “No matter how smart or credentialed he is, he is still not someone who should be a pretender to the throne.”
So credentials *don’t* matter. Is that what you’re saying now?
Waldo, I’m not talking about reality so much as I am about your weak analogy. You were suggesting that Warren was like a business man with no medical background taking on the consensus among doctors. I’m sorry but climate science isn’t that neat. In spite of it’s emerging identity as a legitimate discipline, CS is inextricably connected to other disciplines wherein experts in those particular fields (IMO) are not given enough voice. Surely you’re not suggesting that Hansen and Mann know more about computer modeling than anyone else on Earth. Or that they know more about dynamic systems than the world’s leading mathematicians or engineers. Or that they know how to crunch numbers better than the world’s leading economists.
March 26, 2010, 6:09 pmWaldo:
****”So credentials *don’t* matter. Is that what you’re saying now?”
No Jack. Please pay attention. Mr. Meyer does not have enough or the right kind of credentials. That’s what I am saying.
*****”You were suggesting that Warren was like a business man with no medical background taking on the consensus among doctors. I’m sorry but climate science isn’t that neat.”
And medical science is that “neat”? I’m sorry, but I think it is an extremely apt analogy – we all have our areas of expertise, which means that some people know more about a particular subject (such as medicine or climate physics) than others. That’s why we go see doctors for our hernias rather than Mr. Meyer. If you would rather have Mr. Meyer examine your prostrate, feel free, but I wouldn’t advice it…
****”In spite of it’s emerging identity as a legitimate discipline, CS is inextricably connected to other disciplines wherein experts in those particular fields (IMO) are not given enough voice.”
My understanding of contemporary science is that virtually all of it is interdisciplinary. And that still does not mean that Mr. Meyer is someone whose voice is legitimate in the midst of the evolving din.
*****”Surely you’re not suggesting that Hansen and Mann know more about computer modeling than anyone else on Earth.”
Huh? I don’t think I wrote anything about “computer modeling.” But no, computer programmers know the most about computer modeling. However, Hansen and Mann are world-renown experts on climate physics – and they are foremost experts on what the computer models, among things (including empirical evidence on how the climate is behaving), imply for the future.
****”Or that they know more about dynamic systems than the world’s leading mathematicians or engineers. Or that they know how to crunch numbers better than the world’s leading economists.”
I don’t know how much they know about dynamic systems in comparison to mathematicians, but I believe they work in consort with other scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. who can monte carlo whatever the dynamic duo asks them to. And economists may be able to crunch numbers like a pneumatic press. But does not mean they understand chemistry, physics, heat transfer, etc. etc. I wouldn’t ask Mann and Hansen about economic recovery, why would I ask an economist to “crunch numbers” when discussing climate science?
This is really a very simple idea. And I cannot see how people can argue otherwise.
March 26, 2010, 9:20 pmPaulsNZ:
I know that when one has to lie to prove ones theory of AGW then I know to regard any and all referenced work tainted by the lie as worthless, just as I would judge a dis-honest criminal based on his crime.
March 26, 2010, 11:35 pmhunter:
I just heard an interview with the author of “The Big Short”, about how a rag tag group of misfits and people that Wall St. claimed had no credentials, made billions betting against the Nobel prize winning consensus regarding risk magt. and the mortgage market.
March 27, 2010, 8:53 amThe similarities between the Wall St. side of the argument and our troll Waldo’s argumetns are amazing: a bunch of circular crap that only the promoter of the argument actually finds credible.
Please do continue, Waldo.
Ben:
The one thing that has had me trying to crash the gw scare was the energy and society cost for so little gain…there is no good solution that they propose..its all old ideas that have been shown to be both counter-productive to the environment AND the economy in general.
The Kyoto treaty was never signed not because of industry, but because of an idiot scheme…lets keep the third world dark … And pay them to not industrialize.
However, the one idea that has been proven is that the third world is not only harder on the environment, but that their birth rates are so much higher then the rest of the world that keeping them dark simply increases human’s production and thus increases CO2 over the long-term while we pat ourselves on the back and say “good job”, you pollute less because you pay for indulgances…while in the long-term you are damaging the environment.
Kyoto falls apart because it was never signed by the US…and then we get carbon credits….did’t we learn from Kyoto?
But as this scheme has taken off, good environmental ideas such as a revamp of the US sewage system are never mentioned, nor do we hear about Pollution from China ravaging California, but instead its carbon this, carbon that….when there are real environmental concerns that are simply ignored that are a reality and something we should deal with instead of this so-called global warming.
Good job on a 5 minute discussion that sums this up succintly. The science is something to be discussed elsewhere, here we should discuss the true consequences to the environment as a result of this fiasco…
March 27, 2010, 9:02 amWaldo:
****”when one has to lie to prove ones theory of AGW”
Paul, How do you know it’s a lie?
Ben, your post is rather vague on the details. Could you back up what you said?
****”The similarities between the Wall St. side of the argument and our troll Waldo’s argumetns are amazing”
Really? Should we find out a little bit about the book? The subjects of “The Big Short” are three independent brokers who wagered people would be thrown out of their houses when the economy tanked. If we take your analogy to its logical end, hunter, the investors in the book equal the rogue climate skeptics such as Mr. Meyer. And what is the result of listening to a rogue skeptic? I found this on Barnes & Nobel book reviews, “it was actively harmful, since they [Jamie Mai, Charlie Ledley and Ben Hockett - the rogue investors involved] provided the fuel which kept the subprime mortgage furnace burning even when the country was running out of new junk mortgages to write.” In other words, hunter, your heroes here helped to leave thousands of people homeless and, in fact, added fuel to the economic collapse wile pursuing their own selfish aims. Apt analogy?
Or are you simply reaching for another desperate analogy (between Wall Street and climate science) that has absolutely no bearing on anything? Poor hunter.
****”Please do continue, Waldo.”
Okay! I will.
March 27, 2010, 10:16 amnetdr:
Waldo:
Great quotes. But netdr, don’t you find these same traits in the critics of AGW science? Even a little? It is pretty ironic out here to read that sort of commentary applied only in one direction.
And “consensus” is important to those of us who don’t understand the science because, very simply, we have to choose who we believe. Why should I, a layperson, be asked to believe a handful of outlaying legitimate scientists (because there really are only a handful of legit scientists who viably challenge AGW science)and the amateur blogosphere over the consensus of professional government scientists world-wide? ‘Thinking for oneself’ in these instances implies that one understands the science well enough to deduce its legitimacy – which, you charge, the average proponent of AGW does not – but are you sure that Mr. Meyer and the people here understand the science well enough to ‘think for themselves’ on this count? Look over the posts. Be honest
**********************
I know enough science to evaluate the arguments for and against catastrophic AGW. In my case I began as a tepid believer in AGW, after a period of reading both sides of the argument I became a nonbeliever in catastrophic AGW.
Consensus is a poor reason to believe anything, the number of times consensus has been wrong should be proof of that. Einstein blew the Newtonian consensus up nicely with a TESTABLE THEORY ! If Catastrophic AGW had such a testable theory I would be a believer.
If I knew no science I would choose Dr Hansen over NetDr but to disregard what I know seems silly. There are many credible scientists who’s theories mesh better with my knowledge and experience. The issue of positive feedback seems to me where Dr Hansen has bobbled the ball.
It is my belief that Dr Hansen and the hockey team are such true believers that they have lost all objectivity and cannot be trusted for accurate science. They want to save the world and to do this you must prove the world needs saving.
They have failed so far.
I don’t have to decide between
March 27, 2010, 11:51 amharrywr2:
One neither needs to lie or be dishonest to believe or not believe in AGW.
The Grump Gridded Urban data set, which is used by many in the ‘climate community’ to determine Urban Heat Island effect was recently analyzed. It is accurate 73% of the time. If we can only determine whether a place is currently urban/rural 73% of the time , how can we possibly reconstruct historical changes. Without an ability to reconstruct historical changes then we can not possibly accurately reflect how much ‘Global Warming’ is due to urbanization and how much was due to CO2.
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/M-Z/schneider/schneiderERL2009.pdf
March 27, 2010, 11:59 amFred from Canuckistan:
I would conjecture that waldo is but conjecture.
Or comedy writ large for our amusement.
March 27, 2010, 5:01 pmWaldo:
And I conjecture that Fred has nothing more intelligent or articulate to say than he already has. Ever.
netdr, are you sure you understand the science as well as you think you do? Have you, perhaps, misrepresented some of the “science” you’ve quoted to us? Why does your moniker loop back to CS?
March 27, 2010, 5:49 pmdfbaskwill:
Waldo, you need to get out more. Those Wisconsin towns breed a lot of alcoholics and liberals. (And apparently the occasional serial killer!) Stay safe and visit other parts of this great nation.
March 27, 2010, 6:03 pmcobra:
The vaunted Phd’s said we were going into an ice age 30 years ago, now they think we are going to burn up, I just wish they would make up their minds. I think they may have been right the first time.
March 27, 2010, 7:11 pmWaldo:
Thanks dfbask, but you are wrong at least two counts:
1) Wisconsin is more liberal than, say, Indiana but is actually heartland conservative in virtually all respects. Tell me, are you one of those Penn State golfing alumns who insist on seeing the world in a strict liberal / conservative dichotomy? Not that it matters, but I am just curious.
2) Cheddarheads can drink more than anyone I have ever met with virtually no effect whatsoever (they begin when very young) and thus few are actually alcoholics. And I say this having seen a good deal of this great nation.
Serial killers, yes.
I will get out more when I have finally corrected the last of the CS misinformation.
By the way, 98.125.77.142 is the wrong small town, but nice try at being scary.
And I think this thread may now be dead…
March 27, 2010, 9:38 pmPaulsNZ:
Waldo, Yes I have seen the evidence for temperature adjustments here in my Country, the perpetrator of said adjustments will NOT share his insight into very selective non-logical reasons for adjusting raw data, He was sacked from his post for trying to spread Global Warming catastrophe scares totally out of proportion to the actual situation, Not to mention his belief that Population control was needed to combat Global Warming, clearly an embarrassment to his fellow scientists. Yes he appears in the Climate-Gate emails acting an excitable obedient lapdog, eager to argue black was white to discredit any logical argument, somewhat as you do.
March 28, 2010, 1:52 amhunter:
Waldo,
March 28, 2010, 7:35 amI am so pleased that you never miss an opportunity to avoid thinking.
It is a hallmark of the AGW true believer, and is no different from tulipomania or any of the other mindless popular delusions in history.
dfbaskwill:
My first visit to La Crosse Wisconsin had me stuck on the road from the airport in a cab for two hours in -23 degree weather, as the police investigated a burning headless body on the side of the road. They never found the killer. It otherwise was a great month, never getting above 20 degrees while I was there. This was back in the day when the coming Ice Age was promulgated by Hansen et al, and I could serve as a designated driver for all the other “serious” students. They all were very drunk nearly every night; their resistance to ethyl alcohol must have been turned off! It may have changed by now. I hope so.
And me scary? Never. I also never hide my identity, although describing me as a golfer is quite a stretch. Most of my friends are liberal, which I never hold against them. PSU is blue and white, not black and white. I’m told donations are down significantly because of Michael Mann, as I suspected they would be.
March 28, 2010, 7:59 amWaldo:
Pauls, who are you writing about? Just name him or her. I rather imagine you are exaggerating or even just making up a good many things there and, on some level, know it. Therefore you prefer to remain mysterious in your allusion. If what you write is true, let’s look up this person and see what they did.
dfbask, sounds like Wisconsin. Donations to colleges are down everywhere, way down actually, not just Penn State where climate scientists work. This probably has a lot more to do with the state of the economy than it does with AGW. Who told you Mann was affecting the donation pool? (Please tell me you aren’t a follower of the Commonwealth Foundation)
hunter is an interesting character. He has a pattern. His comments are always derivative from other comments (for anyone actually following the thread, “critical thinking” has been a repeated charge). Usually his commentary has to do with something he overheard (such as “The Big Short” above) but did not investigate or is simply boilerplate denialist clap-trap. hunter usually begins with some unfounded, poorly researched claims; when these don’t work he rattles off some of his boilerplate clap-trap; and when this doesn’t work he simply unloads the insults. His behavior is far more trollish than virtually anyone on the boards, with the exception of hunter #2, and yet he seems to think that he will prove something with repeated ‘you’re a troll’ accusations. Funny guy, that.
March 28, 2010, 11:18 amPaulsNZ:
No need to name the idiot, He has proved to one and all that his work in climate science was, is Bent. Much like you. The funniest thing is that he thought he could get away with it, such is the mind of a hubris type.
March 28, 2010, 12:01 pmdfbaskwill:
No, but I’ll look them up. And I was told donations are down BECAUSE of Michael Mann. I took it to mean over and above our current economic malaise. It was very specific information from someone involved with financing and donations. I feel for the students, as Penn State already receives the lowest subsidy of any state institution in America.
March 28, 2010, 12:27 pmWaldo:
I disagree, Pauls, there is a need to name the idiot. You made a claim. Now back it up. Validate yourself.
I do wonder, dfbask – if it is, in fact, true that Mann’s presence on the Penn State campus is hurting giving rates – should we blame him? After all, science is supposed to be objective and tell the truth no matter who or what gets hurt. In other words, if the giving rate is down, blame the ideologues, not the scientists who offended them.
March 28, 2010, 12:51 pmdfbaskwill:
But what if the scientist and the ideologue are one in the same? You haven’t even considered the most likely scenario! (The definition of ideologue, by the way.)
March 28, 2010, 1:27 pmBargHumer:
@Waldo and anyone else
Again, speaking only as a “ordinary” person but also being British and living in a European land where I understand very little of the language, I am limited to a daily diet of the BBC and CNN, plus what I find on the internet. The only debates I have seen where a so called climate skeptic was on the “panel” was one where the skeptic wasn’t a skeptic about climate change or even the worst case scenario, but only skeptical about spending the money because in his view it was probably too late to avert the catastrophe, better to prepare for it and use the money wisely. I have seen some interviews where the interviewer was clearly already a dyed in the wool AGWer as reflected in a slight mocking attitude and slanted questions – the Interviewee on the other hand was gracious, very composed and able to deal with the usuall questions eloquently, but still no debate.
On the internet, there are lots of items with preachers to the converted but that is not debate.
Copenhagen was a city of two conferences but no debate about the science, only about money again.
What goes on in a blog isn’t really debate, even though it can be informative and interesting. So please tell me where are the debates taking place between Alarmists and Deniers? – I just want to know so I can follow them.
March 28, 2010, 1:53 pmWaldo:
****”But what if the scientist and the ideologue are one in the same? You haven’t even considered the most likely scenario!”
Well, I only seen scant to no evidence for former, and you have no way of knowing whether or not I’ve considered the latter. Why is this the “most likely scenario”? (Particularly given the commentary here)
March 28, 2010, 2:21 pmPaulsNZ:
Here’s the link Waldo, You show me the maths that explains where raw data for one reliable station shows a negative trend over a long time period after “adjusting” the trend over the same period is now positive.. Only a bare faced lie can explain that. Ask the author for his take on it, He might speak to you, I think he’s hiding somewhere under a rock, awaiting a date with the courts.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/02/niwa-loses-opts-for-fresh-start/
March 28, 2010, 4:55 pmWaldo:
Ohhhhkay Pauls, very interesting on a number of counts.
1. The site linked above says nothing about math. It is one long whine about the NIWA and simply accuses the NIWA of adjusting an “NZ temperature series.” It was not very convincing. This is a blog (why is it always a blogsite?) with the tagline “Taking the heat out of global warming.” Yeah, some objective thought process there. By the end I was not sure how Climate Conversion came to their claims about the NIWA, but I figure that is probably an ongoing conversation and would only make sense with a good deal of back-reading and checking up, and there is only so much of that I am willing to do in this case simply because I’ve already lost faith with your source (why did you link to this?) (And, by the way, one need not dig very far to find that NIWA scientists have made some compelling responses to charges just like these – I’ll leave you to look for them if you dare)
2. I believe the scientist you are referring to is Jim Salinger – why didn’t you just spell his name out for us? He was fired from the NIWA for violating their media policy and talking to a reporter without having his comments pre-approved by the organization. In other words, Pauls, he was not “sacked from his post for trying to spread Global Warming catastrophe scares totally out of proportion to the actual situation.” You made that up. Salinger was sacked by the NIWA, that’s it. You do realize that on numerous occasions here on CS posters have accused the “alarmists” of “silencing critics” or “squashing dissent” or some such. But here you applaud a scientist for being fired for speaking his mind. Interesting.
However, as I predicted, you have exaggerated some things and made up a others. Later on someone here will accuse “alarmists” of fear mongering and spreading lies and the like. But none will challenge you when you make the sorts of claims that you did above.
March 28, 2010, 6:55 pmhunter:
Waldo,
March 28, 2010, 7:56 pmIf you ever come up with anything that calls for more than simple comments or answers, they will be provided.
But since you are just a fairly polite troll, why should I bother?
You come up with something more original to defend AGW, and you will get more in return.
Stay in your tight rep rate of AGW dogma and calls for authority, and mantras about how unworthy skeptics are, and there is no need for more than to point out what a pompous ass you are.
Waldo:
See March 28, 11:18 a.m. hunter. Case in point.
March 28, 2010, 8:26 pmPaulsNZ:
Hi Waldo,
in response.. Yes the adjustments that were made to selected sites do indeed need further investigation, and Yes Jim was the scientist at the heart of the mis-understanding.
Its unfortunate for Jim who was a lead author for the IPCC that garnered the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore in 2007 to be sacked for such a silly thing?.
Its not every day that a contributor to a Nobel Peace Prize gets sacked so I didn’t want to cloud the issue of who this person was out of respect for his obvious genius.
But no doubt you could email Jim and find answer’s to the selected adjustment methodology. It would save a lot of time for NIWA who are busy re-creating the adjustments in a transparent way.
March 29, 2010, 12:31 amhunter:
I know it is pearls before trolls, but here is a pretty clear review of AGW:
March 29, 2010, 5:55 amhttp://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
written by this guy:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#bio
But our trolls will slink around it and continue to do what they do- act the snarky fools.
Waldo:
Oh hunter. Have you researched James A Penden at all? Did you take good look at that website? Oh hunter.
“I didn’t want to cloud the issue of who this person was out of respect for his obvious genius.”
Say what? I will simply refer back to your earlier post, Pauls…
March 29, 2010, 6:13 amhunter:
Waldo,
March 29, 2010, 9:18 amAs predicted, a troll is as a troll does.
Keep on.
Your continued use of self-referential reasons to beleive in AGW and to ignore skeptics works as well for climate alarmism as it does for religions.
You exemplify wy people are walking away from the AGW world view.
Whether or not PaulNZ meets your criteria or not, the fact is that data collection and management is an issue that does not do AGW promoters any good.
Waldo:
hunter,
And as predicted you found a completely disreputable source (actually, it is almost impossible to determine who the author of your link is, but someone did try here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/12/he-has-another-list.html) and this made you happy. Note that there is no way to verify any of James A. Peden’s claims about himself and that there is a “donate” button at the bottom of the page. Tell me, hunter, who developed modulated beam mass spectrometry?
Then, as predicted, you accused me of the being the troll here.
Then you rambled incoherently (have you been drinking this morning, hunter?) about “religions” after having just posted an extremely questionable Internet blog that gives you as true-believer a statement as one could ask for.
Plus there is no “criteria” for Pauls statements – he simply made things up. It’s not difficult, hunter.
I actually don’t blame hunter here – he is doing the best he can. But for a bunch of people bound and determined to hold AGW scientists accountable, the CS tribe is sure willing to turn a blind eye.
March 29, 2010, 9:37 amTean:
I wish there was another troll here besides Waldo. At first he was a bit interesting, but now he’s just boring and repetitive. I know … Waldo, register under a different name and email and you can keep yourself company here! That’s what a true kool aid drinking, superiority complex-driven, climate catastrophe disciple would do.
March 29, 2010, 12:09 pmJim H:
Waldo
March 29, 2010, 12:19 pmit is interesting to witness your obvious ability in pedantic dissection and semantics. I feel your trust in climate science (what is that? can you get degrees in it?) is misplaced as climate/weather is not regulated by one simple input. When all scientists, from every possible field affecting climate, compare notes and agree that GW is purely anthropogenic then that would be believable.
I do not see you posting on W.U.W.T, are there too many scientists for you?
Waldo:
Well Jim, I never said climate science was “regulated by one simple input.” How did you get on that? Oh, I know – strawman. I’m not sure what you meant by the “get a degree” comment – but I believe one can get a degree in physics, specializing in climate physics, or meteorology, or any number of other disciplines, if that’s what you meant. (Kind of a weird statement.)
****”When all scientists, from every possible field affecting climate, compare notes and agree that GW is purely anthropogenic then that would be believable.”
Oh really? Well, since CS is an evolving discipline it will probably be a while before “all scientists” agree on anything – and I’m not sure that “all scientists” ever agree. And even then, Jim, I am willing to bet my buttons you will not accept it. You don’t want to, so you won’t.
For the record I don’t know if AGW is real or not. I’m not a scientist. But I do know that sites like this one are full of the mentality which will write things like “That’s what a true kool aid drinking, superiority complex-driven, climate catastrophe disciple would do.” And Tean will never realize how self-reflective that statement is.
I don’t know about W.U.W.T. – I’ll check it out.
March 29, 2010, 12:32 pmJim H:
Waldo
March 29, 2010, 1:27 pmYou do make some good comments and I certainly appreciate the lack of vitriol and invective that seems to pepper these blogs (both sides). I did not, however, mention my view on AGW merely posted questions. As it happens the initial evidence persuaded me it was a possiblility but now I doubt it is manmade. Like you, I am not a scientist and do not do any experiments in climate science but I am reasonably intelligent and, thanks to the explosion of information available, I research all points before making my decision.
Waldo:
Good for you, Jim. I also try to research and understand as much as I can about the subject.
My problem with sites like CS is that I suspect a good deal of what Mr. Meyers publishes is misinformation, highly selective information cherry picked to lead to a certain conclusion, politically driven information, or simply amateurish misinterpretation of complex scientific theories. He then goes public with this material as if he is an actual authority (for all the accusations of “appeals to authority,” there are endless appeals to authority from the folks that post here). This is extremely irresponsible on Mr. Meyer’s part. If AGW is real, then it is very troubling.
Finally, CS and sites like it (including Watts’) are predicated on very personal, vitriolic, politicized attacks on people like Mann, Hansen, and the rest of the AGW group. There is actually very little science and a great deal of cross-posted vehement opinion on sites like CS. Paranoia and the cult of victimhood play into this tone as well.
And while I respect that you do research your claims, do you really know enough to judge? I do not mean this as an insult but as an honest question. I do not know enough to really judge the claims for or against AGW. I think we would all be much better off if we all admitted it was over our heads and let the scientists hash it out.
March 29, 2010, 1:39 pmJim H:
Waldo
March 29, 2010, 1:52 pmThanks for the comment but I do not claim to judge, merely form a personal opinion. I do not get involved in discussions, verbal or written, to try to change others opinions but try to get people to see all sides. As you have said people form opinions on trace evidence and then will not view any other side but by the same token many people still believe spinach contains more iron than any other vegetable because the facts were not as well communicated as the fiction.
netdr:
It is misleading to say that the work of thousands of scientists verify that there is a climate crisis.
The slight warming which has taken place is valid although the amount has been amplified for political reasons and natural causes have been minimized for the same reasons. Some warming may be caused by CO2.
The basic 1.2 o C for doubling of CO2 looks correct also. The thousands of scientists could be said to support this amount of warming. The persistence of CO2 has also been inflated to make the argument stronger but that is for another post.
It is the handful of scientists that take this non crisis and turn it into a crisis for whatever reasons that have gotten it wrong. They take CO2′s puny warming and multiply it by 6 or more with positive feedback which studies are proving is really negative feedback. This turns a non crisis into a crisis.
March 29, 2010, 2:12 pmWally:
Waldo,
“My problem with sites like CS is that I suspect a good deal of what Mr. Meyers publishes is misinformation, highly selective information cherry picked to lead to a certain conclusion, politically driven information, or simply amateurish misinterpretation of complex scientific theories.”
The key here is that you SUSPECT that, but you have no proof. You yourself even say that “I do not know enough to really judge the claims for or against AGW.” If that is true, how can you tell what is “misinformation, highly selective information cherry picked?” It obviously follows from your own statements that you can’t, thus your suspicion is admittedly based on nothing factual and leaves the door wide open for us to guess at your real motives, such as maybe a politically driven agenda or at best an “amateurish misinterpretation of complex scientific theories.” Leaving your statements of your suspicion which are admittedly based on non-existent knowledge or information as pure “personal, vitriolic, politicized attacks.”
So while at times you attempt to come of a reasonable individual, admitting your limitations, closer examination reveals you for what you are, a troll. You are clearly hypocritical, never discuss the actual science, and continually personally attack the author of the blog. You are here for no other reason but to incite.
Lastly,
“And while I respect that you do research your claims, do you really know enough to judge? I do not mean this as an insult but as an honest question.”
If you don’t know enough to “judge” the theories based on actual scientific evidence, how can you even judge if someone else understands the scientific evidence? Obviously that’s rhetorical, you can’t. All you can do is fall back onto your misplaced trust in a degree. You have this mistaken belief that the only way your opinion can be credible is if you’ve published X articles in the field. Well, I’m pretty sure Einstein was flat out genius, a no doubt expert in his field, but boy was he wrong on quantum mechanics.
March 29, 2010, 3:50 pmPaulsNZ:
Waldo, Yes after listening to Jim on radio here in NZ I can honestly say that Jim has lost the plot, He preaches catastrophe scenarios where none exist. He truly believes his own lies. Thank-you for questioning my conclusions that one lie can call into question any and all related work based around that lie.. Its proved correct.
March 30, 2010, 3:45 amBrian N.:
I think what Waldo was asking for was the person’s confidence in their assessment. It’s both a valid question and a clever trap. If the person admits to (and specifies) where they are uncertain, they are generally trustworthy. If they stonewall and claim the infallibility of institutional authority or hide behind their credentials then they are generally untrustworthy. At least, that’s been my experience…
March 30, 2010, 6:21 amWaldo:
Well Paul in New Zealand, I’m not sure I followed your post exactly (now Jim is “preaching catastrophe scenarios” when before we was a “genius” and before that he was “perpetrator”?) except that you seem convinced of the “lie” which exposes all the other “lies.” But what exactly these lies were is unproven except that you are convinced that he lied. Seems rather circular. But again, the scientist in question was fired because he violated his organizations media policy. I suspect you didn’t know this and filled in the blanks based on a preconceived notion of any number of things.
Interesting.
Not sure what you are talking about Brian. I was asking about anyone’s “confidence in their assessment” or trying to set some sort of rhetorical trap. I was asking if anyone here actually knew what was going on. Which they didn’t. Which is a hallmark of this site and many like it.
March 30, 2010, 8:09 pmWaldo:
And Wally, Wally, Wally, why do we keep going over and over the same territory again?
Two posters on this thread have accused me of repeating myself and being unoriginal – but what chance do I have when people keep asking me the same questions again and again? I mean, it’s hardly fair, is it?
I have been posting for several months now about why I distrust Mr. Meyer and am critical of the entire denialist mentality. I know you’ve been reading them. And there are plenty of examples of this mentality here on this thread alone. So I am unmotivated to expand to any great length here.
But sure, Mr. Meyer might just win the Nobel Prize this year for all I know. But I very, very, very seriously doubt it – particularly since the few visits to CS from actual scientists clearly indicate that Mr. Meyer does not know what he is talking about.
So let’s take things in a new direction.
This is Dr. Joseph Mercola: http://www.mercola.com/
I am unwilling to trust Dr. Mercola or follow his advice for reasons that I hope would be obvious to anyone with even minimal thinking skills after visiting his site. But perhaps, since I know even less about medical science than I do about climate science, I should simply believe what he has posted here? Or should I use some good common sense to critique what he is trying to sell me? Would you trust this fella? After all, he has more credentials in the area of medicine than Mr. Meyer has in the area of climate science. I mean, we aren’t really concerned about academic or professional credentials, now are we?
What I think would be most interesting though, Wally, is if you held Mr. Meyer to the same level of scrutiny and transparency that you do AGW entities. Now that would be a day worth waiting for.
What would even be more interesting than that, however, would be peer-review of Mr. Meyers science. If Mr. Meyers science is indeed solid, have him publish it nationally after review. What? The evil AGW scientists are blocking opposing viewpoints?! Really? Actually, there are a fair number of critical studies published in places like Nature and Science. Remember the “250 peer-reviewed papers critical of AGW” boondoggle a while back. Most were pretty questionable – but in the midst were a number of high-profile, high-impact journals with papers critical of AGW. Go to any Ebscohost or ProQuest search engine – you’re a scientist – look it up. AGW critical peer-reviewed literature is out there; have Mr. Meyer join the chorus of dissenting scientists in the proving ground of peer-review. Or perhaps he’d rather do lunch dates with community groups and blog postings. Much less critical audience there.
March 30, 2010, 8:35 pmWaldo:
D’oh! On review I see that I left out two apostrophe “‘s.” Very embarrassing and brings down the entire level of discussion here. Sorry.
March 30, 2010, 8:38 pmWally:
Waldo,
We go in circles because you make the same mistakes over and over. Mostly your appeal to authorities (nobel prizes, a ph.d. or nature journals it doesn’t matter) or your appeals to ridicule. You rarely, if ever, actually deal with the science being discussed. You regularly disparage Meyer’s argument simply because they appear on a blog and that he doesn’t go through peer review. You even do that in this latest post. But all peer review is there for is attempt to ensure that good science is being done. It isn’t a perfect system, and it isn’t the only system either. Meyer’s posts his work for all to read and judge for themselves. Its nothing more than a type of open review (and regular journals have experiments with this as well). Now you could, if you wanted, put in the required time to critically evaluate Meyer’s work (and at times I’ve been critical of his methods), but you take the lazy route and simply attack the source. I know the source, you attacking it is not convincing. I will review the actual work, and the more rational of the readers here will do the same.
March 30, 2010, 10:30 pmhunter:
Wally,
March 31, 2010, 6:04 amAGW is at heart a movement not really any different from other popular manias. It is larger. It is not trading in tulips or offering hopes of a master race, instead its mania is centered on a climate crisis that only exists in the minds of its believers.
This leaves little room for the true believers to do more than we see here and elsewhere.
William Larsen:
I was surfing the Internet for information, and found your site. Some of your temperature charts are included in a report I have been writing for several years. My paper was originally titled “Global Climate,” but I finally had to change it to “Compendium on Global Climate.” I thought I had finished the paper until I decided that the ocean acidification problem had to be addressed. The Al Gore camp is really using coral desication as a trump card. Any thoughts on how to tie present oceanic chemistry to paleo-oceanic chemistry? Acidic vs. basic carbonate oceanic chemistry is complex, and I believe that if I get the opportunity to present the paper, this question will come up. Not having a good reply could destroy my creditability and purpose of the talk. Thanks, Bill L.
March 31, 2010, 4:09 pmLance:
Well, I think the alarmist position is better described as a car on top of Mount Everest with no brakes, full of children and puppies, being shoved by CO2 then accelerating to Mach 1, breaking the sound barrier and the crust of the earth. It continues to accelerate through the center of the earth and then blows through the other side on it’s way to the speed of light or the extinction of all life in the universe, which ever comes first.
April 2, 2010, 9:11 pmPaulsNZ:
Congratulations Waldo, you have got the point…A lot of the AGW proof is a circular debate based on a lie.
April 3, 2010, 6:04 pmIt’s interesting you use the “deniable mentality” Just like Old Jim did in his radio speech. His belief was that because he is jewish he is allowed to call climate skecptic’s “deniers”, Not only did he cause his science to be called into disrespect but a good portion of Jewish people castigated him for being an idiot.
So you see the genius of a man prove himself to be an idiot!. QED.
The Merovingian:
There is one problem with Mr. Meyer’s example of the climate as a car. One extremely massive and undeniable problem. A problem that even though it is irrefutable science, neither side of the climate debate seemingly wishes to address. Alas, denial is the most predictable aspect of human nature.
Our climate is in fact not only perched on the top of that large hill, it has already slowly started on it’s inevitable and uncontrollable downhill slide, to an ultimate catastrophic crash.
That which has given us life will ultimately take it away.
Each second, the sun is converting more than four million metric tons of matter (hydrogen) into energy. The fact that we as a species do not want to consider it, does not negate the fact that the sun is now middle aged and each second is endlessly converting it’s massive but yet still limited supply of “fuel” into helium.
Because of this, the sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years) and it’s surface temperature is slowly rising. One estimate, gives the window of opportunity for life to exist on this planet somewhere between another half billion to one billion years.
Granted that catastrophic crash is still hopefully a long time away. But in the meantime, the planet as a whole and on the average is going to be getting incrementally warmer.
It does not seem out of the realm of possibility that any “nudge” we humans are providing is merely providing that car with just a wee bit more momentum.
Oh yeah, and just for good measure we should not forget the gradual slowing of the earth’s rotation, which is only going to exacerbate the problem and make that crash happen possibly just a little sooner.
April 4, 2010, 9:09 amWaldo:
*****”We go in circles because you make the same mistakes over and over. Mostly your appeal to authorities (nobel prizes, a ph.d. or nature journals it doesn’t matter)”
Now Wally, let’s really examine what you are suggesting here. My “mistakes,” as you put it, revolves around the credentials of the person asking me to believe something they’ve said or written. As I’ve said too numerously to count, as a layperson I have to be able to trust my source. If my source is questionable, then I can’t trust them. I simply cannot fathom how this thinking is a “mistake.”
Actually, if we think about it, this is the denialist rational when dealing with AGW – again and again the denialist camp charges AGW scientists with tampering with their evidence; at heart, this is the argument against AGW: the evidence cannot be trusted because Mann, Hansen, the IPCC et al are untrustworthy (usually these charges [unproven, I might add] have something to do with “gravy”). This same level of scrutiny and observation is not given to posters like Mr. Watts or Mr. Meyer, however, and suggesting that Mr. Meyer is perhaps unqualified to comment (heavens forbid that we ask for “qualified” scientific commentators) is tantamount to suggesting that everyone and anyone has the same level of legitimacy for topics such as climate science.
In other words, if I follow your argument, everyone’s opinion carries the same weight no matter how much fist hand knowledge, professional training or education they have. I am trying very hard not to make a strawman argument out of your comment and I think I’ve got the gist of it. Am I wrong in my understanding? It is, if I follow you, a “mistake” to follow those people who have the most qualifications –Nobel prize winners, a Ph.D. in the discipline or articles published high-impact peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. Why has never been adequately explained – usually the “why” of the matter is that scientists have a vested interest in AGW, something never proven. The other argument seems to be that we need to challenge these scientists because they are trying to restructure the economy – again, fairly unproven.
How this is not patently obvious I just do not know. Again Wally, if the world works this way then design your own highway, treat yourself for gall-stones, build your own space shuttle. Or do these people not have a vested interest in seeing their science succeed?
I have to say, Wally, for a guy with your intelligence and background, this is simply the flimsiest assertion you could make. Some of the commentators here don’t really have the brainpan to think about these things, but you do. If what you post were true, would you follow Dr. Mercola’s advice (you never answered that one) because it is a type of open review. Or how about “The Flat Earth Society”? http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
I know almost nothing about geography, cartography, astrophysics and I have never personally seen the earth from orbit. In fact, everything I’ve personally seen would suggest that the Earth is, in fact, flat. Do I believe them? What do you think, Wally? Should I go with the “experts” on this one or should I review the science?
*****“ You rarely, if ever, actually deal with the science being discussed.”
Be fair. I have on a number of occasions asked sincere questions – usually to have them go unanswered (which makes me wonder how well people really do understand the “science” here). And on the occasions when I have tried to examine the “science,” people have gotten furious. Remember the “250 papers”? I did examine a number of them and people got so angry several swore they’d never talk to me again and I haven’t heard from them since. Hell, I tried to ask netdr (who never answered why his/her/its moniker links back to CS) some questions only to have him/her/it disappear.
****** “You regularly disparage Meyer’s argument simply because they appear on a blog and that he doesn’t go through peer review. You even do that in this latest post.”
You are correct. I am extremely dubious about blog-science and I am becoming more dubious every time I come here. I would be much more willing to believe something that is peer-reviewed.
**** “But all peer review is there for is attempt to ensure that good science is being done.”
Good. We agree. Experts review experts to make sure that, oh I don’t know, a poster doesn’t misinterpret, misunderstand, misquote or cherry-pick data. We wouldn’t want to follow someone who does that, now would we?
**** “It isn’t a perfect system”
Never said it was. Obviously Lindzen’s papers get through.
****”and it isn’t the only system either. Meyer’s posts his work for all to read and judge for themselves.”
Is that really, truly what is going on here though, Wally? Are people critically reviewing the science? Do you honestly think hunter or PaulsNZ are judging the science? Or is this site is clearinghouse for likeminded amateurs and a good deal of personal, political vitriol directed at people and organizations who publish things they, the posters here, dislike?
**** “I know the source, you attacking it is not convincing.”
I know the source, and you defending it is not convincing. In fact, I am becoming even more convinced I am right every time I come here.
***** “I will review the actual work, and the more rational of the readers here will do the same.”
Only on the rare occasion does this site have a “rational” reader. Only on a rare occasion does anyone actually review the science.
I think you’re in denial, Wally.
April 5, 2010, 3:19 pmSeth:
I have read through the comments above, and I’ve got to give props to Waldo here and look askance at some of the skeptics or deniers who have been replying to him. Your arguments and assertions are reasonable. Your questions are good. But skeptics, are using words like trolls and demeaning phrases not simply counter productive to having a real debate. When Waldo ‘attacks’ the character of the blog writer, gives good reason for taking his conclusions with a grain of salt. However you reply by calling him stupid and a troll… or maybe I’m putting words into your mouth. These tactics remind me of a more playground bully attitude of “I’m right and your wrong. Say it or I’ll punch you!” than anything. In any case, for my own position the science is *not* settled, especially the catastrophic part, but go ahead and paint me with a target as well for defending the ‘troll’ on this blog. Such small words do little to help find the truth of the matter.
There have also been some good and measured responses as well, which I am glad to see. The point I wish to make however is one made by BargHumer on March 28th, which is that there is little true debate, at least that I can find on the science. For all of the blog debates that I have found, for the ‘few legitimate scientists’ that you refer to Waldo, there is little open debate about the possible fallacies of AGW. And many of the arguments against it make a lot of sense… why don’t the experts address them? Openly. With experts on both sides. Why is there not more open conversation from the ones who do know? That for me calls a big question into being.
Because lets face it, the world has been a lot hotter in the past than it is right now. Are we really all going to die because of this? Plants eat carbon for god sakes. It’s their food. And the Blogger made a good point when he said that we are predicting the future of the entire Earth Climate 1. without completely understanding it (that there have been meaningful advances in understanding the climate model in recent years point this out clearly enough), and 2. We have only been directly studying the atmosphere with real accuracy for 60 some odd years… these things are enough to shed doubt. So where is the real discussion between experts happening? Point me to it, and let’s be done with this name calling mumbo jumbo.
April 14, 2010, 9:41 pmWaldo:
Actually Seth, places like Real Climate do often post responses to sites just like this one and offer counter-arguments to many of the typical anti-AGW charges.
But I imagine it would be nearly impossible to have an actual “debate” on the subject – the science is much too complicated and denialist science is often simplistic, watered-down versions for, quite frankly, people who do not have a competent understanding.
Besides, the people here don’t really want actual “debate.” They’d rather have Climate Skeptic.
And who cares if they call me, or anyone for that matter, “troll.” Sticks and stones. Plus it means that the conversation is dying and certain parties are frustrated.
April 15, 2010, 7:59 pm