This quote from Michael Mann is a great example of two common rhetorical tactics of climate alarmists:
And so I think we have to get away from this idea that in matters of science, it’s, you know, that we should treat discussions of climate change as if there are two equal sides, like we often do in the political discourse. In matters of science, there is an equal merit to those who are denying the reality of climate change who area few marginal individuals largely affiliated with special interests versus the, you know, thousands of scientists around the world. U.S. National Academy of Sciences founded by Abraham Lincoln back in the 19th century, all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.
Here are the two tactics at play here:
- He is attempting to marginalize skeptics so that debating their criticisms is not necessary. He argues that skeptics are not people of goodwill; or that they say what they say because they are paid by nefarious interests to do so; or that they are vastly outnumbered by real scientists (“real” being defined as those who agree with Dr. Mann). This is an oddly self-defeating argument, though the media never calls folks like Mann on it. If skeptics’ arguments are indeed so threadbare, then one would imagine that throwing as much sunlight on them as possible would reveal their bankruptcy to everyone, but instead most alarmists are begging the media, as in this quote, to bury and hide skeptics’ arguments. I LOVE to debate people when I know I am right, and have pre-debate trepidation only when I know my position to be weak.
- There is an enormous bait and switch going on in the last sentence. Note the proposition is stated as “humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.” I, and many other skeptics, don’t doubt the first part and would quibble with the second only because so much poor science occurs in attributing specific instances of climate change to human action. What most skeptics disagree with is an entirely different proposition, that humans are warming the planet to catastrophic levels that justify immensely expensive and coercive government actions to correct. Skeptics generally accept a degree or so of warming from each doubling of CO2 concentrations but reject the separate theory that the climate is dominated by positive feedback effects that multiple this warming 3x or more. Mann would never be caught dead in public trying to debate this second theory of positive feedback, despite the fact that most of the warming in IPCC forecasts is from this second theory, because it is FAR from settled. Again, the media is either uninterested or intellectually unable to call him on this.
I explained the latter points in much more detail at Forbes.com
Okay—there is a conversation regarding water vapor. And once again there’s Pielke.
Don’t you think your question would be better posed to Gavin at Real Climate?
If we return to Mann’s comment via Meyer above, Mann is simply saying what has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread: the good peeps here don’t really know what they are talking about. Some of you know a few things, but that’s about it. Some of you have yet to demonstrate that you have more than a Wikipedia understanding of a phenomenon such as water vapor (such as Will above). Some of you have been reduced to juvenile behavior (see Ted’s post above). And some of you simply don’t know what you are talking about at all.
This is why a mechanism like peer review is so damn important. One can have any dumb opinion or interpretation on a blog-post.
I’m sure there is a great deal of information on vapor forcings. People have written dissertations on the subject, no doubt, and dedicated many hours to its research. How can any of you expect to keep up?
By the way, if Gavin did not post something you think is relevant, Paul, you might lower your radar a bit and think about the circumstance—what he provided was a short, perfunctory response to my post, nothing more. If you did your research, I’m willing to bet many of your questions would actually be answered.
What I think is most interesting is how afraid of the actual scientists the good peeps here are. No one ventures over to Real Climate, for instance, and clearly the defensiveness against a well-accepted process of science.
In addition to the Germans, the Spaniards, Brits, and many others are having second thoughts re wind and solar. The problems have been much described earlier. As the amount of wind and solar capacity increases, these problems become impossible to hide. When only a tiny amount of energy was so produced, the shortcomings were hidden in the huge conventional energy system. This is clearly a situation that is coming to an end.
The complaint that I see many unethical engineers/scientists in the woodwork brings a smile to my lips. Utilities are required by law to buy ALL the wind/solar at an inflated price. In Spain, it was found that the solar companies were producing power at night! It turns out that they were running their standby diesel generators to sell power to the utilities at the inflated price. Where there is cheese, there are rats (Spanish or otherwise).
A whole industry has grown up to take advantage of government subsidies (R&D grants, prototype plants, subsidized power price, etc.). Anyone who has any understanding of human nature will see that the rats coming out of the woodwork is an inevitable consequence of these programs. We are being turned into a bunch of crooks by such USG programs.
Until the USG gets out of the picture and leaves energy progress in the hands of competitive free enterprise, this mess will continue. Good ideas will be pursued and bad ideas abandoned by competent businessmen and engineers, WITHOUT intervention by self-serving idiot politicians.
Last sentence should read:
“…and clearly the defensiveness against a well-accepted process of science is the result of well-placed insecurity.”
Waldo: The links on water vapor feedback are intended for anyone who is interested learning about the issue. I do understand that you are not a member of that group.
Waldo: “Don’t you think your question would be better posed to Gavin at Real Climate?”
No, I think that Pielke,Sr. and Dessler, along with the other article I cite, delineate the issues better than Gavin is likely to in a response to a blog post. If you want to ask Gavin whether his position differs in any significant way from Dessler’s, that might be an interesting question you could ask.
I think the links illustrate well the point that Warren makes in his main post.
Waldo, another way to look at this is to think what would happen if this actually were true, and absolute humidity would be approximately constant when the climate warms up. It would mean that relative humidity would go down by some 7% for every degree of warming. And it is relative humidity that controls the formation of clouds and precipitation.
Clouds form when locally, relative humidity exceeds 100%. Lower relative humidity means less clouds; how much less, I couldn’t tell; clouds are tricky and also the big unknown in current models. But less clouds means a lower albedo, bringing in though the back door a positive feedback again… and about precipitation, we as a society are much more dependent upon that than upon constant temperature. Summa summarum, the (fortunately counterfactual) absence of the water vapour feedback would concern me more, not less.
Note also that going back to the ice ages, the glacial-interglacial temperature swing cannot be explained without full water vapour feedback on top of both the ice sheet albedo and CO2 effects. Fortunately, because with constant absolute water vapour, relative humidity would be some 5×7%=35% higher than today, and the last glacial maximum would be (counter to what we think we know) a foggy, soggy place…
Comment by Martin Vermeer — 15 Mar 2012 @ 12:58 AM
An interesting summary of the wind and solar energy situation in Germany may be found at:
thepanelist.net
The article is titled: German Solar Subsidies. Gone With The Wind.
Waldo says: “And once again there’s Pielke.”
Other than the fact the Dr. Pielke, Sr. is an excellent example of a scientist that alarmists have attempted to marginalize, I was wondering whether you could explain what you have against him.
The study in the PNAS study on “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” lists him one of most widely published and cited climate scientists. Before he retired he had 369 peer-reviewed published articles. http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/pubs/
Waldo: I see you got a response from Martin Vermeer. If you recall, he is one of the climate scientists I quoted on a previous thread who thinks that the Heartland memo was forged by Peter Gleick. While you got his attention, why don’t you help him out.
Waldo
I am persona non Grata at realclimate.
It seams I asked some embarrassing questions and my posts are blocked.
Just because warmer air can hold more water vapor there is no reason to believe it does.
http://climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
I don’t know where you get the idea that the above is a computer simulation !
It says it is a 7 month running average by NOAA, would they lie ?
It also starts at 1948 which is more useful than 1980.
Clouds have both positive and negative feedback aspects. More clouds cause a larger amount of radiation to reflect back into space. They also have a blanketing effect so the jury is out on which predominates.
Whatever the case, water vapor going down when it is predicted to go up doesn’t sound like the theory holds water ! [I said it and I’m glad]
Another interesting article on alternative energy in Germany at:
bbc.co.uk
Title of the article is: Will Sun Shine on Germany Solar Power Industry?
There are nay number of articles discussing the problems with intermittent solar and wind energy. I guess some can put their head in the sand, ignore them all, and BELIEVE in alternative energy as our savior.
****”I see you got a response from Martin Vermeer…why don’t you help him out.”
What?
Are you okay, man? Your last couple of posts have been a little…wandery.
If I discussed the Gleick memo with Professor Vermeer, I would say approximately the same things I said to you—although hopefully with a little more decorum on both sides.
If I discussed climate science with Professor Vermeer, I would probably listen politely, seeing as he actually knows what he is talking about.
Seriously dude, you have an excuse every single time for why you cannot or will not do the serious scientific work or even post a question over at RC.
Go to RC; sign in under a different moniker; post politely; don’t write with the ungrammatical, abbreviated, perfunctory style that you use here; make your observations clear; keep an open mind.
Enough with the evasion—at this point it’s, what, two years of evading the obvious?
Time to put up or shut up, man, or you’re simply faking it in the safety of the blog backwaters.
Nobody on tis blog claims to be a climate expert. We are merely asking obvious questions, which most scientists and engineers would be glad to answer. Raising questions does not equate to a claim of expertise. The idea of accepting the word from academe or the DOE without question is absurd.
By the way, these links didn’t come through above. I’m just posting them in case anyone is interested in learning more about the subject.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humidity-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-cherry-pickers-Falling-humidity.html
****”We are merely asking obvious questions, which most scientists and engineers would be glad to answer. Raising questions does not equate to a claim of expertise.”
BS Ted. This place is pure climate politicization.
And the whole point is that y’all are not experts yet you bob along with Mr. Meyer and generate very specific and mostly hardcore opinions which, I suspect, are far more the result of political polarization than any science.
****”Other than the fact the Dr. Pielke, Sr. is an excellent example of a scientist that alarmists have attempted to marginalize, I was wondering whether you could explain what you have against him.”
I have absolutely nothing against Dr. Pielke whatsoever. He is a fine scientist and should argue, disagree, debate, and present his findings with and to any other climate scientists.
I just think we should let Dr. Pielke debate with Dr. Mann and Dr. Jones et al., since these are the folks who have a handle on what’s going on, not you, not me, not Mr. Meyer. This has been my whole point—in fact, my only point—all along.
I do find it interesting, however, how often the good peeps here marginalize all the other climate scientists but flock to Pielke and Lindsen. It seems there is some selectivity on which scientists Meyer’s Minions are willing to believe.
Waldo, the reason why sceptics are more accepting of researchers such as Pielke, Lindzen, etc., is that they use observations (data and numbers) to argue their case. The fellows you cite tend to argue from authority (a habit you’ve picked up I see) and from theoretical computer models. Could the sceptics be wrong? Of course, frequently sceptics are wrong. But could the Alarmists be right? It’s possible, but unlikely. Most theoretical models in science turn out to be significantly wrong. Only the 1% that survives observational tests become part of scientific cannon. Most of the Alarmist case consists of these experts citing themselves in circular fashion, and pointing out that the data has not yet conclusively *disproved* their claims. OK, fine. But not a strong case once you take a hard look at the arguments from both sides. So, you’re arguing you’re not able to apply critical thinking skills to this topic. Fine. But if you don’t have the intelligence to do that, it’s hubris to assert you think you know who is right and who is wrong.
****”is that they use observations (data and numbers) to argue their case.”
Oh come on, Will. You cannot seriously argue that this…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.T2JcjXnN1lM
…or this…
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
…are not research based on “data and numbers.”
****”Most of the Alarmist case consists of these experts citing themselves in circular fashion”
Who, for instance, and what?
I am usually happy to admit that people know more than I do, but you may actually know less. Interesting.
Paul, are you paying attention?
Waldo, you don’t seem to understand how science works. Pointing a link to an IPCC report and implying that settles the argument ex cathedra is juvenile. Cutting edge science (and climate science *is* cutting edge) is constantly evolving and changing. You look at what AR4 asserts regarding water vapour. You look at their citations. You see what the experts say about those papers. You look at the criticisms of those papers and the alternate papers cited by academic critics. Yes, there is a lot of good stuff in the IPCC reports. But the IPCC reports get a lot of stuff wrong too. And occasionally they get things completely wrong. I.e., the claim that the glaciers of the Himalayas would melt by 2030 was not based on observations or numbers. The claim that the water resources of 2 billion people were at risk, was, fabricated. The claim that the Amazon was at risk was also fabricated. Around 30% of the contents of the IPCC reports are citations from ‘gray literature’. I.e., activist reports, newspaper articles, press releases, etc. There is a lot of speculative content in the IPCC reports as well as some good science. So I think you really need to grow up a little here.
Do you understand how science works, Will? I’m pretty sure you have a blog/brain going on here, particularly when you cite “activist reports.” Which reports? What do they get wrong? You’ve cited one egregious citation based upon a magazine article which denialists use ad nauseam. Otherwise you’ve made numerous sweeping statements. And the comment that Pielke and Lindzen use “numbers and data” while other climate scientists use “appeals to authority” really, honestly makes no sense—they all use “numbers and data.” All of them. The true denialists simply cherry-pick.
I think that Paul and Ted have Republican-brains, but they clearly know what they are talking about. See above for substantive comments.
Waldorph, ignorance on this topic can be mind boggling to observe. That’s why assertions such as yours are not taken seriously. Start here and learn something:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/31/does-the-ipcc-follow-the-rules-insiders-say-no/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/04/wwf-influence-at-the-highest-levels-of-the-ipcc/
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
Your got about 20 hours of reading there if you follow all the citations. Learn something. Do your own research. Listen to real experts — don’t get hand fed information from RC and ‘skepticalscience’. You will find only one very narrow perspective there.
Now I don’t give a rat’s arse if the IPCC reports have 20 thousand little mistakes in them. Big complex reports have *lots* of mistakes. But what you don’t do is tell the public in your science reports that billions of people will run out of water or have their habitats destroyed in a few years from, which is bullshit claim, and then hand wave that away as “one egregious citation”. What a pathetic excuse.
What statements like that tells me is that Believers don’t want to face reality. The Enemies of the Believers are Heretics Who Are Evil. (You use the more fashionable term Denier of course.) Get a brain, grow up, start using critical thinking skills. And don’t misrepresent me by claiming that I encapsulated the complex field of research of climate science in a throw-away sentence or two. Childish.
Waldo: I am certainly happy to hear that you have affecton for Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. I guess a few of your offhand comments misled me.
I do like your original idea of encouraging leading climate scientist to debate important issues. Dr. Pielke’s blog exemplifies a model approach. Although he does not allow comments anymore, he does frequently invite prominent climate scientists with whom he disagrees to publish guest posts on his blog. He then publishes his response. The back and forth often continues and provides the public with a good deal of information on diverse perspectives.
The link I provided above of the exchange between Pielke, Sr and Dr Dreesler is just one of many example. Unfortunately, as Pielke Sr. reports many prominent climate scientists such as Dr. Gavin Schmidt, have declined numerous invitations to enage in such fruiful exchanges.
Speaking of Gavin, it is unfortunate that the the blog with which he is affiliated does not follow Pielke’s example. For example, Peilke’s son, Roger, Jr., has reported on his blog of a time when his own paper was criticized in a full post at Realclimate, and yet his response was not permitted pass moderation in the comments. Ultimately, I think such behavior at realclimate is self-defeating.
Then there is the Gleick affair. As you recall, Dr.Gleick illegally phished and then caused to be published confidential documents from Heartland, along with an obviously fake strategy memo of “unknown” provenance.
The fake memo, that sounded as if had been written by a comic book villan, attempted to smear Heartland, and suggested that scientists who were paid modest sums to write for Heartland’s publications had sold their integrity.l Many people have catologued substantial evidence that Gleick, himself, wrote the fake memo.
In his confession concerning the illegal phishing, Gleick expressed frustration that organizations such as Heartland were hindering open debate, even though he had just turned down an invitation from Heartland to participate in expense paid debate with a Heartland representative.
To top it off, Gleick was quoted by a reporter after a recent speech as saying:
“Those who deny this science and this evidence are becoming increasingly desperate in their efforts to attack the science and scientists and fool the public and prevent any rational discussion of a climate or energy policy from being adopted,”
http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/03/09/pacific-institutes-peter-gleick-breaks-silence/#more-20187
Heh
To emphasize:
Nobody would particularly care if the IPCC reports have thousands of little mistakes in them. Big complex reports have *lots* of mistakes. But what you don’t do is tell the public in your science reports that billions of people will run out of water in 20 years or so from now or hundreds of millions with have their habitats destroyed (Amazon) and have no basis for such claims whatsoever. You then definitely don’t hand wave this away as just “one egregious citation”. It doesn’t get more pathetic than that.
Understanding the limitations of the IPCC:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/31/does-the-ipcc-follow-the-rules-insiders-say-no/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/04/wwf-influence-at-the-highest-levels-of-the-ipcc/
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
By the way, I may be mistaken but I don’t you have provided a link to this interesting “conversation” you have initiated at realclimate.
Waldo:
I have repeatedly stated that I am NOT a climate expert. My area of interest is in the engineering required to implement alternative energy programs. I have accompanied my comments with calcs. As I recall, you agreed with them. There are no viable large scale alternative energy sources. Hence the argument about the CAGW hypothesis is moot.
Warren has simply summarized the debate about CAGW. He did not state that the theory absolutely wrong. He merely highlighted the areas of debate. What is wrong with that?
I am still waiting for you to point out a viable alternative energy scheme, complete with standby/storage etc. References to Kitty Hawk do not qualify.
A rant about Warren etc accomplishes nothing except to illustrate that you have no valid arguments and must resort to name-calling. If you have a viable alternative energy scheme, speak up. Or, if you have some explanation of what we can do about global warming ex a viable alternative energy plan, that would be of interest as well. Don’t hide your brilliance under a bushel basket.
******I may be mistaken but I don’t you have provided a link to this interesting “conversation” you have initiated at realclimate.
No conversation, I simply posted to their open thread:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/unforced-variations-march-2012/
I have had some trouble posting from my regular ports, and I have a feeling this may have to do with Mr. Meyer. But fair enuff, it is his blog.
So I will simply leave you with this for the while:
Ted is a done deal, and, despite his knowledge of engineering, he has nothing really viable to say about AGW—he simply wants to post about things he’s read in the news.
You have your mind made up.
But look at Will—it is pretty clear he has no purchase on the actual science involved and has swallowed a good deal of the blogarrhea and urban legends of the Internet. This is the problem with the blog world you inhabit—anyone can post any strange or ridiculous comment and they will find a too-willing gullible audience. For instance, most of the “gray matter” in IPCC reports are news items about things which are not a matter of science or review—insurance rates, flood damage, and such. But Will has the idea that somehow, climate scientists don’t use “numbers and data.” And you, Paul, such a meticulous critic of counter-posters, didn’t seem to even see this.
By the way, the real “Waldo” is querying some E-Zines about the chance to write an article about his time here at CS. The real “Waldo” will post an email address at some time in the future. If any of you boys or girls want to cuss me out, rant, rave, or dig for quotable material, shoot me a line.
Waldo:
I post very little re AGW. I have no idea whether it is true or not. As I have pointed out before, once I concluded (based on my calcs, NOT quoting the popular press) that getting way from fossil fuels is not feasible, I lost interest in AGW. It doesn’t matter whether it is right or wrong. If it is true, move north. I long ago discovered that one shouldn’t believe anything they hear and anly half of what they see. This is terribly true in the alternative energy field. Most of it is utter rubbish. A few calcs clearly shows this. I have repeatedly asked you to show me where my calcs are wrong. If they are, I would like to know. All I get in reply are diatribes and nonsense. It is entertaining, though.
Where will your blog be posted? At Norman State Hospital?
Waldo:
One last suggestion. It has been proposed to mount windmills on huge kites high in the sky. (This is reported on one of the greenie blogs). It is reported that the USG has allocated $100k to study this further. Maybe you can get a post CS job with them, perhaps holding the kite string? Better yet, do the engineering calcs re how do you get it up in the sky? How do you keep it up when the wind dies down, etc. etc.?
This sounds like something right up your alley.
One thing about the AGW and alternative energy issue is the unwillingness of the AGW and alternative energy proponents to engage in debate. Various members of the CAGW crowd ahve been invited to debate and have refused. I would love to debate alternative energy schemes with someone from DOE. If Obama is so confident that fossil fuels are the “old” and alt energy is the “new”, why not have a public debate? The issue could be quickly decided. Either there is a viable large scale alternative energy source which makes doing away with CO2 possible or there is not. My studies show the latter to be the case. If I am wrong, let’s find out.
Waldo appropriately signs off with a post that can be summarized: “I am full of myself.”
The links I posted got eaten by the auto moderator. But anyway for those interested in grey literature cited by the IPCC — Go to the “NoFrakkingConsensus” website and then search for IPCC there. One shouldn’t rely directly on blogs but that website will take you to the relevant source materials.
As for the nonsense that Waldo makes up, for example:
“For instance, most of the “gray matter” in IPCC reports are news items about things which are not a matter of science or review—insurance rates, flood damage, and such. But Will has the idea that somehow, climate scientists don’t use “numbers and data.””
The claim that around 2 billion people would run out of water by 2030 was one such citation from grey literature. Rather important, don’t you think? That is, a link to an interview in a popular science magazine! And the individual interviewed renounced making such a claim anyway. There is repeating pattern here. The claim on the imminent destruction of the Amazon met a similar fate. It doesn’t matter if a thousand uncontroversial statements are correctly cited. It’s the big scary stuff that turns into political rhetoric that is of concern. And it is not just about not being able to substantiate claims. Most of the big scary scenarios presented in IPCC reports have reasonable citations, but then their interpretation of those citations, or the credibility of those citations, is arguable.
And BTW, this has nothing to do with “internet lore”. I’m an old school sceptic, not just a climate sceptic, and I check my facts by going to source materials. If I can’t find source materials, I don’t believe it. The air of superiority that Waldo displays, while simultaneously admitting he is ignorant of this topic, is indeed remarkable.
Also, I forgot to add how Waldo plays the typical Climatist straw-man game. When I wrote that sceptics focus on data and numbers, I meant the following:
Sceptics will tend to argue from data derived from empirical observation.
Warmists will tend to argue from authority and hypothesis (i.e., computer models).
That doesn’t mean that both sides don’t cross-over each other. My statement was obviously a generalisation, but remains a valid one. Look at your own arguments Waldo. They fall neatly into the 2nd group. As does the bulk of the IPCC argument.
Could you provide a link to the interview, Will. It’s not on the website.
Here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html
BUT… I think reading the original article requires that you subscribe to the magazine to get access to the back issues.
Will, I can only say “Wow!” I mean, Wow!
You are so amazingly, demonstrably wrong on every account. And—because this is the relationship I have with the good peeps at CS—I’ll show you why.
Firstly, as I posted above, out of the years of science, out of the thousands of pages, thousands of authors, and thousands of citations, the IPCC used one egregious citation of a magazine article that overstated glacial melting rates. And the denialists have cited it ad nauseum.
Congrats, you just cited that article.
Secondly, the IPCC has said a lot of stuff about water. Whatever you may disagree with that the IPCC says about the subject, it does not come from “one such citation from grey literature.” One just need to put “IPCC water” into Google to see this.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/doc13.pdf
I just posted the first two, but there are many others. You will find the complete references for “doc13” on page 179. If you want to seek “grey matter,” fine (good luck) but don’t post something as stupid as “one such citation from grey literature.” Geeze man.
Thirdly, approximately 1.8 billion people on the planet already lack access to clean, safe water. The IPCC predicts that by 2050 this number may grow in parts of the world already under water strain.
Fourthly, wow! “Warmists will tend to argue from authority and hypothesis (i.e., computer models).” This is so demonstrably wrong (begin on page 179 of the document above for an example) that I don’t even know where to start.
You do know that climate scientists and agencies use satellite data, borehole evidence, glacial and permafrost observations, land and sea temp records, historical temp records, tree rings, geological records, and direct temp measurements from around the globe, right? Say whatever you want about their conclusions, but the “authority and hypothesis” comment makes no more sense than the “numbers and data” comment.
Fifthly, “their interpretation of those citations, or the credibility of those citations, is arguable.”
Okay. Do it man! Prove it! Peer review your critique of their science. Because right now it would appear that you have swallowed the blogoreah and urban legends of the Internet and have very little actual knowledge of the issues you are posting about.
Sixthly, “I check my facts by going to source materials.”
Evidence would suggest otherwise.
I don’t know what else to post here, Will. I mean, seriously man, come on. I may come off as superior but all I really do is point out how screwy the denialist mentality is. My “arguments above” have an antagonistic, one-dimensional relationship to climate science and flock to the pseudo-science and misinformation of the blogosphere.
A point you just proved.
Ha! Sorry, the sentence above should read: My “arguments above” are that the good peeps here have an antagonistic, one-dimensional relationship to climate science and flock to the pseudo-science and misinformation of the blogosphere. My bad.
Okay, the real reason I stopped by was to post my email account. Send me a note about our relationship here. I will not use real names or out email addresses and such.
waldosayscall@hotmail.com
Waldo:
“Firstly, as I posted above, out of the years of science, out of the thousands of pages, thousands of authors, and thousands of citations, the IPCC used one egregious citation of a magazine article that overstated glacial melting rates. And the denialists have cited it ad nauseum.”
One egregious citation? It’s closer to 30% of all citations which go back to grey literature. Have you read any of the links I’ve provided for you to research this? Let’s see, I post at 6:16pm and Waldo replies a few hours later. Assuming it took you 1 hour to notice my posting that is not even enough time to read one of the reports (such as the IAC review of the IPCC), much less the hundreds of links to source materials I pointed you to. Laughable, but sadly typical.
BTW, another good book to read on this for those who don’t immediately want to go to the source materials is: “The Delinquent Teenager”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
It’s well cited so you can verify the claims yourself by going to the source materials. Interesting, also, that Waldo drops his original condescending tone and now the hell fire and spittle appears, describing sceptics as Deniers. (We used to be called Heretics back in the good old days…) Not that the internet isn’t full of cranks… Sadly it is. But the other side of the coin are the climatist believers such as Waldo. As I’ve said already, the IPCC has a lot of good science in it, but it also makes many extraordinary claims based on rather weak evidence at times. That’s why research and critical thinking are required to get to the bottom of this issue.
Will’s idea of “research” is to read No Frakking Consensus.
Classic.
Having swallowed the blogarrhea and urban legends of the Internet, Will believes he is well informed on the issue CAGW is doing “critical thinking.”
Classic.
Waldo says: “Okay, the real reason I stopped by was to post my email account. Send me a note about our relationship here. I will not use real names or out email addresses and such.”
I have no intention of responding to Waldo’s email address, but I am looking forward to reading Waldo’s account of his experiences here as a troll. It is will be interesting to see what distortions he will need to make to write something half-way interesting.
Of course not. Waldo is a conceited buffoon. He admits to knowing nothing about the topic and dismisses all links to arguments and evidence with a hand wave. The reason why sceptics speak out is to reach audiences, not to try to privately convert believers.
Even jokers like “Joey” intentionally misrepresent the simplest of statements made here. I.e., No Frakking Consensus will take you to links to the source materials. I do not recommend anyone read blogs as authoritative. Although this is exactly what believers such as “Joey” and “Waldo” do, by repeatedly citing “Skeptical Science” and “RC”. If they didn’t have those two blogs (which are two great sources of misinformation), they would have no understanding or arguments at all.
Nice article on problems with the IPCC here.
“Unfortunately, not only is this implication contrary to all peer-reviewed science on this subject, but the IPCC created this misleading graph from whole cloth, intentionally mis-cited it, and when questioned by an expert reviewer of a draft of the report, falsified information in its much-touted peer review process. When challenged in recent weeks, the IPCC quickly issued a press release calling the claims “baseless” but completely ignoring the substantive issues. In recent days, a leading German scientist went so far as to suggest that the IPCC’s actions on disasters and climate change were tantamount to “fraud.””
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/major_change_is_needed_if_the_ipcc_hopes_to_survive/2244/