Moderated Comments

This page combines the idea of the “borehole” from RealClimate, a collection of rejected comments, and the “shadow threads” idea of John Mashey.

We will not only put rejected comments here, we will sort them by article. This will make the background conversation, if any, easier to follow. Also, if comments are accepted only in part, the unsnipped version will be here.

[UPDATE - This is the first volume of the Borehole, from the site's founding through June 20, 2013. See here for more if you like this sort of thing.]


Comments:

    • Moderated comment:

      2011/10/16 at 12:45 am

      The simple fact is that NO ONE knows what sustainable is. Why not just continue improving agriculture in the same manner as has served to keep us all fed for many years?

      If some ivory tower types start adding conditions and restricting free choices, the result will be bad. Maybe even as bad as the last time some know it all got it wrong in Russia and millions died. Look up Lysenko.

      As to CO2, please show us any actual evidence that CO2, in the real atmosphere, can cause dangerous climate change. I keep asking this and no one has an answer beyond the IPCC’s “we have eliminated all other possibilities, therefore it must be man”. That presumes to know all possible influences and there is NO WAY to be sure they know all possible causes.

      In other words, quit meddling and just get on with feeding the world.

      thanks
      JK

    • Moderated comment: Submitted on 2011/10/15 at 11:17 pm

      I have multpile issues with the Solyndra loan:
      1. The cmopany was not a good risk, according to the government itself.
      2. The technology that Solyndra was promoting was dependent on the price of silicon remaining at high levels. Once the pice dropped, the product wasn’t financially viable. This end result ws forecast by industry analysts before the laon was mad.
      3. Finally, I have a moral objection to the Government using taxpayer money to select winners in a field. If you are serious about developing solar power as a viable source, put up rewards based on certain objectives being met. I believe that the end result will probably be a quantum jump in innovations adn advances in the field.

      Ok, I’m off my soapbox. Fire away!

    • The stratosphere is heated from above, by solar UV impacting ozone.
      Not from below.

      Huge eruptions in Iceland (nice pictures of plume penetrating clear through the ozone layer), per the correct reading of Beig et al., 2006, which is a paper about detecting the impact of the Mount Pinatubo eruption upon the ozone layer over India, rather than Neven’s pretense of measuring Al Gore’s hobgoblin in the stratosphere.

      How much do you have to hate your fellow man in order to twist a paper’s meaning like that Neven? Do you find yourself fighting the urge take out random travelers with your rifle on the freeway overpass?

      What you are doing here is hateful and sick.

      [wow -mt]

    • Hi Steve:

      Thanks for adding to the elegance of Donella Meadows’ thinking. I wish she was still with us. I have been trying to apply her thoughts to various societal systems which which are no longer functioning very well. Your post helped. I’d welcome the opportunity to talk with you further over the phone.

      Best regards,

      -Mike

      [Comments are not a scalable way to contact our authors. -mt ]

  1. Suggestions:
    * that authors' names be appended/prepended to the comment
    * that a brief reason for the rejection ("off topic," "derail" etc) be given.

    Kudos, in any case. This is well done.

    • frankswifthack
      November 18, 2011 | 1:02 pm

      Hunt, I just read your reply, and this sentence screams "Bullshit alert! Bullshit alert!" to me:

      Our work in The Statues that Walked brings a wide range of current research into focus and combines more than a decade of our own field and related Easter Island research to form a coherent picture that is the basis of a new scientific consensus.

      In other words, your (Hunt and Lipo’s) account is not the scientific consensus; it’s merely “the basis” of what you hope will be a “new scientific consensus“.

      – frank

    • Hey Frank!

      Seems to me one needs to buy the book to find out what needs to be “debunked” eh? Or can you judge the contents of the book by its cover?

      Isn’t there a saying about that Frank?

      TL

      [ much more flame than content -mt ]

    • Typical Lurker
      Submitted on 2011/11/21 at 9:55 pm

      Odd link to try to make your point. Lobbying, even illegal, is what it is–ugly business. In addition, by your logic, all employees of oil companies are indifferent since they are working for the betterment of their company and, by default, their livelihoods. I asked for examples of those who agree there is a problem, but simply don’t care, not about those who don’t believe there is a problem.

      You’re still talking about people who likely don’t see a future problem the same way you do. Perhaps they are naive, or in your world, stupid deniers, but that does not make one “indifferent to the fate of the world”.

      You, IMO, are more naive because you seem to fail to realize that there is nothing proven about the future of the planet. As such, some people don’t agree with you that we are doomed as a species because of our industrialized ways. So, they are not indifferent about, say, the future for their kids and their kids. They just don’t think there is the problem you say there is.

      Short sighted? OK. Naive? Perhaps. Willfully ignorant? Possibly. Greedy? Absolutely.

      That you would even consider anthropologists studying something not remotely related to the topic of climate among those you so revile is comical.

      Lobbyists are paid to lobby. That the people paying them don’t have the same beliefs as you do–or I do for that matter–does not make them indifferent. They simply don’t see or believe there the problem and wish to continue BAU–i.e. profits for their companies and themselves. Though the models predict bad things, there is no proof it will happen.

      [ mostly assertions of opinion without argument. italicized text published on main thread. -mt ]

    • Holly Stick wrote:

      Well, I’m glad someone explained just why they were frantically making all those statues!

      And of course that means the collapse happened before Europeans arrived and introduced the concept of cold showers!

      [ Information free at best, possibly intended as humor, could be construed as hostile -mt ]

    • Guthrie wrote:

      From reading this thread and Diamonds response, as far as I can tell Diamond is definitely way ahead, and Lipo and Hunt left in the dust.

      [ just use the social media widgets, please, if you agree with an article and having nothing to add! -mt ]

    • Just realized my comment had ended up here. I thought it was quite witty, in conjunction with the post it was responding to, though admittedly frivolous. No hostility intended.

  2. Michael Tobis, you are an shoddy little pseudoscientist.

    No, that is far too polite.

    You are a nasty sack of lying pigshit. Your claims are as faith-based as any Fundy snake-handler from the hills of Appalachia.

    [ this one was sent directly to moderated comments, saving me some trouble, so thanks, er, I guess -mt ]

  3. Paul Kelly writes:

    Thanks to Bart for this topic. It seems clear, no matter how great the desired emphasis on CO2, physical and social science indicates that successful mitigation requires concerted attention on both short and long lived forcings. Interested individuals, groups and institutions really must devote some time, effort, and money to each.

    [ As usual, Kelly's content is so thin that I can barely perceive anything there. If he wants to leave his mark here he will actually have to say something non-vapid. -mt ]

    • Addison Lopez writes:

      Hey folks, Will probably be the U.S. a lot better off staying with Syria’s Assad?

      [ thread is not THAT open -mt ]

    • jyyh comments:

      I’d imagine this is because La Nina has purged the extra water off the atmosphere, and now AGW is loading it to dump the next batch of floodwater once La Nina returns. I don’t know what the tota amount of snow in the NH is, though, f.e. in southern Siberia.

      [ Correct me if I'm wrong but I really doubt this makes any sense. -mt ]

    • RC wrote:

      Say, friends, since “frankswifthack” is such a devotee of pursuing of FOIA’s identity to the ends of the Earth, imagine what would happen if he stopped for just a moment to read a few of the emails. Like the #1595 one that has Hans Verolme assuring Simon Brown & Mike Hulme, “…don’t despair, your recent debunking of the Soon and Baliunas paper for the Marshall Institute has found its way to sympathetic Senate staff, stripped of its origins.” Suppose frank started to scratch his head and wonder why that piece needed to be stripped of ANYTHING.

      Yawn. One can think of a dozen reasons, and lacking context, it is impossible to know what is actually going on here. More to the point, given the complete and utter triviality of all "issues" raised in the Case of the Purloined Messages known in some circles as "Climategate" and in others as "Swifthack", it is evidently and obviously none of my or your damned business.

      The real scandal is that anybody is still looking at this stuff.

      Before we started this site we agreed that use of the word "Climategate" without appropriate scare quotes makes a comment clear borehole fodder. This comment avoids that trap, but is no different in spirit. It's poison to intelligent consideration of the issues and is explcitly intended as such. -mt

    • Allyn Remmers:

      Read the skeptics view in “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A.W.Montford.

      Read both books. Judge for yourself.

      I'm skeptical that any actual skeptics are involved. -mt

    • Robert:

      Whom to Trust on Climate Change | Planet3.0 – is a interesting TOPIC. Soon there will be a global political mandate to make changes. One thing that is for certain is that – ev cars, hybrid vehicles and alternative energy will hit the masses by 2015.

      Off topic, possible link spam

    • Tom Scharf:

      “Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?”

      A more applicable analogy is “Do you trust your stock broker to predict where the stock market is going next year?”

      The main thrust of most skeptics is the validity of the expert prediction of where the climate is going. I may believe that most climate scientists do their best to tell us where the climate is going, however I don’t believe they currently have the knowledge necessary to make that prediction with any sort of relevant certainty.

      They simply don’t know the answer, and the poor accuracy of the models with respect to the temperature and sea level rise back up that assertion.

      You may be the best at what you do, but that doesn’t mean you know the answer.

      And for the record, I don’t trust any stockbroker to tell me where the stock market is going.

      [ Off topic -mt ]

    • John Tiller:

      I worry about the validity of data so weighed that whatever numbers you enter assumes a hockey stick pattern. I wonder about a climate model that no one else can duplicate. That seems like a model that doesn’t work to me. But I am far more worried about destroying data to deliberately get a set of conclusions rewarded by the might and wealth of super government agencies. Guess I”m just a worrier.

      [ Pretty spectacularly wrong on all counts. -mt ]

    • Jim Karlock:

      I think you need to read a bit deeper into the skeptics position:

      1. Hide the decline was to hide the fact that the reconstruction showed late 20th century cooling, while the thermometers showed warming. This conflict was handled by merely hiding the uncomfortable data. Had this data not been hidden, people would have asked how do we know that, in the past, temperature rises were not recorded as cooling by the proxies? This raises the possibility that past warm spells were warmer than today and NOT shown by the proxies. It undermines the whole of the work.

      2. The emails showed Phil Jones asking others to delete material subject to a FOI request. To destroy such material is a criminal offense. (1212073451.txt)

      3. The emails showed that CRU people approached oil companies for funding. (968691929.txt),(959187643.txt)

      4. A Wigley email mentioned that Mann tried to get rid of an editor:
      24 Apr 2003: Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.(1051190249.txt)

      5. A Wigley email said the IPCC has been dishonest:
      Oct 14, 2009: …there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. (1255553034.txt)

      6. A Briffa email exposes peer pressure to tow the company line:
      Apr 29, 2007: I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . (1177890796.txt)

      7. The emails showed David Parker (Lead author of ch 3 of AR4) to be concerned with giving the impression of warming:
      05/01/2005: There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. (1105019698.txt)

      8. As to Mann’s U of V emails: I am under the impression that Mike was a public employee while at the University of Virginia and thus subject to the FOIA law.

      9. Plenty of personal attacks have been lodged against the skeptics too. Including calls to put them on trial.

      10. Finally, as to those more than a dozen studies that come to the same conclusion as Mann, there area also studies that conflict by showing past periods warmer than now.

      Thanks
      JK


      Please note that I am not stipulating veracity for the above-mentioned stolen emails. I have some concern that new, bogus emails may have been introduced. It's possible that not all the reported emails were "legitimately" stolen. People who steal private communication may not be above making some up. But presuming that is not the case, I respond to the ten points made here as follows.

      1) ONE of the reconstructions. No hiding was done by Mike.

      2) Jones regarding destruction of FOIA material. I'm not sure; I believe it was technically before the FOIA. It was obviously naive. And it is important to understand that scientists at this point had no experience either with FOIA nor with politically motivated challenges, or really with political motivations at all. Which is the point of Mike's book.

      3) So what?

      4) Keeping bad science out of journals is part of the job description of scientists. See the McLean et al story for examples of what happens when this fails.

      5) "dishonest" is overemphasis for private conversation; obviously this word would not be used for public consumption. A bit too much spin, perhaps, is more to the point. I have heard many scientists argue that the claim of twentieth century match in global mean temperature out of the models is overstated. See the recent paper by Hansen et al for what this really means. As is often the case, a serious examination of the uncertainties in climate science is anything but reassuring. Which ties exactly into

      6. So? Of course communicating the scope of the problem and investigating the problem are often at odds, given the atmosphere of willfull and even gleeful misunderstanding of anything that isn't stated without a trace of ambiguity. Whose fault is that?

      7. Perfectly reasonable. Again ties into #6. Saying something for scientific use and saying something for public consumption are different tasks. There is no actual contradiction here. It is trying to avoid the usual sort of misunderstanding that Parker is advocating. Read it again.

      8. FOIA is not the issue here. Prosecutorial excess is. Nothing Mann did at U Va had anything to do with global temperature, and there is no indication he did anything wrong. If you think federal prosecutors should have the right to go rummaging through your emails on fishing expeditions without cause, well, that's a hell of a position for an American conservative to take. There is a presumption of innocence in this country for a reason.

      9. Look up "tu quoque".

      10. Really? Now you're talking. Name one such study that passed or should have passed or could pass peer review, and we'll have something to discuss.

      The usual stuff, in short. Mostly spin, and what little substance there is being about inexperienced responses to prior attacks.

      This is not discussion, this is persecution. Although there is a hint of a discussion to come in point 10. I am not holding my breath.

      -mt

    • RC:

      Are you sure they wouldn't welcome this? Remember how well Geraldo Rivera's search of Al Capone's vault turned out? Are you forgetting what DeSmogBlog is based on?

      [ Apparently so. But don't bother enlightening us. -mt ]

    • GoFigure writes:

      C’mon folks. Arguing about Heartland is not relevant. The science is definitely not settled, except on one aspect. It is clearly settled that the claims of man-caused warming are not founded on evidence. It’s in the same category as religion.

      Our current warming began as the Little Ice Age bottomed out, in the late 1600s. That’s some 200 years before any change in co2 and also 200 years before our industrial revolution. In addition, it would have taken another century before enough co2 accumulated to show any impact on temperature (and that assumes that co2 indeed has some impact on temperature for which there is also no evidence).

      So, here we are, 300 years of natural temperature increase. That brings us up to the 1900s. But from the 1940s to the 1970s we were in a cooling period. (Ask Holdren, Obama’s science adviser. He was back then an ice-age alarmist (which is actually a better guess). Then there was a brief warming period from about 1975 to 1998. But from 1998 to now, the tempeature has been flat, with, if anything, a very modest decrease.

      There is no correlation between co2 and tempeature except one that is the REVERSE of what Al Gore thinks. Paleo measurements show co2 making very similar variations to much earlier temperature variations (the carbon cycle at work).

      Probably not a soul on this site knows that the computer models all assume that water vapor (50 times as prevalent as co2) has an impact 2 to 3 times that of the corresponding increase in co2.
      (The EPA seems to have overlooked the real greenhouse gas!) But there is no evidence that the cloud feedback is even positive, let alone assigningan arbitrary factor to it of 2 or 3 times co2. (Of course all the models have shown much higher inreases in temperature than have actually happened.) Whats more, satellite measurements show at least one negative feedback – the fact that when the planet is warmer, more heat is escaping to space. (That’s not dealt with in the computer models either)

      Then we have the Medieval Warming Period. There are some 900+ peer-reviewed studies, which have come from some 40+ countries showing that the MWP was as warm as this warming, plus as long a duration. And additional confirming studies of that continue to show up. (All can be accessed from links provided by co2science.org.)

      You can argue politics (and religion) forever. However, in science you are not entitled to your own facts.

      [ ...unlike yourself, that is? "There are some 900+ peer-reviewed studies, which have come from some 40+ countries showing that the MWP was as warm as this warming" Really? Evidence please? (There's far too much confusion in this post to bother with all of it. Let's just test a testable claim.) -mt ]

    • Tom Moriarty:

      "John Mashey?

      You mean this guy…?

      http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/reply-to-john-mashey/"

      [ a pretty irrelevant ad hom, I think, but if you think you got the better of that exchange, I would have to disagree -mt ]

    • chilipalmer writes:

      I like that you cite "submission" as the duty of conservatives to the massive climate godzilla that has been created and sustained via politicians diverting taxpayer money, hedge funds, investment banks, and organized crime manipulating carbon trading and land theft over something that isn't even about climate according to 3 top UN climate officials. Per Pachauri, Edenhofer, and Figueres, it's about transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Longtime climate advisor and advocate Nigel Purvis says it's about 3 things: reducing US industry, taking money away from US citizens, and giving more power to the UN. The NY Times, Wash. Post, AP, Time Mag., and the rest have helped along with the willful exploitation and abuse of young children who are captive audiences to lifelong lies about CO2 being poison.

      Dude, "submission" wasn't us, it was William F Buckley quoted by a Republican interest group.

      As for the rest: the usual paranoia. Of course, if climate science is a vast conspiracy, it must be trying to achieve something vast. It is interesting that in poor countries it is sometimes alleged as a vast conspiracy to maintain the advantage the west has over the less developed countries!

      But before you decide who's behind the conspiracy, you have to actually look at the science.

    • chilipalmer:

      Re: your response to my first post. I understand Buckley said the word submission in a general context, but Dude, he never said it about global warming. That is your idea.

      [ DiPeso's, but I have no trouble agreeing. What is conservative about ignoring reality? ]

      Regarding eliminating the 3 UN officials saying it’s not about climate but transfer of money, along with Nigel Purvis’s explanation of it, these are not my ideas, they are direct quotes from these people. Instead of addressing them you attack me as paranoid. When you don’t like actual, factual citations you attack the messenger. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

      [ I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is Nigel Purvis and what does he have to do with Republican environmentalists or Heartland's approach to science-based policy? -mt ]

    • Dan Pangburn:

      A simple equation calculates the entire temperature trajectory (since accurately measured) with an accuracy of 88%. When calibrated to measurements prior to 1990, it has predicted temperatures since then with a standard deviation of less than 0.1C. Google “Verification of Natural Climate Change” to discover what works.

      1) Woefully off topic, this sends you on a

      2) pointlessly inconvenient chase to a

      3) denialist spin of solar/climate connections real and imagined which

      4) does not (at least not obviously) contain the described information which

      5) would appear to be baseless curve-fitting anyway

      Thanks for your input. Please stay on topic and use actual URLs in the event that you have something relevant to say in the future. -mt

  4. In my first reply I mentioned 3 UN officials who said the climate issue isn't really about climate. Your response to me was this was paranoid. I have the names and links to statements of the 3 officials which I could leave here for you. If you're not interested that's fine, just say you're not interested. I don't understand why name calling is necessary.

    • "something that isn’t even about climate according to 3 top UN climate officials. Per Pachauri, Edenhofer, and Figueres, it’s about transfer of wealth from rich to poor." is not paranoid, just implausible.

      "the massive climate godzilla that has been created and sustained via politicians diverting taxpayer money, hedge funds, investment banks, and organized crime manipulating carbon trading and land theft over something" is paranoid in my opinion.

      In my opinion, I am not name calling. I am describing the argument, not the person. I don't know anything about you.

      This site bears no personal grudges. Feel free to comment in future. But try to stay on topic, or else stick to open threads.

    • Tom:

      I see we have a bunch of true believers who still believe that Gleick didn’t write the strategy document himself. It just looks exactly like his writing style by coincidence.

      Oh wait I got it. Its fake but true!!!

    • Markon wrote:

      The green fraud is unravelling and heads better roll.
      Look, if you think it’s fine to “hide-the-decline” then you are either stupid/ignorant or corrupt.

      Now, we know scientists like Mann and Gleick, unlike many who believe them, aren’t stupid so that leaves corrupt.

      I don’t know about you but I don’t trust corrupt liars.

    • A different Tom actually wrote:

      Oh it’s for the greater good… commie

      [ I went to school in Canada, but I was under the impression that in America they used to teach something called "civics" in high school. Don't they do that anymore? -mt ]

    • Human Person Junior Jr. wrote:

      I’m thinking Fenton Communications, you know, the shadow group that pays people to create alarms of various kinds, could employ our alarmist pal Gleick. I’ll certainly put in a good word,to the effect that Gleick’s alarmist alarms were certainly alarming to me.

    • Bob Armstrong:

      Love that phrase ” … for the greater good” :

      [ What an ironic irony... ]

      The watermelons continue to give me reason to repost Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s quote in Max Eastman : Reflections on the Failure of Socialism :

      “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.”

      [ My family survived Nazism and escaped communism. I'll thank you not to take tolitarianism lightly. I promise you I don't. ]

      There’s not a word in the docs from Heartland that show anything other than a desire to use their puny budget to most effectively present real science to counter this profoundly stupid attack on the molecule upon which all life is built .

      [ Except in the disputed memo. In the rest of it, they could share your nasty worldview, but in the memo, they seem to be consciously taking people like you for a ride along with the rest of us. That is why whether the memo is real or fake is such an issue.

      Anyway you can't seriously think a rant like this is constructive in any way, can you? -mt ]

    • Tom Scharf:

      Ask yourself: What would the skeptics NOT like to see you do here?

      From my skeptical viewpoint, your best move is to immediately distance yourself from PG, and state you are utterly shocked to see this happen. This is what is happening at the AGU, NCSE, Gavin, Revkin, etc.

      The community to be seen embracing this action only encourages the opposing side to play the card of “if a leading scientist is willing to do this (and it is embraced by his peers), then what other shady things have they done in the name of their cause?”.

      Calling Gleick a hero really just makes the other side even happier.

      Ethics. Integrity. Trust. You have to win this debate first, or you will never even get to the science debate. For God’s sake, stop embracing Mann, Gleick, Jones, etc. you are just making the skeptics task easier.

      [ The last sentence (emphasis added) is vicious, tendentious and question-begging. The community is under attack, and the community has to defend itself, whether that is what the naysayers want or otherwise. My response follows. -mt ]

    • Gleick's actions are sufficient for him to be ejected from the protection of the scientific community, which must speak from authority. Most of the community are professors, and can't possibly endorse cheating in any way. He must take his lumps by himself and not expect much in the way of protection.

      (Of course, with a pure scientist hat on, he can continue to publish. There is no sign of scientific fraud and he need not withdraw anything. But in practice, funding agencies will avoid him with an eleven foot pole, and if his Institute really exists to some extent independent of Gleick, they have a big problem.)

      Whether as a consequence he should be rejected by the larger climate protection community is another matter. I am inclined to say that his errors were tactical rather than ethical, and that his actions were not without positive effect. Once his legal issues are settled one way or another, I hope he stays involved rather than slinking away.

      As for Mann and Jones, they occasionally seem a bit naive, each in their own way, but there is no sign of any misdeeds or scientific incompetence to my knowledge, other than stuff that has been maliciously invented from whole cloth. If people believe the nonsense and calumny, and that weakens the defense of science, that is a burden we must bear. It would surely weaken us more if we allowed malicious misrepresentation to take people down one by one and terrorize most of the rest to only publish on inconsequential matters.

      I know of one researcher who stopped studying a particular topic of interest to the naysayer squad, because he was actually shocked at how nasty the sub-field is. This was a few years back. This is revealing of two things. First, most real scientists, even in climate-related disciplines, are not especially aware of the viciousness and persistence of the attacks, though the "climategate" affair changed this considerably. Second, the chilling effect actually works, driving competent researchers away from climate change. Indeed, a hint of a martyr complex has to be part of the motivations of anyone entering the field today, whether their inclinations are activist, passivist or neutral.

      Your casual linkage of Gleick to Mann and Jones is certainly a sign of what we can expect. But we can't tolerate it.

    • Steve Bloom:

      You will be dissing Pat until you admit that he is entirely right. This sort of cranky epistemic closure is something to behold. As best I can tell, he’s bitter as a consequence of a more or less failed career.

      [ Obviously I sympathize but this is over the top. -mt ]

    • Pat Frank:

      Classic Bloom, vapid straining after the mindless cut. You’re a sad case, Steve. Here’s my most recent paper. Demonstrate the failure.

      In fact, Steve, demonstrate anything. In all my experience of you, you’ve shown no affinity for fact or ability for theory. You argue science without knowledge and distribute words without salience.

    • Pat, I await your successful peer review in a quality journal. I also await people who know what the hell they're talking about ceasing to make fun of your efforts. I expect a very long wait.

    • [The following comment was trimmed in its original location; here is the full comment]

      From Pat Frank Submitted on 2012/03/04 at 5:30 pm | In reply to Kaustubh.

      Kaustubh, we can agree that dO-18 in shell calcite is a function of marine temperature and salinity.

      We can also agree that when constructing paleo-temperatures from fossil calcite, direct knowledge of paleo-marine temperature and salinity is not in hand.

      Therefore, one does not know whether any detected change in fossil dO-18 is due to a change in paleo-temperature, or in paleo-salinity, or both.

      But it gets more complicated. Bemis, 1997 discuss the non-equilibrium values of dO-18 in foraminifera, and relate that to impacts of variable symbiont photosynthesis and over-all marine [CO3(2-)]. Photosynthetic activity can vary with both cloudiness and turbidity, as well as nutrient flux.

      Temperature, salinity, photosynthesis, and [CO3(2-)] now represent four variables that enter into foraminiferal calcite dO-18. How does one then isolate a physically clean temperature signal from fossil foram calcite?

      Apart from that, however, the accuracy of a dO-18 measurement depends on more than mass spectrometry. It also depends on the chemical methods used to liberate CO2 from fossil calcite. For example: how much of the O-18 in the CO2 exchanges with O-16 in the water used to process the calcite.

      These variables can impact a dO-18 paleo-temperature reconstruction in unknown ways, and are responsible for the point scatter one sees in the experimental data. Therefore, any paleo-temperature reconstructed from fossil calcite must acknowledge the uncertainty due to the real possibility of confounding environmental variables that are currently invisible to analysis.

      Figure 2 in Bemis, 1997 displays the lines for 10 independent empirical dO-18 paleo-temperature prediction equations. The variation between the lines is far greater than the uncertainty due to measurement scatter about the mean line.

      Bemis Figure 2 shows that a single marine temperature can produce a spread in dO-18 of about 0.8%o. Conversely a predictive spread of about 3.5 C can follow from a single dO-18 value. And this is with known temperatures.

      The empirical spread displayed in Bemis, et al., Figure 2 implies an uncertainty of about (+/-)1.75 C in any reconstructed dO-18 temperature, just based on the spread of the standard empirical equations. This inter-equational uncertainty is in addition to the uncertainty within each equation itself due to the systematic point scatter I described above.

      As the internal measurement errors and the external inter-equational uncertainties stem from independent sets of systematic errors, they combine as the rms: (+/-)sqrt[measurement error)^2+(inter-equational spread)^2] = sqrt[(1.25)^2+(1.75)^2]=(+/-)2.2 C.

      All these variations are real and clearly reflect systematic errors due to unaccounted confounding variables. And those systematic errors have entered into empirical equations derived from studies where the water temperatures and salinities are known.

      I wondered whether paleo-salinity might be independently recoverable from Mg/Ca or Sr/Ca ratios. That might help resolve the confounding of temperature and salinity in fossil calcite. But apparently, that is not a current possibility. See Dodd and Crisp, Nurnberg, et al., and Takesue, et al.

      Kaustubh, as a Ph.D. student, by the time you graduate you will have risen to being a world expert in your field. Attaining that state will require you to learn the field down to the bed-rock, or as close to that as you can get.

      You had plenty of time to write a long essay replying to my initial WUWT comment, but now have no time to write a response to my discussion of the methodological uncertainties that enter into dO-18 temperature reconstructions.

      You should have been already familiar with those uncertainties, because you should have worked thoroughly through the foundational papers. If you were familiar with the methodological problems and their solutions, and knew that the problems I raised had already been solved, and how, you'd have immediately described those solutions, with citations.

      But you didn't.

      That's evidence that you don't know. It's clear, therefore, that the empirical uncertainties I raised are new to you. You haven't worked through the papers that underlie your field. And as a consequence, you posted the list of papers as rhetorical iconography rather than as science.

      You must decide what you're really doing, Kaustubh. Are you doing science or are you playing games?

      Doing science means knowing the data and surrendering to the data. The data evidently don't support precise dO-18 temperature reconstructions, even though the physics of equilibrium thermal fractionation of stable isotopes is well-understood. The reasons include methodological error and unaccounted environmental variables.

      There's no dishonor in uncertainty, because that's just how things are. It's no one's fault. Methodological uncertainties just show where people must focus their attention. The mistake is trying to force the data into pre-set conclusions. At that point, it's games and not science.

      So which is it going to be for you, Kaustubh? The meaning of your Ph.D. will depend on the choice you make.

    • [Content-less comment moderated]:
      Pat Frank Submitted on 2012/03/04 at 3:51 pm | In reply to Pat Frank.

      #9, right, Michael, apparently because you could provide no answer yourself.

      Re-iterating: correlation does not necessitate causation.

    • [comments on moderation go to moderated comments - sorry, will add the link though] Pat Frank Submitted on 2012/03/05 at 11:43 pm | In reply to Kaustubh.

      If anyone has the stomach to see the “insulting ad hominem commentary” censored out by “AS,” it’s here; offered in the spirit of freedom of speech and of access to speech, and as object testimony to the fine discriminating ethical sensibility of the Planet3.org moderator.

      I was writing, in the deleted section, as a kind of graduate advisor.

    • Regurgitated talking points from Snorbert Zangox - on 2012/02/29 at 11:25 am:

      Point 1.
      I have not gone back to review the Wall Street Journal editorial, but as I remember it the persons who wrote it pointed out that the climate has not warmed significantly in the past 10 to 15 years. The graphic that Mr. Nordhaus included in his response demonstrates that to be true. Insofar as I know, no responsible skeptic has claimed that the climate has not warmed since 1880; agreement on that point is universal.

      Finding these warming trends is a robust finding of meteorological measurements; the ability to explain them would be a robust result of climate science.

      Point 2.
      The issue is that the warming has stopped (paused perhaps) and the IPCC models are helpless to tell us why. If the models are good enough to provide evidence that we should undertake massive changes in our economies, they ought to be good enough to explain the pause.

      However, it is not just this pause in the warming that is puzzling, other problems include the absence of the tropospheric hot spot, the inability to describe the previous periods, e.g. the Medieval, the Roman, and the Minoan warm periods. Also, when I look at the graphic that Mr. Nordhaus provided I see that the rate of warming during the 40 year period between 1910 and 1940 is approximately equal to the rate of warming between 1960 and 1990. The total concentration of carbon dioxide was much lower then and the rate of increase was apparently less. Is this not another failure of the models?

      The match between the temperature data and the model predictions is not as good as Mr. Nordhaus would have us believe. It apparently is getting better however, as it appears that James Hansen is using the models to post calculate the temperatures in the 30s and 40s and change the GISS temperature data base. Why is this necessary if the models are so good?

      Mr. Nordhaus also omits any mention of the fact that the modelers had to insert fudge factors for atmospheric particle concentrations to induce the models to predict the observed falling temperatures between 1940 and 1960. There are no data that show what the concentrations, particle size distributions and chemical content of the atmospheric particles were during this period. Furthermore, there are no data that show what the reflectivity of those particles might have been.

      Mr. Nordhaus then claims that to “compare the actual temperature increases of the model predictions for all sources (case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case 2).” and find that the models fail to demonstrate warming using natural sources alone somehow proves that carbon dioxide caused the warming. IPCC has not investigated other sources of warming thoroughly; IPCC does not know what other natural sources exist. Richard Lindzen has described this technique as “proof by lassitude”.

      Point 3.
      Here Mr. Nordhaus has lapsed into begging the question. His claim is that if the models are correct, then carbon dioxide is a pollutant because it will cause dangerous climate changes. In other words, if he assumes that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, then he can prove that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Big deal.

      Point 4.
      Mr. Nordhaus says, “While we must always be attentive to a herd instinct, this lurid tale is misleading in the extreme.” He at least acknowledges that some version of prejudice exists in the scientific community. I agree that the Soviet example was extreme, but to deny that it is happening now in this field is naïve. In fact Mr. Nordhaus acknowledges its existence in “While some claim that skeptics cannot get their papers published, working papers and the Internet are open to all.” So, the ClimateGate emails show that the stars of the show, Mann, Jones, et al. conspired to prevent skeptics from having access to peer reviewed journals, that’ OK because they are free to publish in the gray literature and on line and then have their arguments dismissed because their work did not appear in peer reviewed literature. Does this sound like science to you?

      Point 5.
      Arrhenius may have made precise calculations but they were not very accurate. He demonstrated a technique, but lacked even a rudimentary calculator, much less a computer. He would have been constrained by the availability of accurate tables of logarithms, which also were not precise and often contained errors known to their author so that he could enforce his copyright. To point out the Arrhenius did this work 60 years before NSF is shallow and disingenuous. For example, thanks to Peter Gleick, we now have access to the entire list of contributors to the Heartland Institute. How many government grants does that organization have? How long has it been since Fred Singer got research funding from EPA? EPA has given millions of dollars (probably around $100 million) to organizations like NRDC, WWF, Environmental Fund, UCS and other activist organizations, how much has EPA given to any skeptic organization?

      Mr. Nordhaus invokes the specter of tobacco companies sowing doubt about the dangers of cigarette smoking back in the 1950s and then says that the stakes for energy companies are even higher. However, he stops short of claiming that the energy companies have provided significant funding for skeptical organizations.

      I am sure that he stopped short because he knows that there is not a shred of evidence that it is true. That did not stop him from trying to slip this lie into his discussion by subterfuge. For example, refer to the Heartland Institute, how much did big oil give them? On the other hand Chesapeake Energy, a natural gas company, gave the Sierra Club about $26 million.

      Point 6.
      I have no comment, I have not read Mr. Nordhaus’ book.

    • Gee, I did not see any of the point about the Nordhaus article that I made anywhere on your page. What do you mean by regurgitated?

      • OK, not all regurgitated; I disagree with Arthur on that. Point 3 was just tendentious and wrong but perhaps original. The WSJ folks made a claim, and Nordhaus refuted it nicely. You came by to shift the goalposts.

        In order not to make this site as tedious as all the others so we can build a community, we can't respond to every attempt to fillibuster. Most of your points have been throughly rebutted elsewhere. Google is your friend. Go look if you really care to have an open mind.

    • "Snorbert" - if you had actually made any substantive comment (with citations to the peer-reviewed literature, say!) on Nordhaus' rebuttal that differed in content from the original WSJ article's claims I would have been happy to post it on the original article. Seeing nothing that appeared to be actually anything not already rebutted over and over again, it's here in "moderated". Feel free to cry censorship all you like.

    • The endlessly rebutted point 2 (on which the whole rant depends) is handled particularly nicely just today by Barry Bickmore, whom I'm really beginning to appreciate as a science communicator. The fair-minded reader, I think, will have little difficulty in understanding it.

  5. So, you want to have a site that contains only glowing praise for your intellect and no disagreement with your pronouncements. OK, I can appreciate that and will comply by leaving you alone.

    The WSJ published an editorial, Nordhaus made a mess of a response that ignored the points that the WSJ article made. You, being a thoughtless acolyte of the alarmist position pay homage and can not see that Nordhaus refuted nothing.

    However, you appear to be an arrogant jerk, I'll admit that.

    • klem - 2012/03/01 at 8:35 am:

      Well I looked at the first claim and the debunking link. The debunking link does not debunk the first claim, it merely talks about it. Some debunking. Nice work.

      Can’t you greenies do anything right?

    • Cosmic Ray writes:

      If Mann has nothing to hide, then he should make his emails public. Period.

      Keeping them locked up only fuels suspicion.

      OK, on that principle, I suppose if Cosmic Ray has nothing to hide, he should make HIS emails public as well. All of them.

    • "This is not an idle question." -Frank

      It'll at least serve for an idle question 'til a real idle question comes up.

    • Frank's question, while imperfectly posed, is idle only to those who desire continued distraction in the climate wars. He is asking if it makes sense to continue the current communications model. The social scientists say no.

    • Fuller actually wrote this. I offered him a chance to retract it. He replied on another matter. Shrug. Here it is in full:

      "Steve Bloom–no wonder you’re defending Tobis’ mis-statements of fact. You’re a serial liar. You’re also scum."

    • [I'm adding overly self-referential or circular Fuller comments below - regular threads should not be all about Fuller or anybody else (AS)]

      Thomas Fuller on 2012/03/21 at 10:31 am:

      You see, Doctor Tobis, once again you label what I write as not justified. Then, once again, when I direct your attention to the evidence, you are scandalized. How can this happen, you cry.

      At some point you should investigate how many times you have written, ‘Therefore, I’m forced to concede that Fuller has a point/is correct/has found academic papers that I didn’t know existed.’

    • Thomas Fuller on 2012/03/21 at 11:11 am:

      Doctor Tobis, just as the UN and the IPCC are able to create statistical projections of increased mortality due to climate change, it is easy to project the increased mortality due to additional increases in energy costs and the subsequent placement of more people in fuel poverty.

      To deny this is equivalent to Morano-ism.

    • Thomas Fuller on 2012/03/21 at 11:17 am:

      PDA, you’ve forgotten–there is opinion, there is dogma and then there is a will not to know. Galileo, let me go. Senza tema di infammia ti respondo…

    • Thomas Fuller on 2012/03/21 at 11:21 am:

      You’re kinda making a fool of yourself, Frank. How much alternative energy are you responsible for creating? I’ll match totals any day. How many emissions are you responsible for avoiding? I’ll match totals with you any day.

    • Frank Swifthack (blackouts were in the original) off topic and off P3 themes altogether; links went to an old article about Assange vs Assad:

      MT, just be sure to invoke the name of “Tom Fuller” only at the right moments and in the right places, when you’re absolutely certain about what you want to do. Put in another way, “Tom Fuller” must be invoked with the same care as the broom in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

      Or, if you want a less politically-charged diversion, you can always talk about █████. I remember ████████████ tried that some time ago (eee the █████████████ at the bottom).

      – frank

  6. Tom Fuller, elided portion italicized:

    Bloom, in addition to being an inveterate liar, you are a pustulent boil on the buttocks of humanity.

    From the last two pages of Climategate: The CRUTape Letters:

    “Warming might be beneficial to humans–certainly to some of them. Most of the warming observed to date consists of a reduction in the number of unusually cold days and nights in January in the northern hemisphere—We doubt if many will complain about that. But if CO2 is a major contributor to increased warming, the next wave will come elsewhere. It plausibly could turn some developing countries into deserts with no agriculture, and others into flood-and-drain combination hellholes where agriculture is the last thing on peoples’ minds. Because global warming really doesn’t exist. It’s expressed as regional warming, and it’s unpredictable where it may strike and how quickly temperatures will rise. We believe global average temperatures will rise about 2 degrees Celsius. But it won’t be even, and it won’t happen smoothly over the rest of the century. It will hit some places like a ton of bricks and leave others untouched. A slow motion tornado that picks and chooses.

    …as clearly as we are able to see the truth, we have written it here. Global warming is real and it is a problem, if not the catastrophe they want you to believe. It needs our attention. CO2 is a contributor, along with other factors, some natural and some manmade. And yes, we do need to do something about it.”

    • "Robotech Master":

      "OPatrick says:
      I haven’t tried to argue anything, what I’ve done is ask you for your evidence of failed predictions, or to withdraw your claim if you can’t provide that evidence. Can you do one or the other?"

      lol thats good I like that we both have agreed their have been no failed predictions of global warming because their have never been any predictions of global warming... unless of course your withdrawing your argument that their have been predictions of global warming? Are you withdrawing said argument?

      The following was cut from the posted comment

      PS love the "hey I can't counter a single point you made argument style so I going to focus on one tiny little point and hope that I can wing it from there". Please run with it this whole "projections aren't predictions" path is a great run to the end.

      "Michael Tobis says:
      April 16, 2012 at 9:55 am "

      Lots of crying, whining and meaningless banter... not a whole lot of "grabbing ones balls" and joining the fight.

      Not quite as ridiculous as the fellow who showed up on sci.environment and told John McCarthy he knew nothing about computers, I'll admit. -mt

    • Frank:

      Spin it how you will, such a letter to NASA is unprecedented, and therefore significant.

      Argument by authority much, Jack Savage?

      [ yawn ]

    • Paul Kelly decides to discuss Paul Kelly:

      Where does this blogosphere propensity to put words in people’s mouths come from? I don’t think I’ve ever even used the words opinions differ, and certainly have never offered them as the starting point for anything. The rest of the comment is as accurate as the fabricated quotation.

      If you think my grasp of the science is insufficient, ask me any question about it that you please. I guarantee I will either know the answer or know where to get it.

      I’ve had a life long interest in alternative technologies. Saying someone, who has many times been a campaign volunteer since going door to door for JFK as an 11 year old, doesn’t know politics is perhaps more absurd than insulting. So is the idea that someone, who has done hundreds of radio and TV interviews and dozens for newspapers and magazines, hasn’t learned anything about mediacraft.

      I’m in my fourth decade of making a living in stand-up comedy, a rigorous form of communication. I can claim some measure of expertise, especially in oral communication. But even had I no expertise, it wouldn’t matter. You have already rejected the advice of experts as worthless. Kind of a trick bag isn’t it. You can’t form a message that can compete with the Heartlands of the world, but refuse to listen to those who can tell you how you might.

      The amazing thing is I can’t find any words on this thread that are an example of giving advice. So I guess I’m refraining already.

    • Willard bows out in an information-free grumble:

      Frank,

      If we're to have a conversation, providing a rationale is not enough. Even sociopaths can simulate that. In fact, providing a rationale is usually suspect.

      Good bye,

      w

  7. Paul Kelly couldn't have said it better himself:

    …overstating is not really effective in getting the message across.

    Co-operation and collective action builds on trust.

    …presenting the science in a more open way, in terms of a variety of options and their consequences, and including the scientific uncertainties.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    No, apparently not.

    • Myrrh:

      YAMAL

      One Tree to Rule Them All
      And In Science Darkness Bind Them.

      Pathetic Warmist fraud and science incompetence – you might take yourselves seriously, but by association you are as your science, ludicrous:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/a-blast-from-the-past-james-hansen-on-the-global-warming-debate-from-13-years-ago/#comment-982813

    • Zach Broughe:

      Nothing says integrity like being a Koched up pawn in the deniers religious war on science.

      What next Bill, a quote from fellow NC-20 BOD member and “Science” advisor John Droz Jr, spouting drivel from the Heartland institute?

      http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/02/heartland_institute_leak_shows.html

      They did such a good job in the tobacco-cancer debate!!

      http://planetsave.com/2012/02/22/teaching-your-kids-what-the-science-doesnt-say-thanks-heartland-institute/

      ===

      [ On target, I suppose, but off-topic and contentious and counterproductive. -mt ]

    • Lemon: Im way too lazy to do this and way too smart to bother – I don’t get paid to do such things like Hansen does. Fact is that the stats are “gamed”. If I do the same exercise with data of exactly the same efficacy for the last thousand years or the last 10 I get a very different chart. That is, unless I manipulate the data to agree with my hypothesis…

      [ Right, well, not in this case. The longer you go back in time the redder the map would get. Thanks for playing. -mt ]

    • Lemon: Hanson says that this is “Caused by Global Warming”
      Read his study…

      “Thus we can state with a high degree of confidence that
      extreme summers, such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, are a consequence of global warming, because global warming has dramatically increased their likelihood of occurrence.”

      [ I don't really think "caused by global warming" is the clearest use of language, but the claim he is making is easy to understand. -mt ]

    • Lemon: I note you deleted my final comment in which I pointed out that Hansen attributed Global Warming as the cause of the droughts and that data is gamed – only data that fits the scam is ever presented – even a childlike figure like me can see that fallacy. And when the data don’t fit, you omit or worse, fudge..

      You presented a graph that showed the recent weather events as anomalies since 1971 – this is of course ridiculous, as 1971 was a very cold year. If you had gone back to 1901, then the 1930s heat – which was before CO2 growth would have messed up your presentation. If you had gone back to 1001 you would have reflected the medieval warming period, which would again, have disproved the point you make your living with.

      Like Hansen and Mann, you guys are unwilling to defend your positions, because they are indefensible.

      There is a game afoot and the game is gamed.

      [ The anomalies are, as is usual, presented against a thirty year average. This is getting good, though. Keep it up. -mt ]

    • um...

      Dear Candy Hatcher, Donald Luzzatto et al:

      Before You Guys get too Carried Away with this Carbon Dioxide vis a vis Global Warming, Please Consider the Enclosed….

      George Meredith MD

      P.S. …. let’s have a public debate on these issues…I have a 15 minute PowerPoint presentation with photos of the below listed heavy equipment and concepts. The debate could involve local and state politicians and their positions on Global Warming and what, if anything, to do about it …in a cost efficient manner.

      Remember: one of your civic responsibilities to is educate our elected officials! For sure they need educating….just listen to them pontificate about Greenhouse Gases on C-Span! GM

      “Shake It Off:

      Earth’s Wobble May Have Ended Ice Age”

      by CHRISTOPHER JOYCE

      Veronique Durruty/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images
      A wobbling of the Earth on its axis about 20,000 years ago may have kicked off a beginning to the end of the last ice age. (actually it is called Glacial Period….GM) Glaciers in the Arctic and Greenland began to melt, which resulted in a warming of the Earth, a new study says. Above, Greenland’s Russell Glacier, seen in 1990.
      text size A A A
      April 5, 2012
      The last big ice age ended about 11,000 years ago, and not a moment too soon — it made a lot more of the world livable, at least for humans.
      But exactly what caused the big thaw isn’t clear, and new research suggests that a wobble in the Earth kicked off a complicated process that changed the whole planet.
      Ice tells the history of the Earth’s climate: Air bubbles in ice reveal what the atmosphere was like and what the temperature was. And scientists can read this ice, even if it’s been buried for thousands of years.
      But when it comes to the last ice age, ice has a mixed message.
      The conventional wisdom is that carbon dioxide increased in the atmosphere starting about 19,000 years ago. Then the ice melted. The logical conclusion? The greenhouse effect.
      But the Antarctic was getting warmer even before CO2 levels went up. So which came first in the Antarctic, warming or CO2?

      “The problem is, [the Antarctic is] just one spot on the map, and it’s a dicey way to slice up global climate change by looking at one point,” says Jeremy Shakun, a climate scientist at Harvard University. So he went way beyond the Antarctic — he collected samples of ice, rock and other geologic records from 80 places around the world and found that CO2 levels did, in fact, precede global warming.
      Here’s his scenario for what killed the ice age, which was published in the journal Nature this week.
      About 20,000 years ago, the Earth — the whole planet — wobbled on its axis. That happens periodically. But this time, a lot more summer sunlight hit the northern hemisphere. Gigantic ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland melted.
      “That water is going to go into the North Atlantic, and that happens to be the critical spot for this global conveyer belt of ocean circulation,” Shakun says.
      The conveyer belt is how scientists describe the huge, underwater loop-the-loop that water does in the Atlantic: Cold Arctic water sinks and moves south while warm water in the southern Atlantic moves north.
      The trouble is that the sudden burst of fresh meltwater didn’t sink, so the conveyer belt stopped.
      “It’s like, you know, sticking a fork in the conveyer belt at the grocery store,” Shakun says. “The thing just jams up; it can’t keep sinking, and the whole thing jams up.”
      So warm water in the south Atlantic stayed put. That made the Antarctic warmer. Eventually, ocean currents and wind patterns changed, and carbon dioxide rose up out of the southern oceans and into the atmosphere.
      Eric Wolff, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey, isn’t convinced a wobble was the trigger — the planet had wobbled before and not melted the ice. But he says whatever did start the process during the ice age, the subsequent increase in CO2 created a runaway greenhouse effect worldwide.
      “The CO2 increase turned what initially was a Southern Hemisphere warming into a global warming. That’s a very nice sequence of events to explain what happened between about 19,000 and 11,000 years ago,” Wolff says.
      But that’s a process that has taken about 8,000 years. And Shakun’s research found that the amount of CO2 it took to end the ice age is about the same amount as humans have added to the atmosphere in the past century.

      Charles Higley (Higley) wrote:
      ” the subsequent increase in CO2 created a runaway greenhouse effect worldwide.”

      There is no such thing as the mythical runaway greenhouse effect. A trace gas does not drive climate and it’s absorption spectrum is much woo limited. Water vapor is much more dominant and has been decreasing with warming not increasing..

      Venus is 98% CO2 and 90 atmospheres of pressure, but it is the pressure that causes the 490 deg C temperature, not the CO2. In fact, it is not a greenhouse, as sunlight does not reach the surface, being under a permanent cloud deck. Venus is used as the prime example of a runaway greenhouse, but it is not in any way.

      Mars has a low atmospheric pressure and is colder than Earth. If you go to the altitude on Earth that has the same pressure as Mars, you find the same temperature as Mars.

      The greenhouse effect on Earth is a minor effect that is lost in the natural variation of our climate and weather. CO2 lags behind temperature changes and in the 1940s temperature crashed while CO2 was much higher than now (at 440-550 ppm), currently at 390 ppm—outright proof that CO2 cannot maintain warmth let alone cause warming.

      And, indeed, CO2 is plant food and has no downside, we need more not less.
      Fri Apr 06 2012 15:06:53 GMT-0400 Recommend (3)Report abuse

      06.20 12
      Candy.hatcher@pilotonline.com
      Subject: Planet Earth’s 23,000 Year Wobble and Rising Sea Levels

      Dear Candy Hatcher,
      Thank you for taking the time to talk with me re: rising sea levels, the 23,000 year Earth wobble cycle and the ever changing line of declination of the Polar Ice Cap to the Sun. And about reestablishment of fringe marshes, unblocking tidal creeks and what the rest of coastal USA is doing about all this. And what the rest of coastal USA is doing about this, has nothing to do with rain barrels, oyster reefs, buffer zone plantings, Bacterra Storm Water Filters, picking up soda cans in the marshes and some of the other feel good-do nothing projects that the Virginian Pilot has been promoting to an incredibly naïve local population for several years now.

      What the rest of coastal USA is doing about estuary reconstruction and rising sea levels is outlined herein and in the CD that I sent to you, other members of your editorial board and to your Scott Harper a few days ago. Perhaps your readership could be better informed about the squander of USACE dredge spoils vis a vis marshland reconstruction, etc., if your newspaper would publish some of the photos of the equipment that the rest of coastal USA is using for estuary reconstruction. Please see enclosed. And see CD that I mailed to you et al!

      In this case, perhaps a picture is worth a thousand words!

      George Meredith MD, President
      Rudee-Linkhorn Waterway Fund

      CC:
      HOME » NEWSROOM STAFF
      Shawn Day, Editorial writer 446 2126
      • Candy Hatcher, Editorial writer…446 2380
      • Daryl Lease, Editorial writer…446 2441
      • Donald Luzzatto, Editorial page editor…446 2126
      • Michelle Washington, Editorial …446 2278

      Dear Virginian Pilot Editorial Staff,

      You guys drone on and on about oyster reefs, buffer zone plantings, estuary volunteer trash pickups, Bacterra Storm Water Filters, sewage treatment plant upgrades, scoop the poop, don’t feed the waterfowl and other feel good-do nothing estuary revitalization programs….but you never get down to the basics of estuary rehabilitation….the fringe marshes and the blocked tidal creeks. Why is that?

      Don’t you feel that your readership should be informed as to what the rest of coastal USA is doing to address these issues? Spelled….pipeline dredge reconstruction of fringe marshes….6 x 12 precast concrete culverts to unblock tidal creeks…and use of the amphibious Rolligon Ditcher Spreader to recreate tidal creeks and OMWM (killifish reservoirs)

      Wake up Virginian Pilot! Look around and see what the rest of America is doing to address these problems!

      George Meredith MD, President
      Linkhorn Rudee Waterway Fund

      It’s About the Sponge, Stupid!
      To Modify Rising Sea Levels

      re: “Words, Not Action on Coastal Flooding” Virginian Pilot Editorial 06.13.12
      Virginia’s Tree Huggers and their mouthpiece, the Virginian Pilot, would have us believe that if we were to all drive these (dangerous) little Chevrolet Volts, plug in to some Rube Goldberg Windmill and eat bamboo shoots, that we could change global warming with its associated sea level rise. But we both know that this is not the case.

      • Because the planet Earth wobbles on its long axis over a 23,000 year cycle, its inhabitants must endure glacial and glacial melt cycles. Glacial and interglacial periods. For instance, our shoreline was 65 miles east, 11,500 years ago. Witness the walrus tusks that scallop boats have dredged up in the Norfolk Canyon. And in another 11,500 years, our mid Atlantic shoreline will once again be on Broad Street in what was once downtown Richmond, Virginia. Witness the whale skeleton fossils that have been found in and near Richmond.

      Authors note: these shoreline positions are probably not as extreme as I depicted ….further research by your staff could provide a meaningful editorial comment…..
      Oops! I forgot you don’t do editorial comments on my offering, ‘cause no longer publish my offerings….why is that?….GM

      • Understand: As the earth wobbles on its axis, the Atlantic Ocean/Chesapeake Bay shorelines advances and recedes on a precise 23,000 year cycle. Based on the status of the polar ice cap vis a vis its line of declination to the sun. This has been going on for hundreds of thousands, probably for millions, of years. And no Obama Volt, windmill or government mandated bamboo shoot diet is going to change that!

      • However, there are some embarrassingly simple things that the current residents of today’s receding Atlantic shoreline can do to greatly modify the effects of this “sea level rise”. Specifically, we should stop squandering the navigation channel dredge spoils that the central government is, at some considerable expense, parking in a series of ill conceived (Chesapeake Bay watershed) USACE vertical dredge spoil sites. Including, the Whitehurst Pit, Craney Island and Popular Island. And through the use of hydraulic rotary cutter head pipeline dredges and Rolligon amphibious ditcher-spreaders, use, instead, these navigation channel dredge spoils to reconstruct the fringe marshes and tidal creeks of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And thus greatly modify the flooding associated with major rainstorms, hurricanes and big northeasters.

      The Virginian Pilot’s editorial board and, specifically news writer Scott Harper have been repeatedly advised by me and others that the answer to modifying the local effects of rising sea levels involves reestablishment/establishment of large, healthy fringe marshes (living shorelines). And by unblocking those tidal marshes that have been cut off from their estuaries by poorly planned roadways and rail lines.
      Simply by depositing navigation channel dredge spoils on a long intertidal slope just seaward of certain bulkheads and eroded shorelines nearby, beautiful, vibrant fringe marshes could be reestablished in one short year. And by enlarging culverts that pass beneath obstructing roadways and rail lines. Remember: an acre of salt marsh can remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as can ten acres of (tree farm) pine or oak plantings.

      The Pilot, and particularly Harper, continue to ignore two of the most important studies on control of rising sea levels, reestablishment of critical tidal marshland sponge effect, as well as estuary tidal water cleanup. The first is the work of former US Senator and American sportsman John Breaux. Witness: the pipeline dredging of shipping channels in the Mississippi River and placement of the associated dredge spoils, on long 1:6 intertidal slopes just seaward of eroded shorelines. So as to reestablish healthy fringe marshes. Within one year, without marsh grass planting, and without rip rap sills, new living shoreline (fringe marshes) can be established (reestablished)’. These marshland restoration projects are ongoing or already established in Galveston Bay, in Little River Marsh, New Hampshire, in coastal New Jersey and Delaware, in coastal Louisiana, in south San Francisco Bay and elsewhere.

      The second study is that of BC Wolverton, a NASA environmental engineer. Wolverton has shown that new (living shoreline) marshes can remove sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, raw sewage, Hepatitis A viral particles, heavy metals, coliforms and PCBs from the waters that flow through them. During twice daily tidal cycles. Accordingly, water clarity is markedly improved and thus the ability to grow submerged aquatic vegetation is enhanced! In addition to restoring the vital sponge properties of tidal watersheds. Sponge properties that are essential to modify the damage of rising sea levels. Especially during hurricanes, during heavy rains and during northeasters.

      And pipeline dredge restoration of fringe marshes could be done for practically nothing. Especially when considering the savings in disposal (repositioning) navigation channel dredge spoils….cf: instead of transporting same to the Whitehurst Pit, Craney Island, Popular Island and other USACE designated vertical dredge spoil deposition sites.

      Pay attention! Mr. Harper and your colleagues at the Virginian Pilot. We need tidal marshes, not granite rip rap sills, volunteer trash pickup programs, oyster reefs, rain barrels, expensive Bacterra storm water filers, buffer zone shrub plantings and the other feel good-do nothing projects that you are so anxious to promote. Listen! To modify the effects of rising sea levels, we must reestablish the fringe marshes and unblock those tidal marshes that have been degraded by poorly planned roadways and rail lines. Once the tidal marshes are restored, the storm water will take care of itself! But not vice versa. Sir, again, I plead with you and your collaborators to use your library cards before you offer more illogical, poorly researched concepts as those you have presented on this editorial page, as well as in other similarly positioned articles.

      It’s about the sponge, stupid!

      George Meredith MD, President
      Linkhorn-Rudee Waterway Fund

      To learn more about economical marshland restoration, storm water management and Scott Harper’s and the Virginian Pilot’s repeated ignorance of same, search: George Meredith MD Marshland Pipeline Dredging Comments…..or just look at the heavy equipment that was on the CD that I sent you re: marshland restoration…Rolligon Ditcher Spreader, Hydraulic Rotary Cutterhead Pipeline Dredge and the precast 6 X 12 concrete culverts to place underneath roadways and rail line that block tidal flows…

    • jyyh writes:

      Thanks Tenney, on the era of film cameras this trick would have been, I guess, harder to do. But I do like digital zooming, and use it regularly when it not possible to get near enough to the subject. Are there any good wide objectives that won’t distort the edges?

      [ off topic -mt ]

    • Alastair McDonald:

      I’ve been busy on other things but this article reminded me of the other thread where scientists were accused of downplaying the dangers of climate change. I have already crossed swords with Mauri Pelto, but he was unable to answer me.
      and Hank’s comment further down.

      Here he seems to think that although the small glaciers (most of the glaciers) are about to disappear, there is no need to worry because at the present rate of retreat the larger glaciers will last for over 100 years.

      But if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and with the exploitation of natural and shale gas that seems inevitable, then the large glaciers will start to retreat faster. If Pelto then decides that we had better stop the retreat, what can he do. He would have to not only stop the increase in CO2 he would have to reverse it!

      I had better not say what we should do with Pelto when the revolution comes!

      Cheers, Alastair.

      [ Ad hominem and tendentious. ]

    • don’t idolize Chomsky. I admire his courage and his work. The way you make your point is quite an intentional attempt to de-legitimize his arguments and my support for them through a flippanbt remark (i.e. to ídolize’). I admire a lot of people, and as an ex Nature editor I don’t think that should be conflated with them being idols. You can add scientists like Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson, Tom Lovejoy and Stuart Pimmto that list. They know of me through my efforts to combat anti-environmental screeds and perhaps through my research as well. I don’t know that, although I think that I have been fairly successful in my field of ecological resesrch.

      The most important point is not to isoalte Chosky as if he is alone. He is most certainly not alone, although given the fact of corporate media control and dependence for it on advertising in the United States (and over here), its little wonder that his views rarely permeate the mainstream. They simply do not fit in with the well cultivated myth of the US being a benevolent country which promotes peace, freedom and democracy in its foreign policy. Given this fact, its rather disingenuous of Pearce and his supporters like Kloor to suggest that Rachel Carson had some indirect effects on the sale and use of pesticides like DDT in developing nations and that this led to the deaths of millions of people. Most of those pushing this lie are militarists on the political right, who just so happen to be using it as a beating stick to camouflage their real agendas: that is the sale and widespread use of pesticides in Africa and elsewhere. If these pesticides were to be provided cheaply or freely to the lands of the poor then I might have a different opinion. But, like Coca Cola or Nike or Gap Jeans they are a product. As such, the manufacturers want to make profit on them. The same is tru of transgenic seeds, which require a different kind of PR cover – the specter of global hunger – to be marketable. Forget the fact that social injustices and wealth inequalities are the main driving force behind poverty and malnutrition. Instead, we are fed a steady diet of mendacious propaganda to suggest that a few techno-fixes – often very costly ones – will do the trick. Yet, as abundant evidence shows, poverty and wealth inequality are not slowing or even reversing. They have increased since 2008 – a direct consequence of the current capitalist experiment called neoliberalism (i.e. free market absolutism).

      There are many scholars and academics like myself who can see through the hypocrisy of the myths we are force fed on a daily basis to give the impression that we are on the right track if we just leave corporations to themselves and contine to pursue free-market solutions. The problem is that our voices are lost against a chorus of establishment hacks who write for the maninstream media. These people have gone through a filter which selects for certain ideas and beliefs at the expense of alternate models. The curretn crop of journalists in the US are, for the most part, sitting where they are exactly because their views do not threaten those with power and priviledge. If they did, they wouldn’t be sitting where they are now.

      There’s no need for you to bring Holland into the discussion. We are a US proxy, along with most of the other spineless governments in Europe. If the US says stay in Afghanistan, a lost and immoral occupation if there ever was one, then of course the Dutch will do what the grand master of the hemisphere says. The same goes for most of the EU, who believe that the solution to the economic crisis is to allow the banking criminals who created it in the first place to solve it. Its refreshing to see the World Bank and IMF (in other words, the US treasury) more-or-less theowqn out of South America with their structuyral adjustment policies and austerity programs that devastate the middle and working classes but alwasy enrich those at the top. In that regard, there is hope: if this was 1973, and not 2012, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Eduardo Correa would probably already be dead, overthrown in brutal coups orchestrated in Washington. But its 2012, and the US just does not have that influence any more.

      But let me get this straight. Kloor, Pearce and their ilk are dinosaurs IMHO. But the corporate media is full of them. As I said above, they never connect the dots. They rail on about the potential complicity of environmental NGOs in the death of millions through the opposition of these NGOs to support the use of chlorine-based pesticides, but they are completely silent on the economic and military policies of western nations (and that includes Europe as well) which are driving and maintaining poverty and which are killing thousands of people every day and whgich have probably killed many more people than malaria has done since the 1970s. Why are they silent? Because they swallow the myth of our supposed ‘benevolence’ whole. The believe that our governments ‘want to do well’ when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

      Michael, have you ever read a declassified state planning document? One of the great things about our societies in the west is that they are very open (of course, that is changing). Many government planning documents are declaissified and are available in any library. I’ve read quite a few of them from the British files. The US ones wouldn’t be any different. Mark Curtis has also studied them and written about them. He says that in his entire career as a historian/journalist he’s yet to read one in which the supposed aims are democracy promotion and to support self-interests on the country involved. In virtually every case, the documents argue that the government should do everything to bolster the interests of its corporations abd businesses. They go on to say that the government shoudl do everything to interfere with the decision-making processes in the country being discussed, so that the interests of (British) business can be promoted. If I were to quote influential US figures and bodies (like the Council on Foreign Relations) then the aims of US foregin policies over the past 60 years would be laid bare. Smedley Butler, Lawrence Summers, Zbignieuw Brezinski, Henry Kissinger, Paul Nitze, George Kennan, Thomas Carotthers, and many others have made the real agends clear. And yet ask Americans how many of these people they’ve actually heard of. Maybe Kissinger and that’s it. And that is not even a slam dunk.

      The sad fact is that I agree with much of what you say. But the real disconnest as far as i am concerned is that too many scientists cannot see the world outside of the scientific ‘box’ that they have constructed around themselves. I am talking about social and political realities, and not merely the pap we are force-fed from birth. The solutions to most of the global social and economci problems are not scientific but political. I am saying this as an experienced scientist with many years of research under my belt. Far from Kloor being able to wipe the floor with me (excuse the rhyme), he’d have no riposte to my arguments with respect to political realities. So he’d have to resort to smears or belitting as he does with Tim Lambert. I expect he’s as naive as many others out there, who simply cannot connect rhetoric and reality. That’s why I hold most journalists in contempt. Far from challenging those with power, they appear content to act as stenographere, swallowing whole pretty much waht the politicos and their paymasters say. Look at George W. Bush. In 2004 he has a remarkable, divine ‘moment’and tells the world that he has a vision and belief in democracy. Pretty mcuh ever media outlet in the western world swallowed it hook, line and sinker. In the US the ‘left’ defended their president, but argued that the Iraqis were probably too savage to appreciate the gift. Those on the right, of course elevated Bush to the stature of a demi-God adfter his pronouncement. By coincidence, the same moth as Bush’s revelation moment a poll was held in Iraq, where the questions wss asked, “Why do you think the United States entered your country”(note that the word ‘invaded’was replaced by ‘entered’). Some Iraqis agreed with the US president – 1% of them (against pretty much 100% of US media opinion). In the same poll, 62% believed that the US had ‘entered’ ther country to control its natural resources; 70% believed that, even were they to be allowed democracy, that it would only be a government under US control.

      Now you think that the media would connect elite media opinion in the US (~100% behind the president) and that iN iRAQ (1%). Yet a search on Lexis/Nexus reveals 0 hits combining the two stories. So when can we expect to see Pearce/Kloor or any of the corporate media pundits drawthe connection between mass death caused in Africa by the supposed absence of DDT and by the effects of ongoing and quite deliberate economic/military policies over the past 60 years? A: You won’t. And therefore this suggests to em that western elites don’t give a damn about malnutrition and poverty reduction. We’ve had decades to deal with this but the poor have never been a priority to western planners. End of story.

      [ The topic was the capacity of the press to identify lies. This rant, whatever its value, persists on dragging everything to the most general level and ignoring the quetsion at hand. It qualifies for disqualification as "derailing the ongoing discussion". ]

  8. Michael,

    My 'rant', as you colloquially call it, is simply aimed at trying to understand the logic behind (1) Rachel Carson being indirectly blamed for causing the needless deaths of millions of Africans through her stance on the dangers of pesticides, whilst (2) ignoring vastly greater numbers of people who have died (and are dying) in that continent because of western economic and military policies. Pearce and others in the media and blogs make ridiculous assertions about (1), but the same pundits never discuss (2). I am saying that if they did, then they would have to dismiss (1). This is because it would be clear that the lives and welfare of people in Africa and elsewhere in the third world are completely unimportant to those with wealth and power. The evidence for this is overwhelming. That being the case, then we should try and better understand why the media and blogs keep dredging up the Rachel Carson-mass murder canard. This should also be simple. Its because pesticides are marketable products, and thus the welfare of people in Africa is used to hide the real agenda which is profit-driven. I don't think this is in any way controversial or off-topic...

    If you think this is irrelevant, so be it. I don't.

    • I think it's absurd to suggest that these claims are non-controversial. Still, I relish controversy properly done. I don't think you are doing that.

      At least you address the question at hand directly here. Sort of.

      First, I think it's untrue, as an answer for "why the media and blogs keep dredging up the Rachel Carson-mass murder canard" that "Its because pesticides are marketable products". DDT is not a major profit center so your "explanation" (i.e., unsupported assertion) holds no water. Second, I think the claim that " vastly greater numbers of people who have died (and are dying) in that continent because of western economic and military policies" at best conflates the sins and mistakes of our great-grandparents with our own, but is also a gross oversimplification and objectification of the "third world", which is emerging from abject poverty largely because of the success of contemporary western policies. Indeed, any substantive familiarity with the sustainability question would require awareness of the extent to which the environmental footprint of the poorer countries is growing.

      I am no knee-jerk defender of corporations or the corporate dominated status quo, but I find your assertions wild, and more to the point, unsupported. But most important they are sterile. They don't activate creativity. I do not see how this kind of thinking or speaking helps. Unless you are actually a troll for the other side, of course.

      You suggest we be as unhappy as you are with the status quo. Suppose for the sake of argument we all agreed, me and the rest of the vast horde of P3 readers now and in the future. Now what?

    • Someone falsely claiming to be a well-known scientist said:

      Geezez Mike, what’s the size of your carbon skidmark? You are single handily killing the planet.

    • Harry said:

      Pffft. I dont Mikey, but I dont like them. Let us attack back with ad hominems. I tried to debunk them with facts, but gawl dang I think we just might be wrong. So I started making shht up. Thank you foe this graph. Can we make the slope steeper? Bettwr yet if you havent already, lets change the past data. Heard our sister church in anglia did just that.

      Thanks brother. Amen. For the cause.

    • Harry said:

      Gary – leave us alone in our misery. Our religious beliefs are not up for discussion.
      Go back to your medicated free life of happiness.

    • "Cosmic Ray" writes:

      So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

      - Gen. Wesley Clark in 2007, recalling events in 2001.
      http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid

      And the Obama admin has played a role in starting some of the uprisings in the Middle East during his 1st term.

      [ Off topic -mt ]

    • Tom Fuller writes:

      Dr. Tobis, you will obviously moderate as you see fit. Given your rather imperious nature of demanding stuff from me that a child could (and would) have found in five minutes prior to posting such nonsense as you did, rebuking me about my attitude is faintly humorous.

      The fact is that a number of financial experts predicted the collapse and their predictions were published. If you’ve never heard of The Black Swan or wondered why Taleb is famous, then you shouldn’t be writing about these issues in the first place.

      As for asking me to name clients and divulge material delivered under non-disclosure agreements, you seem to have a rather strange view of how the world works. I am sorry I cannot accommodate your demands.

      When you quit being unpleasant, so shall I.

      [ Comments that add nothing interesting or which try to derail the ongoing discussion are ruthlessly purged. This qualifies. ]

    • Tom Fuller writes:

      So it’s back to censorship, eh? Guess that’s better than admitting you’re wrong, right?

      [ You don't read very carefully, do you? Our objective is to make the place interesting, pleasant, and welcoming. Editorial control is not censorship. And here's your post to prove it. ]

    • Mr. Cool writes:

      Guess he finally figured out that even scenario C was a far fetched prediction.

      [ I suppose at best that was supposed to be amusing, but this is the wrong audience. If it was meant to be irritating, it's more successful. And we should post it, why exactly? ]

  9. [ An otherwise worthy comment by "Nullius in Verba" is marred by mention of "Climategate", a vicious codeword carrying a vast baggage of meaningless innuendo, paranoia and slander and a tiny bit of overblown nitpicking. The word does not appear on this site without numerous caveats, by policy. Here's the unedited version. See if you think the provocation adds enough value to be worth the aggravation. Nullius owes me a half hour of tedium copying and pasting and editing this piece. - mt ]

    ““almost all” does not equal all. I have to start right out giving you the benefit of the doubt, as you have misrepresented my first sentence in your first sentence. I see you agree as to the large majority.”

    That “almost all” is not “all” is trivially true. I am a scientist, and I don’t agree, therefore it cannot be “all”. What I was disagreeing with was the “almost all”, saying that 85% isn’t “almost all”.

    I suppose it’s an imprecise expression in everyday language, and subject to interpretation. But I’ve not come across anyone who heard “almost all” without knowing the details already and interpreted that as being as low as 85%. It’s an empty argument, though, since science isn’t a popularity contest. Argumentum ad populam is still a fallacy.

    “As far as I know the outliers are in many cases either not as qualified or are beholden to the fossil fuel industry.”

    As far as I know, most of the believers are either not qualified or beholden to the green industry. So what?

    CRU, centre of Climategate and prominent in the IPCC hierarchy were funded by British Petroleum, Eastern Electricity, the Irish Electricity Supply Board, National Power, as well as Greenpeace and the WWF. So what? You have to judge everybody on the science. To judge science by who funded it is ad hominem argument, and another fallacy. It’s reasonable to say that it might lead you to check it more carefully, but you don’t judge an argument’s truth by the people making it.

    And anyway, *I* am definitely not funded by the fossil fuel industry. Whether I’m qualified to hold an opinion is of course another question. If I’m not, who is?

    “I am just as unqualified in economics as I am in science, but if our current Congress is any indicator, free market protection of extreme wealth and influence is going in the wrong direction.”

    This is something that I think I might be able to help with. The free market is absolutely, diametrically opposed to the protection of extreme wealth. It’s called ‘Protectionism’, and we oppose it whether it is practiced by manufacturers and big business or by labor and unions. Free market believers are firmly opposed to the purchase of influence, too. We are opposed to Congressional corruption. It’s wrong, it’s bad, it’s damaging and expensive.

    Adam Smith reputedly said “When manufacturers meet it may be expected that a conspiracy will be planned against the pockets of the public.” and Bastiat, one of the original developers of free market thinking, agreed with the saying wholeheartedly, quoting it approvingly. (See ‘Sophisms of the Protectionists’ or ‘Essays on Political Economy’.) Economic liberals are *not* on the side of big business. They are on the side of consumers.

    “All of these organizations agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:”
    How many of those were decided by half a dozen people self-elected to a committee, and how many were decided by a vote of the entire membership? Every one I’ve enquired about turned out to be closer to the former.

    But the big question is on what evidential basis did they come to that conclusion? That’s what I want to know. And again in all the cases I’ve enquired, the justifications offered, if any, were less than I could have put forward myself. None of them seemed to understand the issues themselves. They simply relied on the authority and reputation of others. Which of course anybody could do – there’s nothing different in the way they dealt with it as scientists compared to the way non-scientists do it.

    But in any case, a mere listing of the organizations is not sufficient. You also need to list the percentage of each organization’s membership who voted for it. I’d certainly be interested to know if I’m wrong and that all these organizations did conduct proper surveys. But I’d also be very surprised.

    “I jumped on it, and a number of my fellow artists said I should be more respectful, that these men knew more than I did about the market.”

    I agree with you about trusting “experts” in the market. (As Feynman said, Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.) But people interacting in a market are to the marketplace as individual neurones are to a brain. Individually, they do not know the answers. There’s far too much information for any one individual to know what’s going on and why the market reaches the decisions it does. But collectively, all the scattered information is communicated and collated, and the optimum approached without anyone’s intervention or awareness. Individual businessmen go bankrupt. The marketplace, by driving bad ideas bankrupt and preserving good ones, acts like natural selection in picking out effective designs. Bacteria are extremely dumb, but evolution by natural selection is a very clever chemist. (Read a biochemistry textbook if you don’t agree.) The free market works in the same sort of way.

    • Barry Woods writes:

      Too funny(above):

      “Their data set were 1,000+ nuts who frequent climate blogs, er, subjects, not a single apologist.”

      as we know now, the blog these nuts were surveyed from were all acquaintances of Lewandowsky etc and the readers of blogs that basically detest and are atagonistic towards ‘sceptics’, which is one of the ‘lies’ of the paper, ‘diverse audience’….

      The blogs who posted the links were claimed to be:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
      http://tamino.wordpress.com
      http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
      http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
      http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
      http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
      http://hot-topic.co.nz/

      I am comment one:
      http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

      I found six of the survey links and when I contacted Prof Lewandowsky (I had never heard of him at this point, I had just read Dr Adam Corner’s article in the Guardian) Stephan lied to me straight off..

      emails reproduced here:
      http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/#comment-407897

      he lied by telling me the survey had been posted at Skeptical Science, and that he had the URL and lost it..

      when it was NEVER posted at SkS, making the whole content analysis (for a 20% diverse audience) which was somehow ‘spread across the other 7 blogs) totally bogus.

      http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

      I am afraid that this will not end well. I was initially amused to find myself in the dat of the Recursive Fury paper, alongside the exalted company of Proff Richard Betts (Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts, IPCC lead author AR4 & AR%) but not the implications..

      Psychologists attacking their critics by psychologisisng..

      remember Cook and Lewandowsky have a definite vested interest in rebutting ‘sceptics’ not least provididng AL GORE’s Reality project with material..

      I have made a complaint to both journals, on ethics grounds, and academic misconduct with UWA.. not least the lies about a key plank of LOG12.- the content analysis and survey liked at Skeptical Science.

      Stephan has made use of the media, I see no reason not to do the same should UWA and the journals not realise what a mess this is.

      [ yawn ]

    • Barry Woods tries again:

      “Their data set were 1,000+ nuts who frequent climate blogs, er, subjects, not a single apologist.”

      http://planet3.org/2012/08/23/motivated-rejection-of-science/#comment-27460

      as we know now, the blog these nuts were surveyed from were all acquaintances of Lewandowsky etc and the readers of blogs that basically detest and are atagonistic towards ‘sceptics’

      The blogs who posted the links were claimed to be:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
      http://tamino.wordpress.com
      http://bbickmore.wordpress.com
      http://www.trunity.net/uuuno/blogs/
      http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
      http://profmandia.wordpress.com/
      http://hot-topic.co.nz/

      I am comment one:
      http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

      emails reproduced here:
      http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/#comment-407897

      Professor Lewandowsky told me that the survey had been posted at Skeptical Science, and that he had the URL and lost it.. (which seemed very sloppy at the time)

      Now we know Tom Curtis (moderator at Skeptical Science) has stated that it was NEVER posted at SkS, making the LOG12 claim of 390,000 visits, 78,000 sceptical from a John Cook provided SkS content analysis (for a 20% diverse audience) which was somehow ‘spread across the other 7 blogs) totally falsified

      http://talkingclimate.org/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

      Prof Lewandowsky, should withdraw the paper, and correct it, based on 7 blogs, and get content analysis for each of the 7 blogs that actually participated.

      [yawn]

    • Ariadne writes:

      Goodyear should have his head on a post, next to Harper. Conservatives are only good for crow fodder.

      [ content-free and contentious ]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>