Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptic’s Position

[desy]

Tough to be a free human if you sh!t where you sleep

 

[PJABBER]

I like how a guy in the comments column provides a nice counter point

"Warren,

First off, let me start by saying that I earned a Ph.D. in environmental science at large cost to myself, including going to a lot of night school classes, so that I could understand scientific literature and learn enough to let me get into the nuts and bolts of some of these important issues. I believe I can read and understand the arguments pro and con pretty well.

Here is Mike Aucott's background. You can judge his qualifications and applicable experience yourself.

In slides 24 through 32 you spend a lot of time trying to debunk the hockey stick graph, claiming that the ocean isn’t warming, the earth’s temperature has been “flat” for the past 10 or so years, etc. etc. You are just wrong about all of this. The leaked email thing is really irrelevant to the earth’s temperature record; it has been blown out of all proportion and doesn’t change any of the science or the data. The hockey stick graph, showing proxy temperatures going back 1200 years has been hashed and rehashed, and it is stronger than ever. For more info on this, see http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/ and http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/...ger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/

It is interesting that Mike defends Michael Mann's "hockey stick." And relies on ClimateProgress.org links for his reference.

From their site...

Climate Progress is dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics. It is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

Dr. Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a Senior Fellow at the American Progress.

In 2009, Rolling Stone named Romm #88 on its list of The 100 “people who are reinventing America” calling him “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger.”

I won't get into the "science," but I find it astonishing that out of 70 positive comments made about the OP, with only two critical, you pick the one critical one that happens to use not authoritative academic/research references but a blog put out by “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger.”

BTW, do you know who is behind "Climate Progress?"

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We are creating a long-term, progressive vision for America—a vision that policy makers, thought-leaders and activists can use to shape the national debate and pass laws that make a difference.

Our mission is to transform progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President William J. Clinton and a professor at Georgetown University Center of Law.

Oh yeah, John Podesta, chief community organizer of "progressives." Color me surprised. Non-partisan? ROTFLMAO!

Thanks for reading through all of this. I hate to criticize anything that obviously represents a lot of sincere work. I just am virtually certain that you are off base on a lot of what you say. I recommend to you and anyone else who wants to better understand the current science on global warming a book that recently came out. It’s called The Long Thaw, by David Archer."

While I am always curious as to what references are used to defend or rebut political positions, those that claim "science", particularly in the furthering of "progressive" agendas, are particularly interesting.

Who is David Archer?

David Archer, is most known for his work with the "progressive" blog RealClimate.

Among the eleven permanent contributors of content on this site is our old friend... Michael Mann.

Now, I am not qualified to respond authoritatively to Mike Aucott's "scientific" comments, but a quick review of his comments shows them more his personal opinion than a reference to the scientific case. And his opinion is at odds with the debunking of AGW core conclusions that has occurred in the past year or two - conclusions that he still relies on.

Perhaps he, like many of the "progressive" participants in this forum, need to broaden their preferred reading lists to include a review of the full range of research available, rather than rely solely on the "progressively" approved one.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps he, like many of the "progressive" participants in this forum, need to broaden their preferred reading lists to include a review of the full range of research available, rather than rely solely on the "progressively" approved one.

Lol, perhaps you should broaden yourself beyond Fail?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Lol, perhaps you should broaden yourself beyond Fail?

...and perhaps you should broaden yourself beyond your pathetic 'fail' fixation and actually make an effort engage in intelligent dialog...if such a thing is possible.

 

[sandorski]

...and perhaps you should broaden yourself beyond your pathetic 'fail' fixation and actually make an effort engage in intelligent dialog...if such a thing is possible.

Tried that, was a waste of my time.

 

[Throckmorton]

PJABBER, congratulations, you've mastered meaningless ad hominem attacks.

 

[PJABBER]

PJABBER, congratulations, you've mastered meaningless ad hominem attacks.

Meaningless? If a comment is quoted here as a rebuttal or as an authoritative or impartial source, I believe it is helpful for fully identify that source. You know, maybe a bio link, a Wiki reference, whatever.

I may not do this all the time myself, as my time to do so is inevitably limited, but I do make a best effort. Check out my posts and OPs - I am one of the few posters here to make such an effort.

Desy liked Mike Aucott's comment. But when he cut off the name of the person making the comment he implied, deliberately or by simple omission, that Aucott was some random and unbiased source. By not putting the quote in context, ie Aucott was one of only two negative comments in a sea of positive comments, he implied that Aucott was something other than a singular critical voice.

I have certainly not attacked Desy with an ad hominem, I do not even mention him in my responding post, as I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. There certainly are fools who post here, and demonstrate that they are ad infinitum. But unless and until Desy does, why should he merit an ad hominum?

Maybe Desy was impressed that Aucott spent time to write one of two comments that responded in a negative way to the OP's effort (the rest of the comments were overwhelmingly positive and encouraging of the effort that went into the OP,) or maybe he was impressed that the response Aucott made was sort of scientific sounding.

I had to refer to the OP, find Aucott's post, look up who Aucott is and then I just pointed out that Aucott has an agenda. And that his opinion is based on sources that can best be described as "tainted" and politically motivated by a "progressive" agenda. Desy may or may not know who Aucott is, or that Aucott has a specific agenda, maybe he can let us know.

You may agree with that particular agenda yourself, or not, but it does not serve the merits of an argument to avoid identifying the agendas of those whose opinion you rely on.

 

[Throckmorton]

The problem is that denialism is founded in ideological and political agendas, so you project that motivation onto everybody else. While it's possible that there's a vast conspiracy to promote the concept of global warming for personal gain, that's not feasible.

I assume you'd agree that if your "agenda" comes from understanding of the science, there's nothing wrong with that. If your skewed interpretation of the science and willful ignorance comes from your agenda, you're backwards.

 

[PJABBER]

The problem is that denialism is founded in ideological and political agendas, so you project that motivation onto everybody else. While it's possible that there's a vast conspiracy to promote the concept of global warming for personal gain, that's not feasible.

I assume you'd agree that if your "agenda" comes from understanding of the science, there's nothing wrong with that. If your skewed interpretation of the science and willful ignorance comes from your agenda, you're backwards.

Personal gain can be determined in the sciences as much as in any other profession - tenure, funding, fame, peer acceptance on personal and professional levels, speaking engagement fees, book revenues, the list is well defined.

An easy way to gain is to identify as closely as possible with the prime movers, guys like Michael Mann and notorious associates. Your fortunes may rise, or fall, with theirs. I am not referring to the run of ordinary sycophants here.

Certain groups within the broad swath of climate study have been shown to be less than strict adherents to the scientific method. The motivations can be determined on a case by case basis, but certainly you must have read something about this elsewhere.

While it may be that not all of the research they have produced is corrupted, there should certainly be pause to consider that as some is, then the remainder must be also considered with some level of skepticism.

As I have said on multiple occasions, I am not going to make an authoritative commentary on the science. As someone who has been highly supportive of the original "ecology" movement in the United States, I am highly concerned by the hijacking of the scientific effort for plain ol' political advantage.

The greatest arrogation comes from the "progressives." Which is why I point out the political connection and the agenda which by now should be familiar to all.

Let me offer up a text that I find useful in understanding "agenda" and the reasons for and the consequences of the political hijacking.

Blue Planet in Green Shackles

by Václav Klaus

The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or Communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.

So writes Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered - Climate Or Freedom?

In this brilliantly argued book, Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, and that policies being proposed to address global warming are both economically harmful -- especially to poor nations -- and utterly unjustified by current science.

My copy is signed. :awe:

 

[shira]

Here is Mike Aucott's background. You can judge his qualifications and applicable experience yourself.

It is interesting that Mike defends Michael Mann's "hockey stick." And relies on ClimateProgress.org links for his reference.

From their site...

I won't get into the "science," but I find it astonishing that out of 70 positive comments made about the OP, with only two critical, you pick the one critical one that happens to use not authoritative academic/research references but a blog put out by “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger.”

BTW, do you know who is behind "Climate Progress?"

Oh yeah, John Podesta, chief community organizer of "progressives." Color me surprised. Non-partisan? ROTFLMAO!

While I am always curious as to what references are used to defend or rebut political positions, those that claim "science", particularly in the furthering of "progressive" agendas, are particularly interesting.

Who is David Archer?

David Archer, is most known for his work with the "progressive" blog RealClimate.

Among the eleven permanent contributors of content on this site is our old friend... Michael Mann.

Now, I am not qualified to respond authoritatively to Mike Aucott's "scientific" comments, but a quick review of his comments shows them more his personal opinion than a reference to the scientific case. And his opinion is at odds with the debunking of AGW core conclusions that has occurred in the past year or two - conclusions that he still relies on.

Perhaps he, like many of the "progressive" participants in this forum, need to broaden their preferred reading lists to include a review of the full range of research available, rather than rely solely on the "progressively" approved one.

So let's get this straight:

You post a link to an article by someone totally unqualified to engage in a debate on the science of climate change, and you think this article is wonderful and proves something.

But when a carefully constructed, obviously well informed response to the article is made by someone who actually IS an expert in climate change . . .

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/expertise/dsrt-expertise.htm

. . . why you just fall all over yourself with the ad hominem attacks trying to discredit the source of the criticism.

Can you really be this blind to your own bias?

 

[PJABBER]

So let's get this straight:

You post a link to an article by someone totally unqualified to engage in a debate on the science of climate change, and you think this article is wonderful and proves something.

But when a carefully constructed, obviously well informed response to the article is made by someone who actually IS an expert in climate change . . .

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/expertise/dsrt-expertise.htm

. . . why you just fall all over yourself with the ad hominem attacks trying to discredit the source of the criticism.

Let's get this straight.

You don't watch the video in the OP, but you feel qualified to comment.

You fail to address any of the documented references made in the OP, but you feel free to criticize the man who took the time to compile them.

You praise the singular critical comment made by a New Jersey State climatologist that just happens to rely on and reference the researchers who are being put to task by the OP and you do so by providing a link to his phone directory.

By means of an ad hominem attack you claim that I am engaged in an ad hominem attack, though I am clearly not.

Can you really be this blind to your own bias?

 

[shira]

Let's get this straight.

You don't watch the video in the OP, but you feel qualified to comment.

You fail to address any of the documented references made in the OP, but you feel free to criticize the man who took the time to compile them.

You praise the singular critical comment made by a New Jersey State climatologist that just happens to rely on and reference the researchers who are being put to task by the OP and you do so by providing a link to his phone directory.

By means of an ad hominem attack you claim that I am engaged in an ad hominem attack, though I am clearly not.

Can you really be this blind to your own bias?

More evasions. More non-responses. More desperate flailing. What a surprise.

Good luck with the self-delusion.

 

[PJABBER]

More evasions. More non-responses. More desperate flailing. What a surprise.

Good luck with the self-delusion.

Self-delusion is the least of my many failings. :thumbsup:

But good luck with yours. :awe:

 

[sonnygdude]

Predicting the earth's temperature based on heat transfer calculations and greenhouse gas effects is a physics question. Therefore climatologists are unqualified to make these predictions. Only scientists with detailed knowledge of thermal analysis and applied physics are qualified to do this.

See, anyone can do this! What an effective arguing technique!

 

[DominionSeraph]

Is combustion exothermic? yes.
Does it violate the First law? no.

And you know the why the energy level hasn't increased as a result of the combustion, even at a very local level.

Ah, but it is not heat neutral. If we look only at |heat| we are not energy neutral. Thus a violation of energy neutrality of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

That would be your argument. "For it to be energy neutral the heat must negate itself."

The heat does NOT need to negate itself. The heat output is balanced by the loss of stored chemical energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed despite each side not being in balance with itself.

This is why you've failed in your definition. I can talk about heat without assuming violations of the First Law of Thermodynamics because the balance the First Law references does not extend to when we break out the 'wings'.
And if we break out a carbon neutral system into its wings (plant<--->animal) it still doesn't violate the carbon neutrality of the system. The environmental impact of both is carbon neutral in a stable system.

 

[sonnygdude]

But speaking of carbon neutrality, all the carbon that is contained in fossil fules was in the atmosphere previously. Look at the research into historical CO2 levels:

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Data indicates that high CO2 levels coincided with periods of great biodiversity.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But speaking of carbon neutrality, all the carbon that is contained in fossil fules was in the atmosphere previously. Data indicates that high CO2 levels coincided with periods of great biodiversity.

Indeed. And that would be notable if 'catastrophic' was in reference to |life|. But it is not. We don't really care if the release of CO2 leads to lush jungles in Antarctica and dinosaurs once again roaming the Earth 40 million years hence. We care about humans and our current technological progress.
A stable climate means human life can go on as normal and progress can be maintained. If we have to bury everybody in bunkers underground for 10,000 years because of superstorms scouring the surface as the atmosphere figures itself out, human life would be considerably more difficult.

Right now we have things very easy.

 

[sonnygdude]

But when has there ever been a history of "superstorms scouring the surface" - even when CO2 levels were high and global temperatures were warmer? The vegetation fossil record indicates that sort of thing isn't likely. I would say that's a little bit of rampant speculation which has no scientific basis, theoretical or historical.

And how do you define a "stable" climate? When in the Earth's history has climate ever been stable? I would think that having glaciers rolling over significant portions of the Earth's surface and then rolling back again is not an indicator of stability!

 

[DominionSeraph]

But when has there ever been a history of "superstorms scouring the surface" - even when CO2 levels were high and global temperatures were warmer? The vegetation fossil record indicates that sort of thing isn't likely.

Human timescale != geologic timescale.

Recovery from Mt. St. Helens. In a few hundred years you're not gonna be able to tell that anything happened there going by vegetation alone.
Life is very invasive and recycles itself. Years do not matter to plants. But they matter to humans.

And how do you define a "stable" climate? When in the Earth's history has climate ever been stable? I would think that having glaciers rolling over significant portions of the Earth's surface and then rolling back again is not an indicator of stability!

I didn't say that Ice Ages were a good thing. But is the science in that says that releasing all the sequestered carbon will prevent (and not trigger) an Ice Age? No. So perhaps we should wait on that one rather than play science experiment with the Earth, eh?

 

[Throckmorton]

But when has there ever been a history of "superstorms scouring the surface" - even when CO2 levels were high and global temperatures were warmer? The vegetation fossil record indicates that sort of thing isn't likely. I would say that's a little bit of rampant speculation which has no scientific basis, theoretical or historical.

And how do you define a "stable" climate? When in the Earth's history has climate ever been stable? I would think that having glaciers rolling over significant portions of the Earth's surface and then rolling back again is not an indicator of stability!

Are you familiar with the concept of rate? Serious question.


When climate change happens on a normal time scale, and with a normal amount of habitat, life can evolve and survive. When it happens too quickly, you get mass extinction. That's the real catastrophe of global warming, not just polar bears dying.

Your car slowing from 60mph to 0mph won't kill you... unless it happens within a fraction of second as you crash into a brick wall.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are you familiar with the concept of rate? Serious question.

You mean something like this?

Or this?

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (below)

 

[Cogman]

nm

 

[shira]

Self-delusion is the least of my many failings. :thumbsup:

But good luck with yours. :awe:

Look, junior, a qualified climatologist presents you with a learned, point by point analysis of the article you linked to in the OP. Exactly what you CLAIM to want. And your response to that analysis? A transparently dishonest attempt to discredit the climatologist. Where is YOUR "point by point" rebuttal to the SCIENCE discussed? Answer: nowhere. As usual, your posts are that winning combination of stupidity and smugness and intellectual dishonesty. You're a self-satisfied, moronic fraud.

Doc Savage at least present charts and articles and talks to the science as he understands it. So I accept and respect him as an honest dissenter in the climate change debate, even if I disagree with his opinion. The only people you'll ever get respect from are those you can fool.

 

[Throckmorton]

You mean something like this?

Or this?

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly (below)

Apparently the very concept of global warming hasn't gotten through to you. It's not "sea ice warming". It's not "Arctic summer warming". And I have no idea what your goal is in posting graphs of the past few decades... Has it occurred to you that rate of change only has meaning if you compare it to a control period of time?

Like this:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Apparently the very concept of global warming hasn't gotten through to you. It's not "sea ice warming". It's not "Arctic summer warming". And I have no idea what your goal is in posting graphs of the past few decades... Has it occurred to you that rate of change only has meaning if you compare it to a control period of time?

Like this:

So...you have no clue as to my goal in posting graphs of the past few decades...yet, for some unknown reason, you conclude that very concept of global warming apparently hasn't gotten through to me. Tell me something...if this 'mindset' illustrates the depth of your rationality on the subject...why should I bother giving you the time of day? Seriously.