Climate Change Denial (2 Viewers)

[BrightIdea]

...The only way to supply the power needs is properly controlled nuclear power.

Soap box now clear for others.

I agree 99.99% and have been a proponent of nuclear power since 4th grade. Seriously. It infuriates me that this country has lagged so far behind in this regard.

 

[MJB]

For an insight into how the mind of a prominent climate change denier works (or not!) see:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46754847
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46754907
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46755044

It’s depressing to think that this individual, Senator James Inhofe, is the ranking Republican Senator on the Environment & Public works committee. He’s also the author of ‘The Greatest Hoax; How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens your Future” and apparently thinks that climate change can’t be true as God wouldn’t allow it! I nearly fell off my chair laughing when he claimed that the ‘Daily Telegraph’ was a ‘left wing/liberal’ publication. Then again this crackpot seems to be so far to the right that to him it probably is a proto-communist rag. (Incidentally, I’m pretty sure too that the diatribe that he quotes from that paper is taken out of context and may well predate the ‘Climategate’ enquiries – anyone know?),

John,
There's nothing so dangerous as determined ignorance. Perhaps Senator Inhofe might be persuaded to fund a Chair for that discipline at a deserving Creationist College?

Neat that Senator Inhofe, by implication, thinks James Delingpole, Lord Lawson and Lord Monckton are therefore left-wing liberals!:-O:-O:-O

See also climatecrocks.com. I note that Pat Robertson, a former Republican Presidential hopeful, has suggested that recent devastating tornadoes that caused loss of life wouldn't have happened if people had prayed harder...:eek!::eek!::eek!:
MJB

 

[Bird_Bill]

John,
See also climatecrocks.com. I note that Pat Robertson, a former Republican Presidential hopeful, has suggested that recent devastating tornadoes that caused loss of life wouldn't have happened if people had prayed harder...:eek!::eek!::eek!:
MJB

Thats rather disconcerting of the fella. We're about to celebrate first anniversary of an EF4 in Ferguson here.
Hardest hit building was a church just a short distance away. Completely leveled.

 

[John Cantelo]

See also climatecrocks.com. I note that Pat Robertson, a former Republican Presidential hopeful, has suggested that recent devastating tornadoes that caused loss of life wouldn't have happened if people had prayed harder...:eek!::eek!::eek!:
MJB

Thanks for the link to climatecrocks

 

[Bird_Bill]

Appreciate the link also MJB.
Tell you what, Im just a bird watchin, snake lovin, frog kissin neer do well who doesnt fear the devil nearly a much as I should. Good and descent people lost everything in that storm, perhaps by grace there was no loss of life. A short time later, just few hours west of here in my own state, another tornadic episode caused calamity that brings me to tears. The tripe Mr.Robertson and his people come out has no soul nor end.

 

[MJB]

Tell you what, Im just a bird watchin, snake lovin, frog kissin neer do well who doesnt fear the devil nearly a much as I should. Good and decent people lost everything in that storm, perhaps by grace there was no loss of life. A short time later, just few hours west of here in my own state, another tornadic episode caused calamity that brings me to tears. The tripe Mr.Robertson and his people come out has no soul nor end.

If people would really think about it, those who suffer most from the extreme or cynically selective views of those in power, or seeking it, are usually the 'good and decent people' you talk about.

I've been to the US quite a few times, often in fairly out-of-the-way areas (for example, SW Oregon, rural central Oklahoma, remote parts of Florida) and my finest memories are of the wonderful kindness and politeness of ordinary people of all ethnic orgins. What's more, most are articulate, perceptive and willing to listen. I just don't see any influence in US State or national politics that clearly comes from such people. Fortunately, I'm not alone in thinking that, although it's often quite hard to convince people on this side of the Atlantic. Such people feature heavily in the writings of journalists and reporters who have travelled widely across the US - take Alistair Cooke or Bill Bryson for example.

I'm also influenced by the many US service or ex-service personnel I've met, again generally rational, lucid and interesting people who are not in the least bombastic or narrow-minded, unlike so many responders to US and UK blogs. Now I know that some US Republican politicians are 'good and decent people', but it seems (from my reading of US media sources) that they get shouted down and labelled pejoratively if they raise their heads above the political parapet - the Rush Limbaugh mentality having sway.

Sometimes I think that Pat Robertson and his ilk shouldn't be let out on their own...

It's quite extraordinary to think that Richard Nixon would now be on the left of his party and Dwight D Eisenhower beyond the pale!

The US needs many "bird watchin, snake lovin, frog kissin ne'er do wells who don't fear the devil nearly as much as they should" so that debate can flourish rather than polarised automatically. The long-term future of the US environment would certainly benefit, I would argue, as would 'the good and decent' people.
MJB

 

[lashinala]

Sometimes I think that Pat Robertson and his ilk shouldn't be let out on their own...

What? And take away our opportunity to laugh out loud? I NEED that!

The US needs many "bird watchin, snake lovin, frog kissin ne'er do wells who don't fear the devil nearly as much as they should" so that debate can flourish rather than polarised automatically. The long-term future of the US environment would certainly benefit, I would argue, as would 'the good and decent' people.

We have a lot...most are somewhat disgusted with the pickin's in politics. Give us a choice between the lesser of 2 evils and we'll find a third evil....bad habit we have there.

 

[Imaginos]

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but surely your background tells you that in any controversy it's important to read the evidence presented by both sides, not just the rebuttals presented by one side. This is why I urge people who think they know enough about the hockey stick controversy to discuss it on Internet fora, that they need to read 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'. I have worked (in a small way) with correlation coefficients, which feature prominently in the book, so possibly that contributed to my understanding of it,

Two of my papers - just as a taster of my work, one on carabids, and one on aphids, I hope this goes some way to clarify what I know about the use of statistics.

Mann used sub-optimal PCA in his earlier paper (note sub-optimal does NOT equal wrong), later work using better Principle Components Analysis still find a hockey stick (Eg McShane & Wyner). Note that proxy-based temperature reconstructions by Montford & McIntyre are conspicuously absent in the literature - despite the latter having all the data required & many years to have done the work.

Why the furore? Mann's reconstruction showed that current temperatures were much higher than the Mediaeval Warm Period. Something that got a whole lot of attention. Trouble with the MWP is that it occurs at different times in different parts of the globe and at different magnitudes. Mann's global reconstruction meant that the MWP was lost in the noise and smoothed out. That's not to say there wasn't an MWP - just that the global proxys did a poor job of showing it (mainly because, as stated above, it wasn't a purely global phenomena - unlike today's).

You urge people to "read the evidence presented by both sides" but the evidence you are providing is akin to a creationist pointing to the testimony of Jerry Falwell on evolution or Jenny McCarthy on vaccination. People who have no history in studying a subject picking nits on the work of mainstream scientists who have spent their lives working in the area does not make "evidence". To pontificate on the subject using those as your sole sources without clearly making any effort to learn about it is pure foolhardiness. You don't even know enough to know what you don't know. I ask you again, tell us in your own words what is wrong with Mann's work, and, more importantly what is wrong with the rebuttals to Montford's screed.

 

[MJB]

Further to the foregoing posts and to Imaginos' lucid, rational and succinct comments, readers of this forum may like to note that the Planet Under Pressure Conference, currently under way, addresses a number of major issues affecting this world, including climate change, at:

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/

http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/planet_under_pressure?gclid=CMyZsI_Mjq8CFYEKfAodAito1Q

New Scientist advises that 2800 scientists are attending. This conference has been widely advertised, and so there has been ample opportunity for sceptics to attend, question participants and lobby their views. Birds are not a main theme of the conference, but habitat loss and diversity reduction, two aspects that can be evaluated, for example, through bird monitoring, feature heavily.
MJB

 

[Squonk]

To pontificate on the subject using those as your sole sources without clearly making any effort to learn about it is pure foolhardiness.

Actually, I think that coming onto an Internet forum and arguing for so long about the merits of a book you haven't even read is pretty foolhardy.

When I wrote that you had no understanding of the issues, I wasn't referring to your understanding of statistics, but to your understanding of the issues with Mann's work. You showed this lack of understanding when you wrote that you found Gavin Schmidt's responses 'revealing', and by your citation of Mann '08 and Wahl and Amman 2007. You show this lack of understanding again in your new response, as you are still making points which are dealt with in the book, including: whether Mann's PCA is merely 'suboptimal' or flat-out wrong; the question of whether McIntyre and McKittrick have done a reconstruction of their own; and the significance of later reconstructions purporting to show the same 'hockey stick' shape. I'm not here to regurgitate all 500 pages of the book and argue with you about it, I'm only here to tell you (and others who wish to discuss this topic) that you need to read it.

And here we go with the 'creationist' thing again. Like too many people in this debate, you are very easily manipulated into believing that people on the other side of the argument are "anti-science crackpots", or perhaps part of some evil conspiracy, and that you don't need to look at the evidence they present. As you know, the author of 'the Hockey Stick Illusion', Andrew Montford, runs a blog called 'Bishop Hill'. Did you know that this blog is now frequented by a number of bona fide scientists? In addition to Brice Bosnich and Judith Curry who I mentioned above, recent regular (and supportive) commenters have included Richard Betts and Tamsin Edwards, both climate scientists at the Met. Office. In fact, Betts recently invited Montford to visit the Met. Office, where Montford gave a presentation about 'the Hockey Stick Illusion' to other scientists there. Jonathan Jones, a professor of physics at Oxford, is also a recent (and very supportive) commenter at 'Bishop Hill'. Why don't you go over there and discuss the book with them? (Again, I would suggest you read it first

When I 'ducked out' before I told you (truthfully) that it was due to lack of time; if I appear to 'duck out' again, don't assume it's for any reason other than this.

 

[Imaginos]

Actually, I think that coming onto an Internet forum and arguing for so long about the merits of a book you haven't even read is pretty foolhardy.

Believe me, I've been following the climate science debate on the internet since far earlier than the publication of Montford's book, and having seen many people come out shouting the odds about it without understanding the issues behind it I'm fully aware of what it does & doesn't say. I've been trying to tease your awareness out for weeks and yet you seem incredibly reluctant to show your understanding preferring instead to parrot other authorities and point in their general direction.

viz:

I'm not here to regurgitate all 500 pages of the book and argue with you about it, I'm only here to tell you (and others who wish to discuss this topic) that you need to read it.

...and still nowhere do we see you espouse your understanding of the issues, we see you, again, refer to blogs and books without touching on the massive amount of published, peer-reviewed literature on the subject. You started this whole debate by spouting nonsense and at every turn, when asked to give your understanding of the issues involved you defer to pointing to said blogs and books.

But if you apply a sceptical mind to these 'rebuttals' and try to understand the technical details, it starts to look as though the 'authorities' themselves don't really understand the issues, and are just parrotting other 'authorities'.

Parroting other authorities - yep that's all you've done. You've shown no attempt to try and understand the technical details.

And here we go with the 'creationist' thing again. Like too many people in this debate, you are very easily manipulated into believing that people on the other side of the argument are "anti-science crackpots", or perhaps part of some evil conspiracy, and that you don't need to look at the evidence they present.

'Easily manipulated'? I'm not the one basing my theories on the crackpot theories of economists and bloggers :-O

Before getting interested in the climate change debate I was interested in the anti-evolution debate. The tactics are so similar you would wonder whether it's the same people debating the anti-science side... Oh look!

Why don't you go over there and discuss the book with them? (Again, I would suggest you read it first

...I'm guessing you still haven't read more than 'portions thereof' Mann's work or any of the IPCC reports that you so casually dismiss.

Oh, and I'll see your Bosnich, Curry, Betts & Edwards & raise you the AAAS, ACS AGU and 15 other American Scientific organisations, 20 national acadamies of science, the Royal Society, The Royal Meteorological Society, The Society of Biology and numerous other organisations that are also evidently easily manipulated and, having no scientific aptitude are just parrotting other authorities. /sarcasm

 

[angusmcoatup]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute?newsfeed=true

Just to fan the ashes a little.

 

[John Cantelo]

The poster campaign by the ultra-rightwing Heartland Institute, to which this refers, compared those who accept climate change with the 'uni-bomber' and other terrorists(and apparently they planned similar posters until the resulting outcry forced them to reconsider). However, according to the article " ..... it refused to apologise, claiming the campaign was an "experiment". Its website is still hosting the original press release, which includes the claim that the "most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." Frankly it's difficult to know which is more worrying, that such an influential body can articulate such an outrageous view or that it's so incredibly stupid as to not realise that it would backfire so spectacularly. This kind of baseless personalised attack has no place on either side of the debate,

 

[Imaginos]

...and in other news Hitler was a vegetarian & Anders Breivik quoted Steve McIntyre in his 'manifesto'.

If anyone was wondering what ad hominum meant then the Heartland Institute poster is a perfect encapsulation of its definition.

Meanwhile, more blog science.