And a little puppy shall lead them — greenies, children and cute animals
Bookworm on May 24 2011 at 12:11 pm | Filed under: Climate change
I suspect that this has been happening for a while, but I only became aware of it now: my kids’ science classes are using animals as a way to bring children into the environmental, global warming movement. This is more than lonely polar bears standing on shrinking icebergs, an iconic warmist image that ignores entirely the fact that the world polar bear population is, in fact, quite robust. My son’s most recent “science” project, which was ostensibly to understand how to graph data, focused entirely on endangered species. At the same time, a neighbor child was taking a poll about some vanishing whale population, which ended with the child (very sweetly and earnestly, I might add) lecturing us about the exactly numbers of whales existing in 1580, versus their virtual nonexistence now. She was taken aback when I asked her (nicely, I assure you) how we know the exact number of whales in 1580. (More on that point later.)
My sudden awareness that it’s not just polar bear pictures but whole curricula that are being aimed at children targeted a free form cascade of thoughts in my brain. I’ll share those thoughts with you here. Pardon my obvious incoherence. I’ll probably develop this theme over a series of posts, and hone my thoughts a bit better. Also, I would very much appreciate your corrections and comments.
First, it seems to me that modern environmentalists are using the endangered species list, not to protect animals, but to stop humans. What I discovered when I helped my son do the computer research on the various animals that he had to study was that some of the animals he was looking at were, in fact, doing very well. There is no doubt that, back in the 1970s, when people first started getting worried about animal populations, many of these animals were on the verge of extinction. Since then, animals such as the wolf, the polar bear, the eagle, and the mountain goat, to name but a few, have had population increases, some so much that they’ve been removed from the endangered species list. (Other animals, interestingly, aren’t doing well despite massive and economically costly efforts.)
The environmentalists ought to be celebrating these victories, because they are indeed victories. Instead, despite the fact that, numerically speaking, the animals are doing well, the environmentalists are adamant that they are still endangered. When local communities affected by the onerous burdens of the Endangered Species Act try to challenge an animal’s listing, the environmentalists go haywire.
One could say that the environmentalists are just making a distinction between the fact that a species is no longer trembling on the verge of extinction and a species that is actually robust. The former is still worthy of consideration; the latter . . . not so much. I think, though, that there’s more going on than over-caution. The Endangered Species Act stops humans in their tracks. Depending on an animal’s habitat, humans cannot build homes, factories or farms. They cannot hunt or fish. In other words, for environmentalists, it sometimes seems that their hysteria has more to do with stopping humans than it does with protecting animals.
Second, the data on which the kids rely is suspect. A good example is a post dedicated to debunking Bjorn Lomborg, the man who claims that polar bears are doing okay. In his book, Cool IT : The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Well here is a named expert, Dr. Andrew Derocher again:
Think about that: “Nothing but guesses.” My little neighbor girl is lecturing me about the whale population in the 1580s, versus today’s population, but even for polar bears in the 1950s and 1960s, we have nothing but guesses. How can we know the population was vanishing by the 1970s, if we have no idea what it was before the 70s? All that really seems to matter is that the world population is about 25,000 today, which seems like a robust number.
The other problem with the debunkers is that they’re invested in a polar bear narrative that is predicated on climate change. While Lomborg was talking real numbers — 25,000 today, regardless of the 1960s — the debunkers are hypothesizing worst-case scenarios based upon global warming. Since warming seems to have stopped, the hypothesis is wrong. (I can’t find my link for that right now. I’ll add it later.) Additionally, as many have pointed out after the failed “Rapture,” the Left is much given to apocalyptic scenarios, none of which (yet) have occurred.
Third, when we were kids, the environmental education was focused on human populations deliberating killing animals. We were made to understand that, for every fur coat, a cute little baby seal got clubbed. That was actually a very real cause-and-effect. Stop wearing fur coats and they stop clubbing those cute little guys. (In the same way, the 19th century saw some bird populations brought almost to extinction, until women were encouraged to change their hat styles.) Now, children are presented with the more amorphous “climate change,” which is an imprecise “science” at best, predicated on an inaccurate theory. Direct cause and effect is impossible.
What remains unchanged, but is getting lost in the global warming noise is our obligation not to have industrial strength abuse of animals for frivolous reasons. The current debate in California is about a ban on shark fins, which are a Chinese delicacy. I’m no vegetarian, and have no problem whatsoever with eating any part of the shark one wants. (Although having once had shark fin soup, I hope never to have it again. Ever.) The problem — and the proposed law’s target — is the way in which shark fins are collected:
The law takes aim at a practice known as finning, in which a shark’s fins and tails are cut off before the animal is thrown back into the ocean to die. Supporters say that businesses in California have skirted a U.S. law banning the practice by buying fins collected in international waters and noted the catastrophic collapse in the worldwide shark population in recent years.
That strikes me as an indescribably cruel practice and one that humane people ought not to countenance. To me, that’s a very reasonable environmental stand to take, one based on measurable cause and effect: Finning is animal torture.
Fourth, the line between animals and humans gets ever smaller, as is demonstrated by PETA’s latest initiative to use in its advertising the criminal case of a woman who put her baby in the microwave. This is part of the whole “Holocaust on a plate” campaign that makes animals have the same values as humans. I love my dog. I admire animals. I respect their place in the grand scheme of things. I think we have an obligation not to waste them or torture them or willfully or carelessly destroy them. But they are not humans. They exist at a different level, and it is a terrible mistake to try to anthropomorphize them or dehumanize us.
Fifth, not only are animals being used to advance climate change ideology, they’re apparently also being used to advance gender issues. If cute little other species can have inchoate gender identities, why can’t we? Well, primarily because we’re not cute little other species. We’re humans. And while there are definitely humans who are born with mixed up hormones or body parts, that’s not normative. Such people should never be bullied, and they should be accorded the respect due all humans, but they shouldn’t be the template for sex education in American schools.
The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.
Email This Post To A Friend
83 Responses to “And a little puppy shall lead them — greenies, children and cute animals”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m borrowing this…..
This ties in to a claim that I’ve always regarded as hilarious: That we somehow know or can estimate how many species are becoming extinct each year due to deforestation, or damming, or farming, or mining, etc.
How the hell would we know?
Another thing that bugs me is the increasing weeping-ization of everything, from silly CBS news reports to background stories about “American Idol” contestants—all weeping, all the time. Abandoned animals. Mommy had a tumor. The Palestinians got gobsmacked by the evil Jooos. Dolores can’t get a free education because her parents brought her here illegally. Lakisha has to struggle to overcome a drug problem while her mother cares for her three bastard children. Zach’s restorative therapy to merge his personalities failed.
Gimme a break.
Hit them with a dose of Japanese kawaiiness and they’ll never look back on Leftist cutesy animals again.
“The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess–there is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses.”
I love that quote – you mean they have taken a census of each and every one of those 25,000 polar bears today?
If cute little other species can have inchoate gender identities, why can’t we?
Hmm..dunno, Book! I know that worms are hermaphroditic and I know a lot of people who remind me of worms.
Human extinction or culling perfectly fine – just save the planet and whales.
Gees, Bookworm, I still haven’t recovered from hearing about the fish ladders and oh, how I was just hoping that the neighbor kid was confused and believed she was schooling you on the population of the Welsh in the 1580′s.
“…schools rate just below Mississippi in math and science”
more or actually less and less here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/where-dreams-die/?singlepage=true
Bookworm, I would be very, very careful about what you tell your children about polar bears, since you have your facts entirely wrong. First, the Telegraph piece that you linked us to is written by Lomborg, who famously has changed his tune and admitted that the global warming problem is actually much worse than he claimed when he was profiting from his warming skeptic screed that took him on a book tour through right-wing radio, Fox News and the like. He has since stated that we should be concerned about the accelerated rate of species declines that many other people, with greater qualifications than political scientist Lomborg, have also sounded the alarm over (e.g., EO Wilson). Second, the information that was available in ’07, when Lomborg had not yet come to his senses and wrote that Telegraph article, as well as today, clearly shows that polar bear populations in the aggregate continue to decline. Skeptics play that foul game known as cherry picking and data manipulation to make the opposite case in an effort to hide the reality. You probably are aware of these techniques, since Breitbart used an analogous tactic in making it seem that Shirley Sherrod said the exact opposite about her view of whites as she really said. Because you are aware of the tactic, you understand why we have to guard against it, which means that you need to look at bear populations in the aggregate, rather than simply taking out snippets of data to make it seem like reality is what we want but the opposite of what the real picture is. To see a bunch of links with updated data on polar bears, you can visit the following website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm
I would also like to comment on a few more points you made in your post:
1. ” modern environmentalists are using the endangered species list, not to protect animals, but to stop humans…”
I think if you carefully read scientists like EO Wilson and others who have pointed out that big swings in the climate in the pre-civilized past correlate with mass extinctions of animals and plant life, which means that we ought to be concerned about what our own climate change can do as well. They also point to the more fragile ecosystems in the arctic and elsewhere to highlight the canary in the coal mine. What happens there can also severely damage our food supplies in ways that we do not totally understand, but which a “conservative” would be worried about since the cost of that damage is far greater than the cost of taking even expensive steps to ameliorate it. Finally, it isn’t about “stopping” humans, but “stopping” unsustainable development, incorporating the real costs (including externalities) into the cost of fossil fuels, and developing alternative means to sustain us on a planet with limited resources.
2. “children are presented with the more amorphous “climate change,” which is an imprecise “science” at best, predicated on an inaccurate theory. Direct cause and effect is impossible.”
The physics behind CO2 contribution to climate change is based upon sound science and is not being questioned, even by the tiny minority (3%) of scientists who are skeptical. Those scientists claim that there are offsetting factors (e.g., ocean absorption, cloud cover serving as a countervailing feedback loop, etc.), but their claims have not garnered much support. In any case, to call it an inaccurate theory is simply wrong, on the basis of all the data and published research available. The theory in terms of physics is sound, and the models are actually rather accurate, with errors mostly on the side of underestimating warming rather than overestimating it.
3. ” it is a terrible mistake to try to anthropomorphize them or dehumanize us…”
I agree. PETA undermines the calls for caution by scientists when they are so cavalier. This is analogous to Gore saying that the “science is settled” when it never is. But here is the problem: the environmentalists do not operate in a vacuum. They are up against industries that have far greater resources to advertise on television and lobby Congress. While the skeptics crowd likes to talk about how much money climate scientists would lose if they “would only be honest” about their research–as if scientists are committing widescale fraud, when they are not–the reality is that the dirty industries have much more to lose, and are spending much more money hiding the facts. This means that at some point, the current situation where those that know but don’t speak (scientists) have to act more political to counter those that speak but don’t know (the skeptics and the dirty industries underwriting them). Perhaps using a phrase like “holocaust on a plate” is not a good idea, but some kind of political action is required given the forces on the other side. It is well known that manufacturers close to the consumer have to protect brand equity (e.g., Apple, P&G, etc.), but the commodity producers (e.g., Duke Energy, Exxon) do not.
4. The idea that children should extrapolate sexual orientation or gender issues from the rest of the animal kingdom is silly. Some frogs can shift genders if only one sex is in a given population. This cannot happen with humans. However, the idea that homosexuality is not normal is easily rebutted using the animal kingdom. And this definition of normal is not the in-the-majority usage that you contemplate, but the should-not-be allowed version that many who are against equal rights for gays frequently (and erroneously) drudge up. In that context, arming people with the correct knowledge, that minority homosexual populations exist in a variety of other animal species, is not a bad idea. It’s just one more argument to promote and justify the equal protection of gays that is demanded by the law, and will shortly become (in my opinion) the law of the land in every state. If the facts being taught are incorrect, then throw it out. However, if the facts are accurate, then they should be taught, given the social stakes involved.
Finally, it isn’t about “stopping” humans, but “stopping” unsustainable development, incorporating the real costs (including externalities) into the cost of fossil fuels, and developing alternative means to sustain us on a planet with limited resources.
Does that help explain China’s one-child policy? Just asking.
It’s not any more likely than Thomas Sowell getting into a debate with Al Sharpton, but I’d love to see Bookworm take down abc in a debate. Why, the popcorn sales from that alone could pay for two weeks tuition at Hahvahd (where abc’s wife was a summa and he met Art Laffer and Rachel Maddow and some other famous guys)!
Shirley! Shirley, Shirley bo Birley, Bonana fanna fo Firley, Fee fy mo Mirley, Shirley!
SADIE, you inspire!
Laffer, Laffer, boe Baffer, banana fanna foe Faffer, fee fi moe Maffer, Laffer!
Or:
Art, Art, boe Bart, banana fanna foe Fart (teehee!), fee fi moe Mart, Art!
Just knew you’d enjoy a good sing-along
Well, you can tell the little neighbor girl that the whales are doing very well. I’ve personally underreported sightings so there are more than they think. And there are lots and lots of whales out there. I won’t say we should support the hunting of them, but I’m not to worried given the number of them I’ve seen in my time at sea.
You are right about the endangered species use. There is a crane reserve a few miles from my house. I was discussing letting my pastures go wild with my brother, who was involved in the creation of the reserver. He suggested I find out and sow some forage for the cranes. Not a horrible idea until I remember, you get an endangered species stopping on your land and you lose control of your land. So I think I won’t be doing anything to encourage the cranes to land on my property. I even had a second thought about replacing the pasture grass but I’m just going to let nature take is course there.
I think if you carefully read scientists like EO Wilson and others who have pointed out that big swings in the climate in the pre-civilized past correlate with mass extinctions of animals and plant life,- abc
And somehow civilized mankind appeared– in spite of all that mass extinction. What luck!
BrianE: And somehow civilized mankind appeared– in spite of all that mass extinction.
Civilization is about ten thousand years old. There have been five mass extinctions over the last half billion years or so. Just because life survived doesn’t mean you want to be caught in a mass extinction, much less the avoidable cause of one.
@ Z – But CO2 concentrations have been 10 or more time higher than they are today many times in Earth’s history much to the delight of the plant kingdom. The earth has been warmer and cooler. All in all, warmer is better for survivability, food and the production of oxygen from CO2.
@abc: “The physics behind CO2 contribution to climate change is based upon sound science and is not being questioned, even by the tiny minority (3%) of scientists who are skeptical. Those scientists claim that there are offsetting factors (e.g., ocean absorption, cloud cover serving as a countervailing feedback loop, etc.), but their claims have not garnered much support. In any case, to call it an inaccurate theory is simply wrong, on the basis of all the data and published research available. The theory in terms of physics is sound, and the models are actually rather accurate, with errors mostly on the side of underestimating warming rather than overestimating it.”
The theory is not sound in the terms of physics. The theory requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. The impact of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas does not work as the theory projects. It is impossible for heat absorbed from a blackbody to warm that blackbody by reradiating back toward the body. It is possible for the “greenhouse” gases, most significantly water vapor to warm, thus storing heat that maintains warmth over the non-irradiated part of the day, this is why our planet is habitable and doesn’t have violent temperature swings between day and night.
And calling on the basis of “all the data and published research available” is hilarious given that there is documented proof of data deletion, manipulation and withholding (in violation of the law and basic scientific practice) and that the “published research” was had peer review manipulated to promote the warming theory while actively conspiring to prevent the publication of non-supporting research. Also, the grants funding the research were purposely directed only at researchers seeking to support the warming theory with no regard by NOAA for objective research that hypothesized differently.
Water vapor stores the most heat potential, not Co2. It’s kind of obvious why if you know basic chemistry.
JKB, so long as they have their sugar daddies feeding them a monthly salary, they will continue to prop up their cult theories. Because they were commanded to do so by those that feed them.
How come all these scientists who declare evolution to be virtually fact – as opposed to theory – are trying to _stop_ evolution? Could evolution proceed without the loss of various species? If the world’s climate changes, regardless of causes, doesn’t that simply necessitate further evolution? If that means starvation for some millions of people, what is the problem? Nobody lives forever… If it means that some areas are uninhabitable, then those areas will remain uninhabited. My understanding is that the vast desert sands of Saudi Arabia were once lush jungles – but something changed.
The world changes. It’s evolving. We humans are merely fleas upon a vast globe. Accept it.
JKB: But CO2 concentrations have been 10 or more time higher than they are today many times in Earth’s history much to the delight of the plant kingdom.
That’s right. CO2 levels have risen and fallen over geological timescales. Ocean levels have risen and fallen. Continents have moved and collided. Mountains rose, eroded. Huge floods have swept away landscapes. Massive volcanos have erupted and comets have slammed into the Earth. Life not only survived, but evolved to fill the new niches created.
Yes, life will survive if ocean levels rise and the climate changes. Indeed, so probably will humans. But there may be widespread suffering, as crops fail, disease organisms and vectors migrate, forests die, species go extinct, and people are forced to migrate from coastal areas and new deserts creating political and social friction.
JKB: The theory requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
And no one noticed? Do you really think they don’t consider the energy budget?
JKB: The impact of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas does not work as the theory projects. It is impossible for heat absorbed from a blackbody to warm that blackbody by reradiating back toward the body.
There is a greenhouse effect even without the human contribution. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earht’s average temperature would not be a nice balmy 14°C, it would be about 0°C.
Blackbody radiation is an ideal. The atmosphere may appear transparent at visible wavelengths, but is decidely not transparent in the infrared. By absorbing some of the radiation, the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm. As it warms, the blackbody radiation shifts to a higher frequency (higher energy), until enough energy is emitted to balance the energy absorbed. Greenhouse gases, such as water vapor have their own distinct infrared absorption patterns.
JKB: And calling on the basis of “all the data and published research available” is hilarious given that there is documented proof of data deletion, manipulation and withholding (in violation of the law and basic scientific practice) and that the “published research” was had peer review manipulated to promote the warming theory while actively conspiring to prevent the publication of non-supporting research.
Several independent investigations found no evidence wrong doing. More importantly, independent scientific bodies have all reached the same conclusion concerning climate change. It is real, and humans are a primary contributor.
So, in order to support your position, it would require a conspiracy of every major organization charged with studying climate science in the world, from the U.K. to China to Brazil. Not only that, but apparently the physics community is even willing to overlook a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
suek: If that means starvation for some millions of people, what is the problem? Nobody lives forever…
Perhaps not a problem for you, but we are rather fond of the little hominoids.
@ymarsaker – i live in the South. I am miserably aware of the heat potential of water vapor. Which is part of why I find their obsession with a trace gas so amusing.
@Z – increased CO2 stimulates plant growth, increased temperature stimulates plant growth. Crops are plants. Therefore, while perhaps some cool weather crops will fail, they will be replaced by very fecund warm weather and tropical plants. Do you know why Hawaii and other Pacific islands were considered paradise, because food practically fell into your lap and you needed barely anything to cover up with. So, yes, diet may change if your disaster unfolds but food will be plentiful. So relax, we’ll all live happily in the okra forest with cucumbers, melons, and all sorts of tropical fruits and vegetables to eat. Your speculation of the effects of a global temperature rise are just that a speculation. It does seem however that you are obsessed with stopping the natural order of things to protect your status quo. I can tell you from years of experience with nature, if you get it’s way, you will lose. If you doubt me, go talk to someone in Joplin…
@Z – “Do you really think they don’t consider the energy budget?” What I know it that their models skipped over the hard boundary conditions and assumed a continuous unlimited atmosphere, thus missing out of the heat radiated into space. I know that the models assume a continuous irradiation by the sun, kind of missing out on the nighttime cooling even as the atmosphere dampens the temperature change and heat loss.
@Z – “By absorbing some of the radiation, the atmosphere causes the Earth to warm. ”
See, right there you reveal your bad information. The sun can cause the earth to warm but the atmosphere cannot. The atmosphere can absorb heat and can slow the cooling but it cannot warm as it has no heat source. There are localized instances where warm air moves over a cold surface and there is some thin film warming of the surface but as soon as the air temperature drops below the surface temperature the heat is again lost to the atmosphere, rising and eventually being radiated into space.
So relax, we’ll all live happily in the okra forest with cucumbers, melons, and all sorts of tropical fruits and vegetables to eat.
Government will take the best and leave us with the dregs, as always, justified by their “mixed economy” ideological fanaticism. Yea, they get the best of the mix, while the peasants get the trash.
Ymar 17: Water vapor stores the most heat potential, not Co2. It’s kind of obvious why if you know basic chemistry.
From my limited reading, that’s exactly right.
There is an assumption of a 5x capture rate of that heat potential compared to CO2.
But the problem is with the AGW models, which continue to fail. Remember the ever-expanding ozone hole over the Antartic at the southern pole? Remember all the dire predictions that life on earth itself was going to end as a result of it? As the sun poured its deadly varieties of energy down upon the earth through this ever-expanding “hole”? Um, wrong. Completely wrong. Imagine if we’d raced pell-mell to meet that deadly emergency. There was broad scientific consensus among all the worthy scientists that time too.
Well, not nearly so dire, but the AGW models demand behavior (data) in the troposphere above the rain forests in the tropical zone that, ahem, simply ain’t happening. The data refutes. The data is completely different compared to what’s supposed to be happening (with CO2 and water vapor).
Until the hypotheses are proven and until the data aligns with the models for a consistent and long enough period of time to be statistically worthy of real contemplation, I’m not wasting my time. And I will fight tooth and nail so that they don’t steal a penny of anyone’s money. Go ahead with all the voluntary donations they want! But no seizure/theivery of peoples’ money! Everyone must resist! Not one penny of forced taxation on global warming! Not one penny of forced thievery!
And oh yeah, my usual mantra: Leave the kids alone!
Stop propagandizing the children. Stop programming them with the specific agendas.
Leave The Children Alone!!!
I can’t say I was ever paying attention to the AGW people back in the 80s or whenever they crawled out of the Cthulhu oceans.
Mike, I believe the more grammatical exhortation would be: “Leave them kids alone.”
JKB: increased CO2 stimulates plant growth, increased temperature stimulates plant growth. Therefore, while perhaps some cool weather crops will fail, they will be replaced by very fecund warm weather and tropical plants.
The problem is agricultural disruption, desertification and coastal flooding.
JKB: What I know it that their models skipped over the hard boundary conditions and assumed a continuous unlimited atmosphere, thus missing out of the heat radiated into space.
The whole concept of the greenhouse effect has to do with the energy budget, meaning energy received, and energy lost. Can you point to the actual scientific studies in question?
JKB: See, right there you reveal your bad information. The sun can cause the earth to warm but the atmosphere cannot. The atmosphere can absorb heat and can slow the cooling but it cannot warm as it has no heat source.
Are you making a point, or arguing semantics? If the amount of greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, the temperature will increase. That’s called warming. You need to come to grips with your misstatement about thermodynamics. Do you really think it is plausiable that climate scientists all over the world are unaware of the thermodynamics as it applies to the Earth’s energy budget, or that the phycists community would overlook such an issue?
Mike Devx: Remember the ever-expanding ozone hole over the Antartic at the southern pole? Remember all the dire predictions that life on earth itself was going to end as a result of it?
Um, no. That wasn’t a prediction.
Mike Devx: Imagine if we’d raced pell-mell to meet that deadly emergency. There was broad scientific consensus among all the worthy scientists that time too.
Actually, the international community took strong and successful actions to control the release of ozone-depleting chemicals. Unfortunately, it takes decades for the existing chemicals to work their way out of the system.
http://www.livescience.com/14186-good-news-life-earth-ozone-hole-shrinking.html
Mike Devx: Well, not nearly so dire, but the AGW models demand behavior (data) in the troposphere above the rain forests in the tropical zone that, ahem, simply ain’t happening.
The problem is relying on unreliable secondary sources. The tropical hotspot is a predicted, and scientifically uncontroversial, result of warming, even if the cause is not due to human action. The signature of anthropogenetic warming is stratospheric cooling.
I don’t trust your link’s conclusions, Zach. Nobody is breathing a sigh of relief that the Antartic ozone hole is – whew! – finally closing. They breathed their sighs of relief a loooooong time ago and most dropped the issue. The ozone hole behavior totally departed from the models long ago, long before the article’s Montreal Protocol could have had anything to do with it.
From Mike Devx – the “Leave The Children Alone” champion!
“Saving The Children From The Propagandists. One Issue Du Jour At A Time.”
Mike Devx: The ozone hole behavior totally departed from the models long ago, long before the article’s Montreal Protocol could have had anything to do with it.
The technical problem is that there are wide natural variations, and reduction of ozone-depleting compounds takes decades to occur. However, that is exactly what this report unraveled.
“We show that interannual changes of the Antarctic ozone hole are accounted for almost perfectly by changes in dynamical forcing of the stratosphere. The close relationship enables dynamically-induced changes of ozone to be removed, unmasking the climate signal associated with CFCs.”
Salby, Titova & Deschamps, Rebound of Antarctic ozone, Geophysical Research Letters 2011.
@Z Well, with “experts” saying foolish things like this
“At the other end of the scale, by way of contrast, the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.””
You see, no need for that pesky old real world observations. They’ve got models.
And if you really want to understand the thermodynamics in the atmosphere, read this paper. It is written with the layman understanding in mind:
ilovemycarbondioxide…Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
JKB: Well, with “experts” saying foolish things like this
People say foolish things all the time, but you are relying on a single quote-mine.
JKB: And if you really want to understand the thermodynamics in the atmosphere, read this paper. It is written with the layman understanding in mind:
We would prefer to read the primary literature.
Anyway, from the article, ”We do have to conclude therefore, that there is no such thing as an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect, and the theory which describes it, is a failed theory.”
Oh, gee whiz.
The author is saying that it’s warmer under the atmospheric blanket than on top of the atmospheric blanket. Yes, the cooler atmosphere tends to emit at a lower spectrum than the surface so that the overall temperature of the Earth and atmosphere matches the theoretical blackbody temperature. That’s exactly right. That’s why it’s called the Greenhouse Effect — because it gets warmer *under* the blanket.
@ Z – “We would prefer to read the primary literature. ”
When you say that do you mean the primary literature in how thermodynamics is explained to elementary children, the overly simplified way climate scientists use it or the original introducing works of the early discoverers?
BTW, who is “We”? Is Zachriel some kind of collective body?
The author demonstrated that using basic thermodynamics and well established equations. Those very same concepts and mathematics used by engineers to build jet engines and nuclear plants that work as predicted. And without resorting to magical atmospheric gas radiative heating, he was able to explain the expected and observed temperatures of the Earth by incorporating the atmosphere, a mass, into the model.
What is this “emit at a lower spectrum”? Context please? Heat is emitted as infra-red and if the body is cooler, it simply emits at a lower intensity or wave height.
It does not “gets warmer*under*the blanket”. Once the heat source is removed, everything cools. What water vapor, clouds and yes, CO2 do is slow the heat loss. There is no radiative heating of the surface by them. So while the surface remains warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, there is no radiative warming.
Finally, if there were such a thing as cool body radiative heating by CO2, I would like some greenhouse gas filled windows to absorb heat during the day and then re-emit it back into the house at night.
JKB, he uses the royal we when he is miffed and wants to put the peasants in their place.
Martel thinks he’s a hive collective, of course.
Once the heat source is removed, everything cools. What water vapor, clouds and yes, CO2 do is slow the heat loss.
Some people just don’t seem to understand how entropy works with time and how the heat death of the universe is possible, if the universe is a closed system.
They think there might be “portals” to other universes and we are getting heat there. So if we apply that to AGW, the “heat” on Earth is being caused by humans (CO2) because… we have soul natural powers right? Supernatural powers?
So while the surface remains warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, there is no radiative warming.
Places like mercury are scorching hot on the side that faces the sun. Near absolute zero on the reverse.
JKB writes:
“@abc: “The physics behind CO2 contribution to climate change is based upon sound science and is not being questioned, even by the tiny minority (3%) of scientists who are skeptical. Those scientists claim that there are offsetting factors (e.g., ocean absorption, cloud cover serving as a countervailing feedback loop, etc.), but their claims have not garnered much support. In any case, to call it an inaccurate theory is simply wrong, on the basis of all the data and published research available. The theory in terms of physics is sound, and the models are actually rather accurate, with errors mostly on the side of underestimating warming rather than overestimating it.”
The theory is not sound in the terms of physics. The theory requires the violation of the laws of thermodynamics.”
Wrong. To claim that 97% of climate science experts have forgotten the laws of thermodynamics is beyond ridiculous.
“The impact of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas does not work as the theory projects. It is impossible for heat absorbed from a blackbody to warm that blackbody by reradiating back toward the body. It is possible for the “greenhouse” gases, most significantly water vapor to warm, thus storing heat that maintains warmth over the non-irradiated part of the day, this is why our planet is habitable and doesn’t have violent temperature swings between day and night.”
This comment makes no sense. CO2 does act like a greenhouse gas and creates a positive feedback with H2O in the atmosphere. The physics on this is sound, and even the skeptics, who are trained scientists, do not contest it, as you are attempting here.
“And calling on the basis of “all the data and published research available” is hilarious given that there is documented proof of data deletion, manipulation and withholding (in violation of the law and basic scientific practice) and that the “published research” was had peer review manipulated to promote the warming theory while actively conspiring to prevent the publication of non-supporting research.”
Name a single example for us please. East Anglia, one of the leading research groups on this, received lots of attention, but six different investigations did not lead to any uncovering of scientific fraud. The claims were about PR and information release, not the research itself. You ought to familiarize yourself with that, if you are relying on that incident. Otherwise, please cite the specifics of your charge.
“ Also, the grants funding the research were purposely directed only at researchers seeking to support the warming theory with no regard by NOAA for objective research that hypothesized differently.”
Please state the specifics. The grants to our military labs, like Livermore carry no such strings attached. And to my knowledge, NASA operates the same. It is easy to slander when you fail to produce specific facts. You ought to try doing that next time.
They didn’t forget it. They were paid to ignore it and fabricate the data to the specifications of AGW cultists and political Greens.
East Anglia, one of the leading research groups on this, received lots of attention, but six different investigations did not lead to any uncovering of scientific fraud.
Isn’t that hilarious, JKB? That is the exact same thing Z said. No wonder AGW hacks sound alike. They are drinking from the same pig slough.
Remind me how many police I can bribe in East Anglia using Muslim terror tactics?
Ymar 39:
abc: East Anglia, one of the leading research groups on this, received lots of attention, but six different investigations did not lead to any uncovering of scientific fraud.
Ymar: Isn’t that hilarious, JKB? That is the exact same thing Z said. No wonder AGW hacks sound alike. They are drinking from the same pig slough.
I agree. It is hilarious to me too.
I’m aware of two of the investigations, and they appeared easily compromised by politics and the money gravy train.
It’s like puttin’ Cousin Jake Hatfield in charge of investigating that feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys.
How likely is good ol’ cousin Jake Hatfield going to be “objective”?
They’re a *little* more subtle than that. Recognizing the problem, Cousin Jake put his daughter Daisy Hatfield “in charge” instead, because she married some guy named Roberts. So they say, “Daisy Roberts is *not* a Hatfield, and her report will be completely objective!” But of course she is a Hatfield, down to the tips of her tiny toes.
JKB 33: BTW, who is “We”? Is Zachriel some kind of collective body?
I’m going with a gaggle of disembodied adolescent intelligences on the Jovian moon Ganymede that have mentally seized control of a computer in Poughkeepsie, NY.
Mike,
I like using skepticalscience.com to keep up on the large number of online sources, since they keep a robust and up-to-date set of links, with a live blog of expert commentary on each issue. This is what they currently have listed on the supposed Climategate investigations:
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any ‘Climategate’ emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State’s Department of Meteorology. They found that “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. On “Mike’s Nature trick”, they concluded “The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”
In March 2010, the UK government’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s “Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”.
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining “there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann”.
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.
In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and “found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets.”
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found “In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data“. On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found “The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers“.
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”.
Which of these independent investigations are inherently biased by politics and money? How is the bias greater than the larger funding sources aligned on the other side with large corporations like Exxon or the Koch Brothers’ massive petrochemical businesses? Do you find that the Livermore lab is also biased in their research on the development of new weapons systems by untrustworthy scientists? Just wondering whether you are choosing to pick on climate researchers in particular or you believe that all scientists working for at least partial government funded programs is inherently biased by the politics and money… I know, you don’t have to answer, but it would be nice to understand what appears to be cherry picking on the part of the right-wing blogosphere and other media on this issue.
JKB: So while the surface remains warmer than it would be if there were no atmosphere, …
Yes, that’s called the Greenhouse Effect.
Any institution directly involved in the money flow must be placed under the skeptical microscope.
Any institution that has taken an advocacy position on an issue must be placed under the skeptical microscope.
If you have a vested interest in the issue, you deserve skepticism in your “unbiased, objective” reports.
You, abc, may assume lack of bias – and I won’t demand your proof of nonbias. You couldn’t prove it.
I may assume bias.
The University of Pennsylvania links are compromised because they’re directly involved in the money flow and have direct ties to one or some of the researchers under the cloud of suspicion.
The UK links are compromised because the entire UK government has already taken an advocacy position on the issue. The UK – and to a far worse extent the EUroids in Brussels – have become advocates for AGW and direct money, as advocates, to a particular viewpoint.
The one I have hopes for is the last one. You said,
> the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”.
The Department of Commerce hasn’t been in the news lately as being one of Obama’s blatantly biased departments, so there’s hope. And my vague memory on the NOAA part of the issue was that NOAA’s data had flaws, *not* that it had been “inappropriately manipulated”. But my memory may be flawed.
Even accepting that last report as likely unbiased – and therefore accepting their conclusion – would negate only one small part of the East Anglia controversy over falsified data, deliberate deletion of source data or inexcusable sloppiness, and bias.
Mike Devx: Any institution directly involved in the money flow must be placed under the skeptical microscope. Any institution that has taken an advocacy position on an issue must be placed under the skeptical microscope.
Any organization with influence or power should be examined skeptically. However, in the rest of your comment, you confuse skepticism with cynicism.
Mike Devx: Any institution directly involved in the money flow must be placed under the skeptical microscope. Any institution that has taken an advocacy position on an issue must be placed under the skeptical microscope.
Zachriel: Any organization with influence or power should be examined skeptically. However, in the rest of your comment, you confuse skepticism with cynicism.
—–
Okey, first part:
> Any organization with influence or power should be examined skeptically.
You’re right. Instead of “must be placed under the skeptical microscope”, I should have said, “should be viewed with even more skepticism, and far more skepticism, than is the normal case.”
Or maybe I should have said, “Given the incontrovertible fact that the party in question has a vested interest a priori in the issue at hand, it is certainly among reasonable choices to believe that their conclusions will be merely in support of their a priori position, and thus discard that party’s conclusions. It is not necessary that you do so, but there is sufficient reason to justify doing so.”
I don’t ever talk or write that way to make a point… but I could have.
So, I am comfortable finding the Pennsylvania conclusions flawed. If it were an open and shut case, there’d BE no debate. They formed their own conclusions; I mistrust them because they have a vested interest in a certain set of conclusions that match those they produced.
I have exactly the same position on conclusions formed by the UK and EU-related government-commissions. They came to the table already, at the very start, in an advocacy position. That’s a big problem, isn’t it? In my book, it certainly is.
—–
As to the rest, we are moving from first principles down into the heady realm of word definitions and epistemology…
Second part: However, in the rest of your comment, you confuse skepticism with cynicism.
You are simply calling me a cynic, here. I could just as easily label you a wide-eyed Pollyanish fool. It would be just as irrelevant. But, God, is it fun to type that stuff!
Skeptic or cynic? Let me go a little afield and offer a counter-argument to cynic.
When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution, to a man they chose divided government – the classic separation into Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Their reason for doing so, I believe, was unanimous as well: Concentration of power invites tyranny. They were far more eloquent on the issue than I’m being.
Were they skeptics of concentration of government power? Absolutely. In fact, saying they were “skeptical” is being kind. (As I was being kind.)
Were they cynics? That’s a value judgment. I certainly don’t think so. I read their quotes and their supporting argumentation and examples, and I agree with them. Be it Jefferson/Madison on the limited government side; or Washington/Hamilton on the robust government side; or other lesser lights.
I view that they were clear-sighted, and had a valid justification for not even considering, say, a single national government entity that itself would make law *and* execute that law, *and* decide as to its constitutionality. They weren’t cynics.
By similar argument, I think I have a valid justification in not accepting the conclusions of the various reports. My argument is based on intrinsic bias and a priori advocacy, and the wretched influence, ever-increasing these days, of politics and money into science.
And therefore by counter-example I do not think I am being a cynic either.
Charles Martel
I am feeling another chorus coming on ….
Semantics, Semantics, bo fanatics , Bonana fanna fo fanatics, fee fy mo pedantics, Antics!
Mike Devx: Or maybe I should have said, “Given the incontrovertible fact that the party in question has a vested interest a priori in the issue at hand, it is certainly among reasonable choices to believe that their conclusions will be merely in support of their a priori position, and thus discard that party’s conclusions.
That’s like saying other cancer researchers can’t investigate the findings of another cancer researcher, because they receive money for cancer research.
Mike Devx: You are simply calling me a cynic, here. I could just as easily label you a wide-eyed Pollyanish fool.
No. The distinction is that you said you were using skepticism, but instead, you simply discounted the findings. You assumed they were tainted rather than determined them to be so.
In any case, that’s the whole point of independent investigations. More importantly, the actual findings have been verified repeatedly by different scientific communities working in different countries and different cultures.
Sadie 46: Semantics, Semantics, bo fanatics , Bonana fanna fo fanatics, fee fy mo pedantics, Antics!
Excellent one! Inspired! ”pedantics, Antics!” especially. And I couldn’t agree more, to my own comment too as well as the rest of that particular chain! The fearful thing is, I was trying to be somewhat light-hearted about it. I could have been even worse! Shudder. I get just as bad when I’m deconstructing Obama-speak.
Mike,
I applaud your stamina and humility, something that has begun to elude me with age. At this point, I really don’t give a damn if someone calls me a cranky old lady – I’ve earned it and wear the label with pride and if someone pushes me too hard …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b1a-hqvGNI&feature=player_embedded
Zachriel’s conclusion about my #45:
That’s like saying other cancer researchers can’t investigate the findings of another cancer researcher, because they receive money for cancer research.
Folks, I’m frustrated. If you read #45, I hope you thought my argument was about bias and advocacy. What Z just wrote (above) has *nothing* to do with bias and advocacy. So is it a deliberate diversion? Or is it a mis-reasoning?
And Z cut and pasted the first sentence in my deliberately-pedantic-as-a-joke paragraph, not the second sentence, which was:
> It is not necessary that you do so, but there is sufficient reason to justify doing so.
Which was my *real* point. I’ve got enough reason for – again – my argument about bias and advocacy. Where ever did I say cancer researches can’t investigate blah blah blah? I never said that.
Can you imagine what these arguments are going to look like when the political season really gets going, and the Obama team sends the trolls out to all the blog sites, as happened big-time in 2008? All the endless digressions and small-point arguments, which ended up making the entire commentary thread a waste of time? (On purpose, in the trolls’ case. Obscure, throw up clouds and clouds and clouds of diversion.) Not saying that’s why Zachriel and abc are here. But it’s coming, again, you better believe it. That billion dollar war-chest of Obama’s will have many uses. They’ll have refined their internet strategies even more than they did in 2008.
Mike Devx: “So is it a deliberate diversion? Or is it a mis-reasoning?”
Either. Both. Who cares anymore? Trying to reason with a wall does no good for you or the wall.
SADIE: My fervent prayer is that my wife and I wind up the in the same old folks’ home as you. I intend to die from laughter and this will grant me my wish.
And Z cut and pasted the first sentence in my deliberately-pedantic-as-a-joke paragraph, not the second sentence, which was:
He did that about those “heinous/reprehensible decreases in British crimes” thing too.
Trying to reason with a wall does no good for you or the wall.
In H2H training, we were told to go through the wall.
Mike Devx: Folks, I’m frustrated. If you read #45, I hope you thought my argument was about bias and advocacy. What Z just wrote (above) has *nothing* to do with bias and advocacy.
It has everything to do with *your claim* concerning bias and advocacy, though.
Mike Devx: The UK links are compromised because the entire UK government has already taken an advocacy position on the issue. The UK – and to a far worse extent the EUroids in Brussels – have become advocates for AGW and direct money, as advocates, to a particular viewpoint.
This is what is called handwaving. You refuse to even consider a result from an independent government inquiry, because the U.K. has taken a position on climate change. They also advocate for cancer research and the Earth’s movement. Does that mean they can’t investigate a cancer researcher or geophysicist?
Not only has there been a government inquiry, but there were independent reviews by the Science Assessment Panel, NOAA, Pennsylvania State University, an independent review panel, a total of nine investigations.
To discount all of these means to imply that there is an international conspiracy of scientists, politicians, educators and politicians. The more plausible explanation for why they all agree is that they actually examined the evidence and reached the same conclusion.
… scientists, politicians, educators and administrators.
Mike Devx: It is not necessary that you do so, but there is sufficient reason to justify doing so.
Yes, you say that, but the only reason you give is because they have taken a position on climate change. Again, the most plausible explanation for why every major scientific organization in the world is warning about climate change is because the evidence supports it.
Ymarsakar: He did that about those “heinous/reprehensible decreases in British crimes” thing too.
You were given many opportunities for clarification. Your answer was killing millions of Leftists would lower the crime rate. You called it a proposal.
Devx,
I am actually really confused now. You hold the same position as Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers, who have even more money and power than the scientific organizations by multiple orders of magnitude. So you will understand my own skepticism that you really have taken this view in spite of those larger organizations’ own propaganda. Moreover, the same levels of money and power are held by similarly situated scientific research institutions that study cancer or build nuclear bombs for our government. So please explain why you have singled out climate scientists, as opposed to cancer or nuclear researchers as being uniquely worthy of disbelief, and why you happen to hold the same positions as Exxon and Koch, but you have also reached this interesting position without being unduly influenced by anyone’s power and money. You see, from my perspective, your story doesn’t add up. You lack the specialized knowledge to evaluate the science, but you selectively apply your rule for disqualifying expert groups on the basis of their holding power and influence.
My working theory is that conservatives are natively pro-business, and climate research argues that businesses need to take on additional costs, which conservatives are allergic to as a general rule. Conservatives who are deeply religious also apparently believe that God has made a covenant to not destroy the earth again, so they reject any science however firmly established that conflicts with that biblical view. I don’t know whether these apply to you specifically, but they could be part of the explanation.
You’ll have to give me a better understanding of your apparently selective disqualiification of scientists (climate versus cancer or nukes) and you strangle like-mindedness with organizations whose power and influence greatly exceeds NASA, NOAA, East Anglia and the like… That is, if you would deign to talk to moronic liberals like Z and I who simply demand that people keep their facts and logic sound and consistent, since we, unlike conservatives, are not blessed with inherently superior knowledge of the world that doesn’t require such consistency and factual support…
Oh noooooo….the dreaded Koch brothers and….BIG OOOOIL!
ABC then provides the following…”My working theory is that conservatives are natively pro-business, and climate research argues that businesses need to take on additional costs, which conservatives are allergic to as a general rule. Conservatives who are deeply religious also apparently believe that God has made a covenant to not destroy the earth again, so they reject any science however firmly established that conflicts with that biblical view. I don’t know whether these apply to you specifically, but they could be part of the explanation.”
This is so full of silly caricatures, it really is hoot! You need to get out of your social bubble, ABC.
Just a footnote. The investigations aren’t done yet. You _do_ have to wonder why there’s such resistance to providing the requested material, though. I guess I, too, am a cynic.
http://www.atinstitute.org/court-orders-university-of-virginia-to/
> You hold the same position as Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers, who have even more money and power than the scientific organizations by multiple orders of magnitude. So you will understand my own skepticism that you really have taken this view in spite of those larger organizations’ own propaganda.
A study funded by Exxon Mobil or the Koch brothers faces the same advocacy problem. You clearly see the advocacy problem for *them*, as your comments above show. But I wonder if you can see the advocacy problem on your side of the AGW debate.
> You lack the specialized knowledge to evaluate the science, but you selectively apply your rule for disqualifying expert groups on the basis of their holding power and influence.
The nitty-gritty, yes. The vast majority of people are unready to critique the in-depth science for a scientific study in *any* field. (They have PhD’s and years of study and it shows. It reminds me of a senior-level class in Astronomy I once took because I was interested. My Physics-103 level of understanding left me hopelessly unready for the thermodynamics physics in that class.)
However, I can follow with ease the arguments on both sides, where they’re arguing support for their conclusions at a higher level. Apparently, the 99% of us who lack the deep science in a field are supposed to throw up our arms in surrender, and say, “L’il ol’ me, I can’t figger out all those dang numbers, so I’m just going to have to trust every word these scientist gods say.” Blind trust. That used to be how most of us behaved, too, back in the day when we thought a scientist would rather saw off one of his own arms rather than fudge the data to meet the expected results. We used to trust them. There’s less and less trust these days, I think for good reason.
Take a step back. At its core this is not an argument about AGW itself. It’s about the seizure of trillions of tax dollars from the people, in order to fight AGW. You’d better have a damned solid, unassailable position, to do *that*.
So the AGW science ought to be unassailable before we commit that kind of treasure to an effort. What if the science is flawed? Trillions of dollars to fight a phantom? Trillions of seized dollars to fight a problem that might not really exist?
We’ve been through the core AGW issues before. The biggest problem for me was that from 1990-present, their models predict behavior, and the predictions were so far off the actual climate data coming in that it was ridiculous. Nothing matched! Skeptical scientists with the same level of training as AGW proponents raised issues that looked valid.
There are also serious concerns that man-made global warming has been overestimated. It doesn’t help when decades of effort on “species extinction” – an area of study very similar to AGW, but not yet with an effort to use trillions of dollars to fight a problem – now have to be revised because they’ve realized their basic assumptions about extinction rates were ridiculously, outrageously wrong. By a factor of almost three. Being *that* wrong on AGW rates would end the entire AGW debate.
A reasonable position to take, then: STOP! You’re not forcibly taking trillions of dollars from the American people until the science is on more solid footing.
And then you get ClimateGate at East Anglia: All the data has gone through a series of transformations – and then they deleted the source data! Several scientists tried to reconstruct the whole chain – one spent two years before giving up and leaving the program. It couldn’t be done. Various emails look like smoking guns about the data manipulation, and about suppressing the AGW debate, and about making sure that the articles accepted for peer review are to be only the articles in support of AGW. It was devastating.
So now we’re to the point of your post #41 that has generated the rest of this thread, and the studies you cite, exonerating the ClimateGate culprits, where I believe they have severe advocacy conflicts.
——
So it’s not really about the science. By all means, continue the science and move it to better, more solid footing. Answer the critics. Take all the funding you want – voluntary funding. Even the usual levels of forced taxpayer funding. (If we have to put up with that in other fields, we have to put up with that here, too.) But, no, absolutely not: We’re not going to let you seize trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to “fight AGW” world-wide. No. Too many questions, too much shoddy science, too much evidence of potentially criminal falsification of the science.
And, oh yes, the original issue here, Book’s own post:
Leave the children out of the debate!
Stop propagandizing the children with one side of the argument.
Leave the kids alone!!!
Mike Devx: and then they deleted the source data!
The source data is actually collected by a number of independent agencies around the world. Much of the data is proprietary. That data is still available, but you have to collect and collate it. That data, and newly collected data, is under constant scientific scrutiny.
Mike Devx: The biggest problem for me was that from 1990-present, their models predict behavior, and the predictions were so far off the actual climate data coming in that it was ridiculous. Nothing matched!
This is an exaggeration, and there is no scientific support for your position. Though far from perfect, climate models are largely predictive with ranges, and there is no model that works without accounting for anthropogenic forcing. One discrepancy was the level of tropospheric warming, but new data shows that the models were correct, and the older observations were in error.
Mike Devx: By all means, continue the science and move it to better, more solid footing.
That’s what they’re doing. And the more they study it, the more certain scientists are that humans are changing the climate.
Mike,
First, the kids are not going to be left alone. They must be taught. They should be taught was is factually accurate. What Book wrote is factually inaccurate and should not be taught. Pretty simple.
Second, your argument on AGW makes little sense to me. You say that what Exxon writes and what East Anglia writes are the same and should be treated as such, but that isn’t true. Exxon’s research is never published in peer reviewed and relevant science journals, and not because of a massive conspiracy on the part of scientists, but because it is bad science. If you don’t recognize this difference, then you cannot understand anything about AGW or any other science debate. Authority matters, and independently verified authority matters a lot. That independent verification also means that it isn’t blind trust, unlike your blind trust in your own (as you admit) more limited understanding of the science or (worse) many conservatives’ blind trust in the propaganda put out by Exxon and others. That independently verified authority is what East Anglia and other climate research organizations have and Koch/Exxon lack. This is a critical point that you ignore. that is a mistake.
Also, your write:
“At its core this is not an argument about AGW itself. It’s about the seizure of trillions of tax dollars from the people, in order to fight AGW. You’d better have a damned solid, unassailable position, to do *that*…So the AGW science ought to be unassailable before we commit that kind of treasure to an effort. What if the science is flawed? Trillions of dollars to fight a phantom? Trillions of seized dollars to fight a problem that might not really exist?”
What if the science is right and we do nothing and the worset case scenarios–the ones that the Pentagon worries about–actually happen? You selectively do the game theory analysis that should be done honestly and openly covering all the risks, but you don’t do this to protect the narrative, apparently. (The other possibilty is that you really aren’t bright enough to see that you’ve only done partial work, but that would be rude of me to suggest, so let’s stick with the bias charge…)
Here is the game theory analysis, in simplified form:
1. We do nothing and the science on AGW is bogus, we have bet big and won big. It can happen. It is not a conservative way to invest money, much less the only place we can live in the universe, but whatever.
2. We do something and the science on AGW is not bogus: we have hedged big and won big. This is the conservative way to invest money, and, according to many, the even more prudent way to handle an irreplaceable asset (the earth).
3. We do something and the science on AGW is bogus: we hedged big and lost on the hedge. This is what we all do who buy life insurance and live to see it never cashed or buy fire/car/casualty insurance and never suffer the loss. It costs money to insure, but it is perfectly rational behavior. The losses are a cost of doing business, and of sleeping at night. If it is not crazy behavior with replaceable assets, then it certainly is not with irreplaceable ones.
4. We do nothing and the scient on AGW is not bogus: we didn’t hedge and lost huge. This is what you advocate, since you are certain that the scientists are wrong. If you were omniscient, then I would agree with you, but you are not, so you’ll have to understand my skepticism. Further, you are not authoritative on the risks (which requires scientific skills and knowledge that you–and I–lack), so I don’t see how you can assert not only that this is not about the science, but that you can distinguish good science from bad with the stakes this high. Your only partial analysis of the game theory around this issue is not a good start, by the way…
“We’ve been through the core AGW issues before. The biggest problem for me was that from 1990-present, their models predict behavior, and the predictions were so far off the actual climate data coming in that it was ridiculous. Nothing matched! Skeptical scientists with the same level of training as AGW proponents raised issues that looked valid.”
Actually, this is not true. The models understated the warming over the period that you describe. You can find info on this at the website and its many links, which is why I provided it to you.
“There are also serious concerns that man-made global warming has been overestimated.”
By whom? I just stated what the models have done, and it wasn’t overestimation.
“It doesn’t help when decades of effort on “species extinction” – an area of study very similar to AGW, but not yet with an effort to use trillions of dollars to fight a problem – now have to be revised because they’ve realized their basic assumptions about extinction rates were ridiculously, outrageously wrong.”
Whose predictions? EO Wilson is identifying major extinctions occuring now, and he hasn’t retracted anything. Please state sources, so I know what and who you are talking about.
“ By a factor of almost three.”
Hard to evaluate a number without sources, context, etc. Given what you wrote previuosly, you’ll understand my skepticism of what you just wrote, especially since you are not a credentialled scientists with relevant expertise.
“ Being *that* wrong on AGW rates would end the entire AGW debate.”
Assuming away the problem, until you can source the authority for this.
Mike continues: “A reasonable position to take, then: STOP! You’re not forcibly taking trillions of dollars from the American people until the science is on more solid footing.”
It is not a taking if the following are true:
1.the taking is to address harm done by fossil fuels that is not incorporated into market prices. (classic negative externality that every economist, including Friedman and Hayek, would say requires a tax. Not a taking in that case; or
2. insurance to prevent even larger amounts of damage, which luckily can come in the form of activity that we ought to be doing anyway, like finding more efficient and cleaner fuels, increasing energy efficiency, etc.
Your argument assumes as exclusive the conclusion you want to make. That is not good or honest logical reasoning.
“And then you get ClimateGate at East Anglia: All the data has gone through a series of transformations – and then they deleted the source data! Several scientists tried to reconstruct the whole chain – one spent two years before giving up and leaving the program. It couldn’t be done. Various emails look like smoking guns about the data manipulation, and about suppressing the AGW debate, and about making sure that the articles accepted for peer review are to be only the articles in support of AGW. It was devastating.”
Nothing you just wrote is true. Please state the source of this account, and why that source is authoritative. You spent a lot of time arguing why independent scientists who you otherwise would trust if they were doing cancer or nuclear research are suddenly dishonest because they are independently verifying climate resaerch. But you don’t even mention the source of this little fiction. You’ll understand how my skepticism is moving toward cynicism at this point…
For the record, I have listed 8 independent investigations that say your story is wrong. I think you might want to provide me a few names and sources, so that it doesn’t look like you demand a higher evidentiary bar than you yourself are willing to submit to.
“So now we’re to the point of your post #41 that has generated the rest of this thread, and the studies you cite, exonerating the ClimateGate culprits, where I believe they have severe advocacy conflicts…So it’s not really about the science. By all means, continue the science and move it to better, more solid footing. Answer the critics. Take all the funding you want – voluntary funding. Even the usual levels of forced taxpayer funding. (If we have to put up with that in other fields, we have to put up with that here, too.) But, no, absolutely not: We’re not going to let you seize trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to “fight AGW” world-wide. No. Too many questions, too much shoddy science, too much evidence of potentially criminal falsification of the science.”
There is not voluntary funding at NIH, so do you avoid using medicines that are developed from their basic research? Do you avoid investing in publicly traded biotech and pharma companies that rely on that data, or the data of compulsorily funded universities? I don’t understand the double standard, and you still really haven’t addressed that.
Instead you believe reports from people with far less credibility and not only take those accounts (e.g., scientists falsifying data) on faith but expect us to as well, given your lack of sourcing or evidence from “objective” “uninterested” sources. Strange hypocrisy going on here. And all of this while the “conservative” position under game theory is the opposite one of what you conclude. You are taking the risk-seeking position, pointing to bad data, while ignoring more credible data, on a questionable and selectively-applied theory of which experts to trust or not trust. Why are you doing this? The answers, I think, lie deeper…
Me, via abc: “It doesn’t help when decades of effort on “species extinction” – an area of study very similar to AGW, but not yet with an effort to use trillions of dollars to fight a problem – now have to be revised because they’ve realized their basic assumptions about extinction rates were ridiculously, outrageously wrong.”
abc: Whose predictions? EO Wilson is identifying major extinctions occuring now, and he hasn’t retracted anything. Please state sources, so I know what and who you are talking about.
me, via abc: “ By a factor of almost three.”
abc: Hard to evaluate a number without sources, context, etc.
Not so very difficult. C’mon man, you’re educated! It took me 30 seconds to google “extinction rates invalid wrong” and retrieve one of the articles:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/species-extinction-rates-have-203632.aspx
Is that really beyond you, to do the same? (Sometimes me provides the links, and sometimes me don’ts. Too bad.)
abc: Given what you wrote previuosly, you’ll understand my skepticism of what you just wrote, especially since you are not a credentialled scientists with relevant expertise.
Professor Snark engages in the usual endless series of putdowns. (As an enjoyable little exercise, go back above to abc’s post and count the putdowns. Oh, yeah, I forgot – conservatives don’t know how to count that high. Limited number of fingers and toes, you know.) I’ll give you a clue, abc: Your putdowns almost never affect me. You hit me with *exactly one* putdown at one point – and I’m never going to let you know which of the thousands of putdowns it was – that it took me almost 48 hours even to admit to myself that you’d managed to royally piss me off. You were so wrong in your perception of me that it was breathtaking – but finally I just considered the source. But you got me once! Congrats.
As one blogger put the point on the extinction-rate press release put it: (who I consider far better-informed than me):
The point is not that we should ignore environmental concerns. The point is that we should be wary about claims that massive social and economic changes are necessary simply because the scientific consensus of the moment claims they’re desirable. Like the medical claims about salt I mentioned in my earlier post, and like this latest news, the consensus of the moment can turn out to be seriously flawed.
Many of our arguments here recently have surrounded the worth of “the consensus of moment”.
Anyway… the quiet season is almost over. Issues surrounding Israel are going to heat up dramatically, and the 2012 political season is almost upon us. I’m done contributing to “digression pollution” here. If I’ve nothing further good (factual or entertaining) to add, I’m just going to have to remain silent. Intelligent readers can decide who’s more right without having to wade through the endless back-and-forth.
abc: 3. We do something and the science on AGW is bogus: we hedged big and lost on the hedge.
Actually, there are a number of secondary benefits. Conservation, for instance, reduces costs, increases efficiency and reduces the problem of waste disposal, regardless of whether it helps the climate.
You called it a proposal.
Leftists support mass murder, child rape, regular rape, Muslim crime, Jihadist crime, and just regular basic crime.
That’s fact, not theory. Is reality so harsh that you can’t handle it Z. Your theories safeguard you from what exactly?
Mike,
First, I think I supply more links and sources than most. So cut a little slack. Further, it’s hard to comment on the UCLA/Nature study if I don’t know what you are referring to. You understand, I think, the need to have specific facts, right?
Second, that article you linked to said that the rates of observable extinctions remains worrying, and you ignored that other key point. The authority I referenced, EO Wilson, has spoken of observed extinctions, not predicted ones, the subject of the article claiming overestimation. So you choose to ignore a serious, observed problem that alone justifies action on AGW and other environmental issues by pointing to an overestimation on predicted ones. I don’t understand that logic, in light of what we’ve discussed. This is like observing that you have an existing heart problem but ignoring it because the doctor was wrong about the predicted impact of this on your left ventricle, is it not?
Third, you engage in non-sequiturs and misstatements:
Mike writes, first quoting me: “abc: Given what you wrote previuosly, you’ll understand my skepticism of what you just wrote, especially since you are not a credentialled scientists with relevant expertise.
Professor Snark engages in the usual endless series of putdowns. (As an enjoyable little exercise, go back above to abc’s post and count the putdowns. Oh, yeah, I forgot – conservatives don’t know how to count that high. Limited number of fingers and toes, you know.) I’ll give you a clue, abc: Your putdowns almost never affect me. You hit me with *exactly one* putdown at one point – and I’m never going to let you know which of the thousands of putdowns it was – that it took me almost 48 hours even to admit to myself that you’d managed to royally piss me off. You were so wrong in your perception of me that it was breathtaking – but finally I just considered the source. But you got me once! Congrats.”
How is it a putdown to call you what you admit you are not? And why can you be skeptical of biased parties that have verified data while I cannot do the same with biased parties that lack such data? And how do the putdowns, if you choose to take them as such, weaken the rest of my argument? Is your skin so thin that you cannot simply rebut the argument, or are you evading??
Finally, readers can only sort through the back and forth if both sides are held to the same standard of proof. You haven’t met mine, nor answered my questions. I hope the readers here will not the double standard.
Mike, I agree. The tactic here that Z and abc are practicing is an endless, tedium-inducing back and forth. It’s very much an Alinsky-ite tactic and it certainly makes me wonder where the Dynamic Duo gets all the time it apparently has on its hands. (I am a self-employed writer and work on and off throughout an 18-hour day. What do Z and abc do?)
Mike Devx: It doesn’t help when decades of effort on “species extinction” – an area of study very similar to AGW, but not yet with an effort to use trillions of dollars to fight a problem – now have to be revised because they’ve realized their basic assumptions about extinction rates were ridiculously, outrageously wrong.
The species extinction rate is far above the background extinction rate, as the authors of the study you cite make clear. EO Wilson’s original estimate had a range of a factor of 10, so the study doesn’t change the fact that the Earth is going through a great extinction event.
Your misunderstanding on this is much like your misunderstanding of climate change science. Yes, scientists are always adjusting their models and theories. They are always admitting they were wrong about this or that aspect of the theory. There are all sorts of anomalies. That’s the strength of science. In the case of climate change, scientists have only become more confident in their conclusions.
That’s the miracle of the scientific method, that we can reach some tentative conclusions in the midst of great ignorance about the universe.
Charles, it is not Alinsky. It is credentialled scientists doing work. If they forced you to take it all lock stock and barrel, then you’d believe in AGW to get your cancer drugs. Lucky for you, you can sully the name of scientists for political reasons and suffer nothing for it. What works to create Rituxan also works to create AGW research and conclusions. Please state why you selectively believe in science when the process is the same.
I’ve wondered about A through Z’s time myself. I’ve also noted that the tactic is to keep everyone else engaged.
I enjoy it a lot, because there is a huge amount of information and analysis flowing through here, but the imagine I get is of one of those machines that automatically pops out tennis balls (relentlessly, no sweat, minimal skill or logistics), while the real player runs around the court, getting sweaty. Of course, the real player also gets stronger and more skilled, so there is something to be said for the set up.
I do appreciate that A and Z, like the tennis machine, don’t get mean. They’re relentless, but Z is imperturbably good humored, while A merely gets a bit sarcastic and snarky, which is allowable at this blog. (It’s got to be allowable, considering that I, myself, am a snark and sarcasm practitioner.)
I’ve wondered about A through Z’s time myself.
uho. Book’s starting using wording close to my own. You know what that means Martel and Danny. You two better be on your best behavior next time you meet her… or something Terrifying Powerful may happen.
I’ve also noted that the tactic is to keep everyone else engaged.
Z’s self stated strategy is to control what information is being presented so as to manipulate what readers and internet visitors are seeing and thinking upon. True conservatism, rather than the reactionist conservatism of Republicans or Sarah Palin, as I would phrase it given Z’s self-stated comments.
Z doesn’t present extreme emotional ranges here because none of these issues impact him personally or challenges his ethics/morality. If you ask Martel, that would be because Z doesn’t have any ethics or morality aside from utilitarianism. Though I am undecided at this matter.
while A merely gets a bit sarcastic and snarky
I mostly skip A’s comments, as they don’t contain anything relevant to my concerns. For example, that one time I wrote about how experts are employed by the government for specific reasons, A came back and assumed I was talking about the “experts” he named and called “experts”. In point of fact, I didn’t even know who he was talking about since his “expert” was in a comment I never read. It amuses me to see where people will go using logical arguments, when the entire base of the argument rests upon the assumption that I was commenting in reply to A’s “experts” when in fact I never read whatever A had to say about her experts to begin with.
I usually never employ long form strategies on blogs and correspondence formats because the time intervals are unpredictable and the interest levels are usually far below the minimum required to keep a constant conversation going over a long time. Z’s lack of what some humans would call inability to tire of hashing over the same dead horse, is both a form of long range strategy and a form uniquely suited to long strategies targeting Z.
abc, as Book has so capably pointed out, your tactic is to simply change the topic to keep the thread going. Ergo: I was remarking on your Alinsky-like manner of discourse, not its content.
Mike Devx, et al., has done a fine job of refuting your steady stream of URLs and authorities, and keeping his remarkable good humor in the face of your congenital sullenness. But like him, I see that you will continue pleasuring yourself on this topic no matter what we say in response since your goal is disruption, not elucidation.
By the way, abc, what is your profession? (Given the wild uneveness of their writing, we already know Z is several people, whom some here theorize is an academic or Asperger syndromer and naive college students he holds in thrall.)
Ymar, good call on Z. Remember, he is a gamester, so approaches Bookworm Room as such.
Book:
“I’ve wondered about A through Z’s time myself. I’ve also noted that the tactic is to keep everyone else engaged.”
Right on. As long as both sides keep up their end of the bargain, by supplying accurate facts and sound logic, one asymptotically approaches the “truth” on a matter–or, to put it in better terms, one achieves an answer with a higher probability of being right. That is why everyone ought to be engaged.
“I enjoy it a lot, because there is a huge amount of information and analysis flowing through here, but the imagine I get is of one of those machines that automatically pops out tennis balls (relentlessly, no sweat, minimal skill or logistics), while the real player runs around the court, getting sweaty. Of course, the real player also gets stronger and more skilled, so there is something to be said for the set up.”
But the end, ultimately, is not to win the game, but to become a better player. Similarly, the end shouldn’t be to defend a partisan position, but to figure out what the right answer is, regardless of partisan beliefs or interests.
“I do appreciate that A and Z, like the tennis machine, don’t get mean. They’re relentless, but Z is imperturbably good humored, while A merely gets a bit sarcastic and snarky, which is allowable at this blog. (It’s got to be allowable, considering that I, myself, am a snark and sarcasm practitioner.)”
I lack Z’s discipline, so I am glad that Book doesn’t confuse sarcasm with disrespect. If I didn’t care, I’d go somewhere else…which, I know, many here wish I would have done long ago…
Charles,
“abc, as Book has so capably pointed out, your tactic is to simply change the topic to keep the thread going. Ergo: I was remarking on your Alinsky-like manner of discourse, not its content.”
Wrong. Alinsky, I believe, talked about propaganda. I am citing scientific facts. There is a big difference, and it DOES relate to the differential content (misleading with falsifications versus enlightening with facts) of Alinsky and Z or myself.
“Mike Devx, et al., has done a fine job of refuting your steady stream of URLs and authorities, and keeping his remarkable good humor in the face of your congenital sullenness.”
Which source did he cite that refuted the many that I cited? In what universe does the lack of proof refute scientific proof?
“…But like him, I see that you will continue pleasuring yourself on this topic no matter what we say in response since your goal is disruption, not elucidation.”
One cannot use facts and logic, apparently, to disabuse someone of a faulty position that they didn’t use facts and logic to formulate. And as an aside, I take no pleasure in observing this trait in you and others, nor in my useless attempts to change it–your comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
“By the way, abc, what is your profession? (Given the wild uneveness of their writing, we already know Z is several people, whom some here theorize is an academic or Asperger syndromer and naive college students he holds in thrall.)”
What is yours? For once, I think you ought to answer one of my questions before I respond to your queries.
abc, I supplied that information in #69. You need to read much more carefully, son. Haste is one of your bugaboos.
Marty here is basically implying or even stating outright that those “scientific facts” of yours are in fact, and in reality, propaganda.
Martel, maybe the real reason why they mis-attribute claims to the wrong authors is due to the simple fact that they don’t read all of what you write. They only read the parts they want to read and leave the rest out, like one of those picky Whole Foods eaters.
Y,
“maybe the real reason why they mis-attribute claims to the wrong authors is due to the simple fact that they don’t read all of what you write…”
Or maybe I read what was written and just didn’t read the name above the quote. Both are possible. Given that I responded to what was written, maybe my theory holds and yours doesn’t. But feel free to point out what I obviously didn’t read…
…and while we’re at it, and since it’s related. Please state clearly what “scientific proof” you were referring to when you wrote: “Marty here [he] is basically implying or even stating outright that those “scientific facts” of yours are in fact, and in reality, propaganda.”
For the record, I couldn’t call what “Marty” wrote propaganda, since he offered nothing that had scientific data and a name or peer-reviewed journal name attached to it. It wasn’t even enough to call propaganda, actually. I think “Marty” was falsely comparing the reporting of scientific proof with Alinsky propaganda tactics, which are not the same thing at all. Or, maybe, YOU confused who wrote what and are mixing up with my claim that Mike has offered no scientific proof or sources at all.
Well there you have it folks. They don’t even bother to know who you are before reading your stuff and rejecting it as untrue.
It could be from anyone, in their view. All would be equally X. Unless you’re a Harvard grad or Ivy Tower affiliate.
Y, first, the idea matters much more than who said it, don’t you think? Second, you DO understand that I wrote that YOU had confused who said what, not me, don’t you? Try to avoid the vices you criticize in others… And, for once, try to rebut an argument, rather than merely throw ad hominems. You do know that there is a difference, right? I mean I hope that I am not expecting too much in your case…
Y, first, the idea matters much more than who said it, don’t you think?
I don’t think I even need to respond to A given his self-incrimination. Anything you say or do will be used against you in the court of Bookworm Room.
This narcissistic idea that other people exist only to fulfill some sick need of A here is beyond the pale. But unexpectedly normal and to be expected amongst the alliance of the Left. They even have members in them that think they don’t belong, even as their parent institutions do.
To avoid contradicting yourself, conservatives care about ideas but we don’t actually forget people’s names that we are talking to. Else we’d attribute Mao and Obama’s ideas to Instapundit or Neo-Neocon. LibProgs care about the authority where ideas come from. And you, A, more than most.