Climate Change Deniers at It Again

[WDCRob]

This time George Will - with a piece so full of lies that a 5th grader could have demolished it.

Fortunately these two (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/where_theres_a_george_will_theres_a_way_to_deny_gl .php) pieces (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html) do a much more thorough job.

We're well into 'there are no scientific studies that prove the link between tobacco and cancer' territory now. Expect more and more of this as the mountain of overwhelming evidence grows.

[grapejelly]

I am a complete skeptic when it comes to this. Furthermore, even if climate is changing, so what??


Who is gonna say this is bad or good.

And is this sufficient justification for increasing the scope of an already totalitarian state?

[Lukester]

Slimy eco-mafia trying to soak us for some fraudulent extorted money again. If global warming is real, let's just wait for it to show up, then we'll at least know we are spending our hard earned bucks on abating something that's real. Why can't these guys understand that's the only prudent way to approach this? [a brilliant risk adjusted solution.] Watch the money! Someone's always gonna try to steal it from you with a scam, right? :confused: :p :rolleyes:

1092

[WDCRob]

Grape you got a funny concept of 'Totalitarian.'

If you just don't believe, no problem. That's faith - and I wouldn't argue with you.

But if you're going to use facts and figures, like Will does, and if you're going to print them in a major U.S. daily, as The Washington Post did, you have an obligation to argue your position honestly.

I'll stick with the scientists on this one.

[grapejelly]

Grape you got a funny concept of 'Totalitarian.'

If you just don't believe, no problem. That's faith - and I wouldn't argue with you.

But if you're going to use facts and figures, like Will does, and if you're going to print them in a major U.S. daily, as The Washington Post did, you have an obligation to argue your position honestly.

I'll stick with the scientists on this one.

Scientists disagree on this. Which ones will you stick with?

Isn't science easily manipulated when most of its practitioners suck upon the government teat for their living?

My experience with most scientists is that they are naive political statists. Exactly how the global warming myth plays so well.

Remember, we have some data and we have a lot of computer models. That's the science behind this whole thing. Ridiculous.

[medved]

Scientists disagree on this. Which ones will you stick with?

Isn't science easily manipulated when most of its practitioners suck upon the government teat for their living?

My experience with most scientists is that they are naive political statists. Exactly how the global warming myth plays so well.

Remember, we have some data and we have a lot of computer models. That's the science behind this whole thing. Ridiculous.

Spot on. We had the same amount of data, models, "experts" and "consensus" related to the derivatives in the financial market. Care to remember?

I understand very little in the climate science, but I am very familiar with political propaganda. I still don't want to take sides in this debate, but the pro-warming side clearly behaves like a bunch of political thugs.

[xtronics]

Two links - The first one has a graph of the satellite data - there isn't a hockey stick as predicted by the global warming team.

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

The second link reminds me of how they got the feds to go along with 80:1 leveraging - computer models..

http://climateaudit.org/

Not interested in joining this religion -

[Lukester]

So, it's settled then. George F. Will wrote a solid, sound piece demystifying Climate Change? WDC Rob, seems you need to get with the program here. :confused: :rolleyes:

[we_are_toast]

Slimy eco-mafia trying to soak us for some fraudulent extorted money again. If global warming is real, let's just wait for it to show up, then we'll at least know we are spending our hard earned bucks on abating something that's real. Why can't these guys understand that's the only prudent way to approach this? [a brilliant risk adjusted solution.] Watch the money! Someone's always gonna try to steal it from you with a scam, right? :eek: :rolleyes:


I'm with you Luke, it's all bull!

Clearly the CO2 chart below shows that it is forming a head and shoulder top and is up against resistance at 386 PPM. The long term Elliot wave analysis shows it is in a major D wave of a minor C wave which means it can only go down. The RSI and Fast stochastic indicators are showing that CO2 is overbought and due for a correction. The 50,000 year moving average is still below the 1 million year moving average so the trend will certainly run out of steam. And the fractal pattern is showing very low energy levels at these levels.

How can anyone dispute this? You're all crazy if you don't short CO2 now!
:)


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png

[Lukester]

:D :D :D I'm chronically short on the Oxygen, but that's probably a subjective benchmark on my part. Long CO2 seems a good bet for the next ten years. What about the bollinger bands? You forgot the bollinger bands on the 200,000 year moving average dude.

[WDCRob]

The scientists don't disagree.

IIRC, in the last several years there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed article in an internationally recognized journal that disagrees with the fundamental premise that the globe is warming, and is very likely doing so due to human activity. None.

The consequences are unknown, and there's disagreement over some of the mechanisms and etc - but the central point is unchallenged by credible science in 2009.

The fact there's confusion on this point is primarily due to the a media that chooses to treat paid hacks as 'scientists' deserving of equal time. It truly is equivalent to having tobacco industry spokespeople in TV in 1974 saying there has been no link proved between tobacco and cancer.

[medved]

So, it's settled then. George F. Will wrote a solid, sound piece demystifying Climate Change? WDC Rob, seems you need to get with the program here. :confused: :rolleyes:

Lukester, you seem to be missing the point. Nobody here is talking about GW (George Will) and his writings (except, maybe, you and WDCRob). I never read anything he wrote, saw him on TV a couple of times, but did not listen.

I, personally, am a complete agnostic on GW (Global Warming). I will not become an expert, just because I read your posts or some popular books on the climate science. I just know, what scientific discourse is, and I don't see one, GW or not.

[Lukester]

Medved. We are avoiding taking too serious a position here, as it's clear that there is no "meeting of the minds", so I don't think I was missing anyone's point. BTW, please note, that this thread was started by WDC Rob specifically to examine the merit of George F. Will's article on climate change, which I think would be appreciated as generally a weak article on the "debunking" side, by many peoples description.

Whether climate change has merit or not was in fact a secondary discussion. At least to my own understanding, the primary topic of this thread was WDCRob mentioning people like George Will in the print media who capture a lot of people's endorsements by means of dubious, or a-prior slanted journalistic investigation. George Will's piece approaches the topic with an "agenda", which is the very definition of poor journalism.

On that much, I am entirely clear, and entirely in agreement with Rob.

For the rest, everyone should lighten up. It's way too easy to get into a serious state of anger about this topic. I learned to hold it at arm's length a long time ago. Always appreciate your comments, "Mr. Bear". :D Please remember, a thread is "about" whatever the thread originator stated it was "about". In this case, George Will's shrill sounding journalism on this question.


Lukester, you seem to be missing the point. Nobody here is talking about GW (George Will) and his writings (except, maybe, you and WDCRob). I never read anything he wrote, saw him on TV a couple of times, but did not listen.

I, personally, am a complete agnostic on GW (Global Warming). I will not become an expert, just because I read your posts or some popular books on the climate science. I just know, what scientific discourse is, and I don't see one, GW or not.

[Lukester]

Just my own opinion, but if you find that this article satisfies your intellectual curiosity, and allays all your doubts and concerns on the global warming controversy, IMO you are being taken for a patsy. Keep right on reading the Washington Post and the untutored musings of this author, and broaden your horizons.

Doubtless there will be no shortage of others to agree with you, and support the opinions George Will propounds. In their collectivity (and within yet more sanguine and patronizing articles such as this which doubtless will be published) you will find solace for the general feeling of undefined irritability this topic arouses.

We all have likely had the experience of an elderly relative who, when hauled along to parties and gatherings and whatnot, embarasses everyone slightly by telling the same anecdotes over and over again? That feeling of weariness we all get when this occurs, is similar to the feeling of weariness I feel reading the same old and tired anecdotes Mr. Will hauls out to "put this question to rest once and for all".

You are certainly very industrious, witty and erudite, Mr. Will. A pity that in your "golden years" and with a bully pulpit such as the WashPost at your feet wherein you can engage in punditry to your heart's content, you are relapsing into such a painfully ossified approach to genuine investigation.

Dark Green Doomsayers (a.k.a. George F. Will & the "Debunking of the Hoary Shibboleths" :rolleyes:).


By George F. Will (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/george+f.+will/)

Sunday, February 15, 2009; Page B07

A corollary of Murphy's Law ("If something can go wrong, it will") is: "Things are worse than they can possibly be." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, an atomic physicist, seems to embrace that corollary but ignores Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong. Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean "no more agriculture in California," the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."

No more lettuce for Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively).

The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines. (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975).

Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon.

When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know." As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints and if government will "remake" the economy. Because of today's economy, another law -- call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities -- is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment.

A recent Pew Research Center poll (http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority) asked which of 20 issues should be the government's top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th. Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.

georgewill@washpost.com (georgewill@washpost.com)

(If someone were inclined to forward my comments to Mr. Will, I would only be grateful.)

[llanlad2]

Can you provide examples of a large majority of scientists coming to the same wrong conclusion because they "suck upon the teat of government?"

If scientists only conclude what the state wants them to then how come they frequently make conclusions that are often awkward to the powers that be?

the earth isn't flat
it revolves around the sun
smoking is bad for you
nuclear fall out is bad
the ozone layer is thinning
polluting rivers is bad
seatbelts save lives
planting seeds in straight lines with spaces between them is a good idea
vaccinations are worth having

Oh I know cos they just want to poke their noses in and tell people they may have to alter their behaviour -the interfering geeks.


I spoke to a professor of atmospherics recently and he assured me there was plenty of evidence to support global warming. I didn't get the impression he was saying it to keep his job. After all he had his job before global warming was a widely accepted theory.

[cjppjc]

Can you provide examples of a large majority of scientists coming to the same wrong conclusion because they "suck upon the teat of government?"

If scientists only conclude what the state wants them to then how come they frequently make conclusions that are often awkward to the powers that be?

the earth isn't flat
it revolves around the sun
smoking is bad for you
nuclear fall out is bad
the ozone layer is thinning
polluting rivers is bad
seatbelts save lives
planting seeds in straight lines with spaces between them is a good idea
vaccinations are worth having

Oh I know cos they just want to poke their noses in and tell people they may have to alter their behaviour -the interfering geeks.


I spoke to a professor of atmospherics recently and he assured me there was plenty of evidence to support global warming. I didn't get the impression he was saying it to keep his job. After all he had his job before global warming was a widely accepted theory.

John Coleman: Founder of The Weather Channel

When Coleman posted his first climate change brief online, he was surprised by the attention it got. “I thought I was the only one,” he says. “I started finding that there were plenty of people out there, it’s just that the media was ignoring them and the place to find them was on these little corners of the internet.” In May, 2008, an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition at the National Press Club, with the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the U.N. consensus of man-made climate change. Nine thousand of the names reportedly belong to Ph.Ds.

[GRG55]

Can you provide examples of a large majority of scientists coming to the same wrong conclusion because they "suck upon the teat of government?"

If scientists only conclude what the state wants them to then how come they frequently make conclusions that are often awkward to the powers that be?

the earth isn't flat
it revolves around the sun
smoking is bad for you
nuclear fall out is bad
the ozone layer is thinning
polluting rivers is bad
seatbelts save lives
planting seeds in straight lines with spaces between them is a good idea
vaccinations are worth having

Oh I know cos they just want to poke their noses in and tell people they may have to alter their behaviour -the interfering geeks.


I spoke to a professor of atmospherics recently and he assured me there was plenty of evidence to support global warming. I didn't get the impression he was saying it to keep his job. After all he had his job before global warming was a widely accepted theory.

In the western democracies "the state" only "wants something" once it's clear that a critical mass of citizens have already fallen in line. The flip flop on climate change in the USA is being driven by public sentiment more than anything else. I don't recall "the state" wanting to place limits on smoking until there was public pressure to do so. Nor do I recall the state wanting to do anything about the ozone layer, polluted rivers or banning atmospheric nuclear weapons testing [and a host of other policies] until the public demanded it.

Another example: As EJ has written, policy related to dealing with the debt overhang and failing credit system will not change until the unemployment rate increases sufficiently to bring enough political pressure on the Administration.

How the state, the MSM, NGOs, and other organizations influence public opinion is another matter entirely...;)

[llanlad2]

John Coleman: Founder of The Weather Channel

When Coleman posted his first climate change brief online, he was surprised by the attention it got. “I thought I was the only one,” he says. “I started finding that there were plenty of people out there, it’s just that the media was ignoring them and the place to find them was on these little corners of the internet.” In May, 2008, an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition at the National Press Club, with the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the U.N. consensus of man-made climate change. Nine thousand of the names reportedly belong to Ph.Ds.


31000 scientists- and how many meteorologists?
See link below for info on the paper you mentioned. Funnily enough the authors sent it to departments in universities but not the meteorology ones.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480

Real science discussion/development/progress occurs through research followed by publishing in peer reviewed journals not petitions. The consensus supporting man-made GW within articles published within journals is almost 100%.

Not believing in humans influencing global warming is "faith based" and nothing to do with science. Usually it's a belief that the government has tricked/forced all the experts to come to the same conclusion so they can screw the public somehow.

Personally I'll go with the experts on this and not a bunch of Internet conspiracy theorists.

[cjppjc]

I hope you're not calling me an Internet conspiracy theorist.

[xtronics]

31000 scientists- and how many meteorologists?
See link below for info on the paper you mentioned. Funnily enough the authors sent it to departments in universities but not the meteorology ones.


This has been blown out of the water. Other surveys on the other side have even bigger numbers. Science is not a political process anyway.


[/URL]The consensus supporting man-made GW within articles published within journals is almost 100%.


Within a very small group of circle-jerk peer-reviewers, but even that has changed in the last year. In filled data is not real data...


Not believing in humans influencing global warming is "faith based" and nothing to do with science.


Not the case - that is like saying atheists are faith based. To not believe only means that ones standard for evidence is different than yours. in the last year there have been several papers that have punched holes in the hockey-team case.

Seriously - take two examples - suppose the average temp (satellite is the only way to measure 'global' BTW) went up 5 deg C in the next few years. Does that prove AGW? Not really.

Suppose it goes down 5 deg C - does that disprove AGW - Again, not really. Somethings are really not knowable. I think you have been listening to folks that remind me of kids that go in a closet and turn off the light to see how scared they can get.

Take a look at [URL]http://www.climateaudit.org/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=480) if you want to understand why the case has not been made. (the case that there isn't AGW hasn't been made either). Real science is funny that way.

[Lukester]

Greenland, Antarctica Glaciers Speeding Faster Toward the Sea

By Alex Morales

Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than predicted, accelerating their march to the sea and adding to the rising ocean levels that threaten coastal communities worldwide.

The Pine Island Glacier, the biggest in West Antarctica, has sped 40 percent faster toward the sea since the 1970s and Smith Glacier is moving 83 percent quicker than 15 years ago, said David Hik (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David+Hik&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), executive director of the Canadian secretariat of the International Polar Year (http://www.ipy.org/), an international scientific project.

“The loss of ice is pretty spectacular,” Hik, a professor at the University of Alberta (http://www.ualberta.ca/) in Edmonton, said today in a telephone interview from Geneva. “The big outflow glaciers on Greenland are accelerating their discharge as well.”

The study means scientists now have a better handle on the potential contribution to sea-level rise of melting ice sheets than two years ago, when the United Nations produced its biggest report on global warming, predicting an increase in sea levels of 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches) this century.

The UN acknowledged a lack of certainty about ice loss from Antarctica. The latest findings will help refine climate-change modeling and predictions of future sea-level rise, Hik said.

“Altogether, the glaciers in the West Antarctic are losing about 103 billion tons a year of ice in discharge,” he said. “This discharge from west Antarctica would add an additional 10 to 20 centimeters” to the existing UN predictions of sea level rise this century, he said.

While the UN said a complete melt of the West Antarctic ice sheet is unlikely this century, Hik said “we thought lots of things were unlikely even two years ago.” A collapse of the sheet could add 1 to 1.5 meters to sea levels this century, he said.

“The effects of warming are going to be global,” Hik said. “What happens at the poles will influence all parts of the planet and it’s very evident that we can see rapid changes in sea level associated with changes in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

International Polar Year drew in 50,000 researchers from 63 countries, according to Hik. The project spanned two years, ending next month, to incorporate a full year each of the Arctic in the north and the Antarctic in the south.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Alex+Morales&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 26, 2009 10:35 EST