tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post4357153539448399099..comments2024-03-17T03:16:44.995-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Climate Scientists Need A War Roombigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-70126550149904869022009-11-16T07:09:02.232-05:002009-11-16T07:09:02.232-05:00As the world cools its going to be harder and hard...As the world cools its going to be harder and harder to argue with the facts but then they never got in the way of a good snake oil salesman<br /><br />Climate communism is simply all it is<br /><br />http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/climate-communism/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05699388867572086440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-80375485353126128852009-08-18T00:52:01.603-04:002009-08-18T00:52:01.603-04:00I'm circulating this because I thought it was ...I'm circulating this because I thought it was a good idea at the time on RealClimate. Blogs are insular; people find the ones they like, which reinforce their own thinking, and ignore the rest. The news media is tanking as a major informational source/resource; ideologues hear something they don't like on the reg'lar news and say that whatever outlet they heard it or read it on is biased.<br /><br />So for that reason I tried to come up with something different (1st posted on Real Climate, just reposted on Only In It For the Gold, and I'll do it here and stop).<br /><br /><i>"So here’s a modest proposal (and I’m not Jonathan Swift). A reality-based TV show (or Webcast) where a group of actual climate skeptics come to real science class about climate. In each episode, one or two or three of the most popular circulating misconceptions is presented by one of the skeptics to the instructors of the class. The instructors calmly, methodically, and systemically deconstruct the misconception, explain why its wrong, and then explain the proper and correct scientific understanding of that particular topic. After the whole class (8-10 episodes), the skeptics are then asked to honestly assess what they think about climate change now. (Kinda like “The Biggest Loser” — which one of the skeptics attending the class would end up being the “biggest loser” of their host of climate change misconceptions? Of course, there would have to be an emotional angle, but I can leave that to the producers.)"</i><br /><br />So who's gonna call Al Gore to fund this one... I misplaced his number when he minimized advocating nuclear energy as a major part of the solution, but he still might like my idea.Jim Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214856789697943841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-82549755257025060332009-08-17T16:58:25.700-04:002009-08-17T16:58:25.700-04:00If you don't want to send any of your money to...If you don't want to send any of your money to Big Science, <i>The Discovery of Global Warming</i> is available completely online. There are also links to 19 other totally free <b>non-ideological</b> tutorials at <a href="http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">CapitalClimate</a>.Steve Scolnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11887989345192863494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-59399332267769443282009-08-17T16:43:30.270-04:002009-08-17T16:43:30.270-04:00JB:
Good!
All 3 of those books together cost ~US$5...JB:<br />Good!<br />All 3 of those books together cost ~US$50. Both Archer and Ruddiman are serious, well-respected scientists with good publication records, which are easy to check with Google Scholar.<br /><br />Amazon has my reviews of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Long-Thaw-Changing-Climate-Essentials/dp/0691136548/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233003513&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">The Long Thaw</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Plows-Plagues-Petroleum-Control-Climate/dp/0691133980/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243300425&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">PPP</a>.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-9715435953633771292009-08-17T09:25:46.934-04:002009-08-17T09:25:46.934-04:00Ti-Guy:
I'll concede that point to you. Pilm...Ti-Guy:<br /><br />I'll concede that point to you. Pilmer should have answered Monbiot's questions with answers.<br /><br />John Mashey:<br /><br />You're right about blogs, but I also read the scientific papers referenced by blog, which are often, but not always, surprisingly readable. Anyways thanks for the book titles, I might check those out.<br /><br />But by reading blogs from both sides, I do feel pretty certain that the crux of the matter right now is that AGW rests on a strongly positive water vapor feedback, which hasnt been shown to exist empirically yet. I read papers from the pro-AGW side, which promise to show that the water vapor feedback is real, only to find that this is not the case (one from Tamino in particular, which ended up saying only that warmer areas are more humid than cooler areas - you dont say!)Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-46603219343412718882009-08-17T08:31:08.571-04:002009-08-17T08:31:08.571-04:00SS:
Your attitude betrays a fundamental lack of u...SS:<br /><i><br />Your attitude betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how science actually works.</i><br /><br />Right. Cause asking for a theory to make verifiable predictions has nothing to do with how science works. Sorry, but that is how science works, by making predictions from theories and comparing it to real world data. In that regard, AGW fails.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-77725665446526790462009-08-17T01:01:34.412-04:002009-08-17T01:01:34.412-04:00After lengthy reflection and for the record, it...After lengthy reflection and for the record, it's become clear to me that the potty peer's left eye is insufficiently oogly-googly.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-11373308447247983202009-08-16T16:43:10.668-04:002009-08-16T16:43:10.668-04:00Another excellent source for the general reader, c...Another excellent source for the general reader, clearly written and not too long, is <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/capitalweathe-20/detail/0674016378" rel="nofollow">The Discovery of Global Warming</a>. This book also puts the science into historical context. One thing you might want to do is take this one or any of Mashey's suggestions and compare it with any of the leading <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/capitalweathe-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=11" rel="nofollow">skeptics' books</a>, such as Michaels, Spencer, or Singer. (Yes, I've read all of them.) See what the proportion of political rhetoric to science is (especially Spencer).Steve Scolnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11887989345192863494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-53327423057723071652009-08-16T00:24:36.735-04:002009-08-16T00:24:36.735-04:00JB:
Have you read any actual books by real climat...JB:<br /><br />Have you read any actual books by real climate scientists, say like (using that K-scale I suggested earlier):<br /><br />1) K2: David Archer's "The Long Thaw? "(general audience) or<br /> <br />2)K2: Bill Ruddiman's "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum<br /><br />and, if those are too simple:<br /><br />3) K3: a basic undergraduate text for non-science majors like Archer's Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast."<br /><br />Trying to build a coherent knowledge base on a topic from Blogs is extremely difficult, like watching random soap-opera episodes.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-58447672600727226512009-08-15T17:58:51.372-04:002009-08-15T17:58:51.372-04:00JB:
What I'm suggesting is the end of de facto...JB:<br />What I'm suggesting is the end of de facto subsidies for propaganda as well as more tansparency on the part of corporations.<br /><br />It's interesting that you equate that with legislative "silencing". What a crock!<br /><br />You contrarians have the right to your opinions. But you don't have the right to your own facts. And you certainly don't have the right to have taxpayers fund the organizations that spew forth disinformation.<br /><br />Oh, and let me guess, you're a Conservative supporter, right? And you live in Ottawa?<br /><br />Congratulations: you live in one of the areas targeted by the Friends of Science ad campaign in the 2006 election. The ads attacked the then Liberal government's Kyoto policies, and were specifically targeted at close ridings in Ontario. The ad campaign was run by Conservative spokesperson Morten Paulsen.<br /><br />Are you really saying that was a legitimate use for funds that came from a University of Calgary "research" fund?Deep Climatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07739846320319167391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-70457126302073213592009-08-15T14:10:46.404-04:002009-08-15T14:10:46.404-04:00I totally agree that Pilmer's question is badl...<i>I totally agree that Pilmer's question is badly phrased. But I know what point he's trying to make, although he's doing it clumsily. That particular quote from him doesnt seem to me like evidence of bad faith.</i><br /><br />You obviously didn't check out <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism" rel="nofollow">Monbiot's blog</a>. Let me spell it out for you: this question is part of a set of questions Plimer sent Monbiot in response to Monbiot's request that he answer some very straightforward queries he had about Pllmer's <i>Heaven and Earth</i>, part of debate Plimer agreed to take part in. They constitute an evasion on Plimer's part, although I'll give him points for it not being a particularly sophisticated one.<br /><br />It's the clearest evidence of bad faith we've come across in quite a while.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-81296201621694146262009-08-15T13:33:25.689-04:002009-08-15T13:33:25.689-04:00JB,
Hard to believe you're reading (and unders...JB,<br />Hard to believe you're reading (and understanding) RealClimate when you can't even get the link right. Kind of a rookie mistake for a CS major, dontcha think?<br /><br />Your attitude betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how science actually works. It's neither a matter of belief nor of proof. And it's certainly not a popularity contest (whose blog gets the most hits or can make the slickest legalistic arguments). Just as you lawyers would be rightly offended if a group of scientists started proclaiming, "We don't need no stinkin' law school or bar exam to practice law," we scientists are similarly offended when paid propagandists like Morano smear the science with deliberate misrepresentation.Steve Scolnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11887989345192863494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-7084007010831213612009-08-15T13:19:31.211-04:002009-08-15T13:19:31.211-04:00Ti-Guy:
I totally agree that Pilmer's questio...Ti-Guy:<br /><br />I totally agree that Pilmer's question is badly phrased. But I know what point he's trying to make, although he's doing it clumsily. That particular quote from him doesnt seem to me like evidence of bad faith.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-74019095968034677052009-08-15T13:17:26.780-04:002009-08-15T13:17:26.780-04:00John Mashey:
You want to know what Ive done to re...John Mashey:<br /><br />You want to know what Ive done to research AGW science?<br /><br />Happy to oblige.<br /><br />I read the IPCC reports (at least the parts which I considered most relevant to the central question of attribution).<br /><br />And I've read extensive literature on it, mostly in the form of blog posts and scientific papers. I read both sides of the issue.<br /><br />On the AGW side I read mostly real-climate.org and ive read a bunch of "how to talk to a skeptic" or "answers to global warming denial talking points" type articles from the newscientist, and a bunch of other stuff i forget.<br /><br />My sources for the skeptic side are generally jonova, lubos motl (the reference frame), and a bunch of others i have set up as links on my work pc.<br /><br />And, yes I can support my conclusions by citing scientific papers. But all I really need to support my conclusion is to cite the IPCC report, like I did <a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/15/301361.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-67385497874271951892009-08-15T13:07:52.008-04:002009-08-15T13:07:52.008-04:00BCL: no it seems to me that Pilmer is arguing that...BCL: no it seems to me that Pilmer is arguing that because of the MWP we are now seeing today CO2 rising.<br /><br />Im not sure I agree with Pilmer and Im not very familiar with this particular aspect of the science, but I do know that as oceans heat up, CO2 is released (same as heating up a bottle of coke, it will explode).<br /><br />I suspect that what Pilmer is saying is that the extra heat from the WMP is now being reflected as extra CO2. From what I know, this is certainly possible. After all, lake vostok data shows CO2 rising after temperature increases with an 800 year delay, and we are now 800 years after the WMP.<br /><br />But since the temperature hasnt been steadily rising since WMP, I dont know if we should still expect that.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-37476991740560024752009-08-15T13:01:24.914-04:002009-08-15T13:01:24.914-04:00I'm just having such a hard time believing a s...I'm just having such a hard time believing a sophisticate like Jerome is just innocently missing the point with respect to the altercation between Monbiot and Plimer.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-28613593951900960472009-08-15T12:40:41.104-04:002009-08-15T12:40:41.104-04:00Jerome Bastien:
I asked a simple, neutral question...Jerome Bastien:<br />I asked a simple, neutral question, basically trying to understand your meaning of "checking out". I made zero comments about what you, I, or anyone else believes.<br /><br />Is this such a hard question to answer? (Assuming you're <a href="http://www.moffatco.com/pages/j_bastien.htm" rel="nofollow">this Jerome Bastien</a> in Ottawa?): I'm sure that in a patent or trademark case, you could easily enumerate your due diligence sources.<br /><br /><a href="http://i32.tinypic.com/n3qn0z.png" rel="nofollow">Scale K</a> is a tentative chart that relates people's backgrounds and knowledge / expertise levels, and I'm just trying to calibrate that by asking people with clear opinions what they've done to reach those opinions.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-61504737361985194422009-08-15T11:27:17.459-04:002009-08-15T11:27:17.459-04:00So Plimer is arguing that it has in fact been warm...So Plimer is arguing that it has in fact been warming for the past 800 years and the C02 is only now being released? Gibberish or loony, take your pick?bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-72054416506727484882009-08-15T10:02:17.047-04:002009-08-15T10:02:17.047-04:00BCL:
regarding Plimer's question to Monbiot, ...BCL:<br /><br />regarding Plimer's question to Monbiot, its commonly accepted now that the lake Vostok ice core data shows that over long timescales CO2 follows temperature after a lag of on average 800 years. So, the available data actually suggests that not only its possible that the MWP should raise CO2 levels today or in the future, it's actually expected. Im sure the guys at Deltoid are having a fun time painting Plimer as nuts, but frankly even I had no problem understanding where Plimer was coming from even though I admit he could have phrased his question more clearly.<br /><br />Re: the hotspot, I checked out that link, and except for the opening line I dont see him addressing the missing hotspot at all.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-48985036842846214322009-08-15T09:50:38.449-04:002009-08-15T09:50:38.449-04:00John Mashey:
I mean that I have no trouble believ...John Mashey:<br /><br />I mean that I have no trouble believing that high profile deniers are arguing in good faith because based on my current understanding of the AGW science, its not that convincing. Computer models are not evidence, yet that is the only basis for attributing the current warming to CO2, by the IPCC's own admission.<br /><br />And besides, Ive followed scientific issues long enough to know that disputes in emerging science is the norm.<br /><br />Yet you guys want to plot all sorts of nonsense against people who have legitimate objections to what is at heart a scientific question, and an unsettled one at that. Im sorry but you guys still havent been able to justify your own actual belief in this theory yet you are perfectly willing to suggest that those who dont share your belief are engaged in disinformation and deception.<br /><br />Deep climate:<br /><br />I see you're so convinced of the weakness of your own position that you've already fantasized about legislation to silence your opponents. It's pathetic, hilarious, and I love it.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-4252804668039448392009-08-15T00:51:29.002-04:002009-08-15T00:51:29.002-04:00Jerome:
Can you explain what you mean when you sa...Jerome:<br /><br />Can you explain what you mean when you say:<br /><br />"I have no problem believing that because I've checked out the AGW science and Im not convinced at all."John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-13182585227281888572009-08-14T22:01:01.800-04:002009-08-14T22:01:01.800-04:00Some good ideas here. Ultimately, though, I think ...Some good ideas here. Ultimately, though, I think climate disinformation must become a political issue in of itself.<br /><br />How? Well, for one thing there ought to be a law (or laws) that would, say in Canada:<br /><br />- Revoke charitable status from organizations involved in distortion of science for political ends (bye, bye Fraser Institute, you too Frontier Centre, Energy Probe etc.)<br /><br />- Require all major corporations (and their officers) to publicly list past and current donations to all think tanks, NGOs, political campaigns etc. (sorry, Encana: no more trumpeting the piddling amounts given to Suzuki while hiding massive donations to Fraser Institute).<br /><br />- Require all public relations professionals, including lobbyists, to belong to the relevant professional society, and to adhere to that body's code of conduct (sorry Fleishman-Hillard, Morten Paulsen, Tom Harris - no more pretending you represent one client, when really you're working for someone else)<br /><br />- Tighten the third party election advertising laws to broaden the prohibition on "issues" oriented advertising and to include regulation of advertising that points to websites (sorry Friends of Science - no more barely veiled messages about "find out the truth at our website", which turns out to be full of political hate statements).<br /><br />And, absolutely, the Liberals and others should make an issue of the scientific consensus on AGW, which the Cons *still* haven't clearly endorsed.<br /><br />Here in Canada, such proposals would back the Cons into a corner. Besides, the proposals make a whole lot of sense. After all, the disinformation is bad enough, but why should the taxpayer subsidize this garbage? Climate change disinformation is a political problem; it probably requires a political solution.<br /><br />BTW, for the latest on Friends of Science, see:<br />http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/16/friends-of-science-theyre-back/Deep Climatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07739846320319167391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-69328036704055801942009-08-14T20:28:33.185-04:002009-08-14T20:28:33.185-04:00Jermo:
You need to check out George Monbiot's...Jermo:<br /><br />You need to check out George Monbiot's <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot" rel="nofollow">blog</a> to get the full context of what's going on between him and Plimer and then ask yourself again who's arguing in good faith.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-67961510145094263112009-08-14T19:09:46.105-04:002009-08-14T19:09:46.105-04:00JB:
"Anyways he's asking Monbiot to show...JB:<br /><br />"Anyways he's asking Monbiot to show that increases in CO2 could not be attributed to the MVP (because increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2, thats in fact what the lake Vostok ice core data shows)."<br /><br />You're right. He is asking Monbiot to prove that stuff that happened 400 years ago is behind <br />C02 increases today. Which is why the guy at Deltoid thinks he's nutz.<br /><br />PS. If you're still going on about the Global Warming "Wet Spot", check out here:<br /><br />http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/08/pielkes-all-way-down.htmlbigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-55656230499383762912009-08-14T19:01:49.054-04:002009-08-14T19:01:49.054-04:006 From ocean current velocity, palaeotemperature a...<i>6 From ocean current velocity, palaeotemperature and atmosphere measurements of ice cores and stable and radiogenic isotopes of seawater, atmospheric CO2 and fluid inclusions in ice and using atmospheric CO2 residence times of 4, 12, 50 and 400 years, numerically demonstrate that the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 could not derive from the Medieval Warming.</i><br /><br />This is not literal gibberish but a badly phrased question in what seems to be like a half-hearted effort by Pilmer. Anyways he's asking Monbiot to show that increases in CO2 could not be attributed to the MVP (because increases in temperature lead to increases in CO2, thats in fact what the lake Vostok ice core data shows). According to that link isotope analysis shows that the CO2 increase is in fact from human emissions.<br /><br />Nothing earth-shattering.<br /><br />Anyways, allow me to shed light on the "disinformation campaigns" you're interested in.<br /><br />Its just that considering the sacrifices we're being asked to make, we want to be convinced of the science, not just take a scientist's word for it. I think that's a perfectly legitimate endeavor to question things until and unless you're satisfied of the answer. I dont necessarily believe that guys like Pilmer, Lindzen, Jan Weizer, Buzz Aldrin, and plenty of others are arguing in bad faith, I think they're genuinely not convinced. I have no problem believing that because I've checked out the AGW science and Im not convinced at all.<br /><br />That's also why I want to know what makes you and BCL trust these guys so much, maybe you know something I dont and if you could convince me I would in fact be grateful.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.com