Time for another open thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Time for another open thread.
Advertisment
Time for another open thread.
Mike Pope (over on Science Alert) does a tidy wrap-up of the errr... anomalies in Plimer's err... book:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20092806-19349.html
Thanks for that; I've added it to [my list of Plimer debunks](http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-ear…).
Anyone been following the debate about the paper that the EPA allegedly "suppressed", as it was breathlessly reported by the CEI? Truly dismal stuff, the CEI thought they were dropping a bomb right before Waxman-Markey but ended up (surprise, surprise!) being a complete fizzer. Even the author didn't think he had been supressed. Real Climate have some good coverage.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch…
Including an inane exchange by the fearless SF Examiner climate change correspondent who thinks he has posed new, groundbreaking "next generation" questions for the AGW crowd.
Is there any reliable evidence of the existence of Steve Fielding? I'm not a denialist though, just saying...
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=221725975556&ref=ts
Paul Krugman famously labelled the AGW deniers "the burn-baby-burn crowd" (in his recent blog post krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/climate-change-fantasies ).
Other phrases come to mind:
The deniers are part of the "if it feels good, do it" crowd.
Deniers strongly defend waste, pollution, and dirty, poisoned air.
What part of of fifth-rate air do they like?
Deniers' arguments keep growing back like rank weeds.
Mark Shapiro: Krugman's gone a step further in his most recent op-ed, calling climate denial "treason against the planet".
On a related note, I've long wondered about the merits of referring to these people who oppose conservation and efficiency as "Wasters". This includes the deniers, delayers, pseudoskeptics and enablers, is an accurate term (a main reason for using "denialist" is the desire to call a spade a spade), and avoids any Holocaust connotation (a common complaint), while getting right to the heart of the issue that these bastards are wasting our planet and future.
I hesitate to bring some real world info into the mix, but some of us could use a little warming to help with the retail sales.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55L5WS20090622
By the way, I realize that any news of cooling tends to annoy some people, but they shouldn't take it to heart. Think of it this way......less air conditioning = more polar bears.
I have followed (and enjoyed) your Deltoid blog for a couple of years now, but still it feels as if I have walked in on several arguments half-way through.
/whinge
Laurie
Well, Betula, on the other hand here in the pacific northwestern US, Canada and SE Alaska it's been considerably warmer than average.
This is called weather.
Betula,
By "real world info" you mean one region's retail sales and weather reports?
I guess we don't need to measure global temperature and global heat balance? We should subsitute science for your "real world info"?
How does your analysis of sandals purchased compare with sandals all over the global? What about airconditioners globally?
How have you accounted for "penny pinching" due to global hard times?
Perhaps we should sick with meansure of global heat balance as better measure?
*Paul Krugman famously labelled the AGW deniers "the burn-baby-burn crowd"
Other phrases come to mind:*
Oppositional defiant disorder sufferers
Adolescently rebel nihilists
Supercilious puffed-up niggling hectoring contrarian blathering ignorant couch potato attention-starved raging compulsively insecure overcompensators.
Following the precedent of the "[Climatati](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/the_denial_industrial_complex.p…)" and their AGW conspiracy, I suggest that the "Denialati" or the "Inactivati" would avoid bruising the sensitivities of the Denialists who do not understand that the terms "denial" and "denialist" are not exclusively used for those sick puppies who cannot accept the truth of the Holocaust.
Following on, "Denialatus" and "Inactivatus" could be used as the singular terms.
Dhogaza said:
Here on the arse of the arse-end of the world, I am wearing t-shirts when the usual clothing for winter here is about four or five layers, including thick woolen sweaters. We used to have (summer) Christmases here that were colder - and whiter - than any day has been since March (the beginning of our Autumn).
This too is weather Betula, but if it is a sign of things to come it will be a different world indeed.
I might let ya know in a few decades!
Betula:
>I hesitate to bring some real world info into the mix, but some of us could use a little warming to help with the retail sales.....
We are having a heatwave in the UK. It's called weather.
As far as retailers go, it should be their job to get products in to match the weather conditions. If they are dependent on traditional anecdotal evidence about seasons and weather, then they are going to suffer from the same problem every year, no matter what the climate trend is.
If they can't deal with obvious yearly variations in the weather, then that's their problem, it is a human society problem/business problem not an environmental one.
Betula:
Oh, so if it's warming then it's better for the world, and if it's cooling then it's also better for the world.
What if the global temperature stays static? I guess it's also better for the world, eh?
Better than... what?
Greenpeace currently has an animated ad for saving species endangered by climate change flashing on the front page of Marohasy's bog.
It's quite amusing to think how this must stick in the craws of her Faithful.
No need to apologize. We already know you're an idiot.
I am stunned to learn that there is a difference between weather and climate. I'm not sure if I ever heard that before.
The point has been made......cooling in certain areas tends to be annoying and puts some people on automatic defense.
Thanks to all of you who participated in this small but somehow significant experiment.......sort of like upsetting a bees nest with a gas powered lawn mower, only there are less bees everyday, they are dissapearing rapidly..... due to lawn mowers and climate change no doubt.
By the way, the U.S temperature is at about average for the past 100 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/Reg110Dv00Elem02…
Of course, I realize that this is upsetting news and someone will feel the need to explain to me how the U.S. temperature is different than the global temperature and I'm an idiot for not understanding that and for posting such insignificant information.
I'll try to remember that cool news is bad and warm news is good, after all......the agenda is the most important thing.
Oh how I long for the days of climate consistency.
It's lovely that this year hasn't been nearly as warm as the previous couple of years, but the [NOAA graph](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/Reg110Dv00Elem02…) you linked to doesn't make me think that it's anything other than an outlier on a collection of increasingly warm years.
Betty, (I may call you Betty, may I), where were you in 2005? If you'd been here then you'd be proclaiming the truth of GW!
Ah, no, consistency isn't what you want, is it. The message is more important than any silly old consistency...
Betula posts:
Weather is day to day variation. It is an initial-values problem and thus cannot be predicted accurately beyond a week or two. Climate is, according to the World Meteorological Organization, mean regional or global weather conditions over a period of 30 years or more. It is a boundary values problem and thus deterministic and predictable in advance given that the inputs are known or assumed.
Let me give some examples to distinguish the two.
I don't know what the high temperature will be tomorrow in Al Aziz, Libya. Weather. But it's a safe bet that it will be higher than in Stockholm, Sweden. Climate.
I don't know what the high temperature in Pittsburgh will be on August 1st, 2010. Weather. But it's a safe bet that it will be higher than the temperature in Pittsburgh on February 1st. Climate.
See the difference?
Yes, birch-brain, we get it. You think you are annoying.
I think you're funny, though. Like the movie "Dumb and Dumber", a broad farce. Not as funny as Benny Hill though.
Al Franken in. one more vote for cap and trade in the senate. good.
luminous beauty,
Benny Hill funny!?!
You've just gone down several notches in estimation.
I'm quite flattered you think I had notches of estimation to lose. What makes you think I find Benny Hill all that funny?
Betula could be funnier than Benny, though, in a 'what's that smell?' kinda way.
Luminous beauty....Never got to thank you for pointing out that sea ice conducts thermal energy better than open sea water. I also never responded that your point was infact pointless because thermal energy is radiated from the top few mm of the surface water while that same thermal energy needs to penetrate more than three mm of ice.
HAHA Andrew Bolt is now using a sea level rise graph that has the caption 'flat' applied to the end of it. Apparently 'stupid' people are ignoring the short term noise and seeing the long term trend of rising sea levels, which isn't what they wanted, so 'flat' has been put under a period covering the last few years. Hilarious.
Kent, still waiting for an answer to this question and this question from Chris S.
In your own time...
>HAHA Andrew Bolt is now using a sea level rise graph that has the caption 'flat' applied to the end of it.
Just had a look at that:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Does he actually know the graph is for sea levels?
I can 'see' about 3 'flat' periods in that graph, but strangely it continues to rise.
> You've just gone down several notches in estimation.
>
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Yeah, like that's going to disappoint anyone who knows you, DA.
Greetings from Canada on Canada Day.
#3
More on supposed "suppression" of EPA economist's Alan Carlin cut-and-paste comments on the Endangerment Finding concerning greenhouse gases.
Turns out it was largely plagiarized from Pat Michaels' World Climate Report.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michael…
http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat…
Tim, you and your readers might also get a kick out of this (the graph may look familiar to you - I think it also ran in the Australian):
http://deepclimate.org/2009/04/09/the-alberta-oil-boys-network-spins-gl…
Hooray for Alberta!
"Climate efforts: Germany No.1, Canada last
Germany ranks first among Group of Eight nations for tackling climate change while the United States has passed on the last place to Canada, according to scorecards released Wednesday by the World Wildlife Fund and German insurance giant Allianz."
More Canada Day!
Ontario suspends nuclear power plans
The government in the Canadian province of Ontario canceled a deal for the first North American nuclear power facility in three decades on cost concerns.
George Smitherman, the energy minister in the Ontario provincial government, called the $22.4 billion price tag "a substantial challenge" to a bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on the reactor, the Financial Times reports.
Ontario has expressed reservations over dealing with AECL. The government canceled two AECL reactor projects in 2008 because of malfunctions and in May closed an AECL reactor used to produce more than 30 percent of the world's medical isotopes.
Smitherman, however, said the government would reconsider the reactor project if the costs are reconsidered.
Ontario had served as an industrial hub, looking to secure more nuclear technology by 2018. The province gets roughly half its electricity from nuclear power.
The North American nuclear energy sector, meanwhile, stalled 30 years ago following a meltdown at a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
They call it 'going down several notches in estimation'.
We call it 'flat'.
"Betty, (I may call you Betty, may I), where were you in 2005? If you'd been here then you'd be proclaiming the truth of GW!"
Marcy, (appropriately meaning "dedicated to Mars")
are you proclaiming the truth of GW or AGW?
And by attempting to stop climate change, aren't you therefore trying to preserve climate consistency? Isn't that the goal, to make sure the climate stays the same, you know, like it has since the beginning of time?
BPL,
Thanks for the explanation, though I was being sarcastic.
Hey, I have a great idea for a science fiction story for you....sort of in line with the Twilight Zone.
Imagine an entire planet of people who's mindset and actions are controlled by thoughts of far fetched, worse case scenario planetary catastrophes.
They are so consumed by the thought of these hypothetical scenarios, that they grasp for hope by believing they themseves are the sole cause, allowing them to feel they can control the future of their planets climate to save themselves from themselves.
With this new feeling of hope, their answer is to establish controls on themselves that limits them from producing or consuming anything that may have a direct result on anything else that produces or consumes or is needed to produce or consume......therefore reducing the possibility of their future being in jeopardy.
The attempt to reduce themselves to near zero begins to take a turn for the worse when they begin to believe that it is actually the fact that they are living and breathing that may cause them to kill the planet and themselves.
That's right, they discover that they are exhaling a poison that may cause their ultimate demise.
Rather than take a chance on the possibility of future worst case scenario catastrophes, and with the inability to hold their breath for an infinite period of time, they decide to destroy themselves to save the planet.
You could call it "An Inconvenient Life"
Betula said:"And by attempting to stop climate change, aren't you therefore trying to preserve climate consistency? Isn't that the goal, to make sure the climate stays the same, you know, like it has since the beginning of time?"
The goal is to keep the climate the same as since the beginning of civilization, as our civilization infrastructure is based on the current climate. Changing the infrastructure extensively to adapt to a much different climate is going to have very high costs.
@ t_p_hamilton,
Your point is valid, but the goal isn't actually to keep climate the same. The goal is to keep climate from making extraordinarily rapid changes (speed kills...) into a climate regime we haven't experienced in relevant recent geological or evolutionary time - much less, during the time the our civilization emerged. This may be nitpicking, but its an important nit, I think.
If we were looking at the kind of 0.5C or 1C changes that we've experienced in this interglacial, it would not be this kind of worry. If we were looking at a couple-thousand-year drift to a new temperature regime - as in glacial transitions - it would not be this kind of worry.
But, what we're looking at is temperature changes comparable to those that happen in glacial-interglacial transitions, but opposite in sign - going up from an interglacial by as much as we would go down if we were entering a glacial stade. We are looking at a temperature regime way outside anything seen by any species or ecosystem on this planet in many, many millions or more likely many many tens of millions of years - and entering that new regime in a century or two.
THAT is a worry.
The Earth's natural climate is like a wild and angry beast. The goal is to not be poking it with sticks.
"The Earth's natural climate is like a wild and angry beast. The goal is to not be poking it with sticks."
Ummm......what?
Is it angry because of us fleas or is it just naturally angry and we don't want to upset it more by living within it?
Of course, it's not so wild that we can't control it by controlling ourselves.....right?
Here's an idea, perhaps we should put dog collars on the fleas.....
We don't need to be poking it.
It's angry because it doesn't like like you, Betula.
["The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks." - Dr. Wallace Broecker](http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/18/f-savory-broecker.html) The quote goes back to [at least 1998](http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/science/if-climate-changes-it-may-cha…)
Bluegrue.......
That was an interesting link to the interview with Wallace Broecker. If anyone actually cares to read it, they will find out just how little we understand about climate....yet we're so sure about the future and how we can control it.
Brilliant!
Here are a few quotes from the great Wallace Broecker in his 2008 interview......
"When we think that we can create a model in a computer that adequately replicates what's going on, we start to see, uh huh, we can't do that"
"it demands much better records than we really have, much longer records, and often details that we don't have."
"Because we don't understand the response of the Earth to these forcings, it is telling us there are things that we're missing"
"A lot of what has happened in the past involved the ocean and we find more and more that the ocean is the cause for a lot of the confusion."
"And what is frustrating is that we are just starting to learn what those amplifiers and feedback mechanisms are."
He seems to be uncertain about almost everything with one big exception......anyone care to guess what that is?
Thats right.....he's certain that capturing carbon is the way to help solve the futuristic scary catastrophic scenarios that we are completely uncertain about. And he's also certain that....... "if it doesn't get done, we're going to be very sorry."
But wait.....he's also certain it may be too late to stop the uncertainty because he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe."
My conclusion.....
As a child, Broecker was poked with sticks.
My conclusion,
Betula is of that school of thought that believes what one doesn't know can't hurt one. The Struthio Camelus School, located on the banks of a certain river in Egypt, to be precise.
LB....
Did you intentionally pick your name as an antonym of yourself?
What is odd, is your belief that what one doesn't know will certainly hurt one.....especially if it's being exhaled by the person who is so certain about it's uncertainty.
In addition, your use of an Ostrich to describe your conclusion is telling in so many ways.
For one, much like many of your thoughts, the idea that an Ostrich buries it's head in the sand is based on fiction.
Secondly, it seems "Ostriches can tolerate a wide range of temperatures. In much of its habitat, temperature differences of 40°C between night- and daytime can be encountered."
A true symbol of climate change denial in a fictional sort of way.
The light is dimming.
Betual writes:
"Makes me think about the rationalisation that must have been used by the Easter Islanders who cut down the last trees."
Hey, that's my analogy! Actually, glad to see somebody else sees the similarity.
If the Easter Islanders, who undoubtedly had a better idea of what would happen if they chopped down the last tree than we have of what will happen if we hit 500 ppm of CO2, would charge ahead and do so, it doesn't give one great faith in the huamn animal's ability to stave off impending disaster.
You are oddly certain when imagining what others believe.
If you only had a brain.
z,
Yes, we're not that clever some times. A key of the debate about our impact on the biosphere and sustainability relates to measuring our impact. Yet for many indictors, disaster [won't register](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/3/826.abstract) until it too late.
You've got to pick the right metric that will show a signal in time to rectify the problem. But how do we chose which are the right ones. Unfortunately proof requires a post-mortem in many cases.
There are similarities in the rationalisation between the Easter Islanders and the carbon radicals (those wishing to push this dangerous experiment of increasing atmospheric CO2e concentrations). Both seem to argue that we have always had the environmental services we require in the past; hence logically we will always have the environmental services we require in the future. Simple really. Simple and wrong.
LB states about me....
"Betula is of that school of thought that believes what one doesn't know can't hurt one"
And later states to me....
"You are oddly certain when imagining what others believe."
Apparently LB is having a one way conversation and doesn't realize it.
"Betual, are you suggesting that because we don't know every thing (there are doubts) about climate science, that we know nothing?"
Is that what I said?
Wow, now I can understand how some people can read anything and believe what they want to believe.
First of all, I don't remember suggesting anything to MAB or "we". I thought I was referring to Luminous Beauty's statement.....
"Betula is of that school of thought that believes what one doesn't know can't hurt one"
I imagined this must mean LB is of the belief that "what one doesn't know will certainly hurt one", especially while holding a converstion with one's self.
Now "we" are comparing my comment to the wisdom of Easter Island cannibals......no stretch there, with the exceptional coincidence that I was hungry when I read it.
Speaking of cannibals, "we" need to make sure the population is very, very afraid..... fear is an excellent marketing tool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54
Apparently.
I have long since realized you are an obvious candidate for a Darwin Award.
LB writes
Betual writes in response:
Wow, now I can understand how some people can read anything and believe what they want to believe.
Good example!
Betula wrote:
What Betula wrote was a [list of doubts]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1751…) held by Wallace Broecker relating to the imperfections of modeling a complex system like climate. The Betula then wrote:
Hence [the reply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1754…). Though I though LB's response [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1755…) was acute. Did you miss it Betula, or just ignore it?
PS. Betula, the cannibalism comes in after the rest of the environment ceases supporting the population.
Hopefully sanity will prevale over Easter Island logic, and we turn to a sustainable path from our current high risk trajectory.
> The light is dimming.
>
> Posted by: Betula
Betula, for you the lights were NEVER on.
And if there is anyone at home, they're squatters.
MAB.
Try to focus.
Boecker is full of doubts.....you said it yourself.
Yet, he is sure he knows how to fix the problem that is full of doubts......by capturing carbon.
At the same time, he says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem relating to all these doubts.
He's a quasi doubting skeptical alarmist, who is sure of himself....... yet he makes you look smart.
Betual,
That Broecker is aware of uncertainties is important. It certainly makes me more confident is his judgement. Your response again prompts the question,are you suggesting that because we don't know every thing (there are doubts) about climate science, that we know nothing? Or that doubts disqualify Broecker from making a judgement about the weight of evidence?
Regarding your assertion that he says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem ; I didn't take that as his message (though it is possible). I read that he thinks we'll keep using fossil fuel and hence need CCS.
Could you cite the section where you read that "he says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem" ?
BTW the tile of his book is: In Fixing Climate: What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat â and How to Counter It.
Shorter Betula:
If it's warming, it's better for the world; and if it's cooling, it's also better for the world. Any attempts to point out this obvious contradiction is proof of a Secret Agenda™.
Therefore, climate change is nothing to worry about.
In Betula's universe, there can only be two numbers; (0) absolute doubt, and (1) absolute certainty. Nothing else, more nor less.
Must be a strange place.
MAB.....
"That Broecker is aware of uncertainties is important. It certainly makes me more confident is his judgement."
So your confidence stems from him basing his catastrophic certainties on uncertainties?
"Your response again prompts the question,are you suggesting that because we don't know every thing (there are doubts) about climate science, that we know nothing?"
Once again, I ask......where did I say that? Where did I say "we" know nothing?
"We" know that climate isn't consistent. "We" know that species have migrated and adapted to changing climates since the beginning of time. "We" know that the earth is billions of years old and a few thousand years, let alone a few hundred years, is insignificant in terms of monitoring climate.
"We" know that climate models can't replicate what's going on. "We" know we use those non replicating models to speculate on climate sensitivity. "We" know we use climate sensitivity to speculate on future catastrophes.
"We" know that global warming and man made global warming are seperate phrases.
"We" know that the IPCC isn't made up of 2500 scientists."We" know that CO2 is used in greenhouses and aquariums to increase plant growth.
"We" know the term "global warming" is being phased out by "climate change" to cover all bases.
"We" know we don't know how many Polar Bears have been killed or affected by AGW.
"We" know we can tell any 11 year old child that global warming hasn't existed in his or her lifetime.
"We" also know the real problem is with the evil rich nations and the greedy capitalists.... and "we" know the main goal is to spread the wealth.
Bi...
I don't worry, I am comforted knowing that you know what temperature is best for the world....and you know what steps need to be taken to keep it that way.
I realize I have never properly thanked you, and for that I apologize.
LB.....
We can't all be in that place where you live......where absolute certainty is based on doubt.
Betula,
I can't say doubt leads to absolute knowledge, but it is the basis of all scientific knowledge. I seriously doubt you can present a coherent and well corroborated scientific theory as the IPCC consensus, that explains both the warming of the twentieth century and why the well understood and measured, in situ and the lab, radiative characteristics of greenhouse gases have no effect, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
But try me.
Betula writes:
30 years is significant.
They already have. Repeatedly.
Only works if you can add other nutrients ad libitum, which you can't in the real world.
Look again:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html
Betula writes:
My confidence is enhanced by Broeckerâs awareness of uncertainties. Knowledge of uncertainties improves ones judgment in weighing up the available evidence. My confidence in AGW science stems from reading the science and the debates.
Betula cites me:
I asked the following:
-because you listed four doubts Broecker raises about our ability to model climate and you used this as assert that:
Thus Betual, I wanted to ask if you are using the absurd logic that if Broecker has some doubts about some aspects of climate modeling/science; means that he is â be uncertain about almost everythingâ?
BTW, Betula Iâm still wondering, are you able to cite the section where you read that "he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem"?
re: #161 LB
"Must be a strange place"
Yes and no.
See reasons for anti-science here, PSYCH-4, ambiguity-intolerant personality. I've got an update in the works, but that one stayed in.
According to my psychology professor friends, this is hardly uncommon. One mentioned exceptional cases where people oscillated quickly (~days) between extreme "yes" and "no" without every occupying "maybe".
The opposite is:
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything..." -- Richard Feynman
(I'm also sure he was exaggerating a bit for effect. :-))
That sort of worldview is essentially required to make sense of much science, especially the IPCC reports.
However, for some, it is at best incomprehensible and at worst a terrifying threat.
Interesting development: courtesy of Eli Rabbet comes a new development amidst the inactivists.
It seems that Chilingar (yes, that Chilingar) has submitted a new paper to Environmental Geology that was so bad, apparently it made S. Fred Singer resign as an editor. Ow.
The sad part is, I can see this being spun into another "we're being suppressed!" tale by the factually-deficient.
[Arctic Ice at its lowest level in 800 years.](http://ecoworldly.com/2009/07/02/arctic-sea-ice-lowest-in-800-years/)
For a view of humanity to make you beat your head against a wall until it bleeds, check out all the comments below the story...
BPL.....
I wrote....
"We know that climate models can't replicate what's going on."
You said....
"They already have. Repeatedly"
Dr. Wallace Broeker stated (in the article linked at #43)....
"When we think that we can create a model in a computer that adequately replicates what's going on, we start to see, uh huh, we can't do that"
BPL......how do you respond to Dr. Broecker?
> BPL......how do you respond to Dr. Broecker?
> Posted by: Betula
"He's wrong".
Unless his definition of "adequate" is VERY stringent indeed.
What Wally Broecker is concerned with is abrupt climate change, known in the popular literature as tipping points. His particular interest is the relation between thermo-haline ocean currents and the cryosphere.
Wally is right. Models have long been inadequate for this purpose, although they are improving. They have grossly underestimated recent Artic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet losses.
Is this a sign that the Earth is approaching a sudden catastrophic shift in climate modality? Maybe.
If so, the consequences will be much worse than the comparatively gradual changes of which climate models are much more certain, and which are already known to be stressful on the biosphere and human infrastructure.
It's a bit like the game of Russian Roulette. One can never be certain there is a bullet in the chamber, but one's chances of not shooting oneself are greatly enhanced by not playing.
Imagine that, according to Mark, the man who coined the phrase "Global Warming" is actually wrong when it comes to his opinion of climate computer models.
Holocaust Denier!
"It's a bit like the game of Russian Roulette. One can never be certain there is a bullet in the chamber, but one's chances of not shooting oneself are greatly enhanced by not playing."
Unless you were led to believe the water pistol you were playing with was real. The fear would still be there, the chances of shooting yourself with a bullet would be the same whether you played or not.
Regardless, you would still be taxed for the water.
re: #68 JM,
You might want to look into reference dependency and non-rational risk assessment to supplement your PSYCH profiles. It could tie a lot of other stuff together.
Betula's comments are more adolescent sarcasm than intellectual argument. The psychology of that often has more to do with power relationship neuroses and repressed masturbatory fantasies than anything of substance, i.e., your basic troll behavior - invitation to a flame war. It's difficult to filter out and still engage. I find it easier to cultivate a taste for pig wrestling.
I'm sure it looks rather nasty from the outside, but I think engaging on the same level often engenders a deeper sense of personal respect than the detached objectivity prized by intellectuals, which is judged, often enough correctly, as elitist arrogance by the less couth.
very funny story: wattsup is so disgusted with Al Gore s use of the word "nazi" that they make up that he used it.
enjoy!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/07/gore-and-nazis/
Betula,
It seems you're trying to lead us to believe that what we know from experience is a real gun loaded with real bullets might only be a toy pistol.
Is that sane?
sod,
Times Online used "Nazi" in their headline and changed it later on; it is however Anthony who contends that Al Gore used that language when Anthony asks: _"Does anyone else besides me get the impression that Al Gore is really reaching now?"_ All of this in his usual "plausible deniability" style. Watts also finds it prudent to link Gore to the movie genre of the same name. Now that tactic _is_ disgusting.
Betula,
I haven't seen your reply to my question @59, and repeated @67, are you able to cite the section where you read that "he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem"?
If you can't backup your sensational claims, some of the readers here might start thinking you are employing a tactic of argument by misrepresentation.
re: #76 LB
Thanks. I'll have to think about it some, but my current list has (ECON -> FIN)
FIN4 Fear: personal economic impacts, perhaps work for oil or coal company, i.e., some fear might be warranted
and
FIN5 Vague fear: personal economic impacts
(I.e., this is one that advocates try to cultivate in the general public.)
I think reference dependence in Prospect Theory goes with that, since it is typically financially related. However, I find some of the analysis a bit silly. People seem to be surprised at assymetries that emphasize loss aversion, whereas it's actually pretty rational.
As for non-rational risk assessment, that might fit there as well, or not; I'll think on it. [There are already more items in this lists than I like :-)]
=====
Pig-wrestling has never appealed to me; I did enough manure-shoveling as a kid and that was bad enough.
I'd earlier thought of including "troll behavior", but decided that it was orthogonal [and I've got it under an advocacy scale elsewhere], as it seems a mechanism for expression, not a primary reason for believing something.]
In any case, I *am* fond of Firefox+Greasemonkey+Killfile, and I follow the rule of setting a high bar to doping it, but once a name is there, never removing it. Saves a lot of time.
LB....
You don't honestly think I could judge someone who goes by the name Luminous Beauty as arrogant do you?
Your psychobabble does nothing, with the exception of displaying the exaggerated sense of self importance you suggest to avoid.
There is one thing I don't seem to understand........ with all your advanced knowledge of psychotherapy, shouldn't you be able to cure your own fear of inconsistent climate?
LB said....
"It seems you're trying to lead us to believe that what we know from experience is a real gun loaded with real bullets might only be a toy pistol." "Is that sane?"
It's not sane to believe that's what I was leading to.....but in your case it's understandable.
MAB.....
I'm sorry I didn't throw you the bone......you've been waiting so eagerly to make some fantastic point.
You asked....
"Could you cite the section where you read that "he says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem" ?"
My statement was mine, not Boeckers, that's why it's not in quotes.
I quoted Boeckers statement in #44.....
Boecker stated he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe."
1. Believes......If you believe something, I would imagine you are SURE of it.
2. humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time......this would be too little, TOO LATE.
3. to prevent catastrophe..........TO FIX THE PROBLEM..
This is not complicated stuff unless someone is searching to nitpick.
What is amazing to me is how someone so anxious to make a point about words, isn't aware or concerned of the words used to describe AGW......... words like maybe,likely,possibly,might,could and probably......are not the same as do,does,definitely and will.
But perhaps I nitpick.
Betula, Thankyou for clarifying you logic.
So Broecker writes a book calledâ Fixing Climate: What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat â and How to Counter Itâ. And in an interview about that book, he describes the need for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (because he thinks we will keep using fossil fuel). Then Betula, in your logic you say this means:
Did the title of his book give you any doubts about your claim? (Fixing Climate: What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat â and How to Counter It).
Your logic here is consistent with the other absurd logic I [asked you about @67]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1757…)
The adage âcanât see the wood for the treesâ, comes to mind. If you want to debate the science quit this tactic, or some might being to ask if it is intentional misrepresentation.
I don't look over there very often, but people might want to see the change of state at Jennifer Marohasy.
Ms M says she is writing her first work of fiction.
Can't wait.
And Jennifer Marohasy is open that for her, â[Ayn Rand](http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_448.shtml) is a source of reference and inspirationâ.
Interesting choice , given Alan Greenspan was a [disciple of Rand](http://www.archive.org/details/TheExtremistIdeologyOfAynRand-Interview), and that now the most powerful are bailing themselves out to the tune of 12 trillion, after a 30 year experiment of turbo-charged free-market ascendence.
sod, Times Online used "Nazi" in their headline and changed it later on;
i do indeed expect them to check, what Gore really said.
falling for newspaper headlines is an old error of the denialist camp though.
headlines are mostly NOT written by the author of the article, but by a copy editor. their main purpose is, to make you read the article, not to sum it up.
relying on the headline for information is a special chapter from the book "really dumb things to do".
Gaz:
> Ms M says she is writing her first work of fiction.
If she writes her first work of fact, that will be news.
Betula,
You write:
In response to:
Which was my response to:
Please help me understand; what am I to believe what this statement is 'leading to'[sic]?
I realize my 'psycho-babble' is annoying to you, but you shouldn't take it to heart.
----
Why do you assume I'm afraid of inconsistent climate, whatever that means? I accept climate change, natural and anthropogenic, as a rational risk that needs to be addressed. I believe the current assessment, though not perfect, is sufficiently consistent with observation to be robust despite nitpicking uncertainties. I don't expect to live long enough to experience the real scary consequences that will doubtless occur should anthropogenic change not be adequately addressed, so I have no personal reason to be afraid.
Accusing others of being frightened by a clear assessment of fact within confidence limits is, frankly, paranoid. It would seem you are the one who is frightened by things he doesn't understand, except they threaten his preconceived world view, and in defense of that world view, projects his fear onto others.
MAB.......
Gee, that was worth waiting for.
If I were talking about the cover of Boecker's book, you might actually make sense.
I guess I didn't realize that when I read the quote from Boecker where he said he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe." and then I commented on it, that, according to your logic, I was actually refering to the cover of his book that doesn't contain that title.
MAB......please explain to me exactly what "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe." means to you.
Did you read the article where he said that?
Do you believe he said that?
Do you understand he said that?
Are you reading this?
Do you understand this?
Hello?
LB...
And I thought luminous meant bright.
So you believe that having a toy gun you think is real, is the same as having a real gun you think is a toy.
I'm sorry I can't help you with that one.
In response to your other point....
You asked what inconsistent climate means. It's the same as climate inconsistency.... also known as climate change. Why? Does climate inconsistency sound ridiculous to you, yet climate change make perfect sense?
I apologize to you and the AGW crowd if I assumed you were scared of the climate inconsistencies, and as you said, it is me who "projects his fear onto others."
It was a simple misunderstanding on my part, I thought the coming catastrophes, famines, flooding, crop failures, loss of species, millions of people displaced, cannibalism, more intense storms,tropical diseases and economic disasters were meant to be scary.
The only thing that confused me about your comment is this line from you....
"I don't expect to live long enough to experience the real scary consequences that will doubtless occur"
Are these the same "scary consequences" that I projected onto others?
Betty @ 92:
It means that __you were wrong__ when you claimed (in #58 and others) that he said it was already too late, since he is clearly saying that he does not think we will stop burning fossil fuels __until__ it is too late, logically implying that he thinks it is not __yet__ too late.
I believe the real gun is real, because it has shot real bullets. You seem to think it's a toy. Why?
I asked what it was you intended your own statement to imply. It isn't at all clear. Why can't you help me with that?
Climate change has been demonstrated to be broadly consistent with known physical causes, so no, 'climate inconsistency' = 'climate change' doesn't make any sense.
It is only confusing because you are engaging in the dishonest practice of selective quotation. The rest of my comment reads:
So you see, climate change will only become scary if it is ignored.
You, however, are dishonest in your confusion and confused in your dishonesty. You are projecting your own irrational fear stemming from repressing consideration of what is a very likely and highly plausible scenario.
You are frightened by those who propose these rational scenarios, accusing them of actually being the frightened ones in order to deny your own fear to yourself.
It doesn't make any rational sense, but it is something we all do sometime or other to some extent.
You're just making an idiot of yourself by lashing out in public view.
Betula writes:
Here is the quote [in context](http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/18/f-savory-broecker.html):
Betual, in this you apparently see what you want to see, and say "he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem".
Where Broecker says that he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe"; He is saying this to promote support for Carbon Capture and Storage. Quite plainly it is misrepresenting him to claim that "he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem".
I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that if CCS reaches it potential that humans can continue to burn some fossil fuel (in an energy mix), whilst making deep CO2e emissions cuts.
PS.
This context was referred to in [my question @59](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1755…).
"Where Broecker says that he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe"; He is saying this to promote support for Carbon Capture and Storage."
So he doesn't really mean it, he's just saying it to promote support for a product through fear.
Thanks for the clarification.
LB..
"I believe the real gun is real, because it has shot real bullets. You seem to think it's a toy. Why?"
Your scary scenarios are forcasts for the future......how did the real gun already fire real bullets in the future?
This goes against your comment..."I don't expect to live long enough to experience the real scary consequences that will doubtless occur should anthropogenic change not be adequately addressed"
Apparently the scary future bullets have already been fired in the scary present.......which goes against your other comment......"I have no personal reason to be afraid."
Maybe your fear is confusing you.
LB states....
"You are frightened by those who propose these rational scenarios, accusing them of actually being the frightened ones in order to deny your own fear to yourself."
Let me get this straight........my denial of my own fear is causing me to irrationally project the cause of my fear on those who promote the rational fear I deny.
That really is scary.
"We have nothing to fear but luminous beauty itself!"
Davina @ 92 states...
"It means that you were wrong when you claimed (in #58 and others) that he said it was already too late, since he is clearly saying that he does not think we will stop burning fossil fuels until it is too late, logically implying that he thinks it is not yet too late."
Where in this line......."humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe" is the word "until" ?
"will not" means won't. Humans won't stop in time to prevent catastrophe. Catastrophe is inevitable. It's ALREADY too late.
Of course, we could use your imagination and put the word "UNTIL" in there........."humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe" UNTIL it's too late.
This would mean we will stop burning fossil fuels after the catastophes have already started occurring, which means it will ALREADY be too late.
Apparently, this is very complicated stuff.
Betty,
1) "humans __will not__ stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe"
2) "humans __have not__ stopped burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe"
Sentence #2 implies that it is already too late. Sentence #1 does not.
Betula: "Maybe your fear is confusing you."
No, you arrive at this conclusion based on flawed logic:
"Your scary scenarios are forcasts for the future......how did the real gun already fire real bullets in the future?"
Why is it the case the real gun can not exist currently or have existed in the past? It's your assertion that the real gun can only fire bullets in the future. What about rapid paleoclimate change and its significant affects on ecology and extinction in the past?
Betula,
The gun we are talking about is abrupt climate change. Wally Broeker is a paleoclimatologist. His research deals with abrupt climate change that has occurred in the past. If it has happened in the past from small climatic perturbations, it could very likely happen in the future from the large and prolonged perturbation that human activity is inflicting on it.
This is essentially correct except for your paranoid conviction that the scientific consensus on climate change is a plot with the intent to promote fear. That is only the voices talking in your head. That is why it is projection.
Seriously, what needs discussing are sensible responses to a realistic potential problem that can be substantially avoided with rational policies. Fear is a non-starter. It is the denial crowd peddling the paranoid fantasy of a secret UN commie plot to destroy the world's economy, which is pandering to irrational fear. And you're buying it, hook, line and sinker.
You are going out of your way to distract and create avoidance of any such reasonable discussion. Why? What are you afraid of, anyhow?
So sad.
Betula,
What Broeker's opinion on what humanity will or will not do is his personal opinion, not his professional scientific opinion. He's not a sociologist. To promote a private non-specialist opinion as if it were consensus scientific opinion is a double argumentum ad verecundium fallacy.
Besides being idiotic.
Excuse me, but who the hell cares what one scientist said in a book? The important facts are:
1. Global warming is real.
2. Human technology is causing it.
3. It will be a major disaster if we do nothing about it.
4. A massive switch away from fossil fuels will greatly mitigate the damage.
Dave R.
So you think what Boecker means is........ he believes humans will stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe.
Perhaps he should have said that.
Paul H.
"It's your assertion that the real gun can only fire bullets in the future. What about rapid paleoclimate change and its significant affects on ecology and extinction in the past?"
Your predictions for the future are based the assumption that the gun is loaded with CO2, placed in the chamber by man.
Yet you talk about the gun firing in the past, when the gun wasn't loaded with CO2, placed there by man.
The fact is, you don't know what the gun is loaded with or when it will go off. In fact, you don't even know if it's a cap gun or a backfire..... all you have is worst case future scenarios based on assumtions, possibilities, hypotheticals, most likely's and probabitities.....derived from admittedly inaccurate computer models who's data is entered by imperfect man........which somehow makes it an undoubted fact.
"Your predictions for the future are based the assumption that the gun is loaded with CO2, placed in the chamber by man."
No, that's your assertion of what you think I think or wrote. I haven't mentioned the future, except to say that you're the one asserting things about the future. My previous statements said nothing of the gun being loaded with man made CO2. I'm saying that the loaded gun is abrupt climatic change irrespective of the cause or time of occurrence. That was clear from my statement.
"Yet you talk about the gun firing in the past, when the gun wasn't loaded with CO2, placed there by man."
Who said the gun had to be loaded by man made CO2? You! That's only your assertion. Why are you attributing something you think to me?
At this point I can see that I was very naive to believe you'd be interested in a reasonable discussion. Goodbye.
Now the Rothschilds are calling for a one world government - to facilitate global carbon trading! Ha! Who'd have thunk it?
Shorter nanny_govt_sucks:
International treaties are evil, unless they're about free trade.
Shorter bi-IJI
We can call "a new world order" a "treaty" to ease our minds as we slide into global despotism on the back of our alarmist cause.
Shorter Nanny:
If we call a "treaty" a "new world order" we can scare people in our alarmist cause.
Lenny, from the article "So emissions trading could establish a new world order ..."
Look, guys, Nanny is right on this one. If we allow international carbon trading, the inevitable result must be black helicopters and UN detention camps. Isn't the connection obvious>
Betty @ 108:
You're either exceedingly stupid or you're simply a liar. Here is what I wrote:
Betula cites me from @99:
>"Where Broecker says that he "believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe"; He is saying this to promote support for Carbon Capture and Storage."
Then Betual uses this to say:
>So he doesn't really mean it, he's just saying it to promote support for a product through fear.
Betual thank you for confirming for many readers type of argument you are employing. That is, argument by misrepresentation.
Your persistent use of this tactic will lead many to conclude it is intentional misrepresentation.
I refer readers to these post to judge for themselves:
*@59, @67,@85, and @97
For those disinclined to read back over the posts here is a summary:
1* Broecker writes a book called, *Fixing Climate: What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat â and How to Counter It*
2* Broecker says that he *believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe*. And says he has embraced proposals for capture and sequestration of carbon, helping found a company to develop the technology.
3* Betual says that this means: â*"he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem*"
4* Betual was asked to clarify on what this conclusion was based. Given the title of Broeckerâs book and call to support CCS.
5* Betual replied that her conclusion that ââ*"he [Broecker] says he is sure that it is too late to fix the problem*", is based on Broeckerâs statement that he *believes humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe*.
6* Betual was reminded of the title of Broeckerâs book and his strong action on CCS, and was reminded that humans can continue to use fossil fuels (in an energy mix) if CCS reaches itâs potential.
7* Betual reacts to this by asserting:
> âSo he [Broecker] doesn't really mean it, he's just saying it to promote support for a product through fear.â
In answer to Betual, no, you have needed to misrepresent Broecker in order to construct a fallacious argument. Just as you have employed absurd logical for [other fallacious arguments.]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/open_thread_29.php#comment-1757…)
BPL writes:
>Excuse me, but who the hell cares what one scientist said in a book? The important facts are:
>Global warming is real. Human technology is causing it. It will be a major disaster if we do nothing about it. A massive switch away from fossil fuels will greatly mitigate the damage.
Barton is correct on these points. However some readers may be confused by mud slung by Betual, thus I thought it useful to expose the sophistry employed by Betual, so readers can better judge the assertions she makes on this site.
Dave R and MAB....
Pick a sentence that most fits your own personal belief....
1.You believe...."humans will not stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe."
2.You believe.... humans will stop burning fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe.
Pick #1, you agree with the man credited with the term "Global Warming" on this topic.
Pick #2, you disagree with the credited with the term "Global Warming on this topic.
Depending on your picks, you can argue with each other or with yourself.
MAB....
The fact that you can't spell Betula, and your assumption that the word Betula represents a woman, makes me wonder what else you assume in everything you read.
BPL write.....
"Excuse me, but who the hell cares what one scientist said in a book?"
Apparently, Luminous Beauty, who quoted Boecker @ 39, and Bluegrue, who liked us to the article @ 43.
By the way, isn't that like asking, who cares what one non-scientist said in a movie?
Paul H.....
"No, that's your assertion of what you think I think or wrote. I haven't mentioned the future, except to say that you're the one asserting things about the future."
Perhaps rather than jumping into a conversation, you should follow it first.
The conversation was originally about playing Russian roulette..... a topic I didn't initiate.
It was in reference to climate models @ 73 by Luminous, with the possibility that "maybe" their inadequacies and underestimations of recent ice loss could be "a sign that the Earth is approaching a sudden catastrophic shift in climate modality?"
And...... "If so, the consequences will be much worse than the comparatively gradual changes of which climate models are much more certain"
Do you think "consequences will be much worse", is refering to what may happen in the future or consequence being much worse now?..... in which case the sentence should read "consequences are much worse".....which it doesn't.
I'm sorry, I thought "maybe" and "will be" were refering to the future, just like "maybe" "consequences will be much worse" if you played Russian Roulette, than if you didn't play it.
It would have been a different conversation, and a bit odd if Luminous Beauty had said........
It's a bit like the game of Russian Roulette. One is certain there is a bullet in the chamber, so one shot oneself by playing.
LB....
A few observations regarding your apparently non existing fear of abrupt climate change and catastrophes...
1. @ 73 you state...."Is this a sign that the Earth is approaching a sudden catastrophic shift in climate modality? Maybe."
2. @ 91 you state...."the real scary consequences that will doubtless occur should anthropogenic change not be adequately addressed".
3. @ 105 you state...."it could very likely happen in the future from the large and prolonged perturbation that human activity is inflicting on it."
It appears you are confused about catastrophes "maybe" occurring, "doubtless" occurring and " very likely" occurring.
I believe you could resolve your obscured fear by making up your mind.
Betula, apologies for the typo. And I'm happy to be corrected if you are not female. Your gender is not a point I've become too attached to, (given the only Betula I know are trees), so am happy to be influenced by evidence to the contrary.
As far as your choice @122 - I'm interested that Broecker thinks carbon capture and storage is essential and that he judges we'll keep using fossil fuel.
If we are to drastically reduce the risk of climate catastrophe I'd judge that CCS will be only a part of the solution. And I suppose even if its a small part(which would allow continued use of some fossil fuel) than I'm in agreement of sorts with Broecker.
No, I am very clear on the difference between the unequivocal certainty of global warming via the enhanced greenhouse effect, and the unpredictable, but highly plausible, catastrophic climate change it may trigger.
It would appear your cognitive perception is in need of harmonic adjustment.
It is also clear your visibly scattered and incoherent screed possesses a particular and peculiar stylistic motif imbedded amidst the nonsense, characterized by three repetitive elements:
1.) Fear
2.) Uncertainty
3.) Doubt
I fear for your sanity, dude. (by fear, I mean; mild concern with the caveat it is likely too little, too late.)
LB....
Not that I don't appreciate it, but please don't fear for me. Seriously, you already have enough to fear with the "doubtless" coming of the "unpredictable" climate change that "maybe" will cause "scary consequences" that "may" result in unspeakable "catastrophes"....for sure.
I completeley understand that this kind of thinking affects your psyche, so I am extending an olive branch in the form of a few quotes that may help you face what you are going through.....
"On one level, we begin to think of the issue of global warming as having to do with the fundamental fear of one's mortality,"
"If the planet is not able to sustain crops, clean water, animal or plant life, or even oxygen, we fear that we will be lost. And that's a great fear."
"In addition to mortality, Reid says global warming can provoke fears of the unknown, uncertainty and change. The issue seems overwhelming and difficult to understand."
"steps could include trying to cut down on energy use or thinking about readiness and preparation if a catastrophic climate event happened in your region. "You can begin to think of ways that you can change your life in more immediate and profound ways rather than prevent some catastrophe that is probably not going to happen in your lifetime"
"So it's a natural emotion, it's not a bad thing."
http://www.masspsy.com/leading/0904_global.html
No, I am very clear on the difference between the unequivocal certainty of global warming via the enhanced greenhouse effect, and the unpredictable, but highly plausible, catastrophic climate change it may will most likely eventually trigger.
When you deny the science, the anxiety you feel is necessarily projected on the science.
Or me, since I am a convenient Other. That is why you are here. You believe the act of projecting your fear on others, whom you blame as the cause of your fear, will exorcise your fear.
That way lies madness. The only way to overcome fear is to own it and deal with it.
Sorry.
LB.....
Do you think you could help me overcome my imaginary anxiety by listing some of the fears I have projected on you and others?
Anxiously waiting.
A new case of resume stretching for the collection.
Meet Tom Tripp, [IPCC lead author on Global Warming concludes: âweâre not scientifically there yet.â](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/17/ipcc-lead-author-on-global-warmin…).
Yes, he is indeed [lead author](http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session22/doc12.pdf). It's just not the AR4, it's for [_2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use_](http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol3.html). It's part of the IPCC's _National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme_, not one of the working groups.
What's worse, [Tripp is playing along](http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537) with this and considers it to be "technically correct" to call him a Nobel Prize winner.
So the next time you see "IPCC lead author" make sure for which of its publication.
Petula,
Simple. Admit to yourself that your denial of objective fact is producing the repressed anxiety implicit in the semantic gibberish you write. Stop blaming those who acknowledge objective fact and the rational concern thus raised as being the cause of your irrational anxiety.
Your anxiety and the projection it induces will evaporate once you are no longer lying to yourself.
bluegrue:
But I thought the Nobel Prize is part of the Vast Leftist Conspiracy? Um, wait...
LB...
I ask for a list of the fears you claim I project on people and I get this...
"Admit to yourself that your denial of objective fact is producing the repressed anxiety implicit in the semantic gibberish you write."
So your saying the list of fears I have projected on people consists of them imagining my denial of an objective fact in order for me to instill a fear of gibberish?
Well, umm, that's a pretty good list. I can't really argue with that, and ah, I'll try to concentrate more on the major catastrophes from now on to project hope instead of fear. Thanks for the insight.
Gibberish:
QED
LB...
And just think, that was your response to my question asking for a list of fears you claim I have projected on you and others.
As you once said....."The only way to overcome fear is to own it and deal with it."
You've come full circle. Be proud.
LB, agreed, Gibberish.
Petula,
Your specific neuroses are yours and yours alone to confront. They are opaque behind the falsehoods and illogic to which you are clinging. It is only apparent that you are projecting the anxiety they produce, obscuring the particular sources of your individual arrested moral development. If you sincerely wish to create a list of your personal demons, and I am sure they are many, it is hard work you must do with the support of a professional therapist.
Luminox,
I just realized we've been going about this the wrong way, and I feel I am partially to blame. You see, we've been confusing anxiety and fear......"Although anxiety is related to fear, it is not the same thing."
I think the following may help you...
1. "a large portion of human anxiety is produced by anticipation of future events."
Do you see? It's simple. Almost by definition, your anxiety is caused by the anticipation of future catastrophic events.
2. "Fear is a direct, focused response to a specific event or object, and the person is consciously aware of it."
Your fear is that which is projected by me. I'm projecting the idea that future catastrophes are not, as you say "doubtless", only you're not "consciously aware of it". We know this because you can't list the fears you claim I'm projecting or the falsehoods you claim are masking them.
Your natural and understandable response is to treat it as anxiety, rather than fear, only you already have your own anxiety, so you treat it as mine.
Don't you see? I have been robbing you of your right to be anxious by trying to help you with a fear that I caused by trying to help you with your anxiety. You have every right to your anxiety, and for that, I apologize.
Try to remember, anxiety is "A state of uneasiness and apprehension, as about future uncertainties", although the Psychiatry definition may be a little closer to what your actually going through.....
"A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and fear resulting from the anticipation of a realistic or fantasized threatening event or situation, often impairing physical and psychological functioning."
It's climate change stupid!
Well, I hope this was some help to you, quotes can be found in the link below. Best of luck.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anxiety
Yes. My fear is entirely a figment of your imagination. It is your own repressed and unnamed anxiety which you are projecting.
One doesn't project ideas, Bucko, one projects repressed emotions. Yes, I am "conciously aware" that you are denying the certainty of climate change. Certainly there is reason to hope that anthropogenic global warming won't lead to catastrophic climate change. That really depends, though, on people, you and I, stopping anthropogenic global warming before it does. Pretending a genuine problem isn't a real problem and will simply go away by ignoring it is definition pathological denial.
I know you think you're clever playing your little game of 'I know you are, but what am I?'.
It isn't clever. You are only fooling yourself, as any reasonably sane person can easily discern by reading your comments here. It is kind of cute in young children. It is pathological behavior in an adult. Get help.
If you need attribution, that's Robert Burns. Take heed.
It's been fun playing.
LB.....
That's a wonderful quote, and I see you credited the author.
I think it only fair to warn you that without linking to the website where you got the quote, according to Bluegrue at the Warblogger post, this is considered plagiarism.
It may seem trivial to us, but it seems to create anxiety in Bluegrue, so please, let's be careful.
Betula, Betula, it grieves me deeply to see you still struggling with the concept of proper attribution. LB quotes a poem and names its well-known author. Minimalistic, but sufficient. If you're still unclear, why your's was plagiarism, reread my old post.
What a shock! David Kane is incompetent in applying statistics to [global warming](http://www.ephblog.com/2009/07/21/whales-breaking-wind/) *as well* as to epidemiology.
University of California has a nice and large collection of videos of [talks on science and economy of global warming and climate change](http://www.uctv.tv/search-moreresults.aspx?catSubID=117&ondemandsubs=yes) and a series [Perspectives on Ocean Science](http://www.uctv.tv/oceanscience/). They are about 45 minutes each.
Hat tip to [Primaklima](http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/07/klimawandel-auf-uc-davis-…), see the link for a collection of his current favorites.
I'm looking at this new article in JGR entitled "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" (JGR 23 July 2009, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637)
The lead author is listed as J.D. McLean of "Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia" (though a Google search turns up no site of that name) The other two authors are well-known skeptics Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter.
I had added John D. McLean, programmer, of Australia to my big list (linked on my name above) based on that name having appeared on two skeptic statements: The 2007 letter to Ban Ki-Moon, and the Manhattan Declaration. I had not yet found any homepage or CV for him up to now (anyone seen one?) I think it's safe to conclude the lead author is the JD McLean who signed those two statements.
I just want to tidy up my listing for this guy to say what if anything he's had published before. Looking in Google Scholar for "author:jd-mclean +australia" I get some 16 hits, but we can exclude the first one from Jean D. McLean of Adelaide on prosthetics, and one other near the end by Joseph D. McLean of North Carolina State U on petroleum asphaltanes (must have had an Aussie co-author or something...)
The 14 remaining hits are mostly from the 50's up to the 80's on electron microscopy. Do you guys know if that is the same JD McLean who is now opnining on climate in the 2006 E&E essay "A critical review of some recent Australian regional climate reports" and this latest JGR excursion?
To clarify: a Google search turned up no sites for "Applied Science Consultants" in Croydon or in Victoria. There is an "Applied Science Consultants" in San Jose, Calif., with just one author name associated, a certain JA Maly (5 papers on x-ray emissions from sparking in various gases.)
Nor can we equate this with the one other match on that name, one David P. Borris, a dean at Dixie State College of Utah, who is "also a former executive director of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research and is president of Applied Science Consultants, a business he founded in 1975" Not that one either.
My sense is that JD McLean needed some official-sounding affiliation to go after his authorship in JGR, so just came up with this name for himself, but failed to create any sort of web presence for this "consultancy" - or maybe he really does do some kind of consulting but has just never gotten the hang of using the web?
John Mashey [has the scoop on McLean](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/monckton_watch_2.php#comment-68…).
Just a thought...
In composing a little something for our science-challenged hack Piers, I mucked around for more time than I really cared to, gathering links to reviews/deconstructions of Plimer's H&E. Most frustrating were links that had died and had not been updated.
Would it be possible, Tim, to have a thread for the express purpose of cataloguing all such links (including your many threads, of course!). It would make easier any ongoing assessment of the increasing body of material written in rebuttal of Plimer's nonsense.
[He's baaaack](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1…), and showing the mathematical and cultural cognitive development of an eight-year-old schoolboy.
In his latest diatribe he has the temerity to dispute the work of [Ian Enting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_G._Enting), amongst others. If I have to give credence to one or the other, it would be a "a mathematical physicist [who is] the AMSI/MASCOS Professorial Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS) based at The University of Melbourne".
The other guy is just plain bonkers, if the evidence of [his postings](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php) is considered. Either that, or his complete pseudoscience is an indication that he has pretensions to replace [Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/jennifer-marohasy-leaves-the-i…).
Anthony Watts files DMCA takedown notice against a critic:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/all/uploads-all/0/dcxVwEf…
I just posted a polite reminder over at WattSoup, that there are criminal and civil penalties for filing false DMCA takedown notices. The moderators did not approve my post. Surprise.
> Yes, he is indeed lead author. It's just not the AR4, it's for 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use. It's part of the IPCC's National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, not one of the working groups.
> Posted by: bluegrue
It's not even that. He's co-author for section 4.5 of that volume.
Which is about how manganese is refined and extracted.
This doesn't require any knowledge of climate science, just manganese refining. And he's a CEO of a company that does this.
Why this gives Tom authority over the science of others is a mystery.
Even he says that he doesn't know enough about the models to know whether they are wrong or right.