Chris Mooney vs George Will
The Washington Post published a pretty good, though outrageously polite, Chris Mooney demolition of George Will’s nonsense on climate change.
The article really does, however, suffer from the crippling flaw of pretending to believe that Will is operating in good faith. If we were talking 48 hours or even one week after Will first published this nonsense, that would be fair enough. But there’s been tons and tons of time and Will’s errors have been brought to his attention. He simply refuses to correct them. He refuses to acknowledge that his characterization of the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center is at odds with the ACRC’s characterization. He refused to acknowledge that his characterization of the World Meteorological Organization’s findings are at odds with the WMO’s own account of their findings. He refuses to acknowledge that all the other available research supports the WMO and the ACRC and not Will’s idiosyncratic reading of their research. And he refuses to acknowledge that his claim about global cooling has been systematically investigated and debunked.
But Mooney can’t really bring any of that stuff up and point out that George Will is an enormous liar, because to do so would lead naturally to the point that it’s grossly irresponsible of The Washington Post to keep running his columns. And if you do that, you can’t get published in The Washington Post! So good for Chris—it’s a good piece—but it’s still a rotten system.
154 Responses to “Chris Mooney vs George Will”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 21st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
1) Does anyone still read the Washington Post?
2) Who the f**k is George Will?
March 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
You remember George Will. He’s the guy who wrote, when Reagan signed the arms control deal with Gorbachev, “Yesterday will be remembered as the day America lost the Cold War.”
He’s made the news recently because he wrote a column about climate scientists’ ability to make reasonable predictions.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Mooney might have more credibility if he devoted as much energy to debunking the misleading claims and cherry-picking of data by global warming alarmists.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
So good for Chris—it’s a good piece—but it’s still a rotten system.
Rotten system maybe, but by said system’s standards it’s still a pretty major bitch-slapping of one of their preeminent columnists. I mean, Mooney even — gulp — mentions Will by name and everything!
March 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Mooney might have more credibility if he devoted as much energy to debunking the misleading claims and cherry-picking of data by global warming alarmists.
And you might have more credibility if you explained what the hell you mean, and supplemented the explanation with some linkable evidence to buttress your argument. Don’t bother, we all know you’ll link to Tech Central Station or something equally laughable–if you bothered, I mean.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Who the f**k is George Will?”
Okay, I’ll admit it, I’m getting old. Anyone over thirty would obviously know who George Will is. The fact that someone has to ask means that I don’t have many days left. My only hope is that I’ll die after George Will. But that probably won’t be the case. He has medical insurance and I don’t.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I’m still surprised the world is still here though. Tim McCarver, yes that Tim McCarver, has his own TV show and his guest this week was George Will. How the meeting of that my ignorance, bluster, and ego in one place not cause the moon to come crashing into the Earth is a mystery.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:12 pm
George Will is not worth knowing, and is instead one of those fake, useless celebrities forced on an innocent populace.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
George Will is a fine, upstanding, decent man. He is a civil, decent man who speaks in soft, mellifluous tones, unlike the rabble on the internets, with their blogs and tweets and twats and so forth.
And what the unserious, loud-mouth brats on the internets have yet to figure out is that you can advocate genocide, torture, dictatorship, and any number of black-helicopter conspiracy theories all day long in the MSM as long as you are a likeable, civil, decent man and don’t have the temerity to call anyone a “liar.”
March 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
And you might have more credibility if you explained what the hell you mean
I meant what the hell I said. I don’t think the meaning is particularly hard to grasp. See this recent New York Times piece, for example, for some recent examples of misleading, if not outright false, claims about global warming by Al Gore and Barack Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/science/earth/25hype.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
March 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
By the way, all the damn scientists are lying about global warming so that they can take a lot of money to cover up for the fact that Al Gore is FAT!
March 21st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Hey, joe!
If you think that Revkin piece in the NYT comes anywhere close to demonstrating anything close to an equivalence between the representations of George Will, Al Gore and Barack Obama, I’ve got some really attractive investments called “Mortgage Backed Securities” you will surely be interested in! And I’ve also got an email pal in Nigeria you might want to talk to, as well.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Al Gore’s mansion uses a lot of energy. Hence, global warming is a hoax.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I used to kind of like Will for saying, for example, that if Assistant Professors ran the USA we will be deep shit. The feeling disappeared when I found out that he too was once an Assistant Professor, albeit at some school in the armpit of America.
I admired him for saying calling GHWB the lapdog of conservatives, only to find out later that he coached Bush 41 for a debate at the same time when he wrote about the campaign ostensibly as a non-partisan pundit.
I thought well of him for taking care of his child with severe health issues but his lack of family values became painfully apparent after I read about how he dumped his wife.
George Will is a hypocrite extra-ordinnaire.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
If you think that Revkin piece in the NYT comes anywhere close to demonstrating anything close to an equivalence between the representations of George Will, Al Gore and Barack Obama,
I didn’t claim it does that, and my point does not depend on it doing that. Try reading what I wrote again, more carefully this time.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Al Gore’s mansion uses a lot of energy. Hence, global warming is a hoax.
More like: Al Gore is not willing to make the same kind of sacrifices he seeks to impose on others. Al Gore is a hypocrite.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
from joe’s link:
“The group said a host of factors contributed to the trend [increased weather-based natural disasters], with climate change possibly being one of them”
Joe, it’s simply not true that scientists possibly beleived in the 70’s that global cooling was occurring as they now believe global warming is occurring.
It’s simply not true that there is a scientific argument that we’ve possibly seen 10 years of global mean temperatures that have reversed the previous trend of global warming.
It’s simply not true that there is, according to the Illinois ACRC’s data, evidence that contemporary global sea ice measurements contradict evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
And finally, it is inescapably true that an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions will arise out of an awareness to save us from possible catastrophe. The science of anthropogenic global warming, as it relates to decades’ long predictions, does not deal with certainties, it deals with probabilities.
You should certainly teach your children to not take heroine for sound, science-based reasons that have entirely to do with possibility. You would rightly reject the argument that, because you are not certain of the outcome, all evaluations of risk are “alarmist”.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Joe, it’s simply not true that scientists possibly beleived in the 70’s that global cooling was occurring as they now believe global warming is occurring.
Hard to decipher this bizarre sentence. How do you know what scientists “possibly” believed in the 70s? And what does what scientists “possibly” believed in the 70s have to do with my point that Gore and Obama have made misleading claims about global warming, anyway?
The rest of your post is similarly false and/or irrelevant.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
By the way, all the damn scientists are lying about global warming so that they can take a lot of money.
Fixed it for you.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Joe:
“Al Gore is not willing to make the same kind of sacrifices he seeks to impose on others. Al Gore is a hypocrite.”
Which, were it logically argued, would be irrelevant to the claims he makes. But, as it happens, you have not made a logical argument. We can not know if he will make the same sacrifices he “wishes to impose on others” for the simple reason that no such sacrifices have been imposed.
A citizen can argue for war against nation X. Still, he will not, as a private citizen, put on fatigues and take a gun to country X and begin shooting at military sites. He is not a hypocrite. He has argued for collective action and realizes that his individual actions will involve personal sacrifice without any public benefit. Only if his state does go to war and he, for no good reason, chooses not to participate can we say he is a hypocrite.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Why do you keep using that picture? It looks like a thirteen-year-old boy’s school photo fused with a sixty-year-old’s face. Pretty disturbing stuff.
Oh and please. Attacking someone for not working in your definition of “good faith” only makes your argument weaker. It makes you sound defensive and ideological, which is fine, but won’t change anyone’s opinion.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
You should certainly teach your children to not take heroine for sound, science-based reasons that have entirely to do with possibility. You would rightly reject the argument that, because you are not certain of the outcome, all evaluations of risk are “alarmist”.
So are you saying that the earth is just as likely to suffer a catastrophe as a first time heroin user is likey to become an addict or die from an overdose? Because if that is the case, wow!
March 21st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Joe:
Al Gore made a claim that is possibly true: contemporary global warming has lead to an increase in local natural catastrophes.
George Will made a claim that is not possibly true: there was a scientific consensus in the 70’s that global cooling was a threat just as there is now an opposite consensus.
“How do you know what scientists “possibly” believed in the 70s?”
Okay, I’ll bite: because they published there beliefs in scientific journals. The written word was Will’s evidence for his point. Thus, if you wish to debate the semantics of “belief”, please be aware that I am critiquing George Will by his own standard.
To continue: Will made several other claims that, unlike Gore’s, are not possibly true.
And to summarize once more: why is it relevant that we should take stock in what is possible as opposed to certain? Because the possibilities that “alarmists” make about AGW (anthropogenic…) are the crux of the matter. The predictive science of AGW will only ever deal with possibilities (likelihoods of occurrence).
We are quite used to making rational judgements as individuals based on possibilities. My father-son heroine example served to make my point: you would not be alarmist to tell your son “don’t take heroine”. Just so, an AGW activist is not “alarmist” at using possibilities as the basis for public action.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Judd,
just an example to illustrate the point: there is a growing possibility that current rates of greehouse gas emissions will lead to global catastrophe.
Merely because the threat is possible does not suffice to make one an alarmist for focusing on the threat.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Never mind, “b9n.” Your responses are too stupid to bother with. You keep making assertions that are not only false, but that woul be irrelevant to my point even if they were true.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Re gregor
Actually, Mr. Will dumped his first wife to replace her with a younger woman, like most Rethuglicans do (e.g. Newt Gingrich).
March 21st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
gordon gekko:
I disagree. For years, Will has had the opportunity to address decisive rebuttals to his claim of a 70’s global cooling consensus. In his article, he fails to adress the rebuttals with a counterargument and instead repeats the claim.
That is arguing in bad faith. This is grounds for MY’s critique, not of Will, but of the Post.
Your claims of being “weak” and “defensive” are entirely irrelevant to his critique of the Post. Furthermore, it is valuable information to know when someone is uninformed or lying. Such determinations are useful in evaluating future public utterances by Will and future decisions to grant him a public voice.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Re Chris Mooney
Mr. Mooney is not PZ Myers and he avoids personal attacks, both by himself and commentors (he refused to post a comment by me calling someone who made lying claims about embryonic stem cell research a lying sack of manure). Had PZ written that column, he would have excoriated Will for the lying goat fucker that he is.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
joe,
“Your responses are too stupid to bother with. You keep making assertions that are not only false, but that woul be irrelevant to my point even if they were true.”
I would like you to make the effort to demonstrate my failures with evidence and reason. I thought you were doing what you accuse me of doing: being stupid, making assertions that are irrelevant and false.
Difference is, I actually demonstrated your errors of fact and logic as I comprehended them. You on the other hand have shown nothing.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Merely because the threat is possible does not suffice to make one an alarmist for focusing on the threat.
I disagree. The term alarmist is appropriate if the possibility is minute.
Would I be an alarmist if I insisted that everyone in my neigborhood build a bomb shelter, because Iran possibly might launch a nuclear missile at the US. It certainly is possible but rather unlikely. That is why your heroine anecdote doesn’t fit, the possibility is very good that you will get hooked or die. The science is just not there yet for AGW.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
The science is just not there yet for AGW.
You read that, alarmist radic-libs? This isn’t some pointy headed scientist in Nature or some other lefty rag here. This is judd, a right wing jackhole in a blog comment. You’d better pay attention.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Judd,
I was simplifying (I think I accurately assessed it was necessary, in Joe’s case).
I’m calling a “possibility” anything that could happen. Now, the consensus documents published by the UN-organized scientific institution IPCC, are much more technical in their language. As you may be aware, they have certain statistical measurements that must apply when they use words such as “likely”, “highly likely”, etc…
To use my terminology, it is likely that we are on course to cause changes is sea level, changes in local climates, and changes in marine ecosystems that are dire. It is less likely though possible that we are on course to cause climate changes that are catastrophic for the human species as a whole.
And, BTW, over a similar time span (50-100 years), we should all be alarmist about nuclear proliferation. State actors are not the main threat here, in my opinion. This does not mean that I want to personally build a bomb shelter. But I don’t regard proliferation specialists who warn that sooner or later a non-state actor will get a nuke and use it as alarmist.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Buy Viagra Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
March 21st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
b9n10nt,
I disagree. I would say a better way to attack the post would be to attack its credibility. If they are wrong or post incorrect information let their readers know. Simply saying (or implying) you’re evil or not working in good faith creates the perception this a debate over ideology which it doesn’t have to be. Sure a small number of progressive and liberals who are unaware Will is a conservative might become more skeptical but you have provided no good reason for conservatives to distrust him.
However, if reasonable people like Mooney point out Will’s mistakes in a cool and respectful manner (perhaps a manner that’s undeserved) this does more than any partisan polemic.
All I am saying is even in a perfect system sometimes the most persuasive arguments are not the most brash. Even if you feel that brashness is entirely correct.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
#33
“Buy Viagra Online”
I don’t find your arguments convincing.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
gordon gekko,
tough to disagree with what you’re saying. But then, such a respect for rhetoric presupposes that rhetoric is respected by all participants in the discourse.
It takes a degree of emotional and mental discipline to change your mind based on effective argument. The most prominent voices in the media (broad brush, I know) appear to uniquely lack this discipline.
So one can be rather privately satisfied that Will’s arguments lack sufficient evidence and leave it at that. But say that you actually want it to matter that Will is wrong. Say you want there to be public policy implications to Will’s incorrectness.
You may be right. The high road may be best. But we have reason to believe that the Post’s editors aren’t taking the high road and do not respect the art of rhetoric. Thus, I think there’s reason to not be satisfied that taking the high road is the only rational option given that one’s goal is to effect public policy.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
b9,
I understand your argument and you seem like a reasonable guy/girl. But I see this type of argument frequently always comparing something with high probability, heroin use leading to problems, with AGW leading to complete earthly catastrophe. I just think it is a little disingenous.
March 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Matt had earlier accused Will of lying.
Matt has now had to crawl down from his lies, lies he mindlessly parroted from other even less ethical sources.
The Global Warming Freaks are now reduced to saying that Will “misinterpreted” their data.
What this means is that Will compared January to January which demonstrated his point. His critics say “Oh but forget January (which data does say what Will repeats) February fits our hypothesis sooo much better!”
In short the Global Warming Freaks are guilty of everything they accuse Will of.
They lie repeatedly. And when caught out they refuse to acknowledge their lies.
They select which data points to consider important and any which conflict they simply flush down the memory hole.
But what is most disreputable is the GWF claim that they do “science”.
They do nothing of the sort.
They are engaged in a propaganda campaign.
And isn’t it telling that not one of the scientists or studies they claim as support for their fantasies, not one makes a testable prediction? We get “Oh sea ice will decline!” but then when it doesn’t we get “Well maybe not now but later it will! And our theory only works for Arctic Ice… you are talking Antarctic ice!”. What, no GWF in Little America?
It is just like Matt’s bait and switch on deflation.
For the longest time it was “Oh the sky is falling! Deflation is threatening us all!” but when deflation doesn’t appear what do we get from Matt?
“Oh its the anticipation of deflation that makes the sky fall!”
Really? We are to take his bullshit seriously?
March 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
judd,
“But I see this type of argument frequently always comparing something with high probability, heroin use leading to problems, with AGW leading to complete earthly catastrophe.”
Frequently and always?
Seems like it wouldn’t be too much trouble to ask for a relevant citation (relevant = prominent).
March 21st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I didn’t claim it does that, and my point does not depend on it doing that. Try reading what I wrote again, more carefully this time.
Um, Joe? Maybe you should read what you wrote.
Mooney might have more credibility if he devoted as much energy to debunking the misleading claims and cherry-picking of data by global warming alarmists.
That is, Mooney should deal with “alarmists” whom you later identify as Gore and Obama, equally with Will. How are you not drawing an equivalence there?
March 21st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Seems like it wouldn’t be too much trouble to ask for a relevant citation (relevant = prominent).
Umm, Inconvenient Truth.
And now your reduced to correcting my grammar, I must be making my point.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
sorry, should be An Inconvenient Truth, I don’t want to get in trouble.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003191.html
In case anyone is interested, they also published a letter schooling Will from the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Society.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:18 pm
judd,
“An Inconvenient Truth”
Yeah, I remember thinking that the film conflated likely with possible in some respects. But I may be wrong. Do you remember the sea level rise that would flood most of Manhattan like that?
“And now your reduced to correcting my grammar, I must be making my point.”
No, just my bitchy way of asking for a cite. And yes, you are being clear. Whether you (we) are correct, however, I can’t say.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
David,
thanks.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
That is, Mooney should deal with “alarmists” whom you later identify as Gore and Obama, equally with Will. How are you not drawing an equivalence there?
You’re reading skills appear to be no better than b9n’s, Jeff.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘joe’, ‘judd’ and ‘ed’.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
And you’re not fooling anyone either, ‘Mixnerspotter’. Stop stealing my name.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Joe,
could you restate your original point, then?
March 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Oh, God! What an important and burning issue!!
It’s not as if Chris Dodd, Tim Geithner, and the freaking president weren’t all exposed as complete liars this week.
But of course Yglesias was completely silent about that, I guess because it’s so much less important than an old George Will column.
Good faith? Morons.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
For the longest time it was “Oh the sky is falling! Deflation is threatening us all!” but when deflation doesn’t appear what do we get from Matt?
You are the dumbest bastard on the internet. Congrats.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
b9n10nt:
So let me get this straight. Your loopy argument is not to deny that Gore and Obama made misleading claims about global warming, but to claim it’s okay to ignore them on the grounds that Will’s (alleged) misrepresentations were worse.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Mike, you are a fucking idiot. I’m not going to sit around and argue with people that believe that the entire scientific community is peddling lies to pursue a crypto-anarchoprimitivist agenda because they will get rich out of it (?!?!?!).
If you are this stupid, I don’t know what to do with you other than give you a fare-the-well and hope someone straps on your helmet for you in the morning.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Mike, you are a fucking idiot. I’m not going to sit around and argue with people that believe that the entire scientific community is peddling lies to pursue a crypto-anarchoprimitivist agenda because they will get rich out of it (?!?!?!).
If you are this stupid, I don’t know what to do with you other than give you a fare-the-well and hope someone straps on your helmet for you in the morning.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
mike:
“So let me get this straight. Your loopy argument is not to deny that Gore and Obama made misleading claims about global warming, but to claim it’s okay to ignore them on the grounds that Will’s (alleged) misrepresentations were worse.”
I deny that Gore and Obama have made misleading statements. Statements by Gore were possibilities, and possibilities are exactly what AGW require that we act against. I haven’t seen a statement by Obama. On the other hand, statements by Will are false. I interpreted Joe as making an equivalence between Gore (”alarmists”) and Will.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Ed Marshall, you are a fucking moron. No, make that a fucking, fucking moron.
I deny that Gore and Obama have made misleading statements.
Of course you do. The Belgian research group complained that Gore was misrepresenting their findings, and Gore withdrew his claim in response, but what do they know? “b9n10nt” clearly has a much better understanding of the science than the scientists who actually produced it.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Ed Marshall’ and ‘mike’.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Good luck with your helmet, I’m sorry for cursing at the retard special people.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
My strike tag got ate.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
mike:
After rereading the article that joe linked to, I recant. Obama and Gore have made misleading statements. They’ve said that contemporary meteorological events are evidence of AGW, though scientists say that while such events are predicted to increase, they can not say that AGW has caused current events.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
The liberal journalist’s guide to lying about climate change while pretending that you’re being fair and balanced:
1. When citing scientific opinion, try to get a quote from James Hansen, Stephen Schneider, or one of the other handful of other mediawhore scientists who can always be counted on to give an alarmist interpretation or spin. Avoid any scientist who might express reservations, equivocation or ambiguity about adverse implications of the science.
2. When citing results from formal scientific studies, be sure to minimize, and ideally leave out completely, any mention of doubts or uncertainty in the source paper. If the findings consist of a range of numerical values or a set of possible outcomes, be sure to emphasize the worst-case end of the range or the worst-case outcome. If you think you can get away with it, ignore all outcomes except the worst-case one.
3. Try to create false impressions in the reader’s mind through misleading juxtapositions. For example, cite some scientific research indicating global warming, and then in the next sentence mention other research indicating an adverse environmental change such as species decline or a rise in storm activity. The juxtaposition invites the reader to assume there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the warming and the adverse change even though no evidence of such a relationship was claimed or may even exist.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Misleading claims. Knowingly made? Or unknowingly made? Do those who make misleading claims stubbornly stand by them in the face of all evidence to the contrary or do they admit to their mistakes and withdraw them? Big difference here in meaning between Gore and Will it appears to me.
Also I think the use of ad hominem attacks is what enriches the comments posted here don’t you think. I mean media whores, fucking morons, fucking idiots, I feel like I could be a fly on the wall at a George W. cabinet meeting. Or a Dick Cheney hunting expedition.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
Thanks for sharing that helpful primer, KenR. If you could draw up something similar regarding the pseudo-fair and balanced coverage by liberal journalists of the shape of the earth, heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, evolution, sexual orientation, and what have you. Thanks in advance. How unfortunate it is that Science has a Liberal Bias.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 am
Ugh. What a big fuss over nothing.
1. Will lied. Deal with it. He made misleading statements at minimum about polar ice data and an invented 1970s consensus on global cooling. It wasn’t just an honest mistake, because he has stood by or even repeated those statements after the errors were pointed out to him. (Indeed, he’s been repeating the global cooling lie for years.)
2. Anthropogenic global warming is real. Again, deal with it. (Yes, climate scientists and IPCC reports put error bars and caveats around everything, but these days those are centered squarely on “quite a bit of warming”. If you live in the reality based community, the questions are about how bad it will be, not whether something is happening.)
3. Statements by the popular press, Al Gore, Barack Obama, or Kermit the Frog are logically incapable of acting as rebuttals to #1 or #2 above, or whether something needs to be done about global warming. The same goes for the existence of people who are alarmed about it. This should all be obvious.
(KenR- Newsflash: depictions of scientific findings by the popular press are usually atrocious. I think if you look more carefully, you’ll find that they are biased not towards “liberals”, or even “alarmists”, but merely toward conflict.)
4. Although it’s irrelevant to either Will’s lies, or to the fact of AGW generally, it’s still worth pointing out that the misstatements I’ve seen by Gore, at least, ARE far less egregious.
For one thing, Will didn’t make just one or two misstatements that were more or less incidental to his point. His entire column was riddled with lies, and his whole argument rested on them.
In Gore’s case, the claim he made about hurricanes came in the middle of a feature length movie, full of a multitude of other accurate statements, and the claim was more or less unnecessary – it underlined his argument, but there’s plenty of evidence for global warming and dire consequences without it.
Second, read this bit from mike again (my emphasis):
I think it’s acceptable to make an honest mistake now and then. What’s important is what you do when it’s pointed out to you. Gore retracted it – Will repeated it. Again and again. That’s when something unequivocally turns into a lie.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 am
Okay Joe. You’re right. I can hardly read. So what the fuck are you saying?
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:23 am
KenR:
The earth is warming. It is warming due to an increase in greenhouse gasses emitted by human civilization. The effects may be catastrophic or they may be only evident as series of more localized disasters for decades to come.
The folks at realclimate.org exhibit none of the faults you enumerate above. Nor does most of the journalism on the topic in Scientific American. The more expert the source, the more likely they are to provide reason and logic that you would call “alarmism”.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:34 am
jack lecou #64. It took all night but the thread has been won. Thanks.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
The oceans are losing HEAT. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LoehleOHC.jpg . No observed data shows the earth system gaining in heat content for almost ten years.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5 quadrillion metric tons, with a heat capacity of about 1 kJ/kg/deg.K.
The mass of the ocean is about 1.4 × 10^21 kg, three orders of magnitude larger in mass than the mass of the atmosphere. The heat capacity of water is a little over 4 kJ/kg/deg.K.
In other words, the ocean has a mass 280 times that of the atmosphere and a heat capacity four times higher. The heat content of the ocean is about 1,000 times that of the atmosphere — and it is LOSING heat — ergo, regardless of the flux of heat in the atmosphere, the net flux of heat on the planet is deeply negative — which is to say — COOLING.
No model can contradict data such as this; the climate ship is too massive to turn that sharply.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
G.R. Mead
Interesting, but
1) The change you point to is 2003-2008. However,
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html
What was that you said about “the climate ship being too massive to turn that sharply?”
2) And yet sea levels continue to rise! At an increasing rate. Funny about that. Either the oceans continue to expand through thermal expansion, or glaciers are melting more rapidly or both.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sure. Man made green house gases are contributing to global warming. But at what rate? 1%? 3%? Enough to force American car companies to restructure their business model and possibly drive them into bankruptcy? Enough to put the country at a competetive disadvantage with China\India?
I hardly think so. “America leading the green revolution…” is a pipe dream. Who are we going to lead when our peers (those that have similar populations and potential economies to match ours) aren’t in the same parade?
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
The globe is cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The Arctic has been freezing back up for the last year and a half, seasonally adjusted, the oceans have been cooling, slightly, for the last four years, three of the four atmospheric temperature series show cooling for the last 5 years, sea levels have been rising at the same rate for 200 years and the rate is not increasing and meanwhile CO2 continues to rise.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with an approximately 60 year cycle, has flipped to its El Nino predominant cooling phase and will remain there for at least 20 more years. The sun is listlessly moving into its next cycle, and measurements of the internal magnetism of the sunspots show them on a decline curve to being too cool to be visible in another 6 years, possibly presaging another Grand Solar Minimum, and possibly presaging dramatic global cooling.
So, the earth is cooling, folks; for 20 to a 100 years, by which time the true impact of CO2 on climate should be determined and can be dealt with. By wrong footing us into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening, instead of allowing us to adapt to cooling that will happen, the climate alarmists are enabling a holocaust of those living on the margin.
And it’s all because the models exaggerate the feedback effects of water vapor, and it’s all because the Piltdown Mann created a monster with his Crook’d Hockey Stick, and it’s all because Tim Wirth left the windows open during a heat wave in a Congressional Hearing Room 20 years ago when James Hansen lied about the regional predictive skill of his models, which to this day can’t even model global climate, let alone regional climate.
So deal with it. We are cooling, folks; of this kim is sure.
===================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
So deal with it. We are cooling, folks; of this kim is sure.
That’s great. Now you wanna start knitting dinner?
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I’ve rarely,if ever commented here,for a variety of reasons.The main is so many of you parrot snippets of info that you have no way of judging the soundness of the data.(Most of you are,like Liberal Arts majors aren’t you?)Secondly,the use of ad hominem (it’s a French term guys) to paper over lack of ability to present a line of thought.Two of the above.#14/Gregor;”lack of family values”.It seems indisputable a Mass senator directly caused the death of a woman in his car,fled the scene,and lied about it under oath.Moreover,at the time he was married ;his story about getting lost seemed ridiculous .On a 1-10 point scale (log,base 10)could you please enter Dr Will and Sen Kennedy on the sclale?And could you direct me to any posts re Sen Kennedy’s lack of “family values” by the author.
Fostert:perhaps people don’t value your services enough to pay for your health insurance.If I were to not provide my employees they would go where someone would.What is your field of emplyment?If there is nothing available,consider Medicaid/Medical.Or,some of the very high deductible provide some help for catastrophic events.Failing that,you could just complain a lot
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Correction: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in it La Nina predominant cooling phase. For the last quarter of the last century the PDO was in its El Nino predominant warming phase. It was the correlation of that ocean driven warming phase with rising CO2 during the last quarter of last century that has led to this popular delusion, this madness of the crowds, this false paradigm that CO2=AGW. It is the grandest example of the ancient fallacy ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’. Spoken another way, the correlation of rising CO2 with rising temperature does not prove causation. And the negative correlation now, of rising CO2 and falling temperatures, suggests, but does not prove, that the role of CO2 in climate has been exaggerated.
The climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means, and the oceans are clearly cooling. And probably, by an unknown mechanism, the sun drives the periodic heating and cooling of the ocean.
==================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Naw, ed, you get after it; I’m too busy saving all the poor people from starving and freezing to death.
=================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
1) Personal attacks on Will seem self defeating.
2) All the to and fro about whether his arguments are valid or not, whether he is lying or not (??) miss the larger point he is making (successfully) that both the science behind the global warming (or change or whatever) advocates and their prescriptions for what to do if it is valid in its claims, are far from settled.
And because it’s not settled I want to hear more from both sides. What is very disturbing, and does not support their cause in the end, is that it is the Global Warming enthusiasts who taking on this quasi religious zeal, trying to shut down ALL discussion from opposing viewpoints.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Kim, would you be so kind as to provide some links to peer-reviewed science behind your claims? Thanks in advance.
Oh, and why are the glaciers melting? Why is the Arctic ice pack dissipating? Thanks in advance.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
he larger point he is making (successfully) that both the science behind the global warming (or change or whatever) advocates and their prescriptions for what to do if it is valid in its claims, are far from settled
Also: Views of earth’s shape differ. The jury’s out on evolution. Heliocentrism questioned.
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
2. Anthropogenic global warming is real. Again, deal with it. (Yes, climate scientists and IPCC reports put error bars and caveats around everything, but these days those are centered squarely on “quite a bit of warming”. If you live in the reality based community, the questions are about how bad it will be, not whether something is happening.)
Over 30,000 scientists beg to differ.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
ed 1:30PM. Sorry, I don’t link. Links deteriorate and there goes your argument. I invite people to check out my claims and attempt to refute them. The science of climate is very poorly understood and definitely not settled.
Glaciers respond best to local events, and some are increasing rather than melting. Also, remember, glaciers, insofar as they do respond to global climate, are probably still melting from the emergence of the earth from the Little Ice Age. The Arctic sea ice extent is rising for the last year and a half, seasonally adjusted. Antarctic ice, continentally and sea ice extent, is rising, too.
G. R. Mead’s claims at 11:09 AM about ocean heat content are absolutely correct. Josh Willis’s Argos buoys show slight ocean cooling to 6,000 feet deep for the last 4 years.
===================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Fundamentally, ed, my argument is quite simple. Look at the thermometers, oceanic and atmospheric, which show cooling of the earth. That means that rising CO2 isn’t warming the earth. That means that CO2 has been unnecessarily demonized, which is leading us to an expensive and deadly policy mistake. A truly tragic mistake on a grand scale.
Fortunately, it seems that there is enough Democratic resistance in Congress to Cap and Trade that it is being put on a back burner. Continuing cooling, which I maintain is inevitable, will torpedo the idea completely.
Please, look at the skeptical argument with an unjaundiced eye. You have nothing to lose but your fears, and much to gain. And most importantly, look at the thermometers, UAH, RSS, and HadCru, as well as the Argos bouy’s oceanic series. The only temperature series showing warming is Hansen’s GISS, and it is impossible to understand the adjustments he makes in the data.
===============================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
ed, your snark about heliocentrism and flat earths is kind of sad. The new deniers are those denying global cooling.
The crack-up of the CO2=AGW paradigm is almost as big a deal for correcting our perceptions of our place in the universe as Galileo’s arguments about heliocentrism, and will have much more immediate social impact.
===========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Oh, I forgot to answer this question of yours, ed. The Arctic Ice pack dissipated for thirty years because the globe warmed for thirty years. Now the globe is cooling, and the ice pack is returning. By some accounts, there was less Arctic Ice in the thirties as there was in the sixties. We only started looking precisely at Arctic Ice Extent with satellites in 1979, just after the ice started a decades long melt. Go look, the Arctic has been freezing back up very recently.
================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
ed, your snark about heliocentrism and flat earths is kind of sad.
Oh come on. It’s a little cute!
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
By some accounts…
I bet. Which of your claims are peer reviewed by scientists? What is their accreditation? Also, bear in mind that Scientologists are different from scientists.
Why are the glaciers melting so rapidly? How does your highly scientific model account for that unfortunate truth?
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
kim: Why the hell do you put the stupid equals sign lines across the bottom of every god-damned comment? Do you think it’s like some sort of archeaological record to be preserved for eternity for each one of your barks?
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Mooney’s main problem is that he doesn’t recognize the significance of the recent cooling. Check out Tsonis’s recent article about ’synchronized chaos’ which explains all the temperature movements of the last century by analysis of the coupling and decoupling of natural climate cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Will’s main problem is that he just doesn’t understand climate quite well enough to pick out the really telling arguments. His main point, though, that climate science is not settled, is incontrovertible.
The failure of the models to predict this present cooling has disconfirmed, in 8 short years, at the 95% confidence level, the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 degrees Centigrade warming per decade. This is stunningly poor modeling and it’s because the feedback of effect of water vapor to CO2 forcing has been assumed to be large and positive. Recent research suggests that H2O feedback may well be small and negative instead. This means that the additive warming effect of water vapor expected by the models is not happening. That one point alone may explain why CO2’s effect has been misunderstood and why the climate models, expecting warming, are terribly wrong.
======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Heh. Yes indeed. Read the whole thing. Al Gore is fat.
777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Glaciers melting rapidly has been exaggerated. Some glaciers are advancing. My point about glaciers shrinking from our emergence from the Little Ice Age stands. They’ve been shrinking for 200 years, long before CO2 started rising.
Peer review in climate science is deficient and overrated. See Professor Lindzen’s recent article for evidence. Yours is an argument to authority which is not fallacious when your authorities are correct, but is fallacious when they are not. Nonetheless, there is peer reviewed skeptical science. It’s just harder to find under the avalanche of ‘true believer’ science.
Nonetheless, peer review and authorities aren’t necessary for you to regard the thermometers and to deduce from their evidence.
And your snark about a flat earth would be cute if it weren’t deadly mistaken. As I say, the new flat earther’s are those denying global cooling. Today, warm earther’s are flat earthers. Period.
=====================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Shorter kim:
The larger magnitude-longer term oceanic warming is noise. The shorter term-small magnitude (see #69) oceanic cooling is signal! QED!
Oh, and if oceans are cooling and glaciers are not net melting, why are sea levels rising?
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Jeff S, I do not argue that the earth didn’t warm for the last quarter of the last century. I argue that it is cooling now, and will for at least another 20 years. That shows that CO2 is not the culprit that it has been painted as. You shorten me into mistaking me. Try again, but pay attention to the long version of kim, not your brief misapprehensions.
The oceans have been rising at 3 mm/year for the last 200 years, again, probably because of thermal expansion coming out of the Little Ice Age and from global ice melt. The very recent oceanic cooling is not enough to make much difference on thermal expansion, but there is a slight hint that that rise may be stumbling a little bit.
=============================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
El Cid: Woof!
=============
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Fundamentally, ed, my argument is quite simple. Look at the thermometers, oceanic and atmospheric, which show cooling of the earth. That means that rising CO2 isn’t warming the earth. That means that CO2 has been unnecessarily demonized, which is leading us to an expensive and deadly policy mistake. A truly tragic mistake on a grand scale.
The only temperature series showing warming is Hansen’s GISS, and it is impossible to understand the adjustments he makes in the data.
…
The failure of the models to predict this present cooling has disconfirmed, in 8 short years, at the 95% confidence level, the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 degrees Centigrade warming per decade.
In other words, you’re making this sort of boneheaded argument?
Between that and the Oregon Petition, pardon me while I don’t take you seriously.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I argue that it is cooling now, and will for at least another 20 years. That shows that CO2 is not the culprit that it has been painted as.
So, something you argue but obviously cannot prove, namely that the earth will cool for next 20 yrs, shows that CO2 is not the “culprit”.
Brilliant. Can’t argue with logic like that.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Also, Jeff S, you don’t have a long term oceanic temperature series at which to point, certainly not one not contaminated by changes in manner of measurement. That was just a bluff, right?
===================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Nonetheless, there is peer reviewed skeptical science. It’s just harder to find under the avalanche of ‘true believer’ science.
You wouldn’t want to point me to these, would you? Thanks in advance.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
That was just a bluff, right?
That reminds me, you ever find those peer-reviewed links you mentioned earlier? Thanks again!
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Jeff S, look at the correlation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation’s phases with the temperature record for the last hundred years. We warmed from around 1910 into the thirties, we cooled from the forties to the seventies, we warmed from the seventies until just after the end of the century, and are now cooling. All of this is right in phase with the flipping of the PDO from Los Ninos dominated warming phases to Las Ninas dominated cooling phases. The correlation of the PDO with temperature is much better that the correlation of CO2 level with temperature. Please, go look.
==================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I argue that it is cooling now, and will for at least another 20 years. That shows that CO2 is not the culprit that it has been painted as.
Right! If the next 50 years are all as cold as it was this January, that will prove there is no warming trend and global warming will be false! All the models are wrong!
Oh my god. I see it all so clearly now.
You just need to wake up to kim’s logic, people! You have nothing to lose but your fear!
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
ed, I’ve found that stimulating curiosity so that people will look for themselves is more effective than linking. I invite you to check out my assertions for yourself, and refute them if you can.
And, if you are so enthralled with links, ask Jeff S. for a link to a long term oceanic temperature series not contaminated to an unknown degree by changes in the way the temperatures were measured. I’m not certain he was bluffing. He may find one. If he does, I have little doubt that it will show long term ocean warming. The globe, after all, has been warming for a couple of centuries. That alone excuses Carbon Dioxide from a big role in the warming. Significant CO2 rise has only been around for about a half a century.
=============================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
The oceans have been rising at 3 mm/year for the last 200 years,..
Uhm, where do yo get that? The 20th century average is 1.8 mm/year. Only in the past decade or so has it gone to 3.1 mm/year. Because, of, you know, that Little Ice Age thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
but there is a slight hint that that rise may be stumbling a little bit.
What evidence?
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
ask Jeff S. for a link to a long term oceanic temperature series not contaminated to an unknown degree by changes in the way the temperatures were measured. I’m not certain he was bluffing. He may find one. If he does, I have little doubt that it will show long term ocean warming.
blah, blah, blah. I’m just a guy interested in the topic using Google to knock down your absurdities. You’re the one whose claiming CO2 is not the “culprit”. I understand about IR absorption and radiative transfer, and I pretty much believe in conservation of energy. In my world, the burden of proof is on you. Whether or not that’s true where you reside, I really don’t give a flip.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Jack Lecou, I probably understand the difference between weather and climate better than you do. The cooling effect of the flipped PDO will not be large, perhaps a half a degree Centigrade, and it will cease after another 20-30 years when it flips back into its warming phase. If the sun is entering a Grand Minimum all bets are off, but probably there will be cooling no worse than during the Little Ice Age. Nonetheless, with our present populatin of 7 billion, and our dependence upon present food production, a cooling like the Little Ice Age will be devastating.
The point, however, is that any cooling longer than just a very few years, calls seriously into question the paradigm that CO2=AGW. Granted, CO2 has a greenhouse effect. It is clear that that effect has been exaggerated. It is just as clear that we do not know precisely what that effect is, though it is surely smaller than the alarmists would have you believe.
=======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Yes, how dare Mooney be polite. He should swear, call names, and rant/rave…like most of the posters on-line.
Mooney did poke some holes in Will’s recent column, but the larger issue is still valid. It’s that the Global Warming issue has become politicized and pols are using fear-mongering…not scientific fact…to further political agendas.
The debate over GW is NOT over (despite Gore’s arrogant comment). Scientists continue to gather data, write papers, and debate the science. In the meantime, let’s not blow up our economy even worse than it already is by implementing extremist GW rememedies.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It is just as clear that we do not know precisely what that effect is, though it is surely smaller than the alarmists would have you believe.
The powers of assertion without evidence is strong with that one.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Jeff S. Wikipedia is a corrupted source of climate information because of the egregious editorial input of William Connelley, a rabid warmer. Skeptical viewpoints are deleted.
The hint of sea level rise stumbling is in the graphs of the recent results of the Jason/TOPEX satellites, and it is not very sure. Google will probably find that for you.
=================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
In the meantime, let’s not blow up our economy even worse than it already is by implementing extremist GW rememedies.
Totally agree. Instead, let’s implement common sense measures that will reduce emissions CO2 in the atmosphere, and in addition have benefits of reducing mountain top removal, mercury contamination and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Jeff S, 106. See lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com/musings/
She has disconfirmed, at the 95% confidence level, the projections of the IPCC based on the exaggerated CO2 effect.
===========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Jeff S, 108. Yes, it is clear that we need to keep our environment as clean as possible. You have to keep your room clean, too. It is also clear that eventually the market will price hydrocarbons out of the energy business. In the meantime, don’t put hardship on the rest of the world and particularly the poor, with regressive encumbering of carbon and fiat mandates and subsidies of alternative energy. Yes, I concur, let’s be sensible.
====================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
kim at 109:
I tend to weigh published articles in peer-reviewed journals rather more and blog posts rather less. Terribly elitist of me, I know. But what can you do?
Kim at 107:
Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy. Okay. Got it. Where is any evidence (remember my funny bias for peer-reviewed science) that backs up your 3 mm/year for the past 200 year claim? I know you don’t like links, so just throw me a clue.
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
On the PDO stoopidness:
1. Climate scientists are, you know, aware of oceanic heat fluctuations and transfer patterns. Models too.
2. The PDO “warming” and “cooling” phases are misnomers – they refer to the temperature anomaly in a particular part of the Pacific, but they are matched by opposite anomalies elsewhere – it’s a shift in regional temperature patterns, not a long term global change in the energy balance.
3. Your “model” implying that PDO is driving observed global warming is nothing but a loose correlation between maybe 4 or 5 PDO cycles, and apparently just ignores the known physics of greenhouse gases. (See #2.) I’m sure that’ll work out well for you.
Do I have that about right?
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Jeff S, 103, the IR absorption and the radiative transfer effect of CO2, its thermodynamic effect, is quite small, probably in the range of a half degree Centigrade per doubling of CO2, far smaller than the hysteria engendered by the IPCC of 3 or more degrees Centigrade per doubling, and even smaller than Gore’s apocolyptic visions. The increased sensitivity of the climate to CO2, in the range of 3-10 degrees Centigrade per doubling require the large feedback of water vapor, which is apparently not happening.
We need an honest discussion of CO2’s effect based on understanding which we don’t have now. The arguments for the Precautionary Principle ignore the real peril of making badly mistaken policy decision in an absence of settled science.
Furthermore, the slight effect of CO2 to warm the globe and its large effect fertilizing food production will warm and feed the teeming billions as we cool for decades. If we must encumber CO2 to save the globe from a warming catastrophe, I expect the science to have advanced by enough by then to determine what is necessary and what is not.
=======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’ve found that stimulating curiosity so that people will look for themselves is more effective than linking.
And I’ve found that blog commenters who make wild scientific claims but can’t back them up with specific, peer reviewed links, are full of shite.
Are you a fake troll, kim?
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
kim
kim,
You say at 104 that CO2 has a greenhouse effect, and you also say that “we” don’t know how large that is. So far, I think we’re in agreement. You then go on and say at 110 that we shouldn’t do anything that would unnecessarily burden the world’s poor. I’m with you there, as well.
Given that acknowledged uncertainty, and the likelihood that if the the effects are larger than you suspect, and if that were the case, the likelihood that consequences would fall disproportionately on the poor, don’t steps now make sense?
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Jeff, 111. I’m not certain of the 3mm claim. I do believe the rate of rise has been steady since the end of the Little Ice Age, and not increased recently.
Yes, Wikipedia and William Connolley are part of the maddened crowd who’ve trampled alternative points of view underfoot.
Jack Lecou 112. The correlation between temperature and the phases of the PDO for the last century is much better than the correlation between temperatures and the level of CO2. Go check it out. And check out the temperature series, UAH, RSS, and HadCru, too, which show cooling. Remember, this is something you can do, which does not require the imprimatur of an authority.
===============================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Jeff S, 115. Not bad, but you are arguing for implementing the Precautionary Principle. I believe, on the basis of the PDO and the effect of the sun, that we will be cooling for 20-100 years. If that is the case, any encumbering of carbon, now, is wrong-footing us into deadly policy consequences.
ed, 114. I invite you to check out my claims and refute them if you can.
======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Yes, Wikipedia and William Connolley are part of the maddened crowd who’ve trampled alternative points of view underfoot.
Yeah, best to stick with Conservapedia. Science may have a Liberal Bias, but Conservapedia is totally legit. Like the Fox News. And Scientology.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Jack Lecou 112. The correlation between temperature and the phases of the PDO for the last century is much better than the correlation between temperatures and the level of CO2.
That might be, except global warming isn’t a “correlation between temperature and the level of CO2″.
Our understanding of global warming is based on detailed long term climate models – models that are consistent with PDO fluctuations, the temperature record, cryosphere changes, etc.
You don’t actually have any evidence contradicting global warming predictions, just some superficial correlations, and a vague hope that PDO is all there is. (And/or a return to mean since the LIA – although we’re already past that.)
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
The increased sensitivity of the climate to CO2, in the range of 3-10 degrees Centigrade per doubling require the large feedback of water vapor,
Hey, again we agree on something!
which is apparently not happening.
Oh, well, fun while it lasted. Again, I don’t see any real evidence to support that assertion.
BTW, I do appreciate that you admit that you cannot support your claim of 3 mm/year for the past 200 years, and are left to state your “belief” that sea level rise hasn’t increased recently. I’m sure those tide gaiges will be impressed.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
ed, 118. No, better to stick with Watts Up With That, with Steve McIntyre’s climateaudit.org and Pielke Pere’s climatesci.org These are reliable sites for science. For policy, Pielke Fils’s Prometheus is good.
Jack Lecou, 119. The models have failed, dramatically. You haven’t visited the Blackboard, have you, and you haven’t actually compared the correlation of the PDO with temperature to the correlation of CO2 and temperature. And yes, to a degree that you don’t seem to understand the correlation of CO2 to temperature for the last quarter of the last century does underlie the CO2=AGW paradigm. It is the lack of that correlation recently which is shattering the false paradigm.
=========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
gaiges => gauges.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Anyone else get the feeling that kim’s “Climate Science” sounds a lit-tle too much like “Creation Science.” I sure do.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Jeff S, 120. The indirect evidence that water vapor is not behaving as it is assumed to behave in the models, is the failure of the models and the recent cooling of oceans and atmospheres. More direct evidence is the fact that humidity in the troposphere is not rising as it was expected, and by Roy Spencer’s analysis of satellite data.
The most reliable measure of sea level is now the Jason/TOPEX satellite measurements. Tidal gauges are subject to many local influences, but I agree, they were the best we’ve had for a couple of centuries. Part of the uncertainty about sea levels has been from the switch to a different method of measuring it.
==================================
==============================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
ed, 123. Terribly cheap shot. I invite you to check out my claims and refute them if you can.
==========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The models have failed, dramatically. You haven’t visited the Blackboard, have you, and you haven’t actually compared the correlation of the PDO with temperature to the correlation of CO2 and temperature.
Again, no. AGW is not just some simplistic correlation between temperature and CO2. CO2 is only one of the factors acting on temperature, so you wouldn’t expect a strong correlation, at least in the short term. And once you take into account all the other factors – you know, model them – you’re left with the fact that CO2 is still going up, and so will temperature.
If this “AGW=CO2-temperature correlation” is what you’re hanging your hat on, it’s pathetically weak.
Also, this:
It is the lack of that correlation recently which is shattering the false paradigm.
Is pathetic for someone who still insists they’re not confusing weather or year-to-year fluctuations with the long term trend. Recent temperatures are still perfectly consistent with the long term climate models.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I invite you to check out my claims and refute them if you can.
Mocking your Creation Science-like, non peer reviewed claims is more fun.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
ed-
I agree completely. AGW deniers and creationists have a lot in common.
Phrases like “shattering the false paradigm” are one of my favorites. They’re always insisting that all of the evidence and the scientific consensus will just evaporate. Aannnny day now.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Jack Lecou, 126. No, you are simply wrong, and you give it away with, from the models, ‘the fact that CO2 is still going up, and so will temperature’. The truth is that CO2 is going up and temperature is going down. Your belief that it ‘will’ go up, is just that, a belief, which you can dispell by the evidence of your own eyes, looking at the thermometers.
The reason I ask you to look at lucia’s Blackboard is that she has disconfirmed the projections of the models. They are wrong, and it is primarily because of the mistaken assumption about water vapor feedback. They also poorly parameterize convection and cloud formation.
So, recent temperatures are NOT ’still perfectly consistent with the long term climate models’. The models have been disconfirmed at the 95% confidence level in 8 short years. That, my friend, is stunning.
ed, 127. Sure it is more fun, but it is lousy rhetoric, and evidence that you can’t refute my points. The joke is on you.
=================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Jack Lecou, 128. As I’ve said, the new deniers are those denying global cooling. And, I might add, degenerate rhetoric, like that you and ed have descended to, is some evidence of a losing argument. Jeff S is doing a lot better than you two clowns.
If you can refute me, rather than slander me, do so. Otherwise, your buffoonery is just sad.
==============================
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Jack Lecou, 128. The evidence is mounting daily that the CO2=AGW paradigm is false, and you can watch it yourself by observing the global temperature series. The scientific consensus is falling apart, too. The failure of the models is a critical failure. We were supposed to be warming, and we’re not.
=========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
So, recent temperatures are NOT ’still perfectly consistent with the long term climate models’. The models have been disconfirmed at the 95% confidence level in 8 short years. That, my friend, is stunning.
Wow. That certainly would be stunning! If you hadn’t pulled it out of your ass.
Would you mind explaining your reasoning a little more fully – or linking to whomever you are parroting – so I can give that little gem the thorough debunking it deserves?
Assertions contrary to fact aren’t going to win any arguments for you.
Why don’t you follow some of those links I made earlier?
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The failure of the models is a critical failure. We were supposed to be warming, and we’re not.
This is what the creationists base their predictions of doom for science on too. “Evolution is a failed hypothesis because recent advances in X have proved it is impossible”.
Just like you, they’re always just naively and pathetically misinterpreting other people’s research and data.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
The truth is that CO2 is going up and temperature is going down.
Still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that you’re not just another one of those morons confusing weather and short term fluctuations with climate and long term trends.
Pointing me towards “The Blackboard” really didn’t help your case on that score…
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Jack Lecou, 132. I gave you the link a while ago. lucia’s Blackboard, at rankexploits.com/musings/ has the disconfirmation.
And 133. So, are you trying to tell me that ‘recent advances’ shouldn’t be considered? Come, come now. Your being enamored with the fallacious creationist slander has led you viciously astray. Ignore ‘recent advances’ at your peril.
=====================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Jack Lecou, 134. The reason that the recent drop in temperature represents a real climate trend rather than just weather is on the basis of the cooling and warming trends of the PDO. lucia’s disconfirmation also lends support to the idea that the temperature trend is long enough to be a real one, though it doesn’t prove it. I don’t think you understand the implications of lucia’s work. And I don’t think you’ve looked at the correlation of temperature with the phases of the PDO. It is a remarkably fine correlation.
Also, review the paper by Tsonis that I pointed you to earlier. He can explain the temperature variations of the last century with the coupling and decoupling of natural cycles. CO2 ain’t even it as a determinant of climate. This is an example of a ‘recent advance’.
============================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Uh, kim, 136. Should be ‘CO2 ain’t even in it as a determinant of climate’.
======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Jack Lecou, 132. How amusing that you think you can ‘give that little gem the thorough debunking it deserves’. lucia’s site is an open board; you are welcome to do all the debunking you think it deserves. I might warn you, though, that is high powered science over there. Have at it. And good luck.
=========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The reason that the recent drop in temperature represents a real climate trend rather than just weather is on the basis of the cooling and warming trends of the PDO.
…
And I don’t think you’ve looked at the correlation of temperature with the phases of the PDO. It is a remarkably fine correlation.
Again, that’s not evidence. For all you know, the PDO is just an effect of AGW, and the correlation between PDO and temperu. Correlation is not causation, no matter how fine-grained.
Also, and far more damning, though perhaps you have other data, I’ve seen the correlation done in a couple of places on US temperature, but NOT for global temperature. Now it stands to reason that there would be a tight correlation there, because the PDO has a big effect on weather patterns in North America. But global warming is, you know, global.
Not much to hang your hat on.
lucia’s disconfirmation also lends support to the idea that the temperature trend is long enough to be a real one, though it doesn’t prove it.
I don’t think “lucia’s disconfirmation” is what you think it is. Her analysis looks…iffy, though I won’t say it’s wrong. For example, she seems to use some kind of “average model prediction” a lot – but that’s not really ok. We don’t know everything, so the model predictions use various different underlying assumptions to account for the different possibilities. Obviously those can’t ALL be right. But then you also can’t disconfirm all of them in one swoop just by averaging the predictions and disconfirming that. (If model scenario A says something will be 0.5, and model scenario B says 1.0, you can’t disconfirm both A and B by pointing out that what actually happened was 0.45, which is way different from the 0.75 the average model predicted.)
She herself doesn’t even seem to think it shows what you seem to think it shows. To her it’s not a disconfirmation of the models, so much as a slight downward correction, but certainly not the beginning of a cooling trend.
In any case, recent temperature trends are still consistent with the models.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I might warn you, though, that is high powered science over there. Have at it. And good luck.
I don’t know about high powered, but I guess it certainly seems high powered enough to have gone over your head.
See above: Lucia’s analysis does not appear to be the rejection of global warming or the models that you seem to think it is.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
jack lecou, 139. Ah, there’s a little substance to you, after all. Sure, PDO is not the only climate determinant; it’s only the biggest, because the Pacific Ocean is the biggest heat pump and reservoir on earth. Look to Tsonis’s work for the best evidence that natural cycles determine global temperature and climate.
Sure, lucia’s disconfirmation is of the models which underlie the 2001 IPCC projections. But, if you have 20 models and one of them finds a cooling trend, you can hardly point at that and say, look the models are not disconfirmed.
Sorry, recent temperature trends are not consistent with the models. One of about 20 models has a cooling trend as long as we have been in. Not very convincing. Especially not with continued cooling and the PDO cooling the whole world for another 20-30 years. By the way, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has also just flipped to its cooling phase.
And lucia does think her work is a disconfirmation of the models and she is not even a climate skeptic. I’ll take back that her work suggests that the present cooling is long enough to be called a climate trend. I think her work suggests that, but it is not a claim she would make.
==============================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Also, US temperatures over the last century roughly agree with global temperatures so your objection that the PDO only correlates well with US temperatures fails. As I said, the PDO isn’t the only climate determinant, only the biggest one, and its phase is a reliable predicter of climate trends. I find it kind of interesting that each of its phases is about 30 years, and 30 years is what meteorologists have informally settled on as long enough to call a trend.
=========================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Please, jack, there is no need to refer me to Real Climate. That is a censored board. Skeptical opinions are not allowed to stand there, so it is a dishonest debate. This is well known. Similarly, Tamino’s Open Mind is corrupted.
======================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Well, this has been a pleasant diversion. Fare thee well, for I must leave you. Do not let this parting grieve you, for the time has come for me to bid you all adieu. Watch Congress fail to pass Cap and Trade this year, keep an eye on the thermometer and the hibernating sun, and remember, we are cooling, folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
==========================================================
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Sure, PDO is not the only climate determinant; it’s only the biggest, because the Pacific Ocean is the biggest heat pump and reservoir on earth. Look to Tsonis’s work for the best evidence that natural cycles determine global temperature and climate.
You’re still assuming that the existence climate cycles and patterns and the alteration of climate by greenhouse heating are somehow mutually exclusive. They’re not. Tsonis’ work is as much as anything about how global warming interacts with climate patterns, and is not a refutation of it.
Sure, lucia’s disconfirmation is of the models which underlie the 2001 IPCC projections. But, if you have 20 models and one of them finds a cooling trend, you can hardly point at that and say, look the models are not disconfirmed.
Depending on what the models claim, you probably can, actually. As I said, they can’t all be right. If the reason is, for example, that that one in twenty is the one that has the correct assumption about underlying physical mechanism X, there’s no problem. (And again, disconfirming individual models doesn’t appear to be what Lucia’s analysis is even trying to do.)
I repeat: recent temperature data is still consistent with the models. Even most of the ones that don’t specifically show a cool year or three just now. And it would take a couple decades of “cooling” to establish a trend, which we don’t have, and aren’t likely to get (La Niña: not this year). Links have already been provided.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Please, jack, there is no need to refer me to Real Climate. That is a censored board. Skeptical opinions are not allowed to stand there, so it is a dishonest debate. This is well known. Similarly, Tamino’s Open Mind is corrupted.
That’s essentially an ad hominem argument. I mean, you can’t comment AT ALL with a book in the library, it doesn’t make it false.
Besides, banning or censoring some denier trolls is hardly evidence of dishonest debate. Very possibly the contrary.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Also, US temperatures over the last century roughly agree with global temperatures so your objection that the PDO only correlates well with US temperatures fails.
Then why not cut out the middle man and do the regression with global temperature? (That’s leaving aside the fundamental stupidity of your whole correlation-is-causation argument here.)
As I said, the PDO isn’t the only climate determinant, only the biggest one, and its phase is a reliable predicter of climate trends.
Reliable predictor? Isn’t it your contention that it’s not just a predictor, but a cause? Where’s your evidence?
I find it kind of interesting that each of its phases is about 30 years, and 30 years is what meteorologists have informally settled on as long enough to call a trend.
I can’t even begin to argue with that kind of logic…
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Wow, step away for a few hours and you miss…nothing at all, really.
Carry on!
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 am
Mooney and matt are echo chambers of each other. Global warming alarmists from gore to newsweek all have the same message: we must suppress dissenting opinions. Mooney, gore and matt are all fascists.
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
IPCC margins of error are so wide that they include everything from global catastrophe to small local inconvenience. Statistics so far is compatible both with exponential climb of global mean temperature to periodic multi-decade oscillation. The only basis for prognosis so far are computer models that are empirical-based, and nobody knows if the assumptions adopted in these models are valid for future: they also are based on existing statistics, which is ambiguous. So, the AGW hypothesis has a right to exist, but only as still unproved hypothesis. Science is not settled, and no amount of spin will make it so.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I hear this kind of thing a lot lately. I guess it must be one of those irregular verbs:
I nobly crusade for the Truth,
You zealotously clamour for your bigoted ideology,
They ruthlessly oppress dissenting opinions.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:05 am
I don’t think pro-global warming people are necessarily trying to shut argument down, but they *do* advocate listening to the conclusions of climate experts, sometime over personal analysis.
Science, like surgery, is very tricky. It takes years to learn these skills. For the same reason I wouldn’t trust Will or some of the commentators on this Blog to remove my appendix, I don’t trust them to analyze scientific papers.
Rather than try to learn a complex field in an evening, I would recommend people go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
They do an excellent job summarizing the various opinions and it is clear that the vast majority of scientists that are qualified* to make a statement on Global Warming, believe that it exists and that it is caused by humans.
*The reason I say “qualified” scientists is because I noticed someone posted a link to a survey of *any* PhD, MS, or BS that doesn’t believe in human causes global warming. It almost seemed like a joke. Physicists make poor Climatologists for the same reason that they make poor Point Guards.