EXCLUSIVE: Michael Mann responds to Rep. Barton

By Phil Plait | October 14, 2010 6:00 am

earthonfireLast week, climate scientist Michael Mann wrote an OpEd in the Washington Post defending himself against attacks by ideologically-driven climate change deniers.

On Tuesday, the Post ran a "rebuttal" of sorts by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX). In it, Barton grossly mischaracterizes Dr. Mann’s research and motivations. Go ahead and take a moment to read it.

Mann sent a letter to the Post asking for a chance to defend himself against Barton’s slurs. The Post declined: if they allowed this sort of thing, it would go on forever, in a "he said/she said" war of words. I can understand that decision, but it doesn’t mean Mann has to remain quiet. I was contacted on behalf of Mann by the Union of Concerned Scientists, asking if I would run the letter from Mann that the Post declined.

Of course I would. Here it is, in its entirety:

I recently wrote an essay arguing that politicians should stop attacking scientists. Rep. Joe Barton’s response was to write a letter attacking me yet again. He continues to misrepresent my research, insult my character and spread misinformation about climate science.

Barton deeply mischaracterizes a 2006 National Academy of Sciences report on past climates. He wrongly equates the report’s conclusions regarding how to further advance the science with a criticism of my scientific conclusions. As the Post noted ("Study Confirms Past Few Decades Warmest on Record", June 2, 2006 [link]), the academy study backed up the conclusions my colleagues and I reached more than a decade ago about the unprecedented nature of modern climate change. So have more than a dozen independent studies since.

Tellingly, Barton calls my research in this area "global warming projections." But such projections use models to predict future climate changes. They have nothing at all to do with the research Barton has attacked my colleagues and me for, which use real world data to reconstruct past climate changes.

After six years of these attacks, is it possible that Barton cannot even identify the nature of our work?

Rep. Barton apologized to former BP CEO Tony Hayward after the company was required to pay for damage from the Gulf oil leak. He should apologize to me and my colleagues too, but I won’t be holding my breath.


Michael E. Mann, the author of "Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming," is a professor in the meteorology department at Penn State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center.

The Honorable Barton’s editorial is already getting ripped to shreds in various venues, such as on Deep Climate here, the DeSmogBlog, and here, as well as in the comments of the editorial itself. I would categorize Congressman Barton’s editorial to be dissembling at best: Mann doesn’t want to suppress questioning of scientific research. In fact, he knows, as we all do, that science thrives when it’s questioned. It’s how we learn.

But what’s going on in Congress is not an evidence-based query, it’s a politically-driven attack on science.

It’s not exactly a subtle distinction.

joe_bartonI’ll note that Representative Barton has the distinction of being the Congressman who received the highest amount of lobby dollars from the oil and gas industry — 1.7 million dollars over the past 20 years. As Mann mentions, you may remember Barton as the Congressman who shamefully apologized to BP executive Tony Hayward after that company dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (and then issued a non-apology about it). He is a notorious global warming denier and exactly the sort of person Dr. Mann is warning us about in his Post editorial.

And I’ll remind you, every single one of the Republican Senate hopefuls this election season is against taking any action about climate change.

Congressman Barton, if you read this — and I certainly hope you do — I will point you to your own words in your editorial: "I think Mr. Mann is entitled to make up his own mind, but not his own truth." That is ironic indeed, given that this is precisely what you have been doing for a long, long time. The actual truth is clear: the climate is changing, the globe is warming, and all the denying, all the noise, all the letter writing you can do will not change those simple facts.

You are not fighting a political battle, you are fighting against reality itself. And if you win, we will all lose.


Related posts:

About Barton:

- Joe Barton apologizes for your misconcontrusion
- Neocarbon
- Speaking of Texas doomism
- Every single Republican Senate hopeful is against climate change action

About Mann:

- Climategate’s death rattle
- Deniers abuse power to attack climate scientists
- Climate change followup
- The global warming witch hunt continues

Comments (203)

  1. This is yet another classic case of someone (Barton) mistaking an opinion for a fact…

    In the arena of reality, an opinion isn’t a fact. A fact is a fact, and your opinions are not worth anything should they disagree with facts. No matter how much you may deny it, and attempt to use rhetoric and plain old lying to try to align the two. And after a while, you should lose any measure of respect those around you may have had for you. I just tend to tolerate fools much less than others, so if you are willfully ignorant and persist in thinking wrong is right, I will not coddle you. I will heap scorn and derision on you as you deserve. As John Wayne was purported to have said, “Life is hard. It’s harder if you’re stupid.” And while I may not agree with him on many other philosophies, that is one that I can agree with him. Sadly, society as a whole is starting to pay the price.

  2. Denialists complaining about being called “denialists” in 3… 2…

  3. Jeff

    “I recently wrote an essay arguing that politicians should stop attacking scientists. ”

    Dr. Mann, politicians will attack or defend anyone, including Satan himself, if it is in the interest of their lobby. That is how the world works. That is not how science works, but it is how the real world works. It ain’t going to change.

  4. DeadBoy

    “You are not fighting a political battle, you are fighting against reality itself. And if you win, we will all lose.”

    Reality always wins. Sometimes it just takes a little longer.

  5. Daniel J. Andrews

    As Charles Pierce said in his book, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, the worst thing you can be in a society where everyone is an expert is an actual expert.

    It [Idiot America] also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they’re talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

    You can find the original article that later morphed into a book below.

    aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html

  6. Dr.Sid

    Pah .. wasted energy .. nothing will happen until something happens ..

  7. Zucchi

    I wonder if it’s a passive-aggressive veiled insult that Barton keeps referring to Dr. Mann as “Mr. Mann”.

    Most laymen accept the evidence-based concensus of real scientists in most areas — mathematics, geology, astronomy, particle physics — but it seems like any idiot feels qualified to argue in the area of climatology. Strange.

  8. it would go on forever, in a “he said/she said” war of words.

    What a succinct summary of modern mainstream journalism.

  9. Kevin

    Heh. “Honorable” Barton.

    None of the politicians have Honor. They have sold it to the highest bidder.

  10. featheredfrog

    You don’t actually believe that Barton wrote that, do you? It came right out of the Oil Oligarchy’s Truth Ministry. The $1.7M was just the fee Barton’s handlers charge to put his name on stuff like this.

    I doubt Barton has the brains to pick his own nose, let alone write a coherent English sentence.

  11. Mike

    Michael Mann rebuts Joe Barton? Phuleeeeeeeeeez. Let’s see him respond to somebody his own size.

  12. Jeff Handy

    Well done, Phil! Thank you for posting this.

    HandyGeek

  13. @Carey,

    Wow, it took 10 whole posts…

  14. Damian

    Michael Mann rebuts Joe Barton? Phuleeeeeeeeeez. Let’s see him respond to somebody his own size.

    Willis Eschenbach? This Willis Eschenbach?

    In what sense is he the same “size” (by which I presume that you are referring to expertize?) as Michael Mann? He’s an “amateur” scientist that happens to have been caught misrepresenting temperature records on several different occasions.

    Of course, he’s more than welcome to attempt to have his work published in (respectable) scientific journals. Only then can we even begin to discuss relative expertize.

  15. @4. Daniel J. Andrews:

    Great read, thanks for posting the link.

  16. Luis Dias

    Big fan of you, PZ, Dawkins, etc., but to claim that to defend Michael Mann from “criticism” is defending reality itself is so awful, it’s not even wrong. Really, you should choose your friends carefully, you won’t look good in the history books if you pick incompetent MM as your pal.

  17. Luis Dias

    Damian, really Michael Mann has done nothing in climatology other than his own hockey stick which was refuted countless times, and even now in 2010 by an independent group of statisticians in Nature. I agree, Willis is not someone of “stature”, but to make a statue out of Michael Mann is so displaced that I can’t but laugh.

  18. Derecho64

    Anyone who references Watts’ site as having any credibility on climate science is entirely wrong. Eschenbach has been outed more than once as being a fraud.

  19. Jeff in Tucson

    @Luis – You mentioned something about a 2010 article in Nature; can you post a reference? I’d like to read this article.

  20. Luis Dias

    Eschenbach has been outed more than once as being a fraud.

    By whom? Personally I have little patience with WUWT, as a matter of a fact, I’m censored there for not taking them seriously, but these claims that person X “has been outed” make me cringe. By whom? Santa Claus? Are you aware that Mann has also “been outed” as a fraud too? By others, of course. So is this also a case of “He said She said”, etc.? This is what the internet is good for, to balkanize people into feuds, I really hate this feature of the Internetsszz. Damn Al Gore!!

  21. Luis Dias

    Jeff, my mistake it was not in Nature (yeah yeah bring the flames on, damn I’m only human), the paper is however in one of the most respected journals of statistics, the Annals of Applied Statistics, here:

    http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

    Mann et al respond here:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/inpress_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf

    Their reply is inane and irrelevant. They clearly misunderstood the paper, only showing off their blatant incompetence. Really, are these the folks that you are protecting? Sure, against tea party fools that try to put Mann on trial for incredibly inane reasons, I’m with you. But to defend this person academically? Oh boy.

  22. Luis Dias

    Alas, if you want to know a good blog where you can discuss these things in a more respectful and less balkanized, more intelligent way, you could spend some time checking out Judith Curry’s new blog, Climate etc. Here’s a self-proclaimed (and the papers she published agree) “warmer” who takes skeptic criticism seriously and is interested in checking out the potential problems with the theory as a whole.

    Mann is an advocate maskeraded as a scientist, hasn’t earned my respect (nor do the people who harrass him in the courts btw).

  23. Gary Ansorge

    Gee, maybe “Water World” WILL come to pass. I expect the politicians of that world will then end up blaming scientists for not explaining their research more forcefully, as in “But you KNOW we’re all idiots. You should have yelled louder.”

    Politicians are nearly ALL lying hypocrites who would sell their souls to any metaphorical devil that can give them power. My feeling is “Anyone who seeks power should be drawn and quartered. Presidents and congress critters should be draftees, drawn from a nationally organized pool of qualified people.”

    Unfortunately, that would include you, Phil,,,sorry about that.

    Gary 7
    PS I should probably modify that premise (hypocrites)by pointing out, many who run for office and lose are probably good, honest folk,,,,that’s why they lost.

    PPS As I recall, it was Tom Jefferson who said “Professional politicians will be the death of the Republic.” He was one smart dude,,,

  24. Number 6

    Phil’s alluded to this previously, but long before the errant asteroid blasts us to kingdom come, or the malevolent space aliens or their minions — despicable carbon-sucking robots — come for dinner, people with a mind-set like “Mr.” Barton will doom us all.

  25. Chris Winter

    Jeff in Tucson, the Nature article would likely be behind a paywall, but Luis should still have cited it. At least we could read the abstract and see who makes up this “independent group of statisticians.”

  26. Bethany

    Phil, well said…well said.

    I have faith that the American people are not as stupid or idiotic as the media proclaims. There are really smart people out there that do think critically and responsibly. However, I wonder if they’ll vote this election after feeling disenfranchised by the Obama administration and the minority of “fundamentalist” idiots. It’s tempting sometimes to give up and consider starting your own country that values scientific research although, secession probably isn’t a viable solution. Or am I not being skeptical enough?

  27. @Gary Ansorge #24

    “Presidents and congress critters should be draftees, drawn from a nationally organized pool of qualified people.”

    Unfortunately, that would include you, Phil,,,sorry about that.”

    I agree absolutely – and President Plait, for the win!

  28. Damian

    Damian, really Michael Mann has done nothing in climatology other than his own hockey stick which was refuted countless times, and even now in 2010 by an independent group of statisticians in Nature. I agree, Willis is not someone of “stature”, but to make a statue out of Michael Mann is so displaced that I can’t but laugh.

    You have to know that this comment completely misrepresents the entire basis for defending Mann in the first place, as well as his work in general?

    I will be absolutely clear: forget about Michael Mann. Pretend that he doesn’t even exist. Remove all mention of the “Hockey Stick” from the conversation, including all of the papers that have since built on, refined, and supported his original work. Forget about it all.

    But once you’ve done that, realize that absolutely nothing has changed. Nothing.

    That’s what makes this whole issue so embarrassingly surreal. So, I ask, why the incessant focus on Michael Mann’s work? I have a very simple explanation for one side of the issue. Most of the criticism has been dishonest and unfair. It would therefore be immoral to allow that to stand, even while also acknowledging that his work is irrelevant at this point.

    But for the “other” side, the explanation is less flattering. It can’t be scientific, because the science has moved so far beyond that it’s completely irrelevant at this point. So, it has to be political, and we all know that nothing incites an ignorant crowd (and wastes everybody’s time) more than simplistic platitudes, repetition of things that are irrelevant (and largely false), and a single focal point that can be used to represent an entire group of people and/or field of knowledge.

  29. Chris Winter

    Luis Dias wrote: “Alas, if you want to know a good blog where you can discuss these things in a more respectful and less balkanized, more intelligent way…”

    Alas, your first post (#17) is notable for its lack of respectful discussion.

  30. Ken

    aaaaand the deniers are here. I can almost smell the oil.

    The hockey stick was modified, not refuted.

    Reality carries on regardless of your choice to stop the clock when your oily puppet strings are yanked.

  31. Michael Tobis

    A minor gripe which shouldn’t distract from appreciation of this article. If you take down the “exclusive” claim, more of us will run Dr. Mann’s letter verbatim on other blogs. This claim to “exclusivity” seems a bit, um, antiquated. Or antediluvian. I like that word. Antediluvian.

    I’d also like to second Damian’s comments in #29 without reservation.

    Otherwise many thanks to both Phil and Mike. I am inclined to drive up to Barton’s district (not far from me) and pass copies of this letter to all and sundry.

  32. Luis Dias

    That’s what makes this whole issue so embarrassingly surreal. So, I ask, why the incessant focus on Michael Mann’s work?

    Ahmm, maybe because that’s the person we are dealing with here in a tit-for-tat discussion, he said she said, etc.?

    Most of the criticism has been dishonest and unfair

    Perhaps that is the case. Unfortunately, the remaining 2% shall we agree, of the criticism has always remained as honest, fair and fatal to Mann et al’s work. If you want to talk about the remaining 98%, that is your prerogative, perhaps it’s more fun to do. I agree it’s quite an emotional thing.

    But for the “other” side, the explanation is less flattering.

    Again with the balkanization. Well, I don’t blame you, it’s this bastard of the world we live in, it tears all of us apart and makes us join either “side” (or die?).

    It can’t be scientific, because the science has moved so far beyond that it’s completely irrelevant at this point.

    There are a lot of unanswered issues, scientifically speaking. The “uncertainty monster” is increasing, not decreasing, and there are a lot of philosophical, economical issues pertaining to that fact, risk assessments, theory of “probabilities” and “possibilities”, etc., etc. There are a lot of different economical assessments out there, and they all have a “point”, and sure enough I don’t buy some of them, like the Stern report, and I buy some others. And yes, the discussion is also political. Unfortunately, to say that it is political in this landscape is to say “partisan bias hello!”… and so we are back to “science-driven politics”, which is politics plain and simple dressed up as science.

    Or are we forgetting that the IPCC is a political body? Perhaps we are.

  33. Derecho64

    Luis, you’re not credible, because you’re unable to see Eschenbach’s “science” is garbage, and you, like Barton, are obsessed with “getting” Mann, as if he’s the linchpin of the whole of climate science. As Damian notes, remove Mann, remove hockey sticks, and the science of manmade climate change isn’t affected in the slightest.

    It’s only the hardcore deniers who puff up Mann – believing that if they tear him down (using whatever underhanded political tricks and games are necessary), then manmade climate change as an issue just vanishes. T’ain’t true.

  34. Luis Dias

    Alas, your first post (#17) is notable for its lack of respectful discussion.

    Why is this? Because I dared to say that person X is not a good bloke? And yet other people here do not stop themselves insulting other peoples Y, Z, etc. What is the difference here? Because person X is a “scientist”? Therefore above criticism?

  35. Rogerborg

    Wait, is this the Michael Mann who refused to publish his (publicly funded) data or finger-in-the-air analysis methods, or some other Michael Mann of which I was previously unaware? Just clear that up for me, would you.

  36. The arguments about the Mann et al. original “hockeystick” papers have never been real arguments as far as politicians are concerned. Rather, they used attacks on the hockeystick to beat up on climate science generally. The truth is that even if the original hockeystick papers had never been published and indeed, even if the entire field of paleoclimatology did not exist, we would still have ample evidence that human activity is driving dangerous, fast-moving climate change.

    Opponents of addressing climate change targeted the hockeystick papers because they don’t have good arguments against the entire body of climate change research. So they cherry-picked one hard-to-understand field of research where they could construct arguments that seem plausible on the surface, but are largely inaccessible for non-experts. Then they tried to argue — falsely — that the hockeystick underpins all other climate research. It certainly does not.

    There have been dozens of paleoclimate reconstructions published since Mann et al. did their original work in 1998 and 1999. See two recent examples here: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/

    The science has moved on, as it always does, to new methods of statistical analysis, new understandings of tree ring records, coral records, etc. that point to the state of past climates.

    This debate is a proxy war and Mann and his colleagues have been caught in the middle for years. It’s unfortunate that he and his fellow researchers are still fighting against these politically-motivated attacks.

    Thanks,
    Aaron Huertas
    Union of Concerned Scientists

  37. Debate!
    Debate is long overdue!
    Get ALL the involved – alleged CO2 deniers and believers, and politicals around the SAME table at the SAME time, face to face, and get this damn thing debated out once and for all!
    As nothing but a Mother, I never allowed my children to come to me separately – to rag on another. Everytime they had a disagreement, I ordered them to “march in here right now! Now. You. Keep your lip zipped until she (or he) tells their story. You’ll have your turn afterwards. I will ponder your situation and then give you my decision!”
    NO policy/law/regulation maker is doing this regards CO2! This fact is very revealing as to the true intent of lawmakers ramming policy/law/regulation through believing ONLY the side that will personally enrich them!!!!!
    Debate!
    Get Dr. David Archer, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (sp), Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. James Hansen, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Lord Christopher Monckton, Secre. Chu, et al in the same room, around the same table at the same time, and demand they stay there until this thing is wholly hashed out once and for all.
    Then – and ONLY then should any policy/law/regulation be made – if even necessary.
    Lastly – the federal government should get the hell out of the grant business! Giving my hard earned money to “Entities in the circle of giving” (Politicals give money to Joe Blow. Joe Blow puts it through umpty umph filters, each keeping enough of the “freebies” to enrich themselves and gifting back just enough to the political to keep him or her in office so he or she can continue gifting my money back to Joe Blow.).
    I want all government grant money to stop, and a full audit/investigation of who those monies go to and how they spend that money (MY money!).
    This ugly circle deserves being broken!!!!!
    Debate!!

  38. Luis Dias

    Luis, you’re not credible, because you’re unable to see Eschenbach’s “science” is garbage

    I did not comment about the garbageness of Eschenbach’s “science” at all, for I don’t really care about that debate at all. I haven’t seen his alleged “thesis” that has been allegedly “refuted” at Deltoid, so how could I even “see” anything there? Or are you saying that I should be omniscient and all-encompassing to every subject in this field in order to have a simple point? This is ridiculous.

    …are obsessed with “getting” Mann, as if he’s the linchpin of the whole of climate science

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but this post is about Mann, not climate science in general. So excuse me if I made some remarks about the *subject at hand*. Jeeez..

    As Damian notes, remove Mann, remove hockey sticks, and the science of manmade climate change isn’t affected in the slightest.

    Again with the red herring. Of course it is affected, but of course that the, let’s say, the “damage” done is not in any way fundamental.

    It’s only the hardcore deniers who puff up Mann – believing that if they tear him down (using whatever underhanded political tricks and games are necessary), then manmade climate change as an issue just vanishes. T’ain’t true.

    Actually I think otherwise. It’s because people like Mann paint climate science so badly that people do not buy this stuff. If “climate science” was able to address these incompetencies in a more credible way, perhaps trust into the general science would go up. But, instead, they have chosen to entrench themselves and save “their sientists” at all costs. At the cost of good science, too.

  39. This sounds like an idea for an article for the dead tree version of Discover magazine. Start with a discussion of the two op-ed pieces, then Dr. Mann’s rebuttal, and then explain why any of this matters.

    jbs

  40. Jeff in Tucson

    @Luis: Thanks, I wasn’t trying to be a dick or anything, I’m genuinely curious. Just got the pdf.

    @Chris Winter: Yeah, but I’m on a university network, so I get pretty seamless full-text access to most journal archives. ;P

  41. Gary Ansorge

    35. Luis Dias

    “Because person X is a “scientist”? Therefore above criticism?”

    That statement by itself shows how little you know of science and its process.

    Scientists EXPECT to be criticized, it’s part of the process but we expect our critics to be other qualified scientists who actually KNOW what they’re talking about, not some ignorant twit who is just in it for the publicity.

    Gary 7

  42. Everybody, including Rep. Joe Barton and all of his colleagues in the House and Senate, should read John Mashey’s comment posted at 10/12/2010 11:01:26 AM. These are very serious charges that appear to have merit.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105679_Comments.html

    “I allege that Joe Barton organized an effort to mislead Congress, 18USC1001, 18USC371 in manufacturing the Wegman Report.”

    Did Barton use his political office to attempt to undermine science and to mislead Congress and America? If so, did he do so at the behest of the oil and energy industry that are his top two campaign contributors?

    WaPost owes its readers a thorough investigation of this potential abuse of power. Likewise, the DOJ should investigate Barton’s connection to the Wegman Report.

  43. The image of a member of Congress – nay, *many* members of Congress – “fighting against reality itself” is a sadly accurate picture of the modern world. But let’s all remember that there are other, equally accurate – but much less sad – pictures of the modern world: there are countless members of the “reality-based community” around the world, fighting the good fight, putting one foot in front of the other, every day, trying to turn the tide, and keeping that “candle in the dark” lit.

  44. Luis Dias

    That statement by itself shows how little you know of science and its process.

    Actually, Gary, no, because Mann is, before a scientist, a person. He’s no robot whose only interest is to make “good science”. I can criticise the way as he, a recent PhD got himself so up in the IPCC hierarchy, as a lead author, getting to choose whose works would be reinforced in it, etc., albeit many “tricks” being made to get the point accross and less “ambiguity” be left. I can criticize the way that he and his friends evaded academic criticism, to which I was a witness for all these years. I can criticize a lot, and that thanks to free speech, thank you very much for that.

  45. RAF

    Idiot politicians are nothing “new”. What is new is that they are making decisions that could kill us all…and since the US doesn’t hold idiot politicians accountable for their actions, they WILL get away with it.

    Doesn’t seem quite fair does it.

  46. Charlie

    Sometimes I feel that the best way to counter global warming would be just to stop feeding the trolls…

  47. QuietDesperation

    Again with the balkanization. Well, I don’t blame you, it’s this bastard of the world we live in, it tears all of us apart and makes us join either “side” (or die?).

    No, not die. It’s quite possible to leave the game and abandon ideology. I did it long ago.

    However, it probably turned me into a black-hearted misanthrope who despairs that humanity will ever get its collective act together. Whether that’s better than a life of slappy, happy, blithertastic pablum spouting and cheerleading for one idiot “side” or another is up to the individual. Each to his own, but once out of the game the thought of returning is revolting.

    I’m no denialist (or whatever the historically charged label du jour is now) but I find it curious (well, not so much “curious” as “typical”) that Barton’s finances are scrutinized, but Mann’s are not. “Follow the money” is always an excellent strategy, but needs to be applied to everyone. One could say Mann has a vested interest in continuing the grant money flow, and the university has an interest in keeping Mann and his grant money around. I’m not claiming that, but ABSOLUTELY NO ONE should be above scrutiny.

    The counter-logic to this is that because someone receives money to advocate for a position does not, in and of itself, make them wrong. That’s an official logical fallacy I think, but I can’t be arsed to look it up. Neither Barton’s nor Mann’s funding sources have a gnat’s poot to do with the science.

    People are broken things. I’ve worked around scientists for two decades. There’s nothing special about them, sorry to burst anyone’s bubble. Some of them, when they open their mouths on politics, I vow to personally lead the rebel army against them should they ever get into power. ;-)

  48. Chris B

    I think MM should sue for Libel. Bring it all out in court. That should shut ‘em up.

  49. QuietDesperation

    and since the US doesn’t hold idiot politicians accountable for their actions, they WILL get away with it.

    More than you can imagine. Here in California, the former governor who laid the ground work for much of the State’s current miseries is leading in the polls to become governor again.

    It doesn’t help that is opponent is a complete tool, but, still, geez… WTF, people?

    You should have seen the debates. I kept hoping a meteor would hit and take them both out. Also kept wondering, as ever, why no third party candidates are ever invited to these “debates.”

  50. One would think Barton’s reputation would eventually become so horrible that being attacked by him would be helpful . . . I guess that’s just a dream.

    ~Rhaco

  51. Dave R

    Rogerborg, 36:
    >is this the Michael Mann who refused to publish his (publicly funded) data or analysis methods

    Roger, when people tell you things like that, instead of parroting them all over the internets you should exercise a bit of skepticism and first try to determine whether there is any truth to the claim. In this instance it is very easy to find that there is no truth to the claim whatsoever.

  52. brad

    Barton is nuts, and completely misguided, but to use him as the strawman for “deniers” is akin to using Fred Phelps to represent christianity – set up an easy strawman and ignore the factual errors in Mann’s work, this would seem to show, rather strongly, that this blog is an unscientific and biased as one might expect from a true believer.

  53. I’ll quote Indiana Jones: Dr. Jones States: “Archeology(Science) Is not about truth, If you want truth, the philosophy class is down the hall. Archeology(Science) is about FACTS!”

    So while The (dis)honorable Rep. Barton talks about truth, it should be the facts he’s concerned about.

    BTW, Truth is Easy to create. Every single religion on this planet has created their own truth, independent of and in contradiction to every other religion.

  54. brad

    “As Damian notes, remove Mann, remove hockey sticks, and the science of manmade climate change isn’t affected in the slightest.”

    I would disagree, without Mann and his refuted hockey stick, climate science would be taken much MORE seriously. Exactly what we need is real peer review and good science…

  55. Derecho64

    You folks talking about Mann’s errors and “incompetence” don’t have a clue as to how science works.

    Again, Mann has become a lightning rod for Barton and the other deniers; I don’t envy him being a whipping-boy for their games. The irony is that the deniers think that by smears, slurs, and lies about Mann, they denigrate the science and will make it “go away”. Hardly. But the reason deniers play the man, not the ball, is because they got *no* *science* to give us. *All* they can do is attack the scientists – Mann, Schmidt, Santer, et.al. So that’s what they do.

  56. Derecho64

    brad, Mann’s “hockey stick” *has* *not* *been* *refuted*, and the sole reason climate science is denigrated is precisely because of Barton and his fellow deniers.

    I don’t think you know what “real peer review and good science” even *are*.

  57. Daniel J. Andrews

    Luis. As said above, throw out all of Mann’s work, hockey stick, etc. It makes no difference to the climate science. The stick isn’t broken though–that’s a meme thoroughly debunked. The stick shape has been replicated independently many times using different methodologies and using different independent data sets. It is robust. Take out the whatever proxies you don’t like and it still comes up hockey stick.

    skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

    Or are we forgetting that the IPCC is a political body?

    That’s a standard disinformer meme said without explanation and allowing people to make their own interpretations of “political body” and thus dismiss the IPCC findings without any further thought. What would the agenda be of this supposed political body?

    The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization composed of scientists from multiple countries, multiple political views (including those who don’t care about politics at all), multiple differences in outlook all reviewing the available literature and summarizing it. Even if this falls into a definition of a political body, it does nothing to discredit the summary itself, nor does it even address the actual body of literature on the subject.

    And if the IPCC slewed their findings, then why aren’t the various national academies of science or researchers from around the world standing up and castigating the IPCC for misrepresenting their work?

    As for Dr. Curry as a reasonable voice, I’m not so sure. She made a number of unfounded assertions, couldn’t back them up, tried to distance herself from them, and then reasserted them in a different forum later. See the comments at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/ where she says Tamino’s article is full of errors and bad analysis but doesn’t point to a single error despite repeated requests to do so. She got into a hole and then kept digging instead of admitting she was wrong. It’s a real self-immolation, fascinating in that gruesome spectacle sort of way.

    Still, she still may have something useful to contribute if she gets past unsupported generalizations and applies her critical thinking skills to her own “tribe” and takes them to task for their blatant lies and disinformation and self-contradictions, which are very well documented now.

  58. Luis Dias

    You folks talking about Mann’s errors and “incompetence” don’t have a clue as to how science works.

    But surely you do. Boy do I appreciate the fact that I’m the one being unrespecful.

    Again, Mann has become a lightning rod for Barton and the other deniers; I don’t envy him being a whipping-boy for their games.

    He surely made an effort to place himself up for grabs.

    But the reason deniers play the man, not the ball, is because they got *no* *science* to give us. *All* they can do is attack the scientists – Mann, Schmidt, Santer, et.al. So that’s what they do.

    Yes, this may well be true. Depending on the definition of “deniers”, of course. If by deniers you are talking about a fringe, then I’ll agree with that. Luckily, there’s a whole range of scepticism that eludes or defies categorizations. But this citation is just a placeholder for the usual brainless ad hominem of the type “those who disagree with me are just science illiterates”. These kind of comments do not realise that their own limited view of the current science landscape may not be compatible with what the actual science is actually *saying* about the climate, and what actual economics is actually *saying* about climate politics.

    IOW, those who accuse others of playing the political game should remind themselves that they are also doing just that.

  59. Derecho64

    So what is the “actual science”, Luis? Please, please, don’t refer to any of the nonsense that gets lauded at denier blogs like climatefraudit and WTFWT.

    As for political gameplaying, that’s done by those who operate from a dogma of “capitalism good, markets perfect, taxes evil, gubmint bad”, and use them to “inform” themselves about the science. They’ve got it backwards – they detest the potential policies to address manmade climate change, so they attack the science and the scientists.

    Again, what’s the “actual science”? And no, “uncertainty” doesn’t mean “total ignorance”.

  60. Paul

    This was upsetting to me that I wrote him a letter myself. I doubt he will read it, but it was worth the shot.

    Long live science, and hopes to it triumphing over this political BS that stands in its way.

  61. Daniel J. Andrews

    For those interested, here is how you can prove global warming is wrong and that pretty much every relevant expert* is suddenly collectively incompetent in their chosen field (or suddenly and collectively corrupt).

    climatesight.org/2010/02/16/how-to-prove-global-warming-wrong/

    *we’re talking chemists, physicists, glaciologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists, biologists and on and on and on. The Nobel prize is there for the taking.

  62. Luis Dias

    Daniel, I do agree with you that the debate about the HS is lateral to the main one, while sharing some points that do transverse the entirety of the climate science “atmosphere”. And the “meme” is definitely not “debunked”. The hockey stick was refuted a long time ago, ever since MM2003, and this was confirmed with Wegman (now under “plagiarism” accusations… as if that isn’t a red herring in itself) and the PNAS report itself (which granted the HS’s robustness since 1600, i.e., the little ice age… make some maths there).

    The stick shape has been replicated with the same faulty methods and the same proxies used by Mann, with some small differences. All of the “independent groups” had already worked with Michael Mann before, or Briffa, etc., they were not independent at all. Many reconstructions were made, but the main statistical problems remained. You can repeat the same mistakes over and over again, it won’t make the problem go away, you know. (And please, skepticalscience? Really? It’s only one inch above WUWT in its credibility)

    That’s a standard disinformer meme

    I note your usage of the word “meme” as if I’m nothing but a zimbo (zombie?) proclaiming a zombie combination of words which have zero *human* content. Please treat me as an adult.

    … said without explanation and allowing people to make their own interpretations of “political body” and thus dismiss the IPCC findings without any further thought. What would the agenda be of this supposed political body?

    There are no findings made by the IPCC. The IPCC is an intergovernmental institution whose main function it is to build reports summarizing what the state of the science of climate change it is right now. The people working on it are not politically independent, since they are placed where the various governments agree they should be. All of the report is tainted by political interests, but still I don’t dismiss it as an extensive report that it is. There are a lot of problems within it, that have been dutifully noted by a recent inquiry mandated by the UN itself.

    And if the IPCC slewed their findings, then why aren’t the various national academies of science or researchers from around the world standing up and castigating the IPCC for misrepresenting their work?

    Please provide evidence that this hasn’t happened. Because you see, I have seen this happening, many criticisms have also been made to the way reports were written and managed, and this also fell under the axe of the UN inquiry.

    As for Dr. Curry as a reasonable voice, I’m not so sure. She made a number of unfounded assertions, couldn’t back them up, tried to distance herself from them, and then reasserted them in a different forum later.

    Tamino wrote one of the most laughable blunders at the time. There was real censorship happening at RealClimate at the time, so forsure you won’t find the real good arguments against Tamino’s post in the comment section. What Tamino is ranting about is about a quote of Michael Mann himself, and not Montford! Read this instead, and blush:

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/27/taminos-trick-mann-bites-bulldog/

    Not that Tamino isn’t able to put good arguments (and what some people call “debunkings!”) from time to time, but here he really jumped the shark of stupidity. Not the best example you could bring here, really.

    Now I do not know (nor care) if Curry was object of censorship on RealClimate and you may well be true in your statements about her inability to clear things up. But she was right in her claims that Tamino was writing garbage.

  63. Luis Dias

    So what is the “actual science”, Luis? Please, please, don’t refer to any of the nonsense that gets lauded at denier blogs like climatefraudit and WTFWT.

    The “actual” science is the swarm of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of papers being published every year. I think this should be obvious.

  64. Luis Dias

    For those interested, here is how you can prove global warming is wrong and that pretty much every relevant expert* is suddenly collectively incompetent in their chosen field (or suddenly and collectively corrupt).

    What a red herring. Very few people and zero scientists ever argued that CO2 doesn’t contribute to the warming of the planet. Nice way to stupidify the conversation.

  65. QuietDesperation

    “Archeology(Science) Is not about truth, If you want truth, the philosophy class is down the hall. Archeology(Science) is about FACTS!”

    So… *not* killing Nazis and fisticuffs with Thuggees? Aw… :-(

  66. uudale

    @60:

    “As for political gameplaying, that’s done by those who operate from a dogma of “capitalism good, markets perfect, taxes evil, gubmint bad”, ”

    So, those who operate from a dogma of “capitalism bad, markets bad, takes good, government good” DON’T engage in political gameplaying?

    What was someone saying earlier about the balkanization of politics? :-P

  67. The problem is both sides have politicized the issue and Phil unabashedly plays into the scheme. He night have been a smart scientist a while back, but he also is not a saavy pundit now. Oh I know you all want to be his echo chamber, but I will not try to discern where so many of you start and he ends.

    Liberals have politicized global warming as a scheme for wealth redistribution, be it on a national level or world wide level. Cap and trade screams this and the Chinese balking at having to pay for the world leading polluting should suggest this is a shell game where we lose.

    Conservatives often oppose it because liberals support it and use the issue to garner wealth and favor.

    Scientists get paid and often have liberal leanings, ergo they are willing to aid or turn a blind eye towards the politics that support their science. Unless they are like Phil and are quick to demonize and name call at the drop of a hat.

    Liberal like Phil claim to like debate and suggest that counter views are good for science. It should be questioned. But when faced with actual counter points and questions, look what Phil does and the truth is they want no debate, questions or arguments.

    Sorry Phil, you mix politics and science is unwholesome ways and it reflects poorly on you.

  68. Mike G

    Luis sez: “What a red herring. Very few people and zero scientists ever argued that CO2 doesn’t contribute to the warming of the planet. Nice way to stupidify the conversation.”

    Oh really?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/ (Be sure to check out the numerous commenters who don’t exist, but enthusiastically welcome this explanation of why CO2 doesn’t warm the planet.)

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    Or how about Khabibullo Abdusamatov (an astronomer)- “Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

    3>0
    Doh!

  69. TheBlackCat

    @ The Arquette Sisters: I suppose we are just supposed to take your word for all of this?

  70. MaDeR

    “Also kept wondering, as ever, why no third party candidates are ever invited to these “debates.””
    Newsflash for you: USA is not democracy, but duopoly. Third parties are mercilessly eliminated by both rethuglicans and dumbocrats. Only freedom of speech saved you from being another China-esque totalitarian state… for now.

    Luis Dias, you seem to do not decided, in which phase of denialism you are. Is there global warming at all? Is this manmade? Is this unavoidable (so why do anything that will not line pockets as much)? Or you do not give crap because you will be dead when it hits the fan?

  71. Luis Dias

    MaDeR, I think that if Phil Plait ever decides to take my comment out of moderation hell, probably most of your doubts about my take will fade away. Or not.

    But I only came back here because I remembered something. Why is it that Mann asked Phil to post his reply here in Bad Astronomy, rather than just posting (or making a double post, why not) on his RealClimate blog? Why is RC silent over this? I don’t understand this.

  72. I am to be thinking that you have all had a very large wool sack pulled over your very eyes. It is a sad and dreadful day to realize that one’s awareness of reality is a quantized illusion of misconception and deception. You have all failed to realize, even the Phil of the Plaits, that Joe Barton does not exist. His persona is a manifestation of the nether workings of the far tail wing hidden government, the so called bringers of light, who seek to keep the masses in a harmonized discord. Even the latest news to be seen on the Barton site, “Let there be Lightbulbs” is a disguised joke by the dark spirits that have created his persona. In my astral journeys I have hovered over and around and above and under the 6th District of Texas and only the jackalopes would speak of the Barton Illusion; all else knew not.

    If you are not to be trusting of my truths, that is an okay thing for enlightenment is a long and dark road to travel.

  73. Dave R

    Luis Dias, 64:
    >What a red herring. Very few people and zero scientists ever argued that CO2 doesn’t contribute to the warming of the planet.

    It’s actually very common. Here is a selection of the many examples that can easily be found with a quick search.

    arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
    arxiv.org /abs/0904.2767
    climaterealists.com /index.php?id=5593
    http://www.qando.net /details.aspx?entry=8878
    en.epochtimes.com /news/7-6-6/55985.html
    climateresearchnews.com /2009/03/new-peer-reviewed-study-falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects-within-the-frame-of-physics-by-gerlich-tscheuschner/
    http://www.americanthinker.com /2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
    http://www.thenewamerican.com /index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2826-the-science-fiction-of-the-greenhouse-effect
    http://www.climategate.com /german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory
    http://www.iceagenow.com /CO2_increase_about_as_significant_as_a_few_farts_in_a_hurricane.htm

    Regardless, you either didn’t read the article or you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent it.

    It did not say that you had to disprove the greenhouse effect. It gave several other options, such as providing evidence that the warming from increased levels of CO2 would not be harmful, or providing evidence that the CO2 increase would cause less warming than expected along with evidence of an alternative cause that makes up the difference to explain the observed warming.

  74. @The Arquette Sisters,

    I fail to see how Phil has mixed politics and science (any more than Barton began doing by trying to force scientific theory to his views via politics/the legal system). I also fail to see how Phil’s acceptance of the evidence in favor of Global Warming automatically makes him “a liberal.”

    Phil, and other scientists and skeptics, would love to see solid evidence against Global Warming. It would challenge existing theories and make them better. (Plus, I’m sure people would much rather live in a world that’s not rapidly heating up due to human activities.)

    However, responding to a scientific paper/theory/evidence/etc with a lawsuit claiming it’s not true isn’t the proper way to counter this. It just makes Barton look like he’s trying to use the legal system to squelch anything counter to his opinion. (Which is exactly what he’s doing.)

  75. Luis Dias

    However, responding to a scientific paper/theory/evidence/etc with a lawsuit claiming it’s not true isn’t the proper way to counter this. It just makes Barton look like he’s trying to use the legal system to squelch anything counter to his opinion. (Which is exactly what he’s doing.)

    I definitely agree with this. What Barton et al are doing is preposterous and surreal.

  76. Technogeek

    It may be worth pointing out at this point that Joe Barton thinks plate tectonics is a ridiculous idea.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=symYfq51aho

  77. Derecho64

    Luis: “The “actual” science is the swarm of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of papers being published every year. I think this should be obvious.”

    Such as?

  78. dongisselbeck

    The profits from oil, gas and coal are about one billion dollars a day. That alone is enough to make the motives of anyone supporting these industry’s position suspect. Remember we are dealing with people who will kill for a few million dollars (W. R. Grace in Libby MT for example). It is not at all suprising that they would happily destroy western civilization for billions.

  79. Number 6

    @#71…

    Great rebuttal, TechyDad!

  80. Dave R

    Re my comment 75, sorry I tried to stop those coming out as links but it looks like the blog software tries to repair them if it sees w w w at the start.

  81. Chris Winter

    Luis Dias (#35) asked: “Why is this? Because I dared to say that person X is not a good bloke? And yet other people here do not stop themselves insulting other peoples Y, Z, etc. What is the difference here? Because person X is a “scientist”? Therefore above criticism?”

    That’s half of it. You referred to Dr. Mann as “the incompetent MM”. You did not mention his work, much less inform us why you thought its conclusions were mistaken. This is known as an ad hominem attack, something people such as those who dote on WUWT love to complain about being subjected to. This never seems to stop them from dishing it out.

    The other half is your post #23, where you recommend another blog for its more respectful discussion. That implies you’d like to have it both ways. Alas, you apparently didn’t pick up on the fact that I was mimicking your #23.

    Far be it from me to suggest that Dr. Mann, or myself, should be above criticism. But I do expect that such criticism should have some substance and some cogency.

  82. Neil

    The arquette Sisters: “Liberal like Phil claim to like debate and suggest that counter views are good for science. It should be questioned. But when faced with actual counter points and questions, look what Phil does and the truth is they want no debate, questions or arguments.”

    So what is your brilliant counter point? What is your evidence? Where is your research? Oh that’s right, you have none, just like every other ignorant denier who cries out the catch phrase of ignorant pissants everywhere…”Liberal bias!” Yep, your ignorance and empty game playing is because of “liberals.”

    Man, these threads get painful. Painfully stupid.

  83. Chris Winter

    Daniel J. Andrews (#62) wrote: “The Nobel prize is there for the taking.”

    Exactly, and well put.

    It’s I point I have made repeatedly: Anyone who could come up with a valid refutation of AGW would have a shot at “wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.” Not to mention fame, the honors and awards of a grateful world, and (if a man) his pick of hot women.

    So much incentive! How come no one has yet grabbed that brass ring? Logic suggests that’s because it isn’t there to be grabbed.

  84. Chris Winter

    The Arquette Sisters (#68) wrote: “Liberal like Phil claim to like debate and suggest that counter views are good for science. It should be questioned. But when faced with actual counter points and questions, look what Phil does and the truth is they want no debate, questions or arguments.”

    Right, that’s why he censored your posts. He’s repressin’ you! :P

  85. Nate

    If the GOP wins back the House in November, Barton will probably once again be chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We’ll have to wait another decade before Congress attempts to address climate change.

  86. Chris Winter

    “If you are not to be trusting of my truths,” quoth the MasterGuru, “that is an okay thing for enlightenment is a long and dark road to travel.”

    O MasterGuru of Tejas, we bow to your Poe-ish wisdom! :D

  87. Tribeca Mike

    “Mr. Mann”? Barton appears to be channeling Annie Wilkes from the film “Misery.”

    Oh, and to The Arquette Sisters — “unwholesome”??? I haven’t heard that one since the Legion of Decency folded in 1966.

  88. Utakata

    …and both of you Arquette Sisters @ 68 (I am not sure how to reply to person or persons whose name is a plural) are full of apologist clap trap. And are completely being disingenuous to the issue.

    There is only one side that is right…the side that is backed up by science. Science indicates our world is warming and we’re responsible. Evidence against that is poor, spurious and gnat crap picking. There is no left or right wing position for that conclusion. It’s just is.

    It’s like asking us to stop dumping on creationism because many on the right agree with it. And any views who criticize creationism are liberal thus it is politicized. That’s just plain stupid thinking at best. And that’s not how science works.

  89. Luis Dias

    Oh really?

    I said “very few people” and “zero scientists”. Tom Vonk is not even suggesting that CO2 doesn’t trap heat on the atmosphere in that strange post. He’s trying to make a smaller point, and then make the implication that greenhouse phenomenon is more complicated than many people think. I don’t think that he really believes that CO2 doesn’t warm up the atmosphere.

    As for the commenters, well, what would you expect? Its the internetzz.

    Abgout that astronomer, that was something new to me. He writes an impressive diatribe against the greenhouse theory. Having not read it with sharp eyes, I’ll assume that since I can’t even find this paper under WUWT, that Anthony Watts didn’t even dared to link to it, it doesn’t bode well to the paper at all, rofl.

    Lastly. I don’t understand your maths, you count 3-0, but I only see two examples ;) .

  90. TheBlackCat

    I find the argument that scientists are just in it for the grant money nonsensical, at least from the people who insist they accept global warming, they just don’t think humans are to blame. If that is the case, then how are grants in any way tied to the warming being human-caused?

    If you agree the changes are happening, that means we need climatologist working on figuring out what is going to happen, where it is going to happen, and when it is going to happen so people can start preparing. In fact there would be even more money available, since they would still need researchers working on figuring out what is causing the warming.

    People keep arguing that if scientists didn’t conspire to prop up AGW it would hurt them financially, but I have not see any actual reason this would be the case.

  91. Steve Metzler

    Luis Dias (#65) says:

    Very few people and zero scientists ever argued that CO2 doesn’t contribute to the warming of the planet. Nice way to stupidify the conversation.

    So… why are you trying to downplay Mann’s findings then? His research supports the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more warming. Forget about the last 1000 years. Ice core samples show that in the last *400,000 years* the CO2 level has never been above the pre-industrial level of 280ppm. Now, a mere 200 years later, it’s at 390ppm and rising *exponentially*. And that extra CO2 has demonstrably caused the global temperature to rise by about 0.8C in that period.

    I’ll repeat what you just said, in case you forgot:

    Very few people and zero scientists ever argued that CO2 doesn’t contribute to the warming of the planet.

    Oh, but of course. The biggest problem deniers have is trying to maintain logical consistency. You’ve got to remember who you’ve told which lies to. And you can’t even do that in the same *thread*.

  92. Luis Dias

    Such as?

    Derecho64, do you really want me to produce the (now) hundreds of thousands of papers written on climatology, etc.?

    Chris,

    hat’s half of it. You referred to Dr. Mann as “the incompetent MM”. You did not mention his work, much less inform us why you thought its conclusions were mistaken.

    Such is life. Just as many people here refer to other people in even more derogatory terms, I am astonished (not) that you picked me for your little shenanigans… my opinions on the competence of the PhD in question are founded on my witnessing of events, works, replies and sheer (repeating myself) shenanigans coming from said person. I’m sorry but I do live in a free country and I, despite your attempts to shut me up, am free to adjectivize mr. Mann as an incompetent bloke. Even if mr. Plait would censor me, I could well say this on other venues. Deal with it.

    This is known as an ad hominem attack

    No, it isn’t. Do you even understand the meaning of an ad hom? The fallacy is to state that person x said something wrong, therefore if he states y, y is wrong too, by definition. I have done nothing of the sort.

    The other half is your post #23, where you recommend another blog for its more respectful discussion.

    Since people only like to suggest WUWT, I thought I would give dear professor Curry a little pub with its much better discussion tone. Or are you suggesting that this blog is a proper blog to discuss climate discussions? This blog rarely focus on that theme, so your point here is lost on me.

    Far be it from me to suggest that Dr. Mann, or myself, should be above criticism. But I do expect that such criticism should have some substance and some cogency.

    So then inform yourself and read more than the usual people who have nothing but good things to say about certain climatologists.

  93. Luis Dias

    So… why are you trying to downplay Mann’s findings then? His research supports the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more warming.

    Because it’s bad science, Steve, and because it has, nonetheless, been defended and sustained even though knowing it was bad science, which is worrying, and should worry you too.

    Ice core samples show that in the last *400,000 years* the CO2 level has never been above the pre-industrial level of 280ppm. Now, a mere 200 years later, it’s at 390ppm and rising *exponentially*. And that extra CO2 has demonstrably caused the global temperature to rise by about 0.8C in that period.

    Mann’s work has nothing to do with this assessment. Still, you are just giving a very simplistic take on the matter, and one that doesn’t align itself even with the IPCC’s take. It is “consensual” knowledge that CO2 has only significantly impacted global climate in the past 40 years, not the past 100.

    Oh, but of course. The biggest problem deniers have is trying to maintain logical consistency.

    Usually the problem only comes when certain people try to arrange all the “others” that disagree with them in the same category and in the same sac, and then they complain that they are not being “consistent” between each other. But then you see, that is only a problem of your making.

  94. TheBlackCat

    Do you even understand the meaning of an ad hom? The fallacy is to state that person x said something wrong, therefore if he states y, y is wrong too, by definition. I have done nothing of the sort.

    Your first sentence is pretty ironic, since the definition in the second sentence is wrong. Although your definition is an example of the use of ad hominem fallacy, it is not the only way the fallacy can be manifested. The fallacy includes any instance where you attack the person rather than the argument he or she makes.

    So in this case, you were certainly using the ad hominem fallacy, because you don’t bother to actually address any of the arguments or points made in the letter, you justify ignoring them by calling Mann “incompetent”.

    You also use the “guilt be association” fallacy to dismiss Phil’s points simply because he chooses to associate with Mann.

  95. Luis Dias

    To attack someone is certainly not an ad hom. It’s a plain and simple attack, The Black Cat. I think this is too obvious. As far as the guilt by association thingy, please. So now I can’t state my dismal to see Phil Plait associating himself to someone I really dislike? Of course I can, that is ridiculous. Guilt by association would be if I would paint Phil Plait as an incompetent bloke because he associates himself with dr. Mann.

    Do try to keep up, will ya.

  96. Daniel J. Andrews

    Because it’s bad science, Steve, and because it has, nonetheless, been defended and sustained even though knowing it was bad science, which is worrying, and should worry you too

    Then demonstrate it is bad science. In the peer-reviewed journals. Do it yourself if you can’t find it in the journals. Here’s the data and sources: realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    Hockey stick has been redone with different statistical methodologies (Mann redid it using the recommendations given him by the statisticians and guess what–it looked pretty much the same as the original)—redone with different data temperature data sets, redone with different proxy data sets, redone and re-examined by science academies around the world (including the NAS), it has been redone by people sitting at home. And it all comes up hockey stick shaped. What more can be done?! This is very solid science. Here’s five minute Peter Sinclair Crock of the Week video (hockey stick comes in halfway through).

    youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_embedded#!

    You are not only accusing Mann of bad science and being corrupt, but every academy of corruption and/or incompetence. And your basis for that is what? Something written on a blog? The Wegman Report?

    The discredited Wegman Report was used as evidence that Mann’s work was wrong. The Wegman Report and Wegman are now under investigation for plagerism, altering the meaning of the text they plagerized, passing themselves off as independent investigators and experts (Wegman and a grad student or two), along with a whole list of other things. They distorted the literature they copied to make it say what it didn’t say. It is painfully obvious they did not know what they were talking about.

    Read the detailed and fully referenced work done by John Mashey here (follow the pdf links for the reports).
    deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

  97. Luis Dias

    Then demonstrate it is bad science

    I don’t have to. Both Wegman and the PNAS report have done so already, and to claim that an accusation of “plagiarism” is indicative of the wrongness of a report is silly. All a plagiarism case can achieve is to recognise that some paragraphs were stolen from the literature without consent. Oh the kittens!

    Mann redid it using the recommendations given him by the statisticians and guess what–it looked pretty much the same as the original

    That’s mainly because the methods are basically the same, while pouring some more proxies that get “the message” as he wants it to be. Its bias is so blatant and obvious, and is so obviously polluting his science that I can’t understand how on earth are people still defending his work.

    This is very solid science.

    Please, do continue. This is better than Conan.

    You are not only accusing Mann of bad science and being corrupt, but every academy of corruption and/or incompetence. And your basis for that is what? Something written on a blog? The Wegman Report?

    Corruption and incompetence is a common human feature. You should expect it in a very heuristical science field such as climate science is, where biases polute results towards the most “interesting” results. This is a tendency that one should be aware of, always. This does not mean however that all of science is corrupted, there are aplenty of papers being published that do not suffer from the same corruptions.

    Read this article, “Lies Damned Lies and Medical Science” to get the hint of the problem we are facing with these sigma 1 or 2 based sciences.

    And please, referring to deepclimate? Joe Romm is now an expert on anything other than his own ego? Come on, do you really want me to go down that level and bring on some Anthony Watts or something? The Wegman report was correct in its fundamental judgement, and it was corroborated by the PNAS report in 2006, where they concluded that the hockey stick was “robust” and “solid” only after 1600, which is a detail that you won’t hear on Realclimate nor DeepClimate, etc.

  98. Steve Metzler

    Luis Dias (#95) says:

    Because it’s bad science, Steve, and because it has, nonetheless, been defended and sustained even though knowing it was bad science, which is worrying, and should worry you too.

    So the dozen or so independent paleoclimate studies that have been done since MBH98/99 and largely corroborate it’s findings are “bad science” too? You WUWT dupes are unreal. You actually believe that the science that makes wonders like modern medicine and computer technology possible is great stuff indeed, and the scientists that work in those areas are (mostly) brilliant. But in stark contrast, nearly every single practicing climatologist is somehow a corrupt, incompetent imbecile? The cognitive dissonance must very strong in you.

    Re. my discussion of the sudden rise in CO2, you said:

    Mann’s work has nothing to do with this assessment.

    I knew you would say that. But it most certainly does. Else, why would you be so hell bent on discrediting Mann? See, logical consistency is your enemy, Luis. What Mann et. al. have demonstrated is that (over the last 1000 – 2000 years), the global temperature goes through very small perturbations, which can be attributed to natural causes such as solar cycles, volcanic activity, the ENSO, etc. But then along comes the industrial age and *one thing* changes dramatically: the atmospheric concentration of CO2, a known greenhouse gas. And the temperature shoots up. But that’s just a coincidence, right Luis?

    For the WUWT crowd, there *has* to be a Medieval Warm Period, or else that means that mankind is causing the warming. And we can’t have that!

    And this, from your post #22:

    Their reply is inane and irrelevant. They clearly misunderstood the paper, only showing off their blatant incompetence.

    That sounds Orwellian. You don’t by any chance work for the Ministry of Truth?

  99. Steve Metzler

    Luis Dias (#99) says:

    And please, referring to deepclimate? Joe Romm is now an expert on anything other than his own ego?

    Once again you have your sources mixed up. Joe Romm is Climate Progress.

  100. Dave R

    Luis Dias, 99:
    >>Then demonstrate it is bad science. In the peer-reviewed journals.
    >the PNAS report ha[s] done so already

    You’re a liar, Luis Dias. The NAS vindicated it like all the other subsequent studies have done. There is no peer-reviewed study that shows it to be bad science and your false claims about it would never pass peer-review, as you well know — that is why you don’t have the guts to try it.

    As for Wegman, the plagiarism is the least of it, as you would know if you had bothered to read the sources you’ve already been pointed to.

  101. TheBlackCat

    Luis said:

    To attack someone is certainly not an ad hom. It’s a plain and simple attack, The Black Cat. I think this is too obvious.

    From wikipedia

    Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

    From the fallacyfiles.org:

    A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent.

    Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position.

    From Collins English Dictionary

    1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments

    From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

    2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

    Luis said:

    So now I can’t state my dismal to see Phil Plait associating himself to someone I really dislike? Of course I can, that is ridiculous.

    Sure you can, but what you can’t do is use that as the sole grounds for rejecting his arguments.

    Guilt by association would be if I would paint Phil Plait as an incompetent bloke because he associates himself with dr. Mann.

    No, that would be an attack. It becomes a fallacy when you use that as an excuse to dismiss his arguments. Once again, from the fallacy files:

    Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. This is the reverse of an Appeal to Misleading Authority, and might be justly called “Appeal to Anti-Authority”. An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas Guilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups

    From wikipeida:

    An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

    Do you want me to keep going?

    Do try to keep up, will ya.

    Do try to learn something about a subject before you start criticizing people for not understanding it.

  102. Dave R

    Luis Dias, 99:
    >Joe Romm is now an expert on anything other than his own ego?

    And you are now an expert on anything other than parroting anti-science lies from wingnut propaganda sites?

  103. Messier Tidy Upper

    “Mr. Mann, however, wants to return to the bad old days when nobody was permitted to question the research that drives public policy.”
    - Joe Barton (Congresscritter, R-Texas), in his linked letter 2010 Oct. 12th.

    What the …!? Were there *ever* days when the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn’t subject to criticism both fair and otherwise?

    Have the climatologists not have to get their papers past peer review with its challenges and criticisms by fellow experts in the field & do those PhD’s in the area not have to face harsh criticism when they get their degrees involving them defending their thesis’es (plural form =??) against tough criticism and questions again from qualified experts?

    Does Rep. Barton have any idea how science works and how far back the idea of Global Warming goes?

    (Hint: Svante Arrhenius & others in the 18th century.)

  104. anon

    Hey Phil,

    What part of the social contract is it that scientists that take public funds for their research should be unaccountable to the Congress that funds them?

    I can understand that academic freedom may be such that their University cannot toss them out on their ass for their findings, but how does a Congressional Inquiry on the research violate academic freedom? And if it does, how would Congress know what to fund and how much to fund?

    If Congress wanted a Congressional Inquiry into the Hockey Stick in order to fund MORE AGW studies, would you and Mann be so upset?

  105. Imback

    Messier, actually Arrhenius was in the 19th century.

  106. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Imback : Fair enough. Thanks. :-)

    Actually, Svante Arrhenius lived over both the 19th & 20th centuries (b. 19 February 1859, d.2 October 1927) & :

    … in 1896 he [Arrhenius] was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using ‘Stefan’s law’ (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius’ greenhouse law reads as follows:

    “if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.”

    (Italics original, bold added.)

    Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

    Either way, the “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide has been well known for over a hundred years. It wasn’t something that was dreamt up recently by Mike Mann or Al Gore.

    There is an article on wikipedia on the history of “climate change” here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

    which might be of some interest in this context.

    ****

    PS. Given his key role in the idea of the Greenhouse Effect, I reckon “Svante’s Inferno” would be a good alternative name for Venus! ;-)

  107. Doomed in Texas

    I hate to point this out, but my brother works for this SOB. Seriously. Both are graduates of Texas A&M, renown in Texas for the “Aggie Jokes”… which paint “Aggies” as people of low-room temperature IQs. The aggies I’ve known are ignorant of anything except how to screw up traffic (as traffic engineers) and how to breed cows & sheep.

    Yet those SOBes account for a high number of Republicans in government, which is why that party is so anti-science. Texas’s dip-wad Governor is an Aggie. Many believe in “ID” or Creationism because religion is held in high regard by ex-students. Many go on to become evangelical types hell-bent on destroying this nation’s schools.

    This story just reinforces my opinion of Barton & my brother. Barton is a buffoon, and is the reason why I rarely attend family get-togethers if my Aggie brother is there. He’s from the shallow end of the gene pool.

    Those aggies are everywhere, and he keeps getting re-elected because the SOB also own the press down here…

    Yep – we’re all doomed.

  108. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Doomed in Texas :

    The aggies I’ve known are ignorant of anything except how to screw up traffic (as traffic engineers) and how to breed cows & sheep.

    Is that “breed cows and sheep” as in cow with cow / sheep with sheep or breeding cows with sheep!? ;-)

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist bad taste joke temptation.)

    @18. Luis Dias Says:

    I agree, Willis is not someone of “stature”, but to make a statue out of Michael Mann is so displaced that I can’t but laugh.

    Well I think most statutes are made out of stone, eg. marble, or metal, eg. bronze. Making Mike Mann into a statute (like by covering him in gold paint & getting him to stand still for as long as he possibly can?) – yeah not the best use for him! ;-)

    @2. Carey :

    Denialists complaining about being called “denialists” in 3… 2…

    Very much a side issue but I would say that referring to the opponents of the idea of AGW as “deniers” isn’t helpful but counter-productive and is a provocative, insulting thing to do. I know that’s what the BA calls them & I can see why he does it but .. it is name-calling & I don’t think name-calling is a nice or an effective tactic. I suggest using the term “contrarian” instead.

  109. Daniel J. Andrews

    Luis….if you actually read the sources I linked to, you would find they contain links to original sources and science. Joe Romm or Deep Climate or John Mashey are not necessarily experts in everything they discuss, but they do link extensively to people who are experts, unlike disinformer sites who just make stuff up, or misquote real science papers.

    Re: PNAS study. What Dave R (104) said. Follow those links in skepticalscience.com

    Repeating myself, Mann’s work has withstood the test of the fiercest critics–other scientists, and then some. It hasn’t just been redone, it has been improved upon and verified in many different and independent ways. Since Mann 1998 science has moved forward with better methods, better reconstructions, and still the hockey sticks (plural) stand, and keep coming. Claiming otherwise is as idiotic as claiming CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas (that one is physics and chemistry).

    Your arguments come down to

    1) everyone is incompetent or corrupt if they don’t acknowledge Mann’s works as faulty, or if their own work affirms Mann’s works

    2) the IPCC has a political agenda so it has subverted the truth and fooled/corrupted every national science academy worldwide

    Essentially, you’re a conspiracy theorist. You may as well embrace that humans didn’t land on the moon. Those folks use identical tactics.

  110. Daniel J. Andrews

    If Congress wanted a Congressional Inquiry into the Hockey Stick in order to fund MORE AGW studies, would you and Mann be so upset?

    You may as well ask, if Congress wanted a Congressional witch-hunt in order to fund MORE AGW studies, would you and Mann be so upset? A nonsensical question.

    It isn’t the Congressional Inquiry itself.It is the subverting of the process by special interests in Congress. They have accused Mann and others of corruption and fraud, and no mountain of evidence will persuade people like Barton and Inhofe otherwise. Those senators want to drag the scientists through the court system ($$$) simply because they do not like what the science has found.

  111. anon

    “Essentially, you’re a conspiracy theorist. You may as well embrace that humans didn’t land on the moon. Those folks use identical tactics.”

    This argument one is always good for some belly laughs and a few tears, because as Phil can tell you, several scientist/engineer astronauts that walked on the moon do not believe in AGW.

    “American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon—is the latest scientist to be added to the roster of more than 70 skeptics who will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009. ”

    or

    “United States Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas Patten Stafford. … General Stafford tells me he agrees wholeheartedly with NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt ”

    or

    “Twenty years ago, the alarmists were talking about the science. Now, without the facts on their side, they are reduced to talking about other justifications, like “consensus science.” Those of us who never bought into AGW, talk about empirical data and the science involved. After years of looking, I have not found one piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on global climate.

    Walter Cunningham is a geophysicist, fighter pilot, and Apollo 7 astronaut. This article first appeared in the Houston Chronicle.”

    But go ahead, you’re doing so well, tell us more about how anyone who doesn’t agree is a conspiracy theorist.

  112. ND

    Not Schmitt again. He doesn’t do climatology. His opinion has no weight in this issue. Why should their opinion be taken over those who actually study the climate?

  113. Paul in Sweden

    What the …!? Were there *ever* days when the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn’t subject to criticism both fair and otherwise?
    ———–
    Mann was a media darling of the Global Warming Industry prior to climategate. I find it amusing that so much attention is paid to Mann’s pathetic appeal to preserve the leftists in the United States congress to shield him from those that would scrutinize his work.

    MTU, last week one scientist did speak out of a time when science was different and his current disdain for what it has become and the free hand that CAGW activists have in the science academies.

    ——————-
    Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

    From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
    To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

    6 October 2010

    Dear Curt:

    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

    Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

    3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

    Hal

    -http://tinyurl.com/2ab7uto

    ——————-
    Along those same sentiments:

    The Royal Society Free Fall

    “Pseudoscientific” may seem a bit of a harsh charge to lay at the door of the reverend body founded in 1660 whose alumni include such distinguished figures as Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Hans Sloane, Sir Joseph Banks and leading palaeopiezometrist Bob Ward. The problem is, in the latter part of the last century and the first bit of this one, it managed to urinate three centuries’ worth of credibility and rigour up against the wall by deciding to abandon all objectivity and act as cheerleader for the Man Made Global Warming lobby.
    -http://tinyurl.com/3yn6ycr
    ——————–
    How about the indictment of the IPCC by it’s IAC initiated investigation regarding the reforms needed not only to ensure accuracy but also to remove the inherent bias and corruption of the IPCC assessment process?
    ——————–
    In the media you can look at this past week’s announcement by the BBC that it will(if you can believe them) work to remove bias in Climate Science coverage.

    BBC given a mandate: balanced climate change coverage
    -http://tinyurl.com/3ah3x35
    ——————–
    In other popular media this week, William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
    -http://tinyurl.com/389aer2
    As if wiki articles could ever be considered a source for anything on any topic…The Connolley removal is pretty meaningless, his co-conspirators will carry on.
    ————–

    One has to be willfully blind not to see the bias in the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Mann will be investigated. US elections will occur in the USA in November and as always our climate will change.

  114. Rep. Barton knows that when faced with a choice of speaking the truth or risking their sinecure, most scientists will shut up and toe the line, whatever Barton says it is. He is the Alpha Dog. It’s good that Dr. Mann says no way. But for every Mike Mann there are 10,000 degreed scientists ready to gleefully stick their head in the dirt. That’s why we have a scientifically illiterate society in the U.S. today. It’s not because of people like Barton, they are a dime a dozen and always will be. It’s because of scientists being so spineless as to not even defend their own profession because it might affect their paycheck. And Joe Barton knows this. So he will always win.

  115. As a resident of Massachusetts, the sooner Texas could secede from the United States and stop inflicting its mind-raping ignorance on the rest of the country, the better. We wish you well in legislating that 2+2=5 but would like to make that decision on our own. Have fun with that pre-Newtonian theory of gravity.

  116. Paul in Sweden

    117. Doug Watts Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    As a resident of Massachusetts

    Doug for you a resident of Massachusetts I hope for the rapid building and implementation of the Mass Wind offshore Ted Kennedy Memorial wind park. For residents of California I hope that the California Jobs Ballot Initiative fails and that AB 32 is put into effect. California and Massachusetts should be examples to the rest of the country and brought to the attention of the full senate and house each and every time CAGW legislation is proposed in the years to come.

  117. Samwise Gamgee

    “No, it isn’t. Do you even understand the meaning of an ad hom? The fallacy is to state that person x said something wrong, therefore if he states y, y is wrong too, by definition. I have done nothing of the sort.”

    Whoa deja vu! Haven’t we seen this type of hypocritical prevarication with long lost Lonny Eachus?

  118. Dave R

    Anon, 113:
    >I have not found one piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on global climate.

    It is very difficult to find.

  119. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, thanks for pasting in the Hal Lewis ridiculous Hal Lewis conspiracy theory letter, just in case anyone had forgotten what an idiot you are.

  120. Ken

    RE: ” the climate is changing, the globe is warming, and all the denying, all th… noise, all the letter writing you can do will not change those simple facts”

    OBSERVATION: Rep Barton & other climate change “deniers” DO CONCEDE that climate IS changing by getting warmer. What they disbelieve is that human emissions of CO2 matter/contribute, and, that the projected changes will really matter in the long run.

    Its not the “change” they disbelieve its the [alleged] cause they disbelieve. This is a very simple distinction and its a very significant distinction.

    Yet PhD after PhD, including Phil Plait & others blather on about them denying the observed “change” (rather than the cause).

    So of course they don’t take you seriously when you misattribute their focus of disbelief. They, correctly, perceive you as either too stupid to recognize the distinction, or, motivated to slander & exaggerate (or both). Regardless, you undermine your integrity & authority almost instantly in trying to argue the point by arguing the wrong point.

    Which is to say, Don’t be a Dick. And maybe you’ll be more effective.

    And you might want to consider that many statisticians have noted that every single climate model has failed, utterly failed, to PREDICT the past decade’s relative lack of warming. ‘Trenbeth’ (spelling?) has noted in the CRU e-mails that the inability to explain this is bad. So when Mann uses a reference of “the past 30 years” please note that he also states, correctly, that he & his colleagues “use real world data to reconstruct PAST climate changes” [emphasis added].

    Big whoop. In his defense he boasts of BACKWARD-LOOKING models as if that’s hard to develop.

    CERN & its researchers, by the way, is regarded as pretty knowledgeable & they’re trying to GET OBJECTIVE DATA on solar & cloud related interactions to confirm & quantify hypotesized interactions (which have been confirmed for special conditions). These may completely revamp climate theory, or they might not. There isn’t data to know. Here’s the lecture from CERN:

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    IF you think you’re smarter than CERN on a matter of uncertainty admitted by the IPCC AND NASA (see: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ ) — PLEASE write a rebuttal. Personally, I’ll wait till some facts are in. Until then I find it difficult to accept a conclusion in ignorance of the identified uncertainties. IF you review much of the “consensus” literature on the subject and are observant, you’ll note that their are certain assumptions carried along implicitly where data is unknown. THAT is significant.

  121. Luis Dias

    Hm… I’m blocked. Figures.

  122. Luis Dias

    Stevens, I can’t post a reply to you, don’t know why. I try but no can do.

    TheBlackCat, you are entirely wrong. I attacked Mann for what he has done, period. I’ve already agreed that the course of action of these GOP blokes is wrong, but I don’t see you acknowledge that. Perhaps you are the one hell bent on shutting me up for whatever reason, no matter how wrong you are.

  123. Luis Dias

    Daniel,

    Luis….if you actually read the sources I linked to, you would find they contain links to original sources and science.

    Yes, I read the 200 page diatribe. It’s a wash.

    Re: PNAS study. What Dave R (104) said. Follow those links in skepticalscience.com

    Dave R is merely trolling me. I have read the PNAS paper and what I said here is the true representation of what they said. I do not understand why you defer to propaganda sites instead of acknowledging the basic facts.

    Repeating myself, Mann’s work has withstood the test of the fiercest critics

    You can repeat yourself a million times, it won’t make it true.

    As for your points 1,2,3. You are blowing my point out of proportion. I have spoken of a tendency, of a bias, not of an evil big conspiracy out to take everyone’s money. Corruption of science, in the sense and in the light of that article I brought here up. There is clearly a political influence in the IPCC process, and this is something that we should watch out for, I also said that I acknowledge its comprehensiveness.

    Essentially, you’re a conspiracy theorist. You may as well embrace that humans didn’t land on the moon. Those folks use identical tactics.

    Yeah, and I’m a creationist too, a zionist scaremonger, a holocaust denier, anti-science, etc. Boy that little black and white world you live in must surely be quite small.

  124. Dave R

    Luis Dias, 124:
    >I have read the PNAS paper and what I said here is the true

    You’re a liar.

    >you defer to propaganda sites

    State which of the sites I’ve linked to you consider to be “propaganda sites”.

  125. Luis Dias

    Dave R, you called me a liar, ok, now provide evidence for that. Do you want me to force you to read the PNAS…. sigh.. … I got to work

  126. Dave R

    Luis Dias, 127:
    >Dave R, you called me a liar, ok, now provide evidence for that.

    I’ve already done so. You claimed to have read the NAS report and you claimed that it showed Mann’s work to be “bad science”. It did not. You are a liar.

  127. Dave R

    Ken, 122:
    >Rep Barton & other climate change “deniers” DO CONCEDE that climate IS changing by getting warmer. What they disbelieve is that human emissions of CO2 matter/contribute

    What morons like Barton believe is irrelevant.

  128. Luis Dias

    I’ve already done so. You claimed to have read the NAS report and you claimed that it showed Mann’s work to be “bad science”. It did not. You are a liar.

    facepalm. Yes it did, for the purpose of the “work” was to show an “unprecedented” warming for the last 1000 years. The PNAS report said “ok, you are right about the 1600 forward, but the previous 600 years, forget about it”. That’s 60% of the graph right there. If this doesn’t sound to you like a powerful refutation, then you’ve been brainwashed.

  129. TheBlackCat

    TheBlackCat, you are entirely wrong. I attacked Mann for what he has done, period.

    Baloney. Here the post of yours that we are discussing, for your reference:

    Big fan of you, PZ, Dawkins, etc., but to claim that to defend Michael Mann from “criticism” is defending reality itself is so awful, it’s not even wrong. Really, you should choose your friends carefully, you won’t look good in the history books if you pick incompetent MM as your pal.

    You don’t bother to address any of the arguments put forward by Mann, you just dismiss them entirely on the ground that Mann is “incompetent”. That is clearly an instance of an ad hominem fallacy, as all of the definitions I posted demonstrate.

    I’ve already agreed that the course of action of these GOP blokes is wrong, but I don’t see you acknowledge that.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that your definition of the ad hominem fallacy is simply wrong, and that you criticized people for not understanding what the ad hominem fallacy is when you are the one who was wrong about it.

    Perhaps you are the one hell bent on shutting me up for whatever reason, no matter how wrong you are.

    Ah, now the martyr complex comes into play. Where have I made the slightest attempt anywhere to make you shut up? Where have I made even the slightest hint that you should shut up?

    All I said is that you don’t understand what an ad hominem fallacy is, and that your first post was an example of it (and an another fallacy) despite your claims to the contrary. How does that in any way imply that you should shut up?

  130. TheBlackCat

    facepalm. Yes it did, for the purpose of the “work” was to show an “unprecedented” warming for the last 1000 years. The PNAS report said “ok, you are right about the 1600 forward, but the previous 600 years, forget about it”. That’s 60% of the graph right there. If this doesn’t sound to you like a powerful refutation, then you’ve been brainwashed.

    According to the Nature article, “Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.”

    So, assuming the Nature article is correct, PNAS claimed Mann was twice as likely to be right than wrong. The hardly sounds like a “forget about it”.

  131. Luis Dias

    You don’t bother to address any of the arguments put forward by Mann, you just dismiss them entirely on the ground that Mann is “incompetent”. That is clearly an instance of an ad hominem fallacy, as all of the definitions I posted demonstrate.

    No, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I criticized the idea that defending Mann is defending reality, which is ludicrous. Please read what I say with more care.

    That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that your definition of the ad hominem fallacy is simply wrong

    How so, if all of your silly attempts to flood me with dictionary definitions only confirm my own definition… really, you are starting to embarrass yourself now.

    Ah, now the martyr complex comes into play.

    Do you deny that you are hellbent in showing that I am “wrong” no matter what? Can’t you make an exercise of pause and reflection and see that’s what you’ve been doing?

    According to the Nature article, “Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.”

    Why don’t you read the PNAS report instead of relying on second sources? two to one chance might seem great, it’s ridiculously small. Most scientific studies are found to be insignificant if their statistical competence doesn’t rise above 95%, and even those who arrive at that figure, many of them are still wrong. 66% is a joke, hardly better than any random line, which was what the recent 2010 paper found out anyway and what McIntyre has been saying for all these years.

  132. Chris Winter

    @Luis Dias #94:

    Oh, please! Intentional misreading of what I posted, followed by a baselessly dismal evaluation of the state of my knowledge.

    By the logic of your own post #94 I’d be justified in calling you an illiterate rumormonger — without giving any reasons for those charges.

    Look to the state of your own knowledge, sir.

  133. TheBlackCat

    No, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I criticized the idea that defending Mann is defending reality, which is ludicrous. Please read what I say with more care.

    And you do that solely on the grounds that Mann is “incompetent”, without addressing any of Phil’s reasons.

    How so, if all of your silly attempts to flood me with dictionary definitions only confirm my own definition… really, you are starting to embarrass yourself now.

    What?! How did they confirm your definition? They were totally different from your definition, and exactly the same as my definition.

    Let’s try this again. Here is your definition, from post 94:

    “The fallacy is to state that person x said something wrong, therefore if he states y, y is wrong too, by definition.”

    Here is my definition, from two posts later:

    “The fallacy includes any instance where you attack the person rather than the argument he or she makes. ”

    And here is the definition from the fallacyfiles:

    “A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. ”

    Please explain to me how that “confirms your definition”? Yes, your definition is included as a subset of this, but it also includes a lot more than your definition, including behavior you said was NOT an ad hominem.

    Do you deny that you are hellbent in showing that I am “wrong” no matter what?

    I totally deny it. I am “hellbent” in showing you are wrong because you are wrong. That is the only reason.

    And even if i was “hellbent” on showing you are wrong for totally different reasons, how does showing you are wrong about one specific definition you used in any way imply you should “shut up”?

    The question is why are you so “hellbent” on insisting you are right despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Can’t you make an exercise of pause and reflection and see that’s what you’ve been doing?

    I’m well aware of what I am doing, I am trying to correct a misunderstanding of basic logic.

    two to one chance might seem great, it’s ridiculously small.

    That depends on the system in question. But once again, it is hardly a “forget about it”, that would be the case is his results were more likely to be wrong than right. I am not saying the results were right, I am saying your characterization of the NAS report is wrong.

    Once again, there is a difference. If you notice, I am not arguing against your overall conclusions, I am trying to correct a few specific mistakes you are making.

    Most scientific studies are found to be insignificant if their statistical competence doesn’t rise above 95%

    No, they are found to have not demonstrated significance, there is a big difference.

    and even those who arrive at that figure, many of them are still wrong

    About 1 in 20, by definition.

    66% is a joke, hardly better than any random line

    That depends on the system in question.

    and even those who arrive at that figure, many of them are still wrong

    I am going to wait until that paper is published. The website claims that it is going to be published along with a lot of discussion from other parties, so I will see what they say about the results before I judge it. The fact that it is being accompanied by such discussion implies that is is not as cut-and-dried as you imply. Papers whose conclusions are not contentious generally do not have such discussion published alongside them.

  134. Chris Winter

    Ken (#122) wrote: OBSERVATION: Rep Barton & other climate change “deniers” DO CONCEDE that climate IS changing by getting warmer. What they disbelieve is that human emissions of CO2 matter/contribute, and, that the projected changes will really matter in the long run.

    Its not the “change” they disbelieve its the [alleged] cause they disbelieve. This is a very simple distinction and its a very significant distinction.”

    That’s a valid observation. BUT informal discussions commonly use shorthand, and in this case the current change our climate is undergoing is commonly referred to as “climate change” or “AGW”. That’s justified because the science that suggests we’re causing the current change is well established, if not quite as well established as that for the effect of greenhouse gases.

    Both these scientific ideas are well-founded enough that Barton should not be criticizing either one, lacking any scientific support for such criticism as he does.

    I read the rest of your post as arguing that since there are some uncertainties in our knowledge of climate science, no one is justified in defending the basic understanding of that science. I’ll remind you that this basic understanding includes the undisputed fact that water vapor, carbon dioxide and other gases can and do trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere, and that rising temperatures and CO2 concentrations measured over many years confirm that humans, by burning fossil fuels, are indeed warming the planet.

    In blogging about the subject, both sides often fall short of completely expressing every nuance of the subject in their posts. But the side that disputes the basic facts of climate science falls far more grievously short, and generally resists admitting this.

  135. Dave R

    >the purpose of the “work” was to show an “unprecedented” warming for the last 1000 years.

    No it wasn’t. It’s purpose was to make the best reconstruction possible of temperatures over that period, drawing the conclusions that were supported by the data.

    Here is what the paper actually says:

    The 20th Century is nominally the warmest of the millenium. Expanded uncertainties in centennial means prior to AD1600, and warmer conditions during the earlier centuries of the millenium, however, preclude a definitive statement prior to AD1400.

    >The PNAS report said “ok, you are right about the 1600 forward, but the previous 600 years, forget about it”.

    No it didn’t, it said there was less confidence in that period, just as the MBH paper itself said.

    >If this doesn’t sound to you like a powerful refutation, then you’ve been brainwashed.

    This doesn’t sound like a powerful refutation — let alone an accusation of “bad science” as you falsely claimed — to me, nor to Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The fact that an anti-science kook like you disagrees with them counts for nothing.

  136. Dave R

    My #137 above was in response to Luis Dias.

  137. Luis Dias

    And you do that solely on the grounds that Mann is “incompetent”, without addressing any of Phil’s reasons.

    Because I had nothing to say about that? Because I haven’t got to say everything about everything? Are you really asking me to write an entire thesis everytime I write something on a comment page of a blog? Jeeze.

    “The fallacy includes any instance where you attack the person rather than the argument he or she makes. ”

    (…)

    “A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. ”

    This does confirm my definition. If I state that person X says (or does) something else wrong to argue that when he is now saying another thing he is also wrong, I would be doing exactly what you are double quoting.

    Yes, your definition is included as a subset of this, but it also includes a lot more than your definition, including behavior you said was NOT an ad hominem.

    Wrong. To simply attack someone is not an ad hominem. It’s a plain attack, it’s the argument itself. I did not use the attack to make *another* argument, I simply said that defending incompetent Mann is surely not defending “reality”, whatever that is.

    The question is why are you so “hellbent” on insisting you are right despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Because I’m right. As always, ahah.

    That depends on the system in question. But once again, it is hardly a “forget about it”, that would be the case is his results were more likely to be wrong than right. I am not saying the results were right, I am saying your characterization of the NAS report is wrong.

    I disagree, it’s quite accurate. And please inform me in which “system” a two to one chance of a scientific statement being right is a *good* result. You really have no idea of what you are talking about, do you?

    No, they are found to have not demonstrated significance, there is a big difference.

    Sigh… read what you said there, can’t you see where you went wrong? Of course, if a paper does not show significance, then how can you tell me that I can’t say that they are found to be insignificant? Surely the onus is on the people making the claims, not otherwise!!

    About 1 in 20, by definition.

    Wrong again. This 1 in 20 is a statistical figure that is rendered a priori, in the paper itself, but it carries a lot of assumptions, like the perfection of the method, the perfection of the data it analyses, the total lack of bias, etc. There is simply no paper that can do all of this. The result is that a paper that only makes the 95% confidence level is a paper where we can barely trust. (It’s no coincidence that in physics, the criteria is sigma 5 or 6, 99.99995% or something like that)

    Really, read the article I linked above about medical science. I assure you, it’s nothing of the WUWT category, lol (it’s quite mainstream, surprisingly)

    The fact that it is being accompanied by such discussion implies that is is not as cut-and-dried as you imply.

    No, it implies that it is controversial, since it refutes a lot of past work, work that is highly defended by the climatological circles. So of course, a lot of discussion will be done, I just hope that the usual shenanigans from Mann and some of his colleagues are taken to the task.

  138. Dave R

    TheBlackCat, 135:
    >I am going to wait until that [McShane & Wyner, presumably] paper is published. The website claims that it is going to be published along with a lot of discussion from other parties

    A comment on it has been accepted for publication in the same journal. Some details and a link to the PDF in this post.

  139. Luis Dias

    The fact that an anti-science kook like you disagrees with them counts for nothing.

    Oh really? And I here thinking that I had the power to kill all of the marxizt conspiratorz that are taking over the worldz with the press of a red button… oh wait.

  140. TheBlackCat

    Because I had nothing to say about that? Because I haven’t got to say everything about everything? Are you really asking me to write an entire thesis everytime I write something on a comment page of a blog? Jeeze.

    I don’t think actually addressing the arguments someone made is asking too much. That fact that you act so put upon simply at people suggesting you back up your assertions is disappointing.

    This does confirm my definition. If I state that person X says (or does) something else wrong to argue that when he is now saying another thing he is also wrong, I would be doing exactly what you are double quoting.

    Yes, once again, your definition is a type of ad hominem. That is what I have been saying from the very beginning, and have said repeatedly since then. However it is not the only type of ad hominem, which is what you claimed.

    It’s a plain attack, it’s the argument itself. I did not use the attack to make *another* argument, I simply said that defending incompetent Mann is surely not defending “reality”, whatever that is.

    Yes, and because it is your entire argument it is a fallacy. If you were to explain why you think Phil’s argument is flawed, and you insult Mann at some point, that would NOT be an ad hominem because you are not using it as a reason for your argument, or at least not the only reason. But when your entire argument against Phil is an insult against Mann, and you don’t actually bother to address any of Phil’s points, that is an ad hominem. It is a fallacy because you base your entire argument on something that does not in any way address your opponent’s real claims.

    I disagree, it’s quite accurate.

    I’ll take the word of one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world over yours any day, sorry.

    And please inform me in which “system” a two to one chance of a scientific statement being right is a *good* result. You really have no idea of what you are talking about, do you?

    I take it you don’t understand the difference between “good” (the word you use here) and not ” ridiculously small” (the phrase I was actually replying to)? And for specifics, an example would be a preliminary human study with only a small number of subjects. It can be extremely hard to get high confidence levels under such conditions, but smaller levels can still be sufficient to indicate something interesting might be going on and further study is warranted.

    Of course, if a paper does not show significance, then how can you tell me that I can’t say that they are found to be insignificant?

    Showing significance means you show the connection between two things is significant. Showing insignificance means you show the connection between two things is insignificant. The third situation is that you don’t know, your results may point in one direction or another but they are not sufficient to draw a firm conclusion. That is the case of Mann’s work, as the original paper pointed out.

    This 1 in 20 is a statistical figure that is rendered a priori, in the paper itself, but it carries a lot of assumptions, like the perfection of the method, the perfection of the data it analyses, the total lack of bias, etc.

    Obviously, but this could just as easily mean the results are more significant than calculated. All statistics, all mathematics for that matter, assume the techniques are properly applied (within certain bounds). If you throw out that assumption then there is no point doing statistics in the first place, since the results are totally meaningless.

    No, it implies that it is controversial, since it refutes a lot of past work, work that is highly defended by the climatological circles. So of course, a lot of discussion will be done, I just hope that the usual shenanigans from Mann and some of his colleagues are taken to the task.

    Or the shenanigans of the authors of the paper are taken to task, depending on the outcome of the discussion. You are assuming the discussion will be positive and support the paper, but papers that stand on their own merit usually do not need this, even if they refute a lot of previous work.

  141. Luis Dias

    Yes, and because it is your entire argument it is a fallacy. If you were to explain why you think Phil’s argument is flawed, and you insult Mann at some point, that would NOT be an ad hominem

    I did not say that Phil’s argument is “flawed”, I said that defending Mann = defending “Reality” is ludicrous. I really don’t understand why you are having so much trouble understanding the obvious.

    I’ll take the word of one of the two most prestigious scientific journals in the world over yours any day, sorry.

    Don’t need to apologize, we do live in free countries…

    And for specifics, an example would be a preliminary human study with only a small number of subjects. It can be extremely hard to get high confidence levels under such conditions, but smaller levels can still be sufficient to indicate something interesting might be going on and further study is warranted.

    So you are saying that MBH99 which was rendered 7 times in the IPCC report, and shown as a cover for the book, and as a marketing chart all over the place is at par with a “preliminary” study where we find that … there’s probably something to find? Really? And you don’t see anything wrong in that.

    Showing significance means you show the connection between two things is significant. Showing insignificance means you show the connection between two things is insignificant. The third situation is that you don’t know, your results may point in one direction or another but they are not sufficient to draw a firm conclusion. That is the case of Mann’s work, as the original paper pointed out.

    Wrong. Any failed test of significance shows that the thesis/correlation/whatever is statistically insignificant. There is no tertium datur.

    Obviously, but this could just as easily mean the results are more significant than calculated

    Empirical analysis shows you otherwise, it is *far far* more certain that the results are significantly lower, everytime. That’s why whenever you hear about a “study” showing that if you eat a lot of bananas will reduce your risk of cancer, you should just plainly ignore it.

    Or the shenanigans of the authors of the paper are taken to task, depending on the outcome of the discussion. You are assuming the discussion will be positive and support the paper

    Not really. If history is any indication, Mann et al will provide a heck lot of shenanigans that are either irrelevant, red herrings, etc., just as they already started with their first reply. I do hope the journal doesn’t just let these slide.

  142. Derecho64

    The upshot of all of Luis’ commentary is that he doesn’t like Mike Mann.

    Doesn’t mean Mann is “incompetent”.

  143. Paul in Sweden

    144. Derecho64 Says:
    October 15th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    The upshot of all of Luis’ commentary is that he doesn’t like Mike Mann.

    Doesn’t mean Mann is “incompetent”.

    You are right, none of this means Mann is incompetent, that determination will be up to the Barton hearings next year. Mann being recognized as incompetent might not be as bad as being found guilty of fraud via VFATA(Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act) but we have some time for Va. AG Cuccinelli to determine that after the CIDs are worked out.

  144. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, 145:
    >[whether] Mann is incompetent, that determination will be up to the Barton hearings next year.

    Another fine example of how profoundly anti-science the denial camp is — this one sincerely believes that it is for politicians to decide whether science is correct or not.

  145. Paul in Sweden

    @146. Dave R

    Peer-review & the science academies have abdicated their authority on “climate science” and have instead taken on political advocacy. Litigation for the imposition of unwarranted environmental regulation and political censure for activist scientists are the only recourse.

    Belly-ache all you want, scream the same mantras over and over, it really doesn’t matter.

  146. Dave R

    ^ And of course the bottom line, as always — it’s all a gigantic conspiracy.

  147. Brian Too

    Congressman Barton jumped the shark when he apologized to BP. Think of it, he apologized to BP after they caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

    That was a moment of illumination on where his head is at.

  148. Buzz Parsec

    @1 Larian, actually I think the quote is from the gun dealer in “The Friends of Eddie Coyle”, when he’s meeting with the young soldiers who are offering to sell him stolen machine guns, and he refuses to drive up a blind alley to meet them. Great movie, partly filmed in my home town.

  149. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #147:

    Peer-review & the science academies have abdicated their authority on “climate science” and have instead taken on political advocacy.

    So if the vast majority of astronomers decide through the evidence, that an asteroid that is big enough to cause serious damage is quite possibly on a collision course with the Earth and that the government needs to do something to prevent the collision. Meanwhile on the other side, some special interest groups that stand to lose money (survivalist supply salesmen, gun manufactures, and bunker manufactures for example ) and a few scientists, most of whom have nothing to do with astronomy/astrophysics, call out again the “waste of money” and the public imposition.

    First the asteroid denialists would claim that there’s no chance an impact will happen.
    When that fails, that there is nothing we can do to stop it anyhow.
    And when that fails, they’ll just claim that it wouldn’t be that bad and might even be beneficial to humanity.

    Then by your logic, Paul, we should not only do nothing, but the politicians that know nothing about the science should drag the scientists into court for trying “political advocacy” to save the planet even when the vast majority of those in relevant fields agree with the conclusions.
    Riiiigght…

    Belly-ache all you want, scream the same mantras over and over, it really doesn’t matter.

    True.
    Denying that the planet has been getting hotter and that it has been occurring faster than at any other time in history, won’t change what is happening.

    Denying that the warming patterns and other evidence (cooling Stratosphere and decreasing IR emissions in the appropriate frequencies for example) is consistent with a CO2 cause, won’t change anything.

    Denying that the increase in CO2 seems to be primarily anthropogenic (C12/C13 ratios for example), won’t change anything.

    Denying that ice masses aren’t melting won’t change anything.

    Politicians suing scientists won’t change anything either.
    Only action will change anything.

    That’s why I find it ironic that all this time the denialists are trying to stall any efforts to improve anything (as if ridding the world from a dependence on fossil fuels would be soooo bad), they have also been stonewalling exactly the measures that could have reduced fossil fuel usage while lessening the scope and wasteful spending by governments by ending subsidies and corporate welfare to (and wars supporting) the major fossil fuel companies.
    Yeah that makes sense….

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    In the meantime I’d like to give a “shout-out” to the Skeptical Science phone app. It’s available for Android, iPhone, and Nokia. (And no…I have absolutely no connection to them.)

    Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
    The info for the apps is on the right side of the web page.

    Not only is it free and very handy, and best of all you AGW denialists can use it to debunk yourselves all day! (Yes..it does provide links to the research both pro and con, so does their website).

    Que the calls of a how a site that provides balanced arguments, cites its sources on both sides, and deletes comments too inflammatory or non-constructive (even when aimed at the denialists) is “too biased”. In 5… 4… 3… 2…

  150. Zetetic

    Just for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings in my last post….. (the edit option timed out)

    Let me clarify that in my opinion that there are those that disagree with AGW but are open to evidence contrary to their opinions, and those that really aren’t (even if they may believe themselves to be). Those that aren’t open to the evidence is what I’m referring to as “deniers” or “denialists”.

  151. Pigeon 217

    For residents of California I hope that the California Jobs Ballot Initiative fails and that AB 32 is put into effect.

    I love it when the distant and ignorant spout off and advocate things where they won’t have to live with the consequences. You are living in a childish fantasy world devoid of economic realities.

    That bill *will* put many people, possibly millions, out of work, and all the alleged “green” jobs will all be in China. People like you will have us back to serfdom in short order. Maybe if the economy was better we could do it, but right now AB 32 will push the state into bankruptcy or whatever it would be. No one is sure. The California legislature is the first one incompetent enough to bankrupt a state, so it’s new territory. Economic analysis by people from all over the ideological spectrum agree on this. Even some of the regional environmental boards around the state are beginning to balk at it.

    Most likely the state would have to enter some sort of federal receivership, and the courts would step in and reformulate everything. All these employee unions who have refused to budge an inch will see EVERYTHING canceled and invalidated. Real brilliant strategy, unions. [facepalm]

    Seriously, this is basically how it went:

    STATE: We need to deal. The money isn’t there.
    UNIONS: No compromise.
    STATE: No money. We already passed the largest state tax increase in US history in 2009. Didn’t help.
    UNIONS: Don’t care. We have contracts.
    STATE. There. Is. No. Money. And, honestly, the contracts were insane. The only sane course is negotiation.
    UNIONS; Not budging.
    STATE: But there’s no money. It’s all crash down and you’ll be left with nothing if you don’t come to the table.
    UNIONS: Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Not listening!
    STATE: (goes bankrupt. Union leaders found hanged by their own members)

    Actually, maybe Ab32 should pass. Receivership might be the best thing for this state. Just drive a stake into it and start over.

  152. Paul in Sweden

    @Zetetic
    If a small group of scientists in a new, obscure and poorly understood branch of astronomy made a catastrophic asteroid collision prediction based on crude computer models which were unsupported by observational data I would be suspicious. If that same group of astronomers in that new admittedly poorly understood branch of astronomy told us that we had to restructure the entire world’s economy allowing for the current annual deaths of millions due to poverty & under development to continue and be exacerbated for 100 years with the best outcome resulting in a two week or ten day delay in the catastrophic event I would be reluctant to follow their recommendations.

    If that same cult in that new branch of astronomy were found repeatedly to be in violation of freedom of information legislation, concealed their calculations, were suspected of manipulating data, etc, etc, etc after receiving billions in research grants I would want the whole lot of them investigated for possible fraud.

  153. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, 153:
    >If a small group of scientists in a new, obscure and poorly understood

    Yes, if the position were reversed like that, then of course there would be little reason to take them seriously. But the position is not reversed.

    Your hypothetical example does not provide any grounds for denying the big bang, the moon landings, global warming, evolution or anything else about which there is a scientific consensus. If you want to oppose any of those things you need to provide arguments that actually address then, not fantasy scenarios.

  154. Paul in Sweden

    @Dave R

    Nobody wants to change the entire world’s economy based on the big bang or evolution.

    If you want to change the entire world economy, a typical doomsday fantasy is not sufficient.

    There will be investigations and reappraisals of the proposed actions as well as the already implemented actions surrounding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Do not fear the truth Dave R, it will come out. Maybe your day of vindication is near.

  155. Dave R

    >Nobody wants to change the entire world’s economy based on the big bang or evolution.

    Straw man.

  156. Paul in Sweden

    156. Dave R Says:
    October 16th, 2010 at 6:52 am

    >Nobody wants to change the entire world’s economy based on the big bang or evolution.

    Straw man.

    Yes, definitely evolution, the big bang, etc are straw man arguments. I realized it when I read them in your post. It is too bad you did not realize it when you originally typed them and interjected them into the discussion. It is too late now Dave R. you own it.

    Relax Dave R. COP16 is next month in Mexico and the elections in the USA are weeks away. I am sure everyone in the whole world has joined your “faith” in CAGW and will take the measures your movement deems appropriate.

  157. Derecho64

    I see Paul is merely repeating all the denier memes, as is his usual game.

    Obviously, he has learned nothing from anything anyone has told him. He’s a weak troll, nothing more.

  158. Zetetic

    Paul @ #154:
    If that same cult vast majority of professional scientists in relevant fields in that new branch of astronomy were found repeatedly to be in violation of freedom of information legislation not pandering to the incessant demands of asteroid denialists that can’t even understand the research and was either provided in the research or was denied by an administrative body (not the research unit itself), concealed made their calculations available through the appropriate scientific papers and was repeatedly duplicated by independent research teams from around the world, were suspected baselessly accused without specifics of manipulating data, etc, etc, etc after receiving billions in research grants (ignoring the even greater billions at stake from the opposing side) I would want the whole lot of them investigated for possible fraud have their research peer reviewed by people that can actually understand it and don’t collect fortunes from competing interests.

    Fixed that for you Paul to make it more in keeping with reality and not a list of denialist talking points.

    Funny how the denialists in the crowd still haven’t provided anything credible. The is one of the reasons I turned away from the denialists, they keep sounding more and more like Young Earth Creationists, all the scientific research that they don’t agree with is a global conspiracy and the “truth” is being hidden by that mean old vast majority of the relevant researchers.

  159. Penny Rimbaud

    Paul from Sweden said:

    “It is too late now Dave R. you own it.”

    Judging from some of the comments directed towards you Paul, you’ve been owned yourself.

  160. Paul in Sweden

    Oh, Penny, Penny, Penny. Penny :)

    Zealots are always condescending towards atheists so it troubles me little.

    (love TBBT)

  161. Tony Lundquist

    If Catasstrophic global warming is real how come that I feel cold?

    Ha take that warmists! You just don’t have an answer do you? Reel under my killer argument Phil Plait, and his unsceintific cronies!

    http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=45

  162. Daniel J. Andrews

    Apologies if someone has already posted this link. Doing a drive-by posting here.

    profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/shooting-the-messenger-with-blanks/

    Quoting from his site…
    —————————-
    I thought it might be constructive to see how Dr. Mann’s published work stacks up against other, more recent temperature reconstructions….

    [lots of graphs, references, links here. Be sure to look at them]

    The hockey stick-shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been verified by many scientists using different methodologies (PCA, CPS, EIV, isotopic analysis, & direct T measurements).

    To believe Rep. Joe Barton and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli one must also believe in magic. Consider the odds that various international scientists using quite different data and quite different data analysis techniques can all be wrong in the same way. What are the odds that a hockey stick is always the shape of the wrong answer?
    —————————

    The odds are astronomical (heh) to say the least. Attacking Mann’s 1998 hockey stick is the sign of someone who is vastly ignorant concerning at least the last 12 years of research on the subject. Or the sign of a crackpot. Or a liar. Or all three. The hockey sticks are solid. That they aren’t is a silly argument. This argument is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If denialists hadn’t nailed it to their political masthead it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its kicked the bucket, its shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ARGUMENT!! :)

  163. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #162:

    Zealots Evolutionists are always condescending towards atheists creationists so it troubles me little.

    Fixed that one for you too there Paul, to make it more fitting. No need to thank me, I’m just trying to help.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    @ Daniel J. Andrews:

    That they aren’t is a silly argument. This argument is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If denialists hadn’t nailed it to their political masthead it’d be pushing up the daisies! Its kicked the bucket, its shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ARGUMENT!!

    Quite so, and funny BTW, but that same could also be said about the arguments against evolution, vaccination, or Heliocentrism unfortunately “denial” ain’t just a river in Egypt!

    I never cease to be amazed that the same AGW deniers that would justifiably roar with laughter over a YEC’s arguments, using the exact same arguments against AGW and even cozying up with with the “Rapture Ready” fundies over the subject.

    It doesn’t matter how often it’s been refuted, it will still keep getting brought up again and again. I’ll bet that 50 years from now when the planet’s even warmer and the effects are far more noticeable, that there will still be AGW denialists talking about global scientific conspiracies to hide the truth about the upcoming Ice Age and claiming that Phil Jones/Michael Mann/Al Gore had “renounced Global Warming on his death bed”. They’ve already copied just about everything else from the creationist playbook, and many of them are the same people, so why not borrow a few more pages?

  164. Paul in Sweden

    Daniel it is remarkable.

    Those reconstructions should be sent to Cuccinelli should he by some remote chance not already be aware of them.

    That Huang, Pollack, and Shen 2008 graph depicted at that alarmist blog that you linked certainly doesn’t show the striking MWP that the Huang, Pollack, and Shen 1997 paper which used the entire set of 6000 boreholes. It is amazing, one Huang, Pollack, and Shen graph shows all that MWP warming and another Huang, Pollack, and Shen graph that only uses a few hundred select boreholes has the MWP almost completely gone. “Climate Science” is amazing.

    You can see the difference between the Huang, Pollack, and Shen graphs here:
    -http://tinyurl.com/34vu7ak

    That next graph at that alarmist site, the Kaufman et. al. was that one of those upside down tiljander & bristlecone pine reconstructions? I don’t know for sure…

    …anyway Daniel, I think you are right those reconstructions should be brought to Cuccinelli’s attention so he can see what kind of case he really has against Mann. If I were a betting man Daniel, I would wager that those alarmist reconstructions would be of interest to Barton too, after all he will be holding hearings next year in congress.

  165. Paul in Sweden

    @165. Zetetic

    Keep your faith in CAGW(and your sense of humor too :) ) your apocalypse of Global Warming may happen one day. However Z. I am sorry to tell you the Global Warming Industry has pretty much canceled the usual “only a few days left to save the world” hysterics leading up to the annual UN Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming convention. It must be worse than we thought Z, they have already pretty much canceled the hysterics for next year in Africa also. Zetetic the CAGW situation is so bad that instead of the 30 people that the BBC sent to Denmark last year the BBC has decided to send one reporter down to Mexico next month and skip any live reporting. I am shocked. You would think that with just about one out of every three democrats in the USA still believing that Global warming is a concern there would be some fanfare for the up coming COP16 festivities in Mexico.

  166. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #167 :

    Keep your faith

    Actually my “faith” is in the evidence and the science.
    You know…that stuff the AGW denialists are always lacking, that’s why almost all their efforts have been smear campaigns and misrepresenting the work of others. You know Paul, the stuff that you’ve come out as supporting.

    I am sorry to tell you the Global Warming Industry has pretty much canceled the usual “only a few days left to save the world” hysterics leading up to the annual UN Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming convention

    Ah..I see now. So because some people’s opinions may be wrong, or even exaggerated in some cases, then by your “logic” all of the evidence that supports that planet is warming (and that human activity is primarily responsible) is wrong. Therefore nothing should be done.
    Gee… now where have I seen that so-called “logic” “before?
    *cough* Young Earth Creationists *cough*

    BTW…regarding “Industry”. Funny how the only real industry in question here is the fossil fuel industry. Odd how you keep ignoring that.

    It must be worse than we thought Z, they have already pretty much canceled the hysterics for next year in Africa also. Zetetic the CAGW situation is so bad that instead of the 30 people that the BBC sent to Denmark last year the BBC has decided to send one reporter down to Mexico next month and skip any live reporting.

    So since political pressure has successfully been brought to bear (And why not? Let someone else clean up the mess later…right?) to ignore the reality of the situation, then therefore by your “logic”…AGW is again false. After all we know that politicians would never do anything short-sighted and always put the public interest before their own, right Paul? Odd isn’t it how rather than support their position in the peer reviewed science, the deniers give us P.R. campaigns designed to fool the ignorant and the gullible, isn’t it? Just like a school board or state government choosing to “balance evolution” is proof that evolution is false and a victory for morality in culture, right? See what I mean about YEC “logic”?

    So tell us Paul…
    Where is the evidence that a majority of scientists in related fields (to AGW) don’t agree with it, if AGW is just a “cult”?
    Where is the credible evidence that shows the planet isn’t warming?
    Where is the credible evidence that any warming is due primarily to other causes?
    Where is the credible evidence that shows that any warming is inconsistent with being produced by CO2 and methane?
    Where is the credible evidence that shows a natural cause for the increase in CO2?
    Why is that the same politicos that decry the waste of money and use of government power to try and prevent/reduce AGW are the same ones that sponsor corporate welfare and declaring wars to keep oil cheap?
    Why do you seem to have such a hard time coming up with an argument that actually positively supports your position? (Again, just like the YECs.)

    Why is it that your side never can produce any good evidence that actually contradicts AGW? Isn’t it odd how it’s just like the creationists, yet again? Why do the deniers have to keep misrepresenting the real research, like Mockington for example? Again just like the YECs.

    It’s ironic that the very people that have been speaking out against AGW due to a fear of waste and government power are the very same people that may eventually necessitate the very policies they (and for the record… I, myself) fear the most due, to the childish foot-dragging. Until it finally becomes unavoidable. If we hadn’t wasted the last few decades and an absurd amount of resources with denialism and wars for oil, instead of funding R&D into non-fossil energy technologies and power storage, we’d probably be in a much better position today to be mostly rid of oil (or at least much closer to it), and any measures to present further warming would have to be less drastic.

    Humanity (as a whole) really does seem to be very adept at shooting itself in the foot thanks in large part to short-sightedness.

  167. Brian O' Leary

    Paul from Sweden wrote:

    “I would wager that those alarmist reconstructions would be of interest to Barton too, after all he will be holding hearings next year in congress.”

    Paul, you should tell Barton to try to avoid Eddie Wegman.

  168. Paul in Sweden

    @168. Zetetic

    Calm yourself down Z. put your Inconvenient Truth DVD away for a while.

    -http://tinyurl.com/3aojpss

    You can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to Big Green.

    OMG it used to be that nuts would just tilt at windmills now they build them and force the rest of us to pay for them. -http://tinyurl.com/36yljk3

    Your big bad oil boogeyman is not only not going anywhere but is quite content with the absurd measures the Global Warming Industry have been proposing as they will continue to profit while stabilizing their costs due to legislation. Tax payers and consumers heft the bill for the Green follies.

    It took the Gulf Oil spill to get Greenpeace to sort of back away from their buddy British Petroleum.

    Shell Oil & British Petroleum are both credited as being deep pockets for the infamous East Anglia University of the Climategate shame. Big Oil, the Global Warming Industry(Big Green) and politicians that can tax at will under the guise of saving the earth. It is a perfect union. After the Lisbon treaty was ratified here in the EU the first European Union president declared that he will finance the new government monster with Carbon Taxes. How does this save the Planet? In New York last December, Governor David Paterson proposed and the Legislature approved putting half of the state’s available RGGI money toward the general fund, even though state regulations called for it to be spent on energy efficiency. -http://tinyurl.com/36rcybd Green is a license to steal/TAX.

    Big Oil and Big Green have been in bed for ages and having a grand ol’ time at that Z. Do you have any idea what your Global Warming Industry is doing? If the earth was really in danger would you really want these jokers running the show?

    BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

    “In what passes for debate about climate change one of the most tiresome allegations is that skeptics are lavishly funded by big oil. As a result of this funding, so the argument goes, the public has been confused by those who’ll say anything in exchange for a paycheck.

    “Follow the money” we’re told and you’ll discover that climate skeptics are irredeemably tainted. Ergo nothing they say can be trusted. Ergo their concerns, questions, and objections should be dismissed out of hand.

    It’s therefore amusing that the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now drawing attention to the close relationship between climate change activists and BP – aka British Petroleum, an entity for which the descriptor “big oil” was surely invented. According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.”

    Gee, didn’t Greenpeace build an entire ExxonSecrets website to expose the allegedly diabolical fact that, over a 9-year-period (1998-2006) ExxonMobil donated a grand total of $2.2 million to a conservative think tank?

    $10 million versus $2 million. Who do we suppose has the cozier relationship with big oil?

    But that’s just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.”

    Funny, Greenpeace doesn’t talk about that. Nor does it mention:

    * that BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
    * that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
    * that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”

    The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launch ExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Let’s see, which all adds up to…wait for it…$642 million.

    If the world is divided into two factions – one that believes climate change is a serious problem and another that thinks human influence on the climate is so minimal it’s indistinguishable from background noise – one group has pulled off a bank heist while the other has been panhandling in front of the liquor store.”

    Article links and more here:
    -http://tinyurl.com/2w74esz

    Ease your mind Z, buy yourself some carbon indulgences. I hear the market will be at the trillion dollar mark in the near future. The mafia here in Europe has been making a fortune. The banks and brokers are making GREEN hand over fist capping and trading thin air. As I understand it the BBC and government pension funds are bloated by the Green bubble portfolios. The only problem with those funds is that they require constant government subsidies & increasingly punitive legislation along with a heck of a lot of fear mongering to keep the rally going. When the subsidies slow down or the fear fades that bubble is going to pop. The Global Warming Industry has a lot of mouths to feed. Heck Greenpeace needs almost a million a day just to keep the lights on.

    Read the IPCC assessment reports and notice the void where evidence regarding anthropogenic global warming should be front and center but is instead replaced by a “belief” that there “may” be Catastrophic Global Warming and the anthropogenic forcings “may” or “likely” could be a major contributor.

    Computer models are not evidence.
    Beliefs are not science, Beliefs are religion.

    Keep your faith Z if you wish.

    I’ll stay an atheist.

  169. Brian O' Leary

    Paul from sweden wrote:

    “I’ll stay an atheist.”

    Don’t you mean conspiracist? :)

  170. Derecho64

    P.I.S. must think that doctors don’t know anything about the connection between smoking and cancer, since they can’t tell you exactly how many cigarettes cause how much cancer, and that there are those who smoke and don’t get cancer, and there are those who don’t smoke who do get cancer.

    All that doctors can say is “may” and “likely”. Ergo, smoking is harmless. Right, P.I.S.?

  171. Dave R

    The lead author of the NAS report, Dr. Gerry North, has commented publicly to correct some misrepresentations of his committee’s report that were made by Barton, as well as by some of the conspiracy nuts posting in this thread:

    I would like to correct some potential misunderstanding about the conclusions of the 2006 National Research Council report to which Mr. Barton referred. Quoting from the report’s summary: “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”

    While we did find some of the methods used in Michael E. Mann’s original papers to be less cautious than some of our members might have used, we have not found any evidence that his results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers.

  172. Dave R

    The second link in my post above was supposed to go to this post

  173. Paul in Sweden

    @173. Dave R

    The causation link between smoking cigarettes and cancer was not derived from computer models.

    The only link that cigarette smoking has to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is that some in the Global Warming movement have reported that cigarette smoking contributes to Global Warming.

    Whatever you are smoking, should it be the case Dave, STOP. If not for any other reason you may be contributing to the earth’s fever. :)

  174. Derecho64

    The causation between increasing CO2 and warming temps (and all the other impacts of same) wasn’t derived from “computer models” either.

    How do you explain Arrhenius (a fellow Swede) figuring that out decades before there were computers?

  175. Dave R

    Paul in Sweden, I didn’t say anything about cigarettes, you moron.

  176. Paul in Sweden

    @Dave 177

    Nope you didn’t sorry about that, after awhile the warmist talking points and mantras all start to blur.

  177. Zetetic

    To everyone but Paul I apologize for the SIWOTI, but I’m mildly bored…

    Paul in Sweden @ #170:

    Calm yourself down Z.

    On the contrary I’m quite calm. I’ve merely been objectively noting the lack of a real argument or evidence from your side. You’re the one that has been engaging in name calling, making baseless assumptions about other posters, and throwing around baseless accusations of conspiracy. You seem to be projecting.

    put your Inconvenient Truth DVD away for a while.

    Never saw it actually. Frankly I don’t really care what Al Gore and a movie producer say about the subject. It’s the science as determined by the consensuses of experts in their fields that concerns me. You know, what your side still lacks. I also notice in your reply that you still haven’t managed to refute any of the evidence.

    You can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to Big Green.

    So I ask for you science that actually positively supports your position, you know to make a scientific case for your side, and all you have to offer in return are youtube videos about conspiracies and a web the bases ethanol…..really?
    LOL! :D
    Odd how your blog lacks a single climatologist, and instead consists of energy insiders, isn’t it?

    See Paul this is why I compare AGW deniers to creationists. You think that crying “conspiracy” and trying to cherry pick flaws on the other side will somehow make your side correct. It doesn’t. Credible positively supporting evidence makes your case, nothing else. It the lack of such evidence and the speciousness of claims like yours that caused me to re-examine my formerly disbelieving in AGW stance, and realized that the science supports the side that AGW is real, even if the amount of harm and rate of change are somewhat arguable.

    Just like a creationist you seem to think that science and evidence can be ignored as long as you continue to cling to dogma or ideology. So you of course ignore the evidence, and the lack of evidence for your side, and instead engage in name-calling and stereotyping of your opponents. (Like your “put your Inconvenient Truth DVD away” even though I never said anything to indicate that I had ever seen the film.)

    I notice that through your little conspiracy rant you never once actually addressed any of the issues I raised, instead you just through out more accusations. Interesting.

    Your little tirade that somehow it’s the big oil companies that are funding research into AGW to reduce fossil fuel use is especially hysterical. I mean seriously Paul, do you ever think anything through or critically examine the propaganda sites you read?

    Do you really think that the oil companies want to push for regulations that would cut into their profits? Bull…you’re just pointing the fingers at reckless companies like BP to try and make your own side seem more moral, regardless how ridiculous the claim. Yes, yes we all know that the oil companies sometimes throw their pocket change at environmental causes in order to create some positive PR, but how do you then explain their funding the very same denialists groups you keep citing for more assertions?

    So now you want us to believe that it’s the big bad oil companies that are funding AGW politics, even though it’s against their financial self-interest, and in spite of the fact that they have been funding the very side that you support.
    Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers
    The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company’s reports.
    ExxonMobil Contributes $1.5 Million to Climate Deniers
    Despite pledges to stop funding such groups, ExxonMobil gave $1.5 million to climate deniers and energy industry front groups last year, according to the Times of London.
    Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

    And lets not forget the funding for groups like the AGW denying Competitive Enterprise Institute which also took money to fund PR campaigns defending Tobacco Companies.

    Regardless, you’re also still ignoring that all 0f this nonsensical finger pointing on your part still does nothing to address the science which has been the point you keep trying to avoid. Again you’re still acting just like a creationist, inventing global conspiracies of scientists that make no sense and claiming that the “evil Darwinists” just want to have an excuse to act immorally.

    I also find your reference to the blog for Science and Public Policy Institute rather amusing. Another think-tank that conveniently doesn’t disclose it’s funding sources and which relies heavily on the discredited Mockington for it’s work.
    Seriously?
    That’s who you cite, all while still failing to provide any evidence that contradicts the scientific consensus on AGW?

    Ease your mind Z, buy yourself some carbon indulgences.

    Actually I’d much rather see in increase in the use of non-CO2 producing energy sources (like fission, wind, geothermal, etc.) and increased funding (especially for R&D) of renewable energy and storage systems. This would eliminate the whole need for trading caps. If we had spent a faction of the money wasted during “Operation Desert Storm” back during the 90′s or better yet the 80′s, we might not be talking about trading carbon caps today. Unfortunately the public, back then, made the mistake of listing to the same sources you do. That is yet another point that I made earlier that you keep avoiding Paul.

    Read the IPCC assessment reports and notice the void where evidence regarding anthropogenic global warming should be front and center but is instead replaced by a “belief” that there “may” be Catastrophic Global Warming and the anthropogenic forcings “may” or “likely” could be a major contributor.

    You mean the assessment that had has it’s focus a risk assessment and not repeating the already established, in other research, evidence that AGW is primarily caused by human activity. Why would a paper on risk assessment focus on already established causes? Causes which I noticed you still haven’t been able to refute. Where is that credible contrary evidence again? (Not “evidence” created by misrepresenting the works of others as your side likes to do, I mean.)

    I also like how when some one declares the risk is “grave” or “serious” that people like you accuse them of being “alarmist”. But when they use more moderate language, such as in the IPCC report, then you criticize them for their lack of certainty. Just like the YECs no matter what they say or how they say it, you’ll still criticize them for it if it contradicts your dogma.

    Computer models are not evidence.

    True, but they can sometimes be useful tools. DO you have a better means for trying to forcast potential changes in the future climate? If so please let the international scientific community know, I’m sure they’d be very interested.

    Regardless you seem to again be ignoring the fact that the average temperate for the planet has been already increasing and that it’s occurring faster than at any other time than we have evidence for. Just as you are also still ignoring the evidence that it seems to be (at least) primarily caused by gases released by human activity.

    [sarc]
    So yes…. lets just ignore the evidence about what has already happened just because we need to use a model to predict what might happen later.
    [/sarc]

    Beliefs are not science,

    True. Relying on credible supporting evidence to try and arrive at a logical conclusion/description is science, this is what the scince behind a human cause for global warming shows.

    Beliefs are religion.

    I think you mean by that the religions are founded on beliefs, and assumptions. They aren’t founded on empirically verifiable evidence. By such a definition your position is identical to that of a religion.

    When I ask for evidence to support your position all you give are baseless accusations of a global conspiracy and links to sites run by think-tanks funded by special interest groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If your belief isn’t like that of a religion, Paul, then were is the credible supporting evidence?

    Keep your faith Z if you wish.

    As I previously stated my “faith” (so to speak) is in the evidence and the consensus of scientific experts in the relevant fields, it’s a reasonable “faith”. Whether my position can be described as “faith” rather depends on one’s definition.

    You on the other hand, seem to depend on blind faith when it comes to AGW. You have no supporting evidence, your sources are demonstrably untrustworthy and corrupt. Yet all they have to do is throw around a few words that push your buttons like “freedom” and “enterprise” and you’ll just unquestioningly accept whatever they feed you, facts be damned.

    I’ll stay an atheist.

    Odd that you keep claiming this as though it means something in relation to the subject at hand.

    It’s especially odd when regarding the subject of AGW you’re are clearly acting more like a fundamentalist YEC arguing against evolution. Why is that?

    Maybe you’re one of those atheists that only arrived at your position since it’s in opposition to religion, not for any rational reason. In that case you’d really just be a contrarian, instead of arriving to a position of atheism rationally as myself. I don’t know if that is true or not, but at least it would be consistent with your AGW denialist position and arguments. Then again… maybe you did arrive at your atheism rationally, and you have just choose to abandon logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty. After all I used to be on your side, until my sense of honesty forced my to objectively re-evaluate my stance on AGW.

    Either way I find it amusing that while you like to trumpet your “atheism” you are getting in bed with the fundamentalists that make of much of the AGW denialist community. That’s not even counting the “Rapture Ready” that accepts the science, but still sides with the denialists to prevent anything from being done.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Paul in Sweden @ #175:

    The causation link between smoking cigarettes and cancer was not derived from computer models.

    Convenient since the position that Global Warming is caused by human activity was also derived from evidence and not a computer model. The models are only used to predict possible effects, like predicting how an increase or decrease in smoking may effect cancer rates.
    Funny how you can’t seem to understand such a simple distinction.

    The only link that cigarette smoking has to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is that some in the Global Warming movement have reported that cigarette smoking contributes to Global Warming.

    First unless you can provide a credible citation for that claim, I’m going to call you a liar on that one. Unless you mean that as a result of the methods used to farm tobacco (a non-essential crop) are contributing to some small degree.

    What I find interesting that you failed to note that the real connection between AGW and smoking is that many of the same groups that tried to lie to the public to play down the risks are the same groups that you are now trusting for your AGW denialism. See the C.E.I. I noted above for example. Now why would you leave that out?

    Whatever you are smoking, should it be the case Dave, STOP. If not for any other reason you may be contributing to the earth’s fever.

    I think that instead of telling Dave to stop smoking, that it would be more productive for you , Paul, to stop wasting energy making baseless accusations and failing to support your case. Like I mentioned up thread try downloading the Skeptical Science phone app, then you can argue with yourself all day long and save us the time.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Please P.I.S, get back to us when you actually have some credible evidence that supports your position. Then you’ll have something worth offering, until then all you have are the talking points and assertions by paid mouthpieces.

  178. Paul in Sweden

    176. Derecho64 Says:
    October 17th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    How do you explain Arrhenius (a fellow Swede) figuring that out decades before there were computers?

    Arrhenius recognized that CO2 was plant food and speculated that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could have a beneficial effect on the global climate.

    We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in
    the earth is wasted by the present generation without
    any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the
    awful destruction of life and property which has followed
    the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind
    of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every
    other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the
    influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid
    in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more
    equable and better climates, especially as regards the
    colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring
    forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the
    benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.

    Arrhenius had speculations much like scientists of today. We know a lot more about our global climate now but are still far from understanding it or predicting what our global climate will be 100 years out.

    At the present time people should just Cool It
    -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC4vGn6VtN4

  179. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #180:

    Arrhenius recognized that CO2 was plant food and speculated that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could have a beneficial effect on the global climate.

    And yet another logical fallacy from the denialist! Wow P.i.S. you must keep a list of talking points that are “never to be looked at too closely” lying around! :D

    Yes, CO2 has it benefits. Yes, plants need it and yes the Earth would actually be too cold without it. Oddly no one on the AGW side has ever denied the benefits of proper CO2 levels (specifically CO2 which aren’t overwhelming nature’s ability to reabsorb it). Since the AGW side is actually based on science, it has no need to make such a obviously ridiculous claim.

    Oddly only the denialists act as though the point that some CO2 is beneficial is even in dispute. Apparently since the AGW denialist position has no supporting science they have decided that doing battle with straw-men arguments is much easier than coming up with actual credible supporting evidence. (Which I note you still haven’t provided P.i.S.)

    So in typical denialist manner you trot out the dogma based talking-points and leave out the little detail that what we are dealing with here is “too much of a good thing”. Plants can only absorb so much CO2 while being limited by other factors (water, sunlight, metabolism, etc.). Also, you are leaving out the effects of changing climate on water levels and pest populations can have on crop production.
    CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
    and the ever popular…
    CO2 is not a pollutant

    But maybe you just don’t understand the subtlety here, so even though I find it to be really very obvious I’ll try and make it simpler for you….
    Food = Good ——–> Too Much Food = Bad (Obesity, health problems)

    Water = Good —–> Too Much Water = Bad (floods, drowning,etc.)

    Oxygen = Good —> Too Much Oxygen = Bad (out of control fires, spacecraft going up in flames, and under pressure neural toxicity)

    CO2 = Good ——–> Too much CO2 = Bad (Global Warming, droughts in some area, flooding in others, spread of malaria, ocean acidification (the carbonic acid mentioned in your quote), etc.)

    Get the picture yet?
    Please let me know if you need more examples to help clarify the distinction between “good” and “too much”. I’ll be glad to help! :D

  180. Zetetic

    BTW I almost forgot to mention that on the Skeptical Science site that many of the articles have two tabs for the level of detail about the evidence for and against the arguments being debunked, just like on their phone app.

    Some of the articles I linked to are for the “Intermediate” in detail explanation. The “Advanced” version of the articles go into much more depth. Just select the “Advanced” tab for a more detailed explanation

    For example….
    CO2 is not a pollutant- Advanced Version

    Enjoy! :D

  181. Paul in Sweden

    For the science perspective on John Cooks Alarmist talking points(for those not able to think for themselves) a terse response for each talking point has been provided here:
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

    For example John Cook’s Alarmist Talking point #41 CO2 is not a pollutant:

    Cook agrees that it’s not a pollutant and global warming (and ocean acidification) are the two impacts. But changes of the temperature are mostly not caused by CO2, and even if they were, they’re small and harmless. Ocean acidification is at most by 0.2 in several centuries – from 8.1 in the past to 7.9 in the future. That’s a negligible change relatively to the intervals that the life in the oceans tolerate. Recall that aquarium fish can live in pH between 5 and 9.
    ————-
    Remember these are responses only short answers for people who feel the need to utilize alarmist talking points and are not familiar with the various topics.manipulated by the CAGW movement.

    Hope this prevents confusion in the future. :)

  182. Sentient Simian

    Zetetic deserves a gold “Plaited” medal for his sterling effort. Paul is still being owned.

  183. Zetetic

    @ Sentient Simian:
    Thank you for the compliment! :D

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    Now back to work….

    Paul in Sweden @#183:

    For the science perspective on John Cooks Alarmist talking points(for those not able to think for themselves) a terse response for each talking point has been provided here

    Except that what you’ve offered isn’t science but just a series of talking points with nothing to back them up!
    Do you even know what science is P.i.S.?
    At this point I’m beginning to doubt it. I also noticed that you still failed to acknowledge that the AGW side recognized the positive aspects of CO2, we’re just also aware of the potential negative aspects as well.

    Compare what you cite to what I linked to earlier, the site I liked to, that is actually science based provided not just a brief answer but more detailed answers but also charts and links to the original scientific research. Even the Skeptical Science phone app I mentioned has links to the relevant research while keeping things short too.

    Your site though, just makes vague and misleading statements with nothing to back it up and no links to the relevant research. Gee I wonder why?

    Even ignoring those concerns, this next bit from the quote you cited is a textbook example of denialist dishonesty for two reasons….

    Recall that aquarium fish can live in pH between 5 and 9.

    1) Is he seriously using “aquarium fish” (which is vague and very generalized to say the least) when some species are more sensitive than others to pH levels? What a convenient way to ignore the impact to more sensitive species, by lumping them in with the less sensitive ones.

    2) Even ignoring that little bit of obvious dishonesty… What’s really dishonest about the argument you linked is that it ignores that the real issue isn’t fish but corals and shellfish which are far more sensitive to ocean acidification since even small changes can effect their ability to calcify their shells. Talk about missing the big picture! Now why did they leave that particular little detail out I wonder? Hmmmmm…….

    For example here is a quote from the “CO2 is not a pollutant- Advanced Version” that I linked to earlier, just shortly above. If you had bothered to have actually read it, this is what you would have found…. [emphasis added]
    “Many experimental studies have shown that a doubling of pre-industrial [CO2]atm to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons) as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease”

    So tell us P.i.S. did you read the article I linked to before, which would make your later acidification post an example of deliberate dishonesty, or did you just not bother to read it with makes you the closed-minded dogmatist, and not I?

    Ocean acidification: global warming’s evil twin – Basic Version

    Or even better yet, since it includes a rebuttal by the same John Cook that your site deliberately misrepresents!…
    Ocean acidification: global warming’s evil twin – Intermediate Version

    The only being manipulated here is you P.i.S. assuming that you’re not just trolling.
    Enjoy! :D

  184. Paul in Sweden

    185. Zetetic Says:
    October 18th, 2010 at 11:29 am
    “Many experimental studies have shown that a doubling of pre-industrial [CO2]atm to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation (the principal crystalline form of calcium carbonate deposited in coral skeletons) as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease”

    ——–
    ^Alarmist horrors taken right out of the headlines.

    Taking any species and tossing them into an altered environment will cause stress and adverse results. Switch the diet at the dinner table to something culturally diverse and you will see problems in your own family. Species such as coral have adapted multiple times to diverse conditions and are quite capable of adapting to our ever changing climate.

    As space seems of little concern…

    Volume 13, Number 9: 3 March 2010

    In the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of experimental studies that have explored the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations on marine biota, Hendriks et al. (2010) assembled a database of 372 experimentally-evaluated responses of 44 different marine species to ocean acidification that was induced by equilibrating seawater with CO2-enriched air. This they did because, as they describe it, “warnings that ocean acidification is a major threat to marine biodiversity are largely based on the analysis of predicted changes in ocean chemical fields,” which are derived from theoretical models that do not account for numerous biological phenomena and have only “limited experimental support.”

    Of the published reports they scrutinized, only 154 assessed the significance of responses relative to controls; and of those reports, 47 reported no significant response, so that “only a minority of studies,” in their words, demonstrated “significant responses to acidification.” And when the results of that minority group of studies were pooled, there was no significant mean effect. Nevertheless, the three researchers found that some types of organisms and certain functional processes did exhibit significant responses to seawater acidification. However, since their analyses to this point had included some acidification treatments that were extremely high, they repeated their analyses for only those acidification conditions that were induced by atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm or less, which latter limiting concentration had been predicted to occur around the year 2300 by Caldeira and Wickett (2003).

    In this second analysis, Hendriks et al. once again found that the overall response, including all biological processes and functional groups, was not significantly different from that of the various control treatments, although calcification was reduced by 33 ± 4.5% and fertility by 11 ± 3.5% across groups, while survival and growth showed no significant overall responses. And when the upper limiting CO2 concentrations were in the range of 731-759 ppm, or just below the value predicted by the IPCC (2007) for the end of the 21st century (790 ppm) — calcification rate reductions of only 25% were observed. What is more, the three researchers say that this decline “is likely to be an upper limit, considering that all experiments involve the abrupt exposure of organisms to elevated pCO2 values, while the gradual increase in pCO2 that is occurring in nature may allow adaptive and selective processes to operate,” citing the work of Widdicombe et al. (2008) and noting that “these gradual changes take place on the scale of decades, permitting adaptation of organisms even including genetic selection.”

    Yet even this mitigating factor is not the end of the good news, for Hendriks et al. write that “most experiments assessed organisms in isolation, rather than [within] whole communities,” and they say that the responses of other entities and processes within the community may well buffer the negative impacts of CO2-indced acidification on earth’s corals. As an example, they note that “sea-grass photosynthetic rates may increase by 50% with increased CO2, which may deplete the CO2 pool, maintaining an elevated pH that may protect associated calcifying organisms from the impacts of ocean acidification.”

    In describing another phenomenon that benefits corals, the researchers write that “seasonal changes in pCO2 are in the range of 236-517 ppm in the waters of the northern East China Sea (Shim et al., 2007),” and that “metabolically-active coastal ecosystems experience broad diel changes in pH, such as the diel changes of >0.5 pH units reported for sea grass ecosystems (Invers et al., 1997),” which they say represent “a broader range than that expected to result from ocean acidification expected during the 21st century.” And they remark that these fluctuations also “offer opportunities for adaptation to the organisms involved.”

    Hendriks et al. additionally state that the models upon which the ocean acidification threat is based “focus on bulk water chemistry and fall short of addressing conditions actually experienced by [marine] organisms,” which are “separated from the bulk water phase by a diffusive boundary layer,” adding that “photosynthetic activity” — such as that of the zooxanthellae that are hosted by corals — “depletes pCO2 and raises pH (Kuhl et al., 1995) so that the pH actually experienced by organisms may differ greatly from that in the bulk water phase (Sand-Jensen et al., 1985).”

    Last of all, the insightful scientists note that “calcification is an active process where biota can regulate intracellular calcium concentrations,” so that “marine organisms, like calcifying coccolithophores (Brownlee and Taylor, 2004), actively expel Ca2+ through the ATPase pump to maintain low intracellular calcium concentrations (Corstjens et al., 2001; Yates and Robbins, 1999).” And they say that “as one Ca2+ is pumped out of the cell in exchange for 2H+ pumped into the cell, the resulting pH and Ca2+ concentrations increase the CaCO3 saturation state near extracellular membranes and appear to enhance calcification (Pomar and Hallock, 2008),” so much so, in fact, that they indicate “there is evidence that calcification could even increase in acidified seawater, contradicting the traditional belief that calcification is a critical process impacted by ocean acidification (Findlay et al., 2009).”

    In summation, Hendriks et al. write that the world’s marine biota are “more resistant to ocean acidification than suggested by pessimistic predictions identifying ocean acidification as a major threat to marine biodiversity,” noting that this phenomenon “may not be the widespread problem conjured into the 21st century” by the world’s climate alarmists. We agree, having reached much the same conclusion back at the turn of the last millennium (Idso et al., 2000). Hence, we are happy to endorse Hendriks et al.’s conclusion that “biological processes can provide homeostasis against changes in pH in bulk waters of the range predicted during the 21st century.”

    References for the above and additional data can be found:

    “Ocean Acidification Database”
    http://tinyurl.com/35q78zm

  185. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #186:

    Alarmist horrors taken right out of the headlines.

    You just can’t help lying can you P.i.S.? Anything to protect your precious dogma? BTW I was quoting a research summary from a scientific paper, again you might have known that if you bothered to read conflicting information.

    Do you have another way to test under controlled conditions to demonstrate how changes in oceanic pH levels effect calcification? If you have such a technique why don’t you share it with the rest of the scientific world? I’m sure the global scientific community would be interested.

    I especially love how the site you just referenced used the word “theory” in italics when referring to AGW effects….yeah that’s not like creationists at all! LOL! I also wonder why the only links that I can find on there site refers to themselves or similar sources, not to the original work. The Skeptical Science site I linked to has no trouble with linking to the original work…I wonder why your sites always have that problem, the same problem YEC sites seem to have? How very convenient that they cite papers that they don’t link to so that people can read them for themselves and see what the papers actually say!

    Just as you still haven’t been able to provide any positively supporting evidence that contradicts AGW I also noticed that you deliberately ignored that ocean acidification isn’t about fish as you and your source earlier claimed, but rather about shellfish. Nice attempt at a dodge there, yet again. Just like you ran away when I showed that denialist sites are in fact being funded by big oil.

    Speaking of funding by big oil let’s first of all check out your site….
    Source Watch listing for- Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (aka. CO2 Science)
    Well what do you know!
    Yet another “independent” source of climate “science” being funded by Exxon! What a surprise! Weren’t you say earlier though that, such funding of denialists didn’t happen P.i.S.?

    Still not enough for you P.i.S.? Here’s another site that confirms their source of funding…
    CSCPI Listing for- Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

    BTW I tried going to Exxon directly for their public listing of the denialist groups they fund, but oddly it seems to have been taken down….I wonder why?

    What your article states is that many organisms may survive having trouble with calcification, nobody argued that they may not survive but having smaller and weaker shells impairs survival for organisms that are vital to the oceanic food chain, why is that so hard to understand?

  186. Paul in Sweden

    ^Read the parts that suit your alarmist message.

    Keep your faith strong Z.

  187. Zetetic

    @ Paul in Sweden:
    Just to clarify what I meant in the last sentence of my last post…

    Shellfish may “survive” having shells that are weaker, smaller, or may not even form at all. Unfortunately while it counts as “surviving” in a lab, it doesn’t speak well for their odds against predation, etc.

    For example…
    Larvae of the pteropod Cavolinia inflexa exposed to aragonite undersaturation are viable but shell-less

    Oh and by the way here is a paper starting to look into of the effects of ocean acidification on organisms that your site neglected to look at!
    Effect of ocean acidification on microbial diversity and on microbe-driven biogeochemistry and ecosystem functioning

    BTW notice how all of the sites I refer to include links to the relevant papers, but your sites strangely don’t? Are you going to ask yourself why that would be?

  188. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #188:

    Keep your faith strong Z.

    Who needs “faith” when you have credible supporting evidence?

    Now where is that supporting evidence I keep asking from you P.i.S.?

    Oh! That’s right, you don’t actually have any credible supporting evidence.
    All your remarks about “faith” demonstrate that you’re projecting Paul. Instead you just focus on trying to ignore all of the problems of the denialist side, and ignoring the relevant points just like a good little Young Earth Creationist does.

    Frankly I think that either you’re trolling, or deep down inside you know that you have no credible supporting evidence but (just like a YEC) you can’t bring yourself to publicly admit that you know your side is bogus.

    So where is your credible supporting evidence, if you really aren’t basing your position on just faith and ideology? :D

  189. Paul in Sweden

    “Frankly I think that either you’re trolling, or deep down inside you know that you have no credible supporting evidence but (just like a YEC) you can’t bring yourself to publicly admit that you know your side is bogus.

    So where is your credible supporting evidence, if you really aren’t basing your position on just faith and ideology? :D

    You refuse to look at scientific evidence and instead run to the headlines of tabloids and the sound bites of the Global Warming Industry. When you look at scientific studies as I pointed out above what is agreed by the scientific community and what is proclaimed by activists such as yourself there is quite a distance. This matters not to the so few of you left in the church of CAGW.

    The investigations will continue, eventually there will be court rulings.

    Hope your Polar Bear suit at COP16 in Mexico is a good fit, drink plenty of water along with the Kool-aid. Remember when you pack up your tin foil and tambourine in Mexico at the UN IPCC COP16 there will be plenty of parties and causes to march behind when you get home. Does it really matter to you which cause or parade you follow?

    Forget that the rest of the world and myself laugh at you and your beliefs. Heck most of the the world is happy to get your money, just don’t expect them to follow your gospel. They don’t believe like you do.

    Your religion of Global Warming is the one true religion, keep the faith :)

  190. Zetetic

    Paul in Sweden @ #191:

    You refuse to look at scientific evidence and instead run to the headlines of tabloids and the sound bites of the Global Warming Industry.

    Lair, you have yet to offer a single iota of credible supporting evidence in the entire thread, while you unquestioningly cite one website after another with direct ties to the fossil fuel industry. (Hint: negative evidence, especially when it’s disingenuous, don’t count as positive evidence.) I’ll bet that you actually believed that smoking is harmless too. :D

    Exactly what I would expect from the a fundamentalist disciple of The Church of the Divine AGW Denialism. (Brought to you by ExxonMobil™!) :D

    Please by all means point out the one piece of credible supporting evidence you offered in this thread. [crickets]

    When you look at scientific studies as I pointed out above what is agreed by the scientific community and what is proclaimed by activists such as yourself there is quite a distance.

    I don’t know how to break this to you, not that it’s likely to penetrate your faith bubble (and assuming that you’re not just trolling, it can be so hard to tell trolls from those just blinded by ideology), but what we’ve been repeatedly asking for is credible positively supporting evidence. Misrepresenting the works of others and trying to dodge the point of the actual research doesn’t count as evidence.

    Also trying to shoot down the AGW side does nothing to support your own position, just as trying to attack evolution does nothing to support creationism. But, just like every other brainwashed faith head you apparently can’t understand such a simple concept.

    The investigations will continue, eventually there will be court rulings.

    There already have been court ruling, but being a faith-head what you can’t seem to actually absorb that they have all been against your side’s attempts at dishonest smears. Meanwhile the credible peer-reviewed evidence keeps coming down on the AGW side, not on the denialist side. :D

    Forget that the rest of the world and myself laugh at you and your beliefs.

    I’m sure you do, just as Creationists laugh at all those “silly Darwinists” and hoping that someday the real evidence will come out at break the global scientific conspiracy against them. Just keep dreaming faith-head.

    Your religion of Global Warming is the one true religion, keep the faith

    Like I said before, who needs faith when you have credible positively supporting evidence?

    But since you are apparently driven entirely by faith and ideology (again assuming that you’re not just trolling to make up for whatever inadequacies you may posses) I’m not surprised that you don’t get that. Feel free to let us know when you finally locate the credible positively supporting evidence. :D

  191. Zetetic

    (For the sake of efficiency I’m going to post this in both of the recent AGW threads.)

    @ Paul in Sweden (again):
    Frankly you’re inability to provide credible supporting evidence of your position would be laughably pathetic if it wasn’t beginning to bore me.

    But, it occurred to me that even after explaining what should be obvious to you, yet again, that you may still not understand what credible “positively supporting evidence” might actually be. So assuming once again that you’re not trolling and actually are just blinded by faith in an ideology, I’ll explain further what it would take to convince anyone motivated by actual evidence that AGW is incorrect.

    In other words I’m telling you how to make a viable case for your position, since you don’t seem to understand what that entails….

    Do you think that the Earth isn’t warming?
    If so then what is the credible evidence that actually shows that the average global temperature has not been rising over the last several decades?
    Easy, right? So where is it?
    After all, several independent attempts at measuring the Earths temperature from scientific groups around the world, often using different techniques show that it is warming.
    So were is the evidence that it’s not? Where is the credible evidence that the long term average temperature of the planet has ether been stable or gone down? Please note, not short term drops in temperature, ignoring the previous and subsequent rise again, and not a local drop in temperature in one area, but average global temperature.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Maybe though P.i.S., you think that the Earth is warming,but that humans aren’t at fault? Since you never go into much detail about what your position is, just that you disagree with AGW (again very much like many YECs) but for the next few examples let us assume that is your position (“Earth is warming, but it’s not because of human activity”).

    Do you have credible evidence that shows that the Earth’s warming is contrary to what would be expected if the warming was due to greenhouse gasses? In other words warming that doesn’t fit that pattern?
    Again several independent groups all show a atmospheric warming pattern consistent with warming caused by GHGs.
    Were is the credible evidence that shows an long term atmospheric warming pattern inconsistent with GHGs causing warming?
    Were is the credible evidence that clearly shows increasing average global temperatures being caused by another source besides GHGs?

    Also satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping the Earth has showed changes over the last few decades consistent with increasing GHGs causing global warming.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows that it’s not happening, that the Earth’s infrared emissions are not showing a change consistent with increases in GHGs?

    Maybe you think that the GHGs are caused by nature, and not by human activity.
    Multiple independent measurements of rising CO2 levels show changes over time of the isotopic ratios of C12 to C13, this indicates increased CO2 produced mainly by human activity.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows any increase in CO2 is coming from natural sources, and if so what natural sources?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Please note that in each of the above cases I’m not asking for you to try and nitpick at what ever flaws you imagine (or were told) are in a specific study that supports AGW (as a YEC would do), especially since each of the above items of evidence for AGW are backed by multiple sources (often using different techniques) arriving at the same conclusion. What I’m asking you for is what credible evidence do you have that actually shows each of the above as being contradicted by other and better credible evidence?

    Do you really have nothing more to offer than quoting Exxon sponsored sites that cry conspiracy, try to sling mud, and nit-pick some studies (while ignoring others) all while tap-dancing around the points the authors of the studies are trying to make?

    You probably won’t believe me (or if trolling you won’t care) but the fact of the matter is that I really don’t like the idea of global warming. Nor do I like the idea that it may take drastic measures to do anything about it. But, I also don’t like the fact that the longer we delay doing anything about AGW the more drastic such measures may have to be.

    But reality doesn’t care about what I like or dislike. What matters are the facts, and at this point the AGW side has the evidence to the point that 97% of the scientists in the relevant fields accept AGW as a fact. Unless the anti-AGW side can produce credible evidence that positively shows that the above conditions are not occurring, then there is no reason for the scientific community, or any objective individual to take your position seriously since ideology doesn’t overrule reality.

    I’m betting that you still will not provide any credible supporting evidence as mentioned above, nor will you admit any of the earlier errors I caught you in. This would be consistent for both a troll and someone wrapped up in denialism as a defense mechanism.

    Therefore my predictions for your response in order of ascending likelihood…
    1) You may decide to ignore the threads, and end the conversation. But I doubt that.

    2) You’ll continue to prattle on about how those that base their positions on evidence are acting on “faith”. Again, projecting just like a creationist.

    3) You’ll continue to post PR from fossil fuel sponsored sites that still make the futile effort of proving AGW denialism by trying to attack the evidence supporting AGW without doing anything to actually positively support the anti-AGW position through credible peer-reviewed evidence, again just like a Young Earth Creationist.

    4) A combination of #2 and #3. (Most likely, IMO.)

    I’m curious to see which of my predictions of your response will be accurate. :D

  192. Wisesooth

    First, please do not call me an expert. “ex” is for a has-been and “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

    Second, I do not have to be a scientist wearing a robe full of medals, three hoods choking my neck, and a philosopher’s cap on my head to know what fresh country air smells like and the composition of its source.

    Third, I could learn a whole lot more from you folks if I did not have to wade through all of that piss and vinegar.

    Having said that, I offer this conjecture. Regardless of the cause of climate change, I suggest that humankind are collectively making a bad situation worse than it needs to be. Maybe the green guys are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Maybe they are pioneering the wrong things. I personally believe that the surest way to make a new system fail is to let a politician design it. I do not intend this to be a slur. Politicians are just not built that way.

    Perhaps scientists need to spend less time arguing about things that do not matter and start collaborating on solutions that do matter. Who knows. Maybe the solutions might become simple enough for even a politician to understand and support.

  193. Zetetic

    @ Wisetooth:
    The problem here is that on the one side we have politicians and professional mouthpieces, (usually the same people that lied to try and hide the health risks from smoking) paid by the fossil fuel industries, aka the AGW Denialists. They are arguing with the other side made of politicians and the scientific community (the AGW is real side). The two side are not equivalent by a long shot. It’s like Young Earth Creationists arguing with the overwhelming majority of the scientific biological community.

    The science is already pretty much done with as far as determining is AGW is real. About 97% of the experts in climatology all accept AGW as a fact because of the overwhelming evidence. The multiple sources of evidence from multiple lines of investigation from around the world have all come to the same conclusion. AGW has been happening and all of the evidence indicates that human activity is responsible, period, full stop. So there is no serious scientific conflict over AGW now, except a debate about forecasting the extent of the problem in the future since the average global warming rate is historically unprecedented, as far as can be determined. Instead we have non-scientists and scientists in unrelated fields being paid by fossil fuel companies to argue with the overwhelming majority of climate researchers.

    That is why above I kept asking form any credible evidence that positively shows something that contradicts what is known about AGW. Paul above didn’t answer since he/she knows that what I asked for from his/her side doesn’t actually exist. Instead all we get are paid mouth pieces trying to hide from the public that the scientific consensus has already been reached due to the overwhelming evidence that AGW is real.

    I agree with you that politicians are trouble, but that all the more reason to stop the ideologically motivated denialism of the facts and to start letting real scientists and engineers come up with real solutions. Continued AGW denialisim will only make things worse by delaying any real solutions until more drastic measures become unavoidable. (Personally, that’s what worries me the most about the situation.) Meanwhile politicians are more concerned with spending money to blow people up than they are with funding research to stop AGW and making wars for cheap oil unnecessary.

  194. Zetetic

    @ Wisesooth:
    Ooops! Sorry about the typo of your handle in my last post…that was unintended.

  195. Donald Schneider

    Even is Rep. Barton is off base regarding his specific points of criticism of Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick graph,” there is one point of criticism that pro-theory of AGW adherents seldom mention. Dr. Mann used tree ring temperature proxies of two closely related species of pines to reconstitute reasonably approximate past temperatures before the emergence of recorded measured temperature data. He then stopped using them in recent years because they diverged from actual recorded temperatures and therefore ceased to be realistic proxies.

    This is not a secret nor was it hidden by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. The real problem is that since the tree ring proxies have demonstrably proven to have diverged from actual temperature data during contemporary times then how can he just assume they never have in the past when there is no recorded temperatures to which to compare them? This raises the question as to what value is his entire graph when it is based upon a totally unproven and unverifiable assumption that the tree ring divergence problem is limited only to recent years.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »