A Hawk Goes Off Message

By Keith Kloor | March 5, 2012 8:09 am

In his weekend op-ed, Thomas Friedman indicated he was ready to embrace a form of climate pragmatism:

This is a column about energy and environment and why we must not let the poisonous debate about climate change so tie us in knots that we cannot have any energy policy at all, particularly one focused on developing much more efficient use of resources, through better designs and systems.

Friedman still had some tart words for those who think that belief in climate science is a slippery slope to one-world, UN-led government.

Actually, this is what he said:

If you are so reckless as to dismiss all climate science as a hoax, and do not accept the data that our planet is getting hotter and the oceans rising, I can’t help you.

Translation: He’s moving on. He’s realized that fighting climate contrarians–much less trying to reason with them–is futile. And counterproductive. He’s concluded:

We can’t let the climate wars continue to derail efforts to have an energy policy that puts in place rising efficiency standards, for buildings, windows, traffic, housing, packaging and appliances, that will drive innovation “” which is our strength “” in what has to be the next great global industry: energy and resource efficiency.

Friedman’s philosophical shift prompted Andy Revkin to tweet:

Tom Friedman pushes smart-energy endrun past CO2 stasis http://nyti.ms/xxJRFe echoing climate pragmatism @GlobalEcoGuyenvironment.umn.edu/momentum/issue”¦

Needless, to say, this non-climate-centric rhetorical approach was not received well in certain quarters. The Climate Orthodoxy Police (COP), an outfit run by blogger Joe Romm at the Center for American Progress (CAP), sounded its internal alarms. This happens nearly every day when someone goes off message or does anything to undermine the dictates by the COP. Friedman’s column definitely put him on the wrong side of COP. Shortly after his column was published, he received a phone call from Romm. A COP insider sent me the exchange between Romm and Friedman:

JR: Tom, this is Joe Romm. Listen, about your column today…

TF: Uh oh. I already got your three emails about it. Look, I know I’m deviating from the COP playbook…

JR: Tom, you can’t go soft on me now. We can’t let the deniers off the hook. Climate has to remain front and center.

TF: I’m not going soft. I just don’t see any other way. Listen, I finally got around to reading this report called Climate Pragmatism, which makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe these Breakthrough guys are on to…

JR: [shrieks] Nooooo! Arghrhrh…

TF: Joe, are you alright? I can’t understand you.

JR: Breakthrarghrhh [audible choking]

TF: No, really, Joe. Come on. You know I’m one of your biggest fans, but I think it might be time for you to consider a new tact. Maybe be a little more tolerant of…

JR: Tolerant of who?! The disinformers! The delayers! Tom, don’t let them fool you. Those so-called climate pragmatists are flim flam artists.

TF: What are you talking about?

JR: Tom, listen to me. Ok. Just listen. You need to stay strong and fierce, like a climate hawk.

TF: [Sounding offended] I am a hawk! Always have been. And, by the way, look where that got me with Iraq.

JR: Water under the bridge. Look, this is the real war, Tom. Civilization hangs in the balance.

TF [Sounding distracted.] I feel like I’ve heard that…

JR: Stay focused, Tom. Don’t get wobbly on me. Look, did you see my recent post, the one about the tornadoes? This is the stuff we need to keep hitting. We ratchet up climate doom messaging and we whack the deniers. That’s the strategy. That’s Climate Progress.

TF: I’m not so sure anymore. How do India and China fit into this strategy? You know, this Roger Pielke Jr. and his “iron law of climate policy” seems to make a lot of…

JR: [choking] Arghghhg. [Loud thud, like a body hitting the ground.]

TF: Joe, are you there? Joe, is everything alright? Ok, well listen, you take it easy. We’ll finish this conversation another time.

  • Windy

    JR and the Center for Orwellian Progress will not take kindly to TF for questioning the Center for Orwellian Progress orthodoxy. Freedom of expression is the real enemy of the Center for Orwellian Progress .  It may be time for the Center for Orwellian Progress to advocate for freedom of speech restrictions like China has and Australia is considering.

  • Steve Fitzpatrick

    LOL. I fear you have not improved your relationship with Joe Romm.  Oh well, it wasn’t that good anyway.
    The good news is that Friedman is beginning to recognize that an argument for careful use of a valuable resource has broader appeal than the Malthusian claptrap that has been offered so far. 

  • http://www.hawriverfilms.com Mike O’Connell

    “If you are so reckless as to dismiss all climate science as a hoax, and do not accept the data that our planet is getting hotter and the oceans rising, I can’t help you.”
    I’m in agreement with this sentiment. Climate Change is old news. The story now is what do we, what can we do about it?
    As for the CAP seems like they’re in the same boat as the “big greens”  an ineffective bureaucratic fundraising entity .
    In my view one of the most ambitious plans for renewables comes from Beyond Zero Emissions in Australia. beyondzeroemissions.org/


     

  • Matt B

    A couple quotes from Friedman:

    “Consider a standard incandescent light bulb, powered by a coal-fired power plant. If the coal plant is 33 percent efficient (the average in the U.S.), and the light bulb is 3 percent efficient, then the net conversion of energy to light is just 1 percent. That is pathetic “” and typical. An L.E.D. light, powered by an efficient natural gas turbine, converts 20 percent of the total energy to light”” a 20-fold increase.” Run it on renewables and it’s carbon-free to boot.      

    He was doing so well until that last sentence……..he takes it as some sort of given that “renewables” will be the final step in gaining optimum energy efficiency. How much data is needed before he understands that “renewable efficiency” is an oxymoron? 

    that will drive innovation “” which is our strength 

    Our strength, Tom? Is innovation a hallmark of the NYT Op-Ed page?

    Yeah, he’s taking a couple baby steps out of the corner he painted himself into, but I see nothing in this article that shows he’s straying from the true path. Unimpressive…….

  • Jeff Norris

    Proposed climate hawk response

    It is sometimes asked whether it is not possible to slow down the tempo a bit, to put a check on the movement. No, it is not possi­ble! The tempo must not be reduced! On the contrary, we must increase it as much as is within our powers and possibilities. This is dic­tated to us by our obligations to the workers and people of the world.
    :)

  • Tom Scharf

    That was hilarious.  I’ve accused the c-cubed (climate concerned community) people of not having any sense of humor several times, but maybe I should rethink that.

    Friedman is one who would rather make some progress instead of endlessly fighting a trench warfare battle so he can possibly claim some kind of moral superiority trophy in the end.  JR and crew definitely want to fight a war of attrition and crush the enemy by hopefully killing every last one of them.  JR probably has a secret “final solution” plan in mind for climate deniers, ha ha the irony in that thought.  I think it was Chris Mooney (or maybe Grist) who said they simply have to wait for the deniers to die off, since they are mostly older generation.

    This is really just another straw across the camel’s back in the fight for global climate policies.  Many want to give up this fight and get something done where there is agreement.  At some point JR must come to terms with the fact that he requires votes from coal state Democrats and red state moderates in order for any government action.  A person frothing at the mouth screaming end of times lunacy still only counts one vote.  Publicly demonizing your opponents as below human is no way to start a negotiation.

    I think the fight with respect to global action is a lost cause, and it wasn’t because of skeptics, fossil fuel companies, HI, or any of the other demons in the closet.  It was due to poorly thought out solutions to a problem that never gained credibility in the first place.

    This was a classic case of severe over-reach by the greens.  There was some support for action and they blew it, they tried to change a world that didn’t want changed.

    There is still an opportunity out there for a phasing out of fossil fuels  if the warring factions can bury their hatchets and kill a few sacred cows.

    I have exhausted my metaphor library so I have no left to say.

     

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom Scharf (6)

    I appreciate that you found my Romm spoof humorous. But I don’t find anything remotely funny about “final solution” references made in jest. 

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @7
    can you point me to the republicans that  support an 

    “energy policy that puts in place rising efficiency standards, for buildings, windows, traffic, housing, packaging and appliances, that will drive innovation “” which is our strength “” in what has to be the next great global industry: energy and resource efficiency.” 

    Perhaps I’m misreading you (or TF for that matter), but it seems to me that in the U.S. system of government it takes two to tango.  To extend the metaphor further, it appears that one partner isn’t interested in dancing at all — no matter what music is playing. 

  • RickA

    Nobody (or very few) are arguing that the planet is not getting warmer and that the oceans are not rising.

    People are questioning how much of the warming (and sea rise) is natural and how much attributable to human activity. 

    After all – the planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years.  The proof is that the ocean has risen 50 meters during the last 12,000 years.  So we know the planet has been getting warmer.

    The question is why is the recent warming our fault – when it is nothing more than a continuation of the warming over the last 12,000 years.

    Humans are only alleged to have been responsible for the last meter – and people are fighting over whether that should really be only 1/2 or 1/4 of a meter, with the balance being down to natural causes.

    I wish TF and others would actually engage on the actual debate, rather than the one they seem to prefer. 

  • Matt B

    @8 Marlowe:

    From the 2008 Republican Platform:

    As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
    http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm

    So, does the Republican Party support an energy policy that promotes increased energy efficiency? Yes & really who would be against that?

    Do they support “rising efficiency standards”? Ah, this sounds like regulation, so maybe not so much….  
               

  • http://3000quads.com/ Tom Fuller

    Your post opened up halfway down and I kept seeing my initials and wondering where did I say that and why would I say that to Romm?

    Figure 30 seconds before Friedman gets accused of High Broderism…

    But it’s funny. How dare you be funny about this? Have you no a sense of perspective? 

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @10
    There’s talking and then there’s walking the walk.

    If the Republican leadership does eventually manage to reign in the Tea Party element, then we can talk.  Until then, consider me skeptical.

  • DeNihilist

    The single most stupid thing ever to occur in the building trades are these multi-storey office/condo buildings that have floor to ceiling windows! Sure they look cool and are probably nice to be in, but the energy needed to heat and cool these behemoths, IIRC, is on the scale of 20-35% more then the old standard wall and window buildings.

    When these type of buildings get regulated out of existence, then I will believe that local councils are taking this CAGW thing seriously. 

  • Marlowe Johnson

    Bah. stupid more-than-one-link moderation rule.

    @10
    moderate republicans do generally support efficiency initiatives (cars, buildings, appliances, etc.).  However, in case you hadn’t noticed, moderate republicans don’t exactly control the policy direction of the party.  that privilege currently rests with the tea party element, which is very much against  efficiency standards of any kind.  This is hardly surprising as standards are, by definition, a government intrusion on the ‘free’ market.  Can’t have that now can we.
     

     

  • harrywr2

    #8 Marlowe,
    <i>can you point me to the republicans that  support an </i>
    Right here…
    http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/legislation/pdf/PracticalEnergyPlan.pdf
    with Senator Lugars single Republican vote and 59 democrat votes in the Senate(that existed in 2010) and concurrence of what was the democratic controlled congress his plan would be ‘the law of the land’.
    But alas…the powers that be decided it should be ‘Waxman-Markey’ or nothing.
     

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @15
    You’re making my point for me.  Much has changed in the last couple of years, and it has nothing to do with ‘climate change’.  It has to do with one party being taken over by an extremists element that has no appetite for crafting bipartisan policy.  Taking the ‘oblique’/hartwell approach won’t change this dynamic one bit.

  • BBD

    Rick A

    After all ““ the planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years.

    Wrong-o! In the good old days the view was that the early Holocene (11.5 – 5ka) was warmer than the millennia that followed. This was termed the Holocene Climatic Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Holocene Altithermal or Holocene Hypsithermal.

    Things were a little more complicated than that, with all sorts of regional variation confounding a nice, tidy picture. Still, broadly speaking, the NH was warmer about 5ka and has cooled since.

  • hunter

    Except for Friedman using a straw man as his opponent, and your embracing of that strawman, both his column and your blog post are very good acknowledgements of reality: the extremists apocalypse based AGW movement is dying for lack of evidence. When the self-declared “climate concerned” are ready for serious talks on energy efficientcies, cleaning the environment, etc., come on in. We skeptics have been talking about those ideas for a long time.
     You would be welcome to the ocnversation.
     

  • Paul Kelly

    What a coincidence. Just the other day I said to somebody “You’re missing the teachable moment. The whole this is war mentality is self destructive. You say say it is time to go ever more valiantly into the breach. I say it is time to study war no more. In a coincidence, Thomas Friedman has decided to study war no more and adopt the focus communication model.

  • Keith Kloor

    Well, looks like somebody felt compelled to do damage control.

  • BBD

    I didn’t realise Romm used to work for Amory Lovins. Now that explains much about JR’s attitude to nuclear.

  • BBD

    …And also the puzzling belief that an industrialised economy – complete with a full fleet of electrical personal transport grown over the next 2 decades – can be powered on renewables. Not a nook in sight. Nowhere. Nasty, horrible things.

  • RickA

    BBD @17:

    So the sea level has fallen compared to 5000 years ago?

    Could you show me a graph of that please.

  • RickA

    BBD @17:

    Here is a graph of sea level rise from NASA over the last 25K – I don’t see the level falling from 5000 years ago.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg 

  • EdG

    Great creative writing Keith. I see the movie, someday.

    So TF has changed his tune AGAIN. As I recall, he was all for the invasion of Iraq too, for a while.

    I think TF is an extraordionarily over-rated and shallow blowhard, so where he stands on anything is irrelevant to me. But I guess this matters to those who actually take him seriously.

    This made me laugh out loud:

    “If you are so reckless as to dismiss all climate science as a hoax, and do not accept the data that our planet is getting hotter and the oceans rising, I can’t help you.”

    Really. Even if the planet was getting hotter or the sea level was rising, how could this would-be hero help us?

    Such a world of delusion. But on the very bright side Keith, you have probably launched what could be an entertaining chapter in the soap opera. As The World Warms, Or Not.

  • RickA

    BBD @17:

    Here is  a graph (from wikipedia) which is over the last 9000 years – and  while it does show a slight decline in sea level around 5000 years ago – the decline started from a level below the level of today.

    So I would have to say that at least from the sea level standpoint – you are wrong.

  • RickA
  • harrywr2

    #16
    <i>It has to do with one party being taken over by an extremists element that has no appetite for crafting bipartisan policy.</i>
    Yep…those couple of years when Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House were truly a ‘one party’ show.
    The democrats had a huge margin in the house and were one vote shy of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and they couldn’t even manage to peel away a single RINO in the Senate.

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @28
    indeed. which tells me one of two things. either the dems were absolutely horrible at arm-twisting a few amenable rinos or the republican brass was exceptionally good at it.  Oh wait.  Those aren’t mutually exclusive are they ;-) ?

  • EdG

    24 Nice graph of sea level rise. Yes, recent rises are accelerating and unprecedented – NOT!

    The sea level scare is so bogus that I cannot believe that anyone other than island extortionists are still flogging that story.

  • RickA

    EdG @30:

    Thanks Ed.

    I just think it interesting that 98% of the sea level rise (49 meters) over the last 12,000 years is blamed on natural variability – but humans are blamed for the last meter (or 1/2 meter or 1/4 meter, depending on who you listen to).

    When you subtract out the sea level rise from 1950 to present from natural causes – I wonder how much is left over due to CO2, asphalt, etc. (human causes). 

    I am skeptical of the projections of sea level rise and temperature level rise to 2100.

    I really cannot wait until we hit 560 ppm (a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm), so we can go outside and measure the temperature, and directly determine climate sensitivity.

    I am betting it is down around 1.2C. 

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    Well BBD .. you are of course quibbling minor  points, but generally I would agree with at least that point .. 

    However, in another thread you happened to argue that averaging data to get a clearer picture is permissible (if it gives you the result you want to display, with ‘more clarity’). Especially for those pesky ‘natural fluctuations’ .. 

    Ergo, by your own ‘logic’ you cannot wrong anybody saying that it has become warmer over the last 12000 years.

    I would of course agree with those saying that we have ‘plateaued’ since the the holocene optimum, plus of course ‘natural variations’ on top of that.

    But in the other thread, it was an almost identical argument you wanted to get away from using ‘creative averaging’

    You know, consistency and alarmism .. they don’t go well together … 

     

  • RickA

    Jonas N#32:

    Perhaps this is another quibble – or maybe some creative averaging.

    However, 50 meters in millimeters (50 * 1000) divided by 12000 years gives 4.16 mm per year (the average sea level rise per year over 12000 years)  - which is twice the current rate of sea level rise of 2 mm per year.

    Again – what is the big deal? 

  • BBD

    Jonas N

    Well BBD .. you are of course quibbling minor  points, but generally I would agree with at least that point ..

    No I’m not. Rick A was wrong to claim that the world has been warming for 12ka. Also, the major increase in MSL occurred during deglaciation ~14 – 8ka. This is clearly visible in the graphs that he links but apparently does not understand. Actual variation in MSL during the last 8ka has been quite small.
    Projected SLR is suggested to be most likely to come from a non-linear response by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to warming subsurface water. If the ice shelves buttressing the WAIS break up, the gravity-driven drainage of the ice sheet proper will accelerate and contribute to future SLR.

    Ergo, by your own “˜logic’ you cannot wrong anybody saying that it has become warmer over the last 12000 years.

    I have absolutely no idea how you reason this. I said (correctly) that smoothing monthly anomalies into annual means helps to reveal the underlying behaviour of a multi-decadal time-series. You’ve gone a long, long way from there. On your own.

    I also want to be plain about something: you aren’t just trolling this blog – you are trolling me, personally. This is tedious in the extreme but I absolutely assure you that you will not stop me commenting here.

  • RickA

    BBD #34:

    But the world is warmer today than it was 12000 years ago – as evidenced by the 50 meter rise in the sea level.

    I never said it was warmer each and every year during the course of the last 12000 years.

    At least as far as sea level rise is concerned, you are wrong that it has cooled over the last 5ka – as the sea level is higher than it was 5ka ago.

    The important point that I was trying to make is that Tom Friedman erecting a strawman by focusing on the world warming – when the real issue is how much of the warming is natural versus human caused.

    As I showed above – the natural rate of sea level rise, averaged over the last 12000 years is twice the current rate. 

  • BBD

    Rick A

    12ka the world was still in the last glacial.

    6ka it was warmer than the present.

    These statements are both correct and not mutually exclusive. You are confuse and partisan in equal measure.

    At least as far as sea level rise is concerned, you are wrong that it has cooled over the last 5ka ““ as the sea level is higher than it was 5ka ago.

    Do you know what glacial isostatic rebound is Rick? That might explain some of your confusion about GAT and SLR.

  • BBD

    You see fond of Wikipedia graphs. Here’s one (fully referenced at the bottom of the page) showing Holocene temperature reconstructions.

    Surprised you missed it.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD … You are hardly one to complain about trolling. 

    If you feel that you’d rather not be contradicted by ne when you make nonsensical claims … there is an obvious solution for you (can you figure it out yourself?)

    And if you want to continue to comment here (which I encourage) an even better method would be to reply politely, when asked what you meant. And assume that people not agreeing with you don’t do this because they are paid (by eg Heartland) to lie. I find such suggestions very offensive. And generally I am amazed how quickly the alarmist side gives up any pretense of even discussing any issues (scientific or policy-wise) and replace there lack of knowledge/arguments with innuendo and insults .. 

    And BTW Rick has a point, heat content has probably increased the entire time, albeit not the lower troposphere  average temperature. 

    And while we’re at it: May I politely ask what you mean by “SLR is suggested to be most likely to come from a non-linear response by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

    I would particularly want to know what you mean by ‘non-linear’ (and also, since this hardly is your realization, from what source you have obtained it. You! Not any alleged paper you haven’t read)

  • RickA

    BBD #37:

    You must not know how to read a graph.

    The arrow pointing to 2004 is clearly higher than the temperature 6000 years ago.  So it must be warmer today than it was 6000 years ago. This is based on your own citation.

    I think you are the one that is confused.

    Yes I know about GIA.

    Didn’t they adjust the SLR data to account for that?

    The point is that the sea level is higher today than it was 12000 years ago, 6000 years ago or 5000 years ago – so it is not surprising that it will continue to rise (naturally).

    How much of the rise is due to nature and how much to humans – that is the question. 

  • BBD

    Jonas N

    And if you want to continue to comment here (which I encourage) an even better method would be to reply politely, when asked what you meant.

    Your first comment to me here:

    I see that BBD has taken his blathering here, and tries to smear people who understand the topics far better than him. Even demands that certain organisations aren’t allowed to participate in public debate unless “¦

    You are an abusive, bloody hypocritical troll with a penchant for misrepresenting what others say.

  • Matt B

    @ 20 KK,

    Thanks for the link; I love how Romm defines the reference frame as Freidman being a centrist/moderate, thus if Friedman agrees with Romm’s “two main ideas” then anyone who disagrees also believes cavemen rode dinosaurs. 

    Does anyone, anywhere have a handy list of definitions that makes one a Progressive? A Tea Partier? A Centrist? Hell, a Denier? A Warmist? These ridiculous labels just gets tossed around as if A. there is an accepted set of parameters that defines a person as such and B. tea partier in uno, tea partier in omnibus……..I’m going home now to talk to my dog………

  • BBD

    Rick A

    The arrow pointing to 2004 is clearly higher than the temperature 6000 years ago.  So it must be warmer today than it was 6000 years ago. This is based on your own citation.

    That would be AGW. Since the AGW signal began to emerge in the C20th, temperatures have risen to levels not seen for millennia. Wow. The planet still cooled for the last 6ka. As you can see, if you can read a graph.
     

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD 

    No, I am not abusive, nor am I hypocritical. Nor need I pretend to know things I don’t know. And I don’t need to accuse others of lying every time I think they are wrong. (in your case often)

    You had been deriding the fact that Heartland does not think that Al Gores  AIT is suitable for kids, to be presented as ‘science’. And other similar issues. You had been for days arguing that they shouldn’t do that. That in order to partake in any public debate, they should comply to your whisical (and ever changing) demands, that you your self nowhere are interested in complying with. In short: You wanted to stifle debate .. 

    And the things you said about voices you don’t understand(agree with?) were just horrendous ..

    I grant you the right to publicly expound your antipathies ..  but as so often, you lefties, want to to do this without granting anybody else the same rights. (Usually you want to get paid for it too, by those you deride)

    Sorry, but I can’t go that far. You spouting insults and allegations of lies … you will be met with language in kind. Get used to it … 

  • BBD

    Jonas N

    I had enough of your misrepresentations on the other thread. That you are now bringing them here is clear evidence that you are trolling. As for this fiction of yours, I said no such thing:

    You had been deriding the fact that Heartland does not think that Al Gores  AIT is suitable for kids, to be presented as “˜science’. And other similar issues. You had been for days arguing that they shouldn’t do that.

    Now this is where you get to show that I did, or admit that you are simply making stuff up then claiming that I said it.

    You spouting insults and allegations of lies “¦ you will be met with language in kind. Get used to it “¦

    Sigh.
    As I have already said, this is tedious.

  • BBD

    And the things you said about voices you don’t understand(agree with?) were just horrendous ..

    Just lies.

    Provide examples. Right now.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    Once more you make demands that I spoon feed you with our own spoutings and contradictions. And still you cannot answer even a courteous question directed at you .. 

    And you are whining and feeling sorry for yourself.

    It is not me who makes you appear pathetic. Remember that once adult, you and only you are liable for your own actions.  

  • BBD

    Examples of the things you claim I said, Jonas. Now please.

  • Fred

    “Climate Orthodoxy Police” – how absolutely juvenile. CAGW has assumed the worst trappings of fundamentalist religious movements.

    “We ratchet up climate doom messaging and we whack the deniers.”

    Sure, JR, keep this up.

  • BBD

    Oh sorry. Your question got lost in the volume of other stuff you posted.

    Non-linear breakup – meaning not a linear response to surface temperature change, nor to the causative agent – warming sub-surface currents.

    I was thinking of Hansen (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen.pdf

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD

    And the things you said about voices you don’t understand(agree with?) were just horrendous ..”

    “Provide examples. Right now.”

    Well, everything about me for starters. But it started well before my appearance. Here are some quotes:

    “”Everybody knows HI has been peddling pseudo-science and disinformation for years”

    “*public* that has the right to know who is trying to bamboozle the political class by funding fake science”

    “Spencer, Lindzen and Pielke Snr have produced *nothing* that convincingly backs up their claims. Nothing. It’s all been dissected and found wanting by others. There is no evidence for a low CS. No evidence that ACO2 emissions are not the major driver of recent warming. ”

    amazingly followed by this own goal:

    “The difference between you and I is that I am not such a colossal prat as to think that I know better than the experts. I don’t try and second-guess …”

    “he GWPF is another denialist lobbying organisation masquerading as a “˜think tank’ and ““ appallingly ““ claiming tax-exempt status to boot.”

    “I always used to avoid the d- word. Unfortunately, it is the correct term for certain types of systematic evidence rejection. ”

    “I did hint at the likelihood of the parsimonious explanation being correct (“˜Occam’s razor and all that’). Did you not understand that bit?”

    “Since when is arguing for transparent funding as an instrument of open democracy a “˜totalitarian solution’?”

    Apparently you also wrote:

    “Wrong. Paying fake experts to emit a miasma of pseudo-science and disinformation aimed at politicians and children is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.”

    “I’m saying that HI should be widely exposed as a peddler of pseudo-science and disinformation, and its principal funders made public. The public has both a need and a democratic right to know who is trying to cheat the system.”
    This goes far beyond some ignorant activist not understanding or agreeing with what is said in a debate. It is what one would expect from a lefty loon demanding that only his version (‘understanding’) should be allowed in public .. And on top of that, one that hardly understands his ‘own side’s’ arguments. 

    As I said, I think you should be allowed to go on like this. But don’t ever expect that you’ll get away with this without being contradicted. And the minute you demand that other voices should not partake in the debate you will be the target of relentless ridicule … as you were.

    Get used to it! You are not the only voice about the issue. Most often you don’t even know what the issue is.
     

  • Keith Kloor

    Fred (48)

    You do know that I’m goofing on Romm, right?  

  • BBD

    It is not me who makes you appear pathetic. Remember that once adult, you and only you are liable for your own actions. 

    Sure. Accept responsibility for yours. Prove that I said the things you claim I did by providing examples.

    Otherwise people are going to think you are a liar and an abusive troll.

  • BBD

    JN

    Go back to the other thread. I will respond there, this is ot the place.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    I see that you impatiently repeat your demands that I spoon feed you.

    How about reciprocating, how about actually answering what (physically, wrt to anything pertinent to the debate) is increased clearity if you average your data points. That the line is smoother is self evident. I don’t question that, but what (if anything) is shown with increased ‘clearity’? 

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD 

    Have you actually read the Hansen paper, and I mean ‘really read’ and ‘understood’? Not just opened in your browser? 

    Forgive me for asking a so impertinent question, but virtually every alarmist ever sending me a reference like that, has not, and/or has vastly overstated its contents. In a way that I am pretty sure they haven’t really read, definitely not understood, its content.

    I ask if you (in this respect) are different than all other alarmists I have ever encountered? 

  • Fred

    Keith (51):

    I thought about that only after I hit the “Submit Comment” button. A very good spoof! Hilarious! So in character for JR.

  • BBD

    Jonas N

    but what (if anything) is shown with increased “˜clearity’?

    The nature of change on multi-decadal timescales. Obviously.

    Yes, I’ve read the Hansen paper. Now you can share with us all in what ways I have failed to understand it. Using your towering intellect and powerful scientific insight.

    But don’t rush. I’m going to bed now. I’ll take a look in the morning.

    There’s only so much I can take in one go.

  • BBD

    It gives you a chance to go and see what’s been posted at WUWT. As you did with the Evans & Puckrin paper.

    Hey! You can even use this. But then, you knew that already, I’m sure.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    I have now started to read that Hansen paper, and it represents what I absolutely loathe about ‘climate science’. There is no science in that paper, only a lot of opinions and advocacy (no big surprise though). Have you followed any of the references that he claims to provide this ‘non-linearity’? Before I asked? 

    BBD can you be honest about anything? 

  • Marlowe Johnson

    Keith,

    Do you have any substantive response to Romm’s followup? Seems to me that you may have jumped the shark on this one, although i give you points for creative writing :)  

    @BBD
    Hansen is boring.  ‘climate is an angry beast’ blah blah blah. actually that’s wally broecker but you get the point.

    let’s talk about the holes in Dan Kammen’s 100% renewables scenario! or perhaps we could talk about his love of mid-size nuclear to get you feeling all warm and fuzzy. wasting time with trolls is bad enough. wasting time with dull, predictable, and innumerate trolls is just plain dumb.

  • Keith Kloor

    Marlowe (60) 

    Nobody parodies Romm better than Romm. You actually take that  “followup” seriously? Romm will be Romm: He’s a one dimensional propaganda machine. What’s most discouraging is that Friedman allows himself to be used in such a manner.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD #58  I don’t know what you are implying. I read the E&Ppaper, I never went to WUWT. Is this once more your imagination running away with you? 

    Did WUWT point out how badly you bungled the H2O content between winter and summer? I had no clue .. I have never seen any post there about that Did they in advance know how badly you were about to f*ck up? I don’t believe you .. And no, I usually don’t use the Guardian as a primary source either. 

    Ratherit seems, you once more let yourself be guided by your prejudices  

    BTW, why did you bring up WUWT? I certainly didn’t? I read there sometimes. Comment very sparsely .. never use them as primary source.

    Was your counter-question prompted by  me asking about Skeptical Science? Because you never answered that? As I said: You sound like one of their not so knowledgeable followers. Especially when you try ‘Give me a reference’ when you are out of arguments. 

    Did that hit the mark? I don’t know. But barely anything I have seen from you holds any higher class than ‘have read this at SkSc’ … including gow you handle follow up questions.

    Care to answer BBD? 

  • http://rabett.blogspot.com Eli Rabett

    Don’t give up your day job.  Oh, wait.

  • stan

    Amidst the raving, frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics at the NYTimes op-ed section, Friedman can sometimes even appear sort of intelligent.  But it’s really just a function of the bad intellectual neighborhood he inhabits.

    With more and more of the supposed ‘scientists’ pushing his agenda being exposed as liars, frauds and incompetents, he’s now decided he’s no longer interested in arguing about their work.  Wow, that’s a shocker.   Getting his tail handed to him has apparently lost its appeal.

    The models are being exposed daily.  The shoddy statistics, the corruption of the IPCC, the incompetence of the hockey team, and the growing hysteria of warmist gleekers who see the con failing should have given Tom a clue long before now.  Changing the conversation now isn’t likely to fool anyone.

    I suggest he get the Copenhagen gang back together and let Chavez get everyone jacked up with another blistering hate-filled rant against capitalism.  It won’t change anything, but the excitement would probably cheer him up for a while.   

  • harrywr2

    #29 Marlowe,
    which tells me one of two things. either the dems were absolutely horrible at arm-twisting a few amenable rinos or the republican brass was exceptionally good at it.


    There is a 3rd possibility…which I called the ‘flag burning amendment’ vote.
    Every few years we have a kerfuffle over flag desecration. There are always 3 versions of a constitutional amendment introduced in the Senate. All the Senators except Bernie Sanders(Socialist from Vermont.) gets to vote for 2 of the 3 versions. Constitutional Amendments need 67 votes in the Senate. All three version get 66 votes.
    The point being that sometimes Senators will only vote for a piece of legislation they know in advance it will fail. Hence, there is no point in ‘twisting the arm’ of a RINO if it just means that someone on your own side is going to end up voting no.

    We had the energy acts of 2005,2007 and 2009. We really don’t know how effective they will be yet. It could very well be that the Senate wants to ‘wait and see’.


  • Steve Fitzpatrick

    #25,
    “I think TF is an extraordinarily over-rated and shallow blowhard”
    Agreed.  I find his repetitive and tedious commentary on how technology is developed and implemented typical of someone who has never actually developed anything.   He makes the eyes of those who actually have developed technology roll skyward in disbelief.
    There is a good case to be made for incentives to improve efficiency of energy use, but I can think of nobody less qualified to make that case than Mr. Friedman.  OK, maybe Joe Romm is less qualified.

  • RickA

    BBD @42:

    Move the goalposts much?

    I said it was warmer today than it was 6000 years ago (and it is).

    @36 you said “6ka it was warmer than the present” (and it is not).

    Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word “today” or maybe you don’t understand the meaning of the word “present”.

    Just admit you were wrong.

    The sea level has risen over the last 12000 years, the temperature has risen over the last 12000 years – and that trend continues today.  

    How much of the warming since 1850 is natural?

    Maybe 50-75%? 

  • BBD

    RickA

    I’m not wrong. The planet has cooled for about 6ka. Then it got very warm all of a sudden during the C20th. That doesn’t change the fact that there has been 6ka of cooling and your original claim that ‘the world has been warming for 12ka’ is mistaken.

    MSL rose substantially (~60 metres) during the actual deglacial phase. Slowly thereafter, but by around 2ka the rise had virtually stopped. That it seems to be rising again in the C20th is interesting and noteworthy.

    I’m not going to argue any further on this thread – which is not about MSL or the Holocene climate. Nor am I going to discuss how much warming since 1850 is anthro vs natural. We clearly differ on that estimation as well, but so be it.

  • BBD

    Marlowe # 60

    Hansen may be boring, but I think he has a point ;-)

    Interesting Kamman article – agreed that huge numbers of mini-nooks bring with them logistical problems of their own which may prove insoluble. Which is why I tend to favour a standard big plant approach, for all its perceived shortcomings, especially in the minds of those wedded to the distributed generation paradigm.

    I haven’t seen K’s renewables-only proposal, but if it resembles all the others, it will be flawed and unworkable.

  • kdk33

    Absolutely fascinating!

    Friedman still had some tart words for those who think that belief in climate science is a slippery slope to one-world, UN-led government.

    Nowhere in the Op-Ed does TF mention OWUNLG.  Just sayin’.

    If you are so reckless as to dismiss all climate science as a hoax, and do not accept the data that our planet is getting hotter and the oceans rising, I can’t help you.

    I find it terribly telling that the “science side” continues to trot out this silly strawman.  Of course these aren’t the skeptics issues.  There are two possiblities:  1) TF doesn’t know what the skeptics issues are, so is incompetent, 2) TF knows, but continues to knowingly mislead the public – ie lie.

    “there is a great market opportunity for innovation.”

    And if resources become scarce, their price will reflect that scarcity and the market will respond.  All on it’s own.  With no central planning.

    Rocky Mountain Institute and its business collaborators show how private enterprise “” motivated by profit, supported by smart policy

    But (sigh) it is yet another call for central planning and crony capitalism. 

    ——————————————————————————————
    BTW, anybody notice that RMI has a bigger budget than HI.  Anybody bother to see how many RMI employees are pulling down in excess of $200k.  Strange that noone is calling for “transparency”.  Can we let anonymous donors manipulate public opinion this way?  How can we have democracy when all this money and all those RMI-types are undermining the process?

    I sense hypocrisy

  • BBD

    kdk33

    I sense hypocrisy

    Two minor points arising:

    - The RMI isn’t faking science and curriculum content

    - I argue for transparency *for all*. Not just HI

    Little things, but they do reveal you as a point-scoring partisan.

  • kdk33

    The RMI isn’t faking science and curriculum content

    Bingo.  Hypocrisy confirmed!

    Little things, but they do reveal you as a point-scoring partisan

    Seriously BBD, your name-calling, while consistent with the scare-side, is tiresome.  Can you not think of anything more creative?

    Now, when it came to HI you were frothing at the mouth, patently appoplectic that HI and “big money” and “big oil” and “entrenched interests” were “undermining democracy”.  That the “public had a right to know”. 

    Yet, when it comes to RMI (whose budget is 3X HI) you are…. quiet as a mouse.

    Point scoring partisan indeed.

  • RickA

    BBD @68:

    I’m not going to argue any further on this thread . . . 

    Remember that you started the argument.

    Still – this little disagreement has been worthwhile. 

    You didn’t like my assertion that it has been warming since 12000 years ago.

    I didn’t like your assertion that it has been cooling since 6000 years ago.

    What this exchange has shown is that it is all about the scale we choose to discuss.

    To bring it back to the thread – that is TF’s problem.

    He has his nose so close to the tree trunk that he cannot see the whole tree – much less the forest.v 

  • BBD

    kdk33

    Now, when it came to HI you were frothing at the mouth, patently appoplectic that HI and “big money” and “big oil” and “entrenched interests” were “undermining democracy”.  That the “public had a right to know”. 

    Which bit of “transparency *for all*” didn’t you understand?

    What about faking science and the curriculum strikes you as good, fair and reasonable and worthy of support?

    It’s not hypocrisy you are getting from me. It’s common sense.

     

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @61

    Keith, like i said maybe i’m not getting it, but it seems to me that Friedman unambiguously rejects how you and revkin have characterized his column. Consider the following:

    “”It is sort of pathetic that people grasp at any perceived shift in emphasis in my column to drive a wholly different agenda.”

    “”Addressing climate change is not about R&D.  Breakthroughs come from deployment, and driving prices down come from deployment. Those two together are what give you scalable responses to our climate problem.”

    Remind me again how any of this is consistent with the Kloor/Revkin/Hartwell/BTI tribe’s sacred tenets?
     

  • BBD

    Marlowe Johnson

    Have you read Reinventing Fire? If so, would you recommend it (it’s hardcover-only in the UK and over $40USD equivalent)?

    Thanks – BBD

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    BBD – So Heartland has been ‘faking science’ according to you?

    Really? Can you give an example of science Heartland has performed, what part of it is fake, and how you established that indeed was?

    If you ask me, the term ‘frothing at the mouth’ is quite appropriate

  • BBD

    Jonas

    I have stopped reading your comments. You are talking to yourself.

  • http://reclaimreality.blogspot.com Jonas N

    You know BBD

    you sound exactly like the stupid activst hacks hanging around alarmist blogs believing every single word they read there …

    .. and concluding: Therefore, everybody else must be lying, and probably because they are paid to lie!

    Like the villian in a bad comic book.

  • harrywr2

    #75
    Remind me again how any of this is consistent with the Kloor/Revkin/Hartwell/BTI tribe’s sacred tenets?
    When you start looking at underdeveloped world power grids and even rural US power grids the choices as to what can be plugged into them for generation are quite limited.
    The ‘average’ coal fired plant in the US is less then 250MW and the ‘average’ gas fired plant is less then 100MW.
    http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/table1.2.pdf
    Absent expensive grid improvements replacing those plants is problematic. They tend to serve  single localities that are reluctant to be wholly dependent on ‘long lines’ for their power needs.
    ‘Long Lines’ are prone to damage from solar geomagnetic storms.
    If you are a small rural community concerned about ‘interruption of supply’ then coal is the fuel of choice. It’s easy to stockpile to guard against interruption of fuel supply. Oil requires some sort of container and natural gas requires a quite sophisticated container.
     

  • BBD

    harrywr2

    The “˜average’ coal fired plant in the US is less then 250MW and the “˜average’ gas fired plant is less then 100MW.

    Perhaps those currently served by 250MW coal plants are the natural customers for mini-reactors? (See Marlowe @ 60). Without the infrastructural and political issues often bedevilling the developing world, the distribution, servicing, fuelling and waste logistics might make sense. And no long lines.

  • kdk33

    Which bit of “transparency *for all*” didn’t you understand?

    The part where you were frothing at the mouth about HI, but quiet as a mouse about RMI.  That’s the part.

    What about faking science and the curriculum strikes you as good, fair and reasonable and worthy of support? 

    Yes, I would support substantial reductions in taxpayer funding (ie extracted contributions) for climate activists.  Would you agree?

    It’s not hypocrisy you are getting from me.

    Really?  Smells like hypocrisy to me.

    It’s common sense.

    No, it’s your opinion masquerading as something else.
    ——————————————————————-

    But, enough of this.  I think you have illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.

  • BBD

    kdk33

    Have you checked where most of RMI’s revenue comes from?

    The Institute’s ~$13-million annual revenue comes from programmatic enterprise, chiefly private-sector consultancy, and from grants and donations.


    Ooh look! It earns most of its own keep. Methinks you bloviate.

  • kdk33

    It earns most of its own keep.

    Yes, BBD, I know that.  If you have a point, I can’t imagine what it is.  HI’s support is mostly private sector, yet you froth at the mouth at the mere mention. 

    More ironically, it was HI’s private donors that you wanted to “expose”.  Yet RMI’s private donors you  consider “paying it’s own way”.  The stench of hypocrisy.

    Just to help you out.  The public funding I referred to above was for climate science proper.  Didn’t think I would need to spell that out for you.  But, hey, I’m happy to help.

    ps.  You really should work on your snark.  it’s worse than your logic.

  • Jarmo

    A. Revkin has  a piece on Jonathan Foley, a “climate pragmatist”,who also preaches the energy approach:

     Many of my conservative friends are deeply suspicious of climate change, and they hate carbon taxes and cap and trade. They’re not interested in adapting to a supposedly hypothetical future. Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
    But these same friends embrace ideas like U.S. energy independence, reducing foreign oil imports, promoting economic growth, protecting our families from harm and improving the U.S. balance of trade. And many of these same friends, while skeptical about climate change, see the wisdom in protecting rain forests and the world’s biodiversity.

     I honestly don’t care who “wins” or “loses” the climate debate. I just want to solve the problem. And I know that there are good people, with good ideas, on the other side, who want to solve the problem too. Maybe, if we all can find the humility to care more about finding real solutions than winning the debate, we can get somewhere.

     http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/meet-jonathan-foley-climate-pragmatist/#more-43209

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, a senior editor at Cosmos magazine, and adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

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 »