There is more or less a constant state of consternation among the climate concerned on why their ideas about climate don’t spread like wildfire or take deeper root.
This is despite the fact that majorities in almost every country acknowledge human-caused climate change, with percentages fluctuating around a solid mean only when dramatic stories emerge.
I doubt if any of them will consider this seriously, but I firmly believe it is because their ideas, messaging, themes and marketing pillars never–never–pass through the hot fire of open debate.
Confronting the opposition sharpens the wit as well as the message, and this never happens with the climate concerned. They’ve listened too well to folk like Naomi Oreskes, who warned against the legitimizing power of debate to minority viewpoints and hence very rarely engage with skeptics or lukewarmers in public.
They resort to cheap gamesmanship online, mostly refusing to engage at contrarian venues and censoring the opposition at their own.
Too many climate-oriented websites end up just preaching to the converted, commiserating about their lack of resonance and blaming the opposition with whom they refuse to converse.
So, if you think that the case made for climate concern is muddy, weak and diffuse, it’s because the case has never really been through the trial by fire that produces a winning argument.
Once again this subject is being discussed, this time over at Planet 3. The discussion references recent conversations here at this blog. It’s a discussion in which I normally would enjoy participating. But because the administrators of the blog censor the opposition, they will not get to test their tropes with me. But feel free to go over there, put your two cents’ worth in, hit submit and get the sign that your comment is in moderation. And then wait a day or so to see if it gets posted or not.
That’s the way to get both sides of an issue.
The Lukewarmer's Way 
Me post at P3?
lol.
Those delicate souls would react as the Pharisees would if a tax collector showed up in the synagogue.
” the case has never really been through the trial by fire that produces a winning argument.”
What do you think the peer review process is, if not a “trial by fire”?
Why do think a million data points, confirmation of results by multiple forms of inquiry, and an hypothesis (global warming) which is predicted by the laws of physics constitute a ” case …[which is]…is muddy, weak and diffuse,”
Virtually every climate scientist is of the opinion that global warming is true, every scientific organization on the planet of any snuff believes this is undeniably the case. All you have to rebut this is claims of a grand conspiracy, and whining about being censored on some blogs.
Wake up and smell the coffee:
=> You. Are. Wrong. <=
Hi Roger. There is always the possibility that I am wrong. However, I don’t think the points you introduce are evidence of that.
You seem to think peer-review is a seal of approval on scientific endeavor. It is not. Peer review at its best establishes a floor below which a paper must not sink. And it is uneven in application–just in the little hothouse that is climate science, garbage like Anderegg, Prall et al gets published in prestigious journals such as PNAS.
Data indeed shows unusual warming.But it is at a far lower (or slower) rate than trumpeted by the climate concerned. Since temperatures stalled in 1998, humanity has belched out one-third of all emissions in our history. This is data–and this data doesn’t support claims of high sensitivity.
I side with the ‘virtually every scientist’ who hold that global warming is true. So do 99% of the skeptics I encounter in the blogosphere. That’s not really the point under discussion.
I don’t believe there is a grand conspiracy and have said so repeatedly. Why would you write something about me that is patently not true?
Finally, I’m not whining about my being censored. I’m trying to wake up the climate concerned regarding one reason why their concerns, many of which I share, are not gaining traction among the general public and policy makers.
> You seem to think peer-review is a seal of approval on scientific endeavor.
Speaking of which:
> Peer review is bogus. Good stuff gets flushed. Bad stuff gets published. Better reviewers are overworked and worse ones available. Review is unpaid and itself unreviewed. There is very little motivation to do a good job, and increasingly it shows.
Speaking of which:
> Peer review is bogus. Good stuff gets flushed. Bad stuff gets published. Better reviewers are overworked and worse ones available. Review is unpaid and itself unreviewed. There is very little motivation to do a good job, and increasingly it shows.
Finding the author of the above quote is left as an exercise to the reader.
I have over 20 peer reviewed publications and have been asked to review over 10. Peer review is simply politics by another name. It catches the small obvious mistakes, but lets the big ones sail through if the conclusions are right.
The most interesting papers I have read in the past 5 years have not been peer reviewed.
Of course there is a consensus on global warming. Put some numbers in and ask for a mechanism and that consensus disappears real fast.
Roger’s comment perfectly illustrates Tom’s point. Apparently Roger has not been informed that almost all skeptics agree that global warming is “true”. They simply believe that most of what Roger has heard about it is hysteria and not good science.
Wow Roger, that’s a terrific comment, WTG man! You offered stunningly original arguments that nobody here has ever heard before and they would never even have occurred to us. Clearly we are all total novices and complete babes-in-the-wood and have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. “Wake up and smell the coffee.” MWAHAHAHA!! What a gag! You should be on TV!
“Data indeed shows unusual warming.But it is at a far lower (or slower) rate than trumpeted by the climate concerned. Since temperatures stalled in 1998, humanity has belched out one-third of all emissions in our history. This is data–and this data doesn’t support claims of high sensitivity.”
Temperatures have not stalled since 1998. Dear god – how many new global annual temp records since that point do you you have to ignore to come to that conclusion?!?
There have been a zillion fiskings of that cherry-picked date available for about a full year now. Have you studiously ignored those as well?
More importantly…. what would your hypothesis be, if your assertion was indeed true, for where that extra heat went? The laws of physics demand it is generated, satellites confirm the imbalance of incoming and outgoing energy has been constant, so where do you think it went, if indeed it is missing? Cloud Cuckoo Land? Into a filing cabinet in the basement with a label of “Beware the Leopard” on it?
I will grant you that some early predictions of the IPCC were off. So what? AGW is a developing science – brand new. And hampered by lack of funding and instrumentation. Do you think that because every prediction of a review panel is off, it means AGW is not true?
Now, the heat retained by Earth has not been translated into increased surface temperatures as quickly as some of the IPCC scenarios predicted. But we – just recently – have found it – in the deep oceans. And, in a way – thank God. Otherwise our surface temps would have risen even more than they have and we would be dealing with even more increased havoc than we have already been dealing with. The downside, of course, is that deniers still have a few years to delay action before it becomes frightfully obvious what we will really be dealing with in future.
Earth to Roger. The vast majority of skeptics don’t argue with the fact that the earth is warming over the instrumental record. 0.8C over the last century. It is stipulated. If you can find those people who disagree, please correct them, you have my support. Can we move on now?
If you’ve been around long enough in the the climate debate toxic cesspool, you know that the arguments are over climate sensitivity, attribution, and what we should do about it. Worthy of debate.
And we do know how to read a temperature trend. And compare it to climate model projections. That were made with supposed high confidence.
I’m glad “you” found the warming in the oceans, I suggest “you” go fix the models to account for this since it is now such a large and obvious driver of climate. It is “just” physics, right? Wonder why it was missed the first time around? Or is it possible that the irreducible complexity here is a bit too much for our knowledge today? Do you really believe they have solved this so the results are trustworthy to 50 and 100 years? I do not.
One would suppose that if the ocean is now slowing warming by absorbing heat, it may have been releasing said warming in the 1990’s. It works both ways. All things being equal it results in lower climate sensitivity.
Roger,
Let us know when you actually want to discuss the issue.
Right now you are just talking to the strawmen you have set up around you.
Roger,
It is interesting that you blame skeptics, regarding the stall in warming. It is a reaction that literally demonstrates the title of our host’s blog post.
Thank you for your illuminating demonstration of religious thinking in action.
“I have over 20 peer reviewed publications and have been asked to review over 10. Peer review is simply politics by another name. It catches the small obvious mistakes, but lets the big ones sail through if the conclusions are right.
The most interesting papers I have read in the past 5 years have not been peer reviewed.
Of course there is a consensus on global warming. Put some numbers in and ask for a mechanism and that consensus disappears real fast.”
So what you have is a grand conspiracy theory at bottom, right? The scientific consensus is a fraud based on a conspiracy of bad data, or a fraud based on a mass delusion, or a fraud based on self-interest. Or have I misinterpreted you?
Roger,
You are talking to your strawmen again.
It is almost as if you are afraid to discuss actual issues.
Roger, you could take the time to read some of my comments here before making those assumptions. I’d be happy if you would have read my last comment. I have worked in the sciences for over 40 years. I have stated here previously: on the big things, science doesn’t work the way it is supposed to. It’s just not climate science. The big bang, general relativity, and plate tectonics should have been rejected years ago. All this money doesn’t speed things up. It slows them down. It builds a lot of inertia into the system. If you give a bunch of dumb, lazy, dishonest *******s a little power and a bunch of money, they will act like a conspiracy without actually planning one.
If you ever tried to publish something the least bit controversial or were in a tenure track position you would understand just how much pressure there is to conform to the standard paradigm.
As I ended the last talk I gave at the Natural Philosophy Alliance, “Heretics of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your failed paradigms.”
Well, it got more laughs than my Jeff Foxworthy routine, “Are the only people who read your papers your graduate students? Your paradigm might be in trouble.”
Marty,
Roger is demonstrating the premise of Tom’s post perfectly.
After reading this your latest post, and re-reading your prior posts, I regret that I have managed to tick you off so thoroughly.
OK Hunter, let’s start over again.
Marty,
Thanks. I look forward to it.
Regards,
The “consensus ” tactic of refusing to engage in debate and proceed directly to denigration of doubters has been an own goal from the beginning.
That after 25 years of concern by committee we still have neither empirical data or an engineering grade case for the existence of AGW, speaks for its self.
Climatology’s Climate gate response told non specialists all we needed to know. A real scientist loves to explain their discoveries, part of the challenge is showing the public the beauty of science.
A cult will allow no questioning.
Well, if that’s what the climate concerned have got over at P3, no wonder they don’t want to debate.
Really, really weak.
I’m serious–if Roger Lambert represents the apex of achievement and curiousity at P3, and Willard represents the level of good will and ethics, they should do more than make discussion invitation only. They should make entry to the site password-protected.
Please mind your ad hominems, Groundskeeper Willie.
You don’t have time for this anymore.
Please take your friendly advice to where you actually act as a friend, Willard. You have been one of the few commenters on climate blogs that I have seen who have acted maliciously on a consistent basis.
For memory’s sake, almost one year ago:
What’s the title of this post, again?
So happy that you can provide instant examples of malice for me.
Grounskeeper Willie’s shirt rippin’ at Bart’s thread was sanctimonious:
> I was called a denier on this thread 5 by five different pinhead morons before I decided to respond.
Reading the thread showed that this claim was untrue. Ripping one’s shirt does not change this fact. Appealing to spite won’t change that fact either.
Grounskeeper Willie’s modus operandi does not seem to have changed much.
***
Readers should note the last comment on that thread.
Actually, in that thread I cited all five instances where I was called a denier before getting angry. You just have a convenient, if malicious, memory.
Gee, that was easy to find:
thomaswfuller2 Says: April 29, 2012 at 15:06
Quote #1: As I said on that post Fuller may be a good writer of fiction but he is completely dishonest in just about everything he writes. It is dishonest journalists that scientists dislike not the ones who discuss things in an honest manner, even though they may prefer the denier side of the argument.
Quote #2: Describing climate science to a person with limited mathematical ability or training is difficult. Resorting to analogy is dangerous, since those are easily attacked by deniers.
Quote #3: All I know is that you need some categorization. Some deniers are well-funded (Idso, Watts, Bast, Singer, Michaels), some deniers arent well-funded (Fuller).
Quote #4: Bart and James and Eli and whoever else is the flavor of the day (Stoat appears to be having a run) have different POV about how to deal with the day to day denialist pettifoggery
Quote #5: Your honor, I rest my case. Tom Fuller isnt a lukewarmer (a PR title to superficially distance himself from his fellow deniers), but a denier convinced that AGW will be no big dea
Funny how willard didnt manage to find those in his search.
> Actually, in that thread I cited all five instances where I was called a denier before getting angry.
This might be true, but is irrelevant to the fact Groundskeeper Willie got his shirt rippin’ way before these, which was my point all along:
Reading the thread in chronological order shows that his poisoning of the well occured way before he was being called a denier.
Groundskeeper Willie spits on people, and when they react in kind, he rips off his shirt. No wonder all the threads where Groundskeeper Willie rips off his shirt turn about Groundskeeper Willie’s shirt.
***
Let also be noted that everyone who did call him a denier apologized.
Speaking of which, here was my first comment on that thread that was related to that topic:
***
Groundskeeper Willie is in no position to lecture anyone about ethics.
You’re not an honorable man, Willard.
I believe this is the first occurence of “deni” on Bart’s thread:
> We can apply this same logic to climate change. We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies.
In that same comment, we read:
> Oh, gee, OPatrick, I don’t know. Why would we call them preachers?
Notice the image that comes along this very op-ed.
***
Who wrote that comment?
Who was the first to mention a D-word in that thread?
Who still pretends this is not an angry comment?
Groundskeeper Willie, that’s who.
***
Ad hominems won’t change these facts.
“The big bang, general relativity, and plate tectonics should have been rejected years ago. ”
Chuckle.
Is this the level of intellectual honesty to be expected here?
Yes. The big bang — cosmological redshift is quantized.
General Relativity — gravitational shielding, pioneer anomaly, fly by anomaly, general Allais effect, Allais eclipse effect all contradict GR. If you put in the current values for the sun’s oblateness, Newton comes closer to Mercury’s perihelion advance than Einstein. Wake up and smell the coffee/ GR is dead.
Plate tectonics — The centers of the mid oceanic ridges overlap, this was declassified 25 years ago because the Navy thought it would change the science. Ever hear of Perin’s Paradox. PT is geometrically impossible.
Like I said, who cares.
“That after 25 years of concern by committee we still have neither empirical data or an engineering grade case for the existence of AGW, speaks for its self.”
Do you all believe this sort of thing?
No empirical data? There are millions of data points from multiple lines of inquiry. But you accept or see none of this? I suppose you doubt gravity as well? Seriously, you are bordering on clinical psychopathology. No empirical data indeed.
No case for AGW? Seriously???
Tell me, please…. how can there NOT be AGW when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has reached the level it has reached? The stoichemistry of burning carbon fuels, curiously enough, leads to a nearly exact level of CO2 being released, based on the quantity of carbon fuels consumed since the mid nineteenth century, that we see added to the atmosphere, so the “A’ part of “AGW” could not be more clear.
You are arguing against the laws of physics if you deny that AGW will not happen, simply because of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The burden is on you to explain to us how the laws of physics are negated.
Roger,
In science, it is no the presence of “millions of data points” that makes something accurate or not. It is the absence of counter-data points that allows a thesis or hypothesis to stand.
The brand of climate catastrophe you believe in does have counter data points. You have chosen to either ignore them on the one hand, or blame skeptics that they exist on the other.
“Do you all believe this sort of thing?”
The IPCC does. They only give it a “very likely”, and say the approaches used in detection and attribution research cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately “expert judgement” is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change. “Expert judgement” being a euphemism for “their opinion”.
“No empirical data? There are millions of data points from multiple lines of inquiry.”
It’s very easy to generate millions of data points, but very hard to show that they all logically entail what you want to claim it does. “Multiple lines of enquiry” just means that they have lots of studies none of which quite do it, but that they think if you add them all up, lots of “nearly”s add up to a certainty. But scientifically speaking they don’t, hence “expert judgement”.
” Seriously, you are bordering on clinical psychopathology.”
Oh, I do enjoy the hubris of absolute certainty! When you find a conflict between what you believe and what we believe, it’s wise to first find out whether you have simply misunderstood, and clarifying exactly what was meant and why you disagree before ramping up the rhetoric. It can save much embarrassment.
“No case for AGW? Seriously???”
It depends what you mean by the term “AGW”. Do you mean a positive contribution to temperature, or do you mean an attributable observed rise in temperature? I suspect that the person you are quoting meant the latter while you are reading it as the former.
“Tell me, please…. how can there NOT be AGW when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has reached the level it has reached?”
Because there are lots of things that affect surface temperature, many of them poorly understood or unknown, and you can’t tell how much each of them contributed. Anthropogenic CO2 contributes positively, but because climate sensitivity is poorly constrained we don’t know how much. So we can’t tell how much of the observed rise was due to that and how much due to something else.
If sensitivity is 1 C (which is equal to the bit due to CO2) then a 40% rise in CO2 should give rise to about 0.5 C, which is a bit more than half of what has been observed. On the other hand, if the sensitivity is 3 C or higher (due to the feedbacks, which are different mechanisms entirely) then 40% should give rise to about 1.5 C, which is around double what we’ve observed. Hence there are other factors in play contributing changes of of a similar or greater magnitude. And without being able to measure or model these other factors accurately, we cannot say how much role each of them plays in any observed change.
It’s more complicated than you think.
Thomas,
“Is this the level of intellectual honesty to be expected here?”
This statement made me dig out an interesting article that describes the tenets of intellectual honesty which are proposed as:
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.
5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.
6. Demonstrate consistency.
7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.
9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.
Source: http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
It might be an interesting post to apply the above to climate science.
Uh Roger…..
Once you step outside the echo chamber, you will realize that Tom and almost everyone here agrees that carbon-dioxide released during the industrial age has caused the atmosphere to warm.
You will also find that the world has not warmed as much as your fundamentalist preachers would have you believe.
There is no “hotspot”. There is no four-fold amplification caused by water-vapor feed-backs. Without these things, the climate pretty much falls in line with what mainline climate science has been saying for over a hundred years and what the skeptics have been saying for the last twenty.
It might be time to lose your religion and embrace science.
I like to post at some websites because I know they’ll turf my comment.
It’s kind of fun to know that you provided information so scary they have to hide it.
and it’s fun to know you ticked them off.
“I’m glad “you” found the warming in the oceans, I suggest “you” go fix the models to account for this since it is now such a large and obvious driver of climate. It is “just” physics, right? Wonder why it was missed the first time around? Or is it possible that the irreducible complexity here is a bit too much for our knowledge today? Do you really believe they have solved this so the results are trustworthy to 50 and 100 years? I do not.
One would suppose that if the ocean is now slowing warming by absorbing heat, it may have been releasing said warming in the 1990′s. It works both ways. All things being equal it results in lower climate sensitivity.”
I never said that “I” found this. Qualified experts in the field have found it – it wasn’t easy, you know – there wasn’t instrumentation to measure this recently.
That is why it was “missed”. This is a new science – evidently you can not appreciate this – as you imply by your scare quotes that it was “missed” – as if it is part of a grand conspiracy! Good grief!
And no – it does not imply that the deep oceans were releasing this heat in the 1990’s. I don’t have any idea where you came up with that – but it misses the point completely. That heat has been well-sequestered. The timetable for its effect on ground/air temperatures is on a long scale. But that heat – as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics will tell you, will not just disappear. (You DO believe in the Laws of thermodynamics?)
This simple point is important. The extra heat added to the Earth’s systems is no small amount. It is equivalent to the heat of a number of Hiroshima bombs being detonated and retained by the Earth every single second. That is a hell of a lot of heat. If you all really think this heat will not cause AGW, you have an intellectual obligation to not just wave it away – you must explain how it won’t cause temperatures to rise.
You have not earned the right to wave away the climate models constructed by qualified scientists. You need to disprove them. All of your carping about this or that small perceived anomaly proves absolutely nothing. You think you actually have something useful to add to the discussion? Do some real research and present it. Otherwise, you are just ankle-biting.
As far as climate sensitivity – this is being nailed down more accurately every year. And the results that keep coming in indicate that the sensitivity is in the mid to upper range of the models – even the models published a decade ago by the ipcc.
Just remember – climate sensitivity ultimately is about the rate at which all that heat gets translated into increased temperature. At a certain length of scale – it ALL will get translated. Combined with the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are not going to go down in a time scale of less than one or two millenia, trying to make denialist hay out of small differences of opinion about climate sensitivity at this point in time is *unbelievably* irresponsible.
We have now seen a mere 0.8C temperature elevation, and have reached the point where agricultural growing zones have moved two zones northward, the Arctic ice cap is about to disappear in summer, world-wide food levels are falling below needed growth rate, and a host of positive feedback tipping points are about to kick in.
That 0.8C increase is in no way, shape, or form close to realizing the temperature increase that the CO2 level in the atmosphere demands. And most prognostications are for a minimum 4C increase, 7C likely on our current arc, and no guarantee whatsoever that we may not enter a very unstable configuration before that arrives.
This is no game, gentlemen. And you are not helping. one little bit.
Still going?
“I never said that “I” found this. Qualified experts in the field have found it – it wasn’t easy, you know – there wasn’t instrumentation to measure this recently.”
There still isn’t.
“That is why it was “missed”. This is a new science – evidently you can not appreciate this – as you imply by your scare quotes that it was “missed” – as if it is part of a grand conspiracy! Good grief!”
It wasn’t missed, it was deliberately assumed to be negligible. This is what we call post-hoc model adjustment. You build a model, you observe, you find the observations don’t match the model, which under the normal scientific method means the model is falsified. So you cast around for a post-hoc explanation, put it into the model, and say “the model’s still fine, look, it predicts the result”. Then you wait a bit more, and find the model is still diverging from reality. So you find another reason, slot it in, and say “look, we’re making progress”. And so on.
It’s an old con game. If you get it right you wave it in everyone’s face. If you get it wrong you make post-hoc adjustments and excuses. It doesn’t matter what happens, the model is always vindicated. But such models are worthless, because they can only reliably predict after you’ve observed the event and adjusted the model.
“And no – it does not imply that the deep oceans were releasing this heat in the 1990′s. I don’t have any idea where you came up with that – but it misses the point completely. That heat has been well-sequestered. The timetable for its effect on ground/air temperatures is on a long scale. But that heat – as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics will tell you, will not just disappear. (You DO believe in the Laws of thermodynamics?)”
You’re the one missing the point. Such a post-hoc fix can be applied both ways. You can take a model with slow warming and post-hoc identify transfer from the deep ocean causing that upward jump. Or you can take a model with fast warming, and post-hoc identify transfer to the deep ocean to explain it levelling off.
“This simple point is important. The extra heat added to the Earth’s systems is no small amount. It is equivalent to the heat of a number of Hiroshima bombs being detonated and retained by the Earth every single second. That is a hell of a lot of heat. If you all really think this heat will not cause AGW, you have an intellectual obligation to not just wave it away – you must explain how it won’t cause temperatures to rise.”
That’s not how the greenhouse effect works. The temperature rise is not the result of extra heat, but a reduction in the rate at which it escapes, and it’s temperature dependent, so the amount of heat it could involve is variable.
“You have not earned the right to wave away the climate models constructed by qualified scientists. You need to disprove them. All of your carping about this or that small perceived anomaly proves absolutely nothing. You think you actually have something useful to add to the discussion? Do some real research and present it. Otherwise, you are just ankle-biting.”
The models have already been disproved. They consistently predict things that aren’t happening. Calling such disagreement “small anomalies” doesn’t make them go away.
“As far as climate sensitivity – this is being nailed down more accurately every year. And the results that keep coming in indicate that the sensitivity is in the mid to upper range of the models – even the models published a decade ago by the ipcc.”
Not even RealClimate still think so.
“Just remember – climate sensitivity ultimately is about the rate at which all that heat gets translated into increased temperature. At a certain length of scale – it ALL will get translated.”
No it isn’t, and no it won’t.
“We have now seen a mere 0.8C temperature elevation, and have reached the point where agricultural growing zones have moved two zones northward, the Arctic ice cap is about to disappear in summer, world-wide food levels are falling below needed growth rate, and a host of positive feedback tipping points are about to kick in.”
Correlation does not imply causation.
“That 0.8C increase is in no way, shape, or form close to realizing the temperature increase that the CO2 level in the atmosphere demands.”
Yup. The predictions don’t match observation.
“This is no game, gentlemen. And you are not helping. one little bit.”
And neither are you. Do you really think the best way to persuade people is to antagonise them? Or to exclude them from the conversation?
NiV,
The biggest thing extremists like Roger and willard seek to do is to never actually discuss the issue at all. They rely on enough strawmen to make a fire hazard. And they seek to derail or highjack any thread they can, if it will help suppress a discussion of the issues.
Dear hunter,
Your efficiency has not diminished:
> The biggest thing extremists like Roger and willard seek to do is to never actually discuss the issue at all.
There are at least five tricks in that sentence: labeling, guilt by association, mind probing, speaking of ze issue as if there was only one, and assuming me and Roger have never discussed that unidentified issue.
Setting aside your favorite ones, which date at least back the times you were hanging up at Judy’s, would you mind telling us what you believe ze issue is?
The concerns raised by Groundskeeper Willie’s op-ed might not be the issue you have in mind. Neither would be his concerns regarding Michael’s. These concerns can be found at Keith’s and at Bart’s and at Eli’s and I’m quite sure elsewhere. Groundskeeper Willie does not reinvent himself very much. Only the shirts changes.
Thank you for your own concerns,
w
“The biggest thing extremists like Roger and willard seek to do is to never actually discuss the issue at all.”
Sometimes they do. It’s hard to tell from such a brief acquaintance, but I think Roger is probably an honest believer who has only listened to one side of the story, and thinks the scientific issue is obvious/easy, and is understandably angry at what he perceives to be purely political obstruction. Sometimes if you talk calmly to them about the science, they realise they’re out of their depth and go quiet – and hopefully maybe a bit thoughtful. It’s unlikely, but you never know.
Sometimes of course they dig in and try to research it properly, like BBD did. That can be more interesting if you can get them to stick to the science, or entertaining when they stick to the Mr Angry routine where you can get hours of amusement winding them up. That sort will discuss the issue endlessly.
Willard I know much better. He will sometimes discuss the issues, when he’s in the mood. Most of the time he just stirs the pot, and entertains himself with obscure and often surreal commentary. Don’t ever let him wind you up, and don’t give him any ammunition. But on philosophical and social topics particularly he will sometimes have a serious discussion, and he’s not bad at it. He’s worth talking to, if you can pin him down long enough.
The game, when they seek to divert you off the topic, is to divert them back on to it again. (Unless the sideline is more interesting, of course.) Never get angry. Always remain polite. And try to see the positive side in any exchange. Try to figure out why people do what they do, why they believe what they believe. Practice and refine the most clear and concise responses. And seize any opportunity to learn something new.
When I was over at P3 recently, mt made a comment about someone who was asked why anyone would bother to engage with sceptics: “Target practice.” was the laconic reply. It’s a good answer.
So now Roger cycles back to the looming famine meme. He hopes people have forgotten just how many times that one has been disproven. Or maybe he has trained himself to forget it himself?
And of course the only reasons for any pressure on the food supply is CO2 and over population. Forgetting of course that famine was much more prevalent with less CO2 and fewer people.
The circular and benighted nature of the AGW fanatic ‘argument’ on display.
“This is a new science”
I’m glad we agree on something. Unfortunately for you, the newer the science is, the more uncertain the results. You can’t have it both ways. Preaching and prognosticating on the weak science of unproven tipping points, and then hand waving away all the previous prediction failures is telling (or was that projections? or do we now hear that climate science doesn’t predict anything…unless they get it right in which case they retroactively declare it a prediction).
“You have not earned the right”
I have the right (and obligation) to question the science. Those are my tax dollars at work. If you don’t like it, I suggest you privatize all of climate science (please). I support the science research, but if it is going to be used as bludgeon for political policies by advocates such as yourself, maybe I should rethink that. You seem to believe you have the right to defend it.
“And most prognostications are for a minimum 4C increase, 7C likely”
Hmmmm…sounds like somebody doesn’t know what the science says. Are you quoting climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2, or are you quoting something else? This doesn’t match any PDF that I have seen, but I guess I don’t have the “right” to question this.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post concedes that those who followed “the concerned” recommendations for what to do about AGW are now in “basket case” territory.
“Instead of a model for the world to emulate, Europe has become a model of what not to do.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/europe-is-becoming-a-green-energy-basket-case/2013/04/21/4b1b81d0-a87e-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html
Let’s see now… nobody believes in the catastrophe scenarios anymore, even the mid-range CS estimate is dropping, the models are off by significant amounts and the “solutions” we were all attacked for doubting are turning out to be just what we said they’d be- expensive failures. When even the Washington Post is agreeing, how long until the team starts arguing that “consensus” is now a dirty word?
JeffN,
The problemis that the climate kooks will blame skeptics for their failure:
It all would have been fine if we wicked denialist scum had not resisted their wishes to impose their beautiful vision, etc.
Look at poor Roger- he is flailing around at skeptics for pointing out what climate scientists are saying about the lack of crisis.
As our host has pointed out, for the climate kooks it wass never about science as science. It was all about using science to justify their underlying bigotry and fear.
Ask and you shall receive.
From Judith Curry’s excellent blog Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative?
Roger Lamber said:
“This is no game, gentlemen. And you are not helping. one little bit.”
Oh, yes I am! I’m helping to stop a group of folks from perpetrating policy that is as stupid for the climate as it is for the economy.
It’s definately not a game. I’m very serious about doing all I can to prevent any significant regulations regarding climate change. It’s irresponsible to do otherwise.