Zero Room For Climate Debate: Greg Laden Plays With Himself

On June 25, Greg Laden posted an update to his post slamming NY Times journalist/blogger Andrew Revkin for sleeping with the enemy–giving aid and comfort to the enemy–being a Klimate Kwisling, a traitor to the cause. Yeah, Laden’s nuttier than  a fruitcake.

Laden had opined that there was zero room for debate on climate science.

Quotation-Joseph-Joubert-debate-logic-Meetville-Quotes-120395

His update was a riposte to Revkin’s reply to him. Revkin had written: ““Zero room.” That’s scientific.”

To which Laden replied

“Yes, it is. There is zero room for debate when an issue has been pretty much settled. In science debate can come up anywhere, you never know, but for all practical purposes we do not debate if the Earth is hollow or solid or flat or round, or that germs cause many diseases, or that frogs reproduce as most other tetrapods do rather then spontaneously emerging from mud.”  He later continued, “So to repeat my original post, I said “… there is absolutely zero room for considering the reality of climate change or its severity.”

Ya know… if that’s really the case then why is Tamino debating (and losing to) Judith Curry on the… ummm, severity of climate change?

Why is Adrew Dessler debating Richard Lindzen on sensitivity and the Iris Effect? They’ve done so publicly, in the peer-reviewed literature and in the blogosphere.

Why is And Then There’s Physics debating Sharapova  Zharkova (think I’ve been following a little tooo much tennis? Thanks ATTP for the correction.) on… um… the severity of climate change?

Why is the Australian  Bureau of Meteorology debating Jo Nova, Jennifer Marohasy and seemingly hundreds of interested Australians on umm… the existence of climate change?

Oh, wait–here’s Greg Laden in the comments section of the post saying there’s no debate… “As stated, there is debate over climate sensitivity, and no one expects the value to converge until it converges … ”

oops-4580431

44 responses to “Zero Room For Climate Debate: Greg Laden Plays With Himself

  1. Here is a question:
    Why, of all things, has what is essentially a concern about the weather become a worldwide mind numbing blood pressure spiking, job ending, fanatic attracting issue?

    • daveandrews723

      Well, when Al Gore, the guy who claimed the center of the earth is “millions and millions of degrees” wins a Nobel Prize for essentially saying man and CO2 will cause the end of mankind, people with a grain of common sense get a little offended. That’s why.🙂

      • It is clear why skeptics and reasonable people are offended by the kooks (see the kook display below).
        I am wondering why, for example, a third rate college teacher becomes a fanatic and blithering idiot over the weather.

  2. In a post in which you suggest Greg Laden “plays with himself”, you’ve confused Zharkova, with Sharapova. Was that subtle joke, or a Freudian slip?

    I’ll add, though, that your link to my post suggests you don’t understand the word “debate”, or what my post was about. No real surprises there, I guess. In fact, I’ll take this one step further. One reason I no longer have any great interest in discussing this topics with those who regard themselves as “skeptics” is that they seem quite comfortable making stuff up about what I’ve said and – in some cases – what I think. How does that make any sense? It’s one thing to have a discussion in which you don’t end reaching any kind of agreement (that I quite enjoy) but doing so with people who simply make things up is just a complete waste of time.

    • I guess tennis is on my mind. Thanks for pointing out the error.

      This post is about Laden, not you. I am not a skeptic. You have continuously expressed a lack of interest in discussing almost any topic with those you regard as skeptics–yet you keep coming back for more.

      You surely will note that this post is not about climate science. It is about Climate Ball, wherein Laden (he really should have a bin) tries to trash Andrew Revkin for lack of climate purity. As you do not comment on the numerous posts I have put up regarding recognition, attribution, mitigation or adaptation, I suspect that the things you wish to discuss don’t involve science–or even policy. In that you are like Tobis, trying to police a discussion rather than advance a debate.

      Other than my confusing a tennis great with Zharkova, what can you point to as being in error in what I wrote?

      • You have continuously expressed a lack of interest in discussing almost any topic with those you regard as skeptics–yet you keep coming back for more.
        That’s not really true. I’m tired of dealing with people who make things up. I discuss this topic with plenty of people who do regard themselves as “skeptics”, but who – at least – seem capable of not making things up and who at least seem capable of behaving in a moderately decent manner. I think your title alone indicates that your desire to be decent isn’t particularly strong.

        As you do not comment on the numerous posts I have put up regarding recognition, attribution, mitigation or adaptation, I suspect that the things you wish to discuss don’t involve science

        Are you trying to prove my point? That I don’t comment on some of your posts allows you to infer things about me? Pretty standard pseudo-skeptic tactic there.

        Other than my confusing a tennis great with Zharkova, what can you point to as being in error in what I wrote?
        You said,

        Why is And Then There’s Physics debating Sharapova on… um… the severity of climate change?

        My post was not a debate, it was making the point that Zharkova’s paper/presentation referred only to solar activity, not to how it would influence our climate. That should be obvious from the press release alone. Furthermore, most work that has considered the impact of a grand solar minimum suggests that there might be large regional effects but that the global effect would likely be small. If you think that qualifies as as “debate with Zharkove about the severity of climate change” you’re not reading hard enough.

    • And you are Still an A*****e.

  3. Hi ATTP

    Yes, I see you over at Judiths and I used to see you at Bishop Hill debating skeptics. Since you won’t allow us at your site, I guess you have to travel.

    Is there something about ‘Lukewarmer’ that implies indecency?

    In a kind of a ‘dog that didn’t bark’ way of speaking, the fact that you do come here to comment on a Climateball post but do not comment on more substantive posts does say something to me.

    You and Zharkova evidently have different opinions regarding the global effect of a grand solar minimum. Since she isn’t participating in the discussion at your site, you’re free to say you’re not debating her.

    But do you agree with Laden that there is zero room for debate? I doubt if Zharkova does.

    • Since you won’t allow us at your site
      Banning a few, doesn’t mean banning all. Not a complicated concept.

      Is there something about ‘Lukewarmer’ that implies indecency?
      Nope, there seem to be some very decent people who regard themselves as Lukewarmers.

      Since she isn’t participating in the discussion at your site, you’re free to say you’re not debating her.
      Do you really not understand the concept of a debate?

      But do you agree with Laden that there is zero room for debate?
      I think that there is little point in media people using a few outliers to suggest that there is a debate about climate science, which is – I think – Greg Laden’s point. Scientific debate (and debate is a poor word, in this context) takes place in the scientific literature. There will always be outliers who keep publishing ideas that a majority regard as flawed (Soon, for example). That such ideas still persist doesn’t mean that there is still a genuine debate, or that serious media people should be highlighting such outliers. Discussing what should be done, given the current scientific evidence, is a different issue and I don’t think Greg Laden was suggesting that there should be no debate about this aspect of this topic.

      I would add that I do think the term “debate” is wrong if you’re talking about science. I don’t “debate” science, I “discuss” science.

      • I can only say that since you banned me for something I didn’t write and then said you hadn’t banned me, quite a few people have told me that you had either banned them or summarily deleted comments they believed were germane to the topic and not offensive.

        As for my title, why did you say I was indicating indecency with it then?

        Yes, I understand the concept of debate, which is why I said that since she wasn’t participating you didn’t need to term it a debate. But in the larger sense, there is a debate about the global effects of a grand solar minimum. You are participating in the public debate, as is she. On opposite sides, it appears.

        I don’t think either Laden or you are in a position to state that climate science is past debate. And some, for example, who have published papers that were considered outliers in the past now find the mainstream is moving in their direction, specifically regarding atmospheric sensitivity. There are numerous other examples.

        You do discuss science. As a banned observer at your blog I read when you discuss science. I believe you should stick to discussing science. When you discuss the blogospheric debate you are not only wrong, you are often disgusted and frustrated.

      • quite a few people have told me that you had either banned them or summarily deleted comments they believed were germane to the topic and not offensive.

        Yes, of course they’d say that. Be a bit more skeptical.

        What writing of yours is misrepresented here? Specifically, please.

        I’ve explained it already. I’ve also pointed out that you would neither accept it nor stop doing it. My post is neither a debate with Zharkova nor a discussion of the severity of climate change. It simply discusses the impact of a grand solar minimum. If you can’t get the distinction, I can’t help you. Also the “specifically” is another typical pseudo-skeptic tactic. Can’t you do any better than this?

      • Okay, we’ll stay with Climateball. willard does it better. Yah boo! Yah boo!

      • You don’t understand ClimateBall.

      • One of us doesn’t.

      • “quite a few people have told me that you had either banned them or summarily deleted comments they believed were germane to the topic and not offensive.”

        “Yes, of course they’d say that. Be a bit more skeptical.”

        Since you did exactly that to me, I am more skeptical of your protestations of innocence.

      • Sure, but then you think that there’s nothing particularly indecent about a blog post titled “Greg Laden plays with himself”.

      • Okay, we’ll stay with Climateball. willard does it better. Yah boo! Yah boo!

        It’s a pity you don’t let Willard comment here because it would be good to get him to clarify if this is what he is referring to when he says “Groundskeeper Willie rips his shirt off”.

      • No, I don’t think there’s anything indecent about the title of this post.

        Pity you don’t let me comment at your site–then willard could come after me with guns a’blazing.

      • Yesterday Bish apparently wrote a ‘nasty, infantile’ post, today it’s a quest against ‘indecency’. Nice to know some are so concerned with our moral fortitude.😉

      • No, I don’t think there’s anything indecent about the title of this post.

        Really? Wow. It’s hard to see how it’s not at least implicitly indecent, but I don’t plan to explore this further. This wouldn’t the somewhat standard pseudo-skeptic “what I say means what I meant it to say; what you say means what I interpreted you as saying” gambit?

        Pity you don’t let me comment at your site–then willard could come after me with guns a’blazing.

        He could always come after you here, but you don’t let him comment here – I think. A bit ironic maybe?

      • Well, we live in an irony deficient age. Some might even speculate that the idea of classifying playing with himself as indecent might smack of either misplaced irony or 18th century prudery.

      • Okay, this is getting bizarre, but just to see if you are actually able to acknowledge something (instead of just metaphorically ripping your shirt off), either your title could be perceived as indecent, in which case I could be being prudish (although pointing out something potentially indecent, isn’t the same as being prudish, but we can ignore your confusion here for the moment), or it’s completely innocent and couldn’t possibly be perceived in any indecent way, in which case I can’t be being prudish. It can’t be both.

      • Yes, it is getting bizarre. I think you’re the reason.

        Playing with one’s self is a euphemism for masturbation.

        Is masturbation indecent? Is referring to it in public discourse indecent?

        Is masturbation more or less indecent than sex with another person? Than violent death? Than poverty?

        Is talking about masturbation more or less indecent than talking about sex, violent death or poverty? Those are subjects we converse about without blushes or checking to see who’s in the room.

        Indeed, you cannot go see a modern film or watch a modern TV series without frequent references to it. I just saw a trailer for a TV series called Blacklist where the hero sits on a swing and says ‘I prefer to play with myself in private.’

        I chose the phrase because it appeared that Laden was playing a game with himself–and lost. He said climate science had zero room for debate. Then he said sensitivity was the subject of debate.

        Like I said, we live in an irony deficient world.

      • Yes, it is getting bizarre. I think you’re the reason.

        Of course you think I’m the reason. Anything else would be so out of character for you as to beyond comrehension. I think I now understand Willard’s “Gamekeeper Willie rips his short off” reference. Thanks, for that at least.

      • Yes, of course. From the man whose taxonomy is dictated by the Simpsons. Enjoy your world view and your friends.

    • I’ll add a comment on this.

      the fact that you do come here to comment on a Climateball post but do not comment on more substantive posts does say something to me.

      The only reason I came here was because you linked to one of my posts and my site informed me of that. I commented because people mis-representing what I write is irritating. I doubt I’ll have any success in convincing you that you’ve done so, or that you’ll consider not doing so again, but it’s irritating nonetheless.

      If you were to write a post about science that linked to one of my posts and that wasn’t some silly mis-representation, maybe I would discuss science here. In fact, I’m pretty sure I have, but I’ve scrolled down far enough trying to find the post where I did, and given up. You can presumably search your own comment threads to see if that is the case, or not.

      • What writing of yours is misrepresented here? Specifically, please.

      • I think I quoted ATTP one time, I used this:

        “To be honest, I’ve actually really enjoyed being somewhat out of touch, and so plan to do so much more often.”

        But I didn’t link it because I was reading it to the high school kids I’m brainwashing. I was focusing on the need to stop obsessing about printed circuits and enjoying the beach a little bit more.

  4. Tom,
    Don’t wrestle with pigs. They have fun and you get muddy.

  5. Check this comment about Zharkova, and my response:

    The other guy: “Just another climate revisionist. Just another instance of ‘an ice age cometh’ tripe. Zharkova is not ‘mistaken’, that is presumption of innocence that is not there.”

    Me: “Brother Kampen is right. Sharkova is guilty of Climate Revisionism, we must notify climate church authorities and hold a trial. I’ll notify the climate inquisition and tell the climate monks to prepare the climate heretic wood pile.”

    The discussion includes an endorsement of one “Sue Burundanga” whose blog includes the following comment and instructions to the Climate Brotherhood about Zharkova:

    “I’ve just listened to a NZ Radio National interview with Valentina Zharkova (h/t Hot Topic NZ). She comes across as another “it’s the sun” person who doesn’t understand climate. So she isn’t to be taken seriously when it comes to climate. That doesn’t mean that she’s wrong about her magnetic harmonic dynamo theory. It does mean she is way out in her estimate of what it will mean for climate. It’s probably wise to wait for her published paper and see if it stands scrutiny. Meanwhile anything she says about climate is to be ignored.”

    Looks like poor Zharkova is about to be given a Lomborg style water boarding?

  6. By the way, here’s a paper you may wish to bookmark

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866387/#!po=59.5238

    It’s about oil resources. It has a couple of errors, but overall it’s a pretty decent overview of the issues involved. As regards my ability to question the contents, I’ve been consulting in the field. I have a much more detailed view of some areas, seen from within a major multinational’s perspective.

    The key issue is the amount of money required to develop and produce the marginal oil resources we would have to produce in the future. The cost is much higher within some of the categories. This in turn drives the fossil fuel into a non competitive position and/or enables renewables. But the cost is so high it can kill off poor country economies. Anyway, take it for what it’s worth.

    • Hi Fernando

      Thanks for the link. Of course my opinion is that oil use will decline because of the increasing cost of extraction, not because of actual scarcity. Are we in agreement on that?

  7. “No one expects the value to converge until they converge”.
    A nice circular little meander from reality that makes the alarmist position highly resistant to critical review. At best a poorly thought out, poorly expressed idea.

  8. ATTP is an A*****e. There can be no discussion with such. All you ever get back is F**th.

  9. It may sound odd given some of the subjects above, but can we please tone down the language?

    Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s