When it comes to issues as important as global warming I find comfort in the Huffington Post ramblings of a rowing musician. Global warming is a lie you say? Well then NASA and the Royal Society be damned.
A new Huffington Post blogger named Harold Ambler has posted an unoriginal rehashing of the same old global warming denial talking points that we've seen over and over again for close to a decade now.
What's so newsworthy here is of course the venue.
Huffington Post has long been a place where this type of junk science has been debunked, not promoted.
I'm sure this little coup has the climate skeptics all giddy, because it definitely has thoughtful bloggers like Adam Siegel at Get Energy Now rightly ticked off:
Huffington Post published Harold Ambler's Mr Gore: Apology Accepted which is notable in its breadth and audacity of disinformation, truthiness, and simply wrong-headedness. Literally books and hundreds (actually, thousands) of scientific studies and analyses have been written that provide the substance to prove Ambler's words false. What is shameful, on top of this, is that this is not just the 'false' and misleading material, but its deceit in support of recklessly dangerous policy concepts that would hinder our ability to move forward to greater prosperity and a stronger American future.
The question for me is: who the heck is Harold Ambler?
And what makes Ambler such an authority on climate science to so confidently make the a claim as bold as global warming being a lie? By the looks of his various bios scattered around the internet it appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent, he is the author of an upcoming book on a rowing team at Brown University and a musician.
Such an outrageous claim as: "It [global warming] is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind," flies in the face of what the top scientific institutions in the world like NASA, the US Academy of Science and the Royal Society have been saying for years and its going to take a lot more than the ramblings of rowing guitarist to prove it.
I am hoping that Ambler's post was some type of technical glitch or editorial goof-up because it is this type of misinformation from wannabe scientists that are a major reason so many people are willing to pass over global warming as a concern they have to deal with.
For many people, especially now with the major worldwide economic problems we are all dealing with, there's enough worry in day-to-day life - putting food on the table, making mortgage payments, finding daycare - and global warming is something that most would naturally like to not have think about.
It's easy to put aside something as big as global warming if we have an excuse to do so and Ambler's post is just the thing for those people with more immediate concerns they have to deal with.
Even if it is just the rehashed misinformation of a rowing musician.
UPDATE:
Arianna Huffington has put out the following message:
Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost's editorial view -- and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others -- and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.
When Ambler sent his post, I forwarded it to one of our associate blog editors to evaluate, not having read it. I get literally hundreds of posts a week submitted like this and obviously can't read them all -- which is why we have an editorial process in place. The associate blog editor published the post. It was an error in judgment. I would not have posted it. Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.
We''re waiting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The idea is to frame the issue as a debate between the "alarmist" Al Gore and the "reasonable skeptics", which is far from reality.
As for Gore, guaranteed, he's much closer to the science on the issue than global warming deniers are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
To be fair, Gore made a few mistakes in my view. For example, by not sufficiently explaining the ice age / CO2 feedback relationship, he opened the door for much worse spin by deniers. In other cases, a few claims deviated from the mainstream IPCC consensus (which is sort of the lowest common denominator when it comes to predictions). Still, the mistakes or deviations from the IPCC were nothing approaching the level claimed by contrarians.
Man it's getting cold outside. How long do we deny the cold? Forever like the plastic diaper crowd still pretending plastic diapers are the enemy?
http://www.hootervillegazette.com (click on pic of Mr. Gore holding up five fingers)
and expects people to take him seriously. Going over the top only encourages laughter.
If there has been one consistency in the left's fight against having actual debate on the global warming issue, it's been the left's track record of attacking the messenger instead of the message.
Your attempt to discredit Ambler by listing the organizations that have bought into this myth doesn't cut it. Neither does dismissing his arguements has tired rehash of skeptic talking points. You didn't take his claims on one at a time because you couldn't.
So let me borrow a tactic from the left. According to your website, you are a specialist at "developing cutting-edge-online social media campaigns. "I have to wonder which social issues you've been employed to push online. Global Warming wouldn't be one of them would it Mr. Grandia? I'm guessing you've made more than a buck or two on this new religion of the left. So tell us all Mr. Grandia, if you have dollars on the line, why should we take your highly unobjective word on this matter? If you've never made a dollar on global warming, feel free to correct my assumption.
If you'd care to debate the matter further, I'm up for it. We could start with some of the lies, exaggerations, and deliberate omissions in An Inconvenient Truth.
People who actually study climate change as a profession (and thus have made "more than a buck" on it) have a bit more clout on the topic than, say, a musician or TV meteorologist, and should be accorded the respect for their knowledge. More people with specific expertise in climate physics support the premise that a) global warming is occurring at dangerous rates and b) it is man caused. Taking a paragraph or two out of some obscure editorial or non scientific periodical and using it for proof of a global warming hoax is not substantial argument. The scientific studies are long and full of data and background and are not easily condensed into a sound bite. DashRIPRockIII, Ambler and other pseudo scientists would be wise to keep quiet lest they demonstrate their lack of ability to read more than a couple pages of someone else's opinions
I noticed that you and Mr. Grandia have chosen not to respond to my suggestion that
Mr. Grandia has more than a little self-interest on the line when it comes to keeping
the alarmist hysteria going.
That statement hardly makes me a pseudo scientist.
The top pseudo scientist on global warming is Al Gore.
Here is Gore explaining that the norhern polar ice cap might well be gone in five years.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com Click on the picture of Mr. Gore holding up 5 fingers.
View his comments and tell me "from-Idaho" if you truly think this is responsible behavior.
A matter of some urgency, however, is the means by which my article was posted on the Huffington Post. Kevin Grandia writes, "I am hoping that Ambler's post was some type of technical glitch or editorial goof-up because it is this type of misinformation from wannabe scientists that are a major reason so many people are willing to pass over global warming as a concern they have to deal with."
My sole contact at HuffPo prior to being accepted for publication was with Arianna Huffington herself. It was Arianna who read my piece, accepted it, and directed her staff to post it. That Post staff members would allow a claim of this kind to be part of an attack on a new poster, without internal fact-checking, is a shame.
I remain grateful to Arianna for posting me.
Then there's all the countries of the world that are convening on a regular basis to figure out how to deal with the issue. They all seem convinced as well.
So how is it that you have come across all of this "counter-evidence" while the world's governments and top scientific institutions seem to have missed it?
The term "Climate change" is redundant and pointed out the well known (to scientifically literate people) that we see in recent recorded history significant shifts in temperature and so on, which is true, and that we were not producing prodigious amounts of CO2 prior to the Roman warm period of about 200 B.C. to 400 A.D. nor prior to the Medieval Warm Period circa 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D.
I can tell you from my education and experience that a gas fraction of CO2 much less than 1% is going to be a bit player in radiation heat transfer from or to the earth set next to the effects of H2O vapor.
Quote from Arianna Huffington herself on the email you sent her:
"When Ambler sent his post, I forwarded it to one of our associate blog editors to evaluate, not having read it. I get literally hundreds of posts a week submitted like this and obviously can't read them all -- which is why we have an editorial process in place. The associate blog editor published the post. It was an error in judgment. I would not have posted it. Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues."
While I didn't believe a word of your post to begin with, by the looks of Arianna's email it would seem that you have a penchant for exaggeration.
I remain grateful to Arianna for taking the time to make it clear that posting your misinformed rehash of unproven claims was a mistake.
In any case I do not think either you or she are in any reasonable way qualified to state with any authority that any significant issue having to do with hard sciences is "settled".
Are you going to be fair and open-minded and ask the same question of those who support global warming? How much money does Al Gore make each year promoting gw? How many scientist who support gw feel they have to in order to continue receiving grant money. What about the industries that stand to gain huge profits if this religous crusade continues? Are the wind and solar interest financially supporting the Al Gores of the world? I guess these questions never occurred to you.
Dash
"This issue from what I can see is not "well settled - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7"
The document cited is a report compiled by Marc Morano, assistant to Senator Inhofe. Senator Inhofe is most notorious for his public comments that global warming is a "myth".
The document in question states that 650 "climate scientists" as 'disagreeing' with the consensus by the climate science community.
In fact a close inspection yields that of the 650 signors, none of them are climate scientists nor are part of the climate science community in any lasting capacity.
I don't take conspiracy theorists very seriously. Most people don't.
There is an advantage to having Ambler's piece in the Post; normally something of this caliber would only be found on freep or newsbusters where there would be much self-congratulation going on. nb has a post about the Ambler piece, and since Gore is in the title, there is much crowing going on. Unamazingly, the same pieces of 'support' being discredited with good discussion here go unquestioned there since they fit the paradigm. By having that discussion here, there is a larger audience seeing the type of study and support is found to be acceptable by the denier/inactivists.
I see you taking some shots at Ambler for not being "authority on climate science", but frankly sir I see no credentials on bio, and for those of us who actually HAVE been part of the scientific establishment, that is a cheap shot. It is argument from authority which has no place in honest scientific debate.
The way science really works is reasoned debate and discussion and anytime someone starts claiming that something is "well settled" very often it is someone who does not know what he is talking about and does not want to do the real head work of analyzing the problem.
This issue from what I can see is not "well settled"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
I am concerned about it,as the stakes are very high, but I have actually modeled complex systems that were much less complex than the earth's climate and , quite frankly we do not even yet have the computer horsepower to do it, nor the proven software, and may not even a deep enough understanding of the relevant physics .
Even if we did, this problem is a really nasty one mathematically and I am not sure it *could* be solved even with infinite computer time. Cation is called for, but so is open debate and some person (you) who apparently has no credentials at all, is not in a position to shout at Ambler about this issue.
I am concerned about it,as the stakes are very high, but I have actually modeled complex systems
]
Which ones, exactly?
[
that were much less complex than the earth's climate and , quite frankly we do not even yet have the computer horsepower to do it, nor the proven software, and may not even a deep enough understanding of the relevant physics .
]
Absolutely, blatantly, demonstrably false. If you truly *had* ever been "part of the scientific establishment" you should be familiar with the concept "distributed computing" the Berkeley Open Infrastructure Network Computing coalition, and the Climate Prediction.net project, my favorite of the 10 projects in which I participate.
http://climateprediction.net/
They also have occasional "attribution" projects, to determine how much of storm damage to attribute directly to anthropogenic radiative forcing-driven global warming.
FYI that is in many ways very similar to the problem of modeling the earth's atmosphere, and involves many of the same physical processes and it is also a nasty messy mathematical problem, but at least it has reasonably well defined initial and boundary conditions, which are not very well definable for the earth's atmosphere.
As to your snarky comments. Tell me about it after you have had to design something people's lives depended on and made it work. Also after you have seen how much of a political pooch-screw the academic world is. I spent far too many years in graduate school. The honesty and integrity of professors is not something I hold in high regard.
"Marc, Matthew:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".
You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research". "
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/14/231236/019
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/1/182558/9615
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/29/125741/46
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/26/1971/6517
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/26/1971/6517
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101
Here are some authorities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
If you're not an expert (Ambler is clearly not), it's generally a good idea to defer to the virtual consensus of experts. Amateur contrarians start with a strong desire to deny the human influence on climate, then seek out any op-eds, blogs, or fringe scientists who agree with them.
If we start with the known, basic fact that CO2 is not a pollutant but a basic component of our existence on earth, I have to conclude that reducing CO2 would not be a good thing.
And I would question the motive of any person, scientist or not, who claims a consensus on something about which we know so little. Further more, a consensus is not scientific, it is political.
But then those are just my questions. Just trying to learn something to make a more informed decision.