Humans have put too many heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, and now the Earth is running a fever. But there's also an increasingly toxic atmosphere in the blogosphere, where climate deniers strategically confuse the issue, delay meaningful government action, and harass scientists and authors.
For decades, the media presented the climate "debate" as two sides that were evenly or closely matched. Then a few years ago, around the time Hurricane Katrina struck and Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth won an Oscar and he and the IPCC were awarded a Nobel Prize, the media began to realize that climate science is real and has consequences, and the "other side" is almost all empty rhetoric.
But in late 2009 the deniers had a public relations breakthrough when some unprofessional internal emails from a British scientist were leaked to the public. Deniers, including Sarah Palin and Fox News, named it "ClimateGate" and claimed, more or less, that a few emails could call into question decades of peer-reviewed rigorous research by thousands of scientists from all over the world. The media picked up on the catchy name and returned to their "he said, she said" coverage of climate change. The timing could not have been worse for the Earth, or better for the deniers: the story dominated the news cycle during the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Nations failed to reach any substantive agreement in Copenhagen, and triumphant deniers proceeded to launch campaigns to block progress on a climate bill in the U.S. Senate and to roll back climate laws in California.
With climate denial resurgent, and linking into the nebulous populist Tea Party movement, the blogosphere has become even more polluted by deniers. Deniers often pile up comments on climate change-related articles, most of which may be grouped into the following categories:
California's Climate Delayers
The California version of deniers, "delayers," are trying to suspend AB32 until unemployment goes down below 5%, which many economists say could take years or even decades. Anti-AB32 efforts argue that AB32 is a good idea, but the timing is wrong with the economy so bad (i.e. great concept, but we just can't afford it). This lets delayers claim it's not their fault. Something like, "We'd like to help, but the State is broke."
The "outsiders messing with our stuff" argument has a California version too. In opposing an international climate treaty, deniers claim the evil Al Gore and the communists at the United Nations are stealing our country's sovereignty. In California, some members of the League of California Cities turn the State into an intruder, arguing that the unfunded mandates for better regional transportation planning in the State's SB375 law infringes on the cities' sacred cow, local land use authority.
More sophisticated denier methods often appeal to:
Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute (the Blogosphere)
Deniers can't win on the facts, and it is tempting to just tell deniers, "Turn off the talk radio and go read a book." Pretty much any book on climate, even a children's book, would do. But no, a pile of pages with Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin on the cover does not count.
But the problem is not just the deniers' lack of facts. The problem is that deniers don't want to change their lifestyles or worldview. Cognitive scientist George Lakoff notes that people will block out facts that conflict with their existing worldview. In Lakoff's framework, many conservatives have a strict father frame that places humans above nature. On the surface, climate change would seem to reinforce this. We are dominating the earth? Great! But if the climate goes out of control, and begins to threaten our current way of life and civilization itself, then this puts humans in a subjugated, reactive mode, which is unacceptable to the strict father mindset.
The real ClimateGate is that we are doing nothing about the greatest threat to the planet and civilization, and we're running out of time. "If there's no action before 2012," says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel peace-prize-winning IPCC, "that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." If you are a denier, it's not too late to change your ways...yet. Do some research, but more importantly, open your mind. If you are already working to stop climate change, decisionmakers and the public need your help navigating through the polluted blogosphere and towards real climate solutions. Working together, we can leave a cleaner, more sustainable blogosphere for our children.
Ezra Klein: Why Lindsey Graham is angry
Election 2010: Parties do battle over climate change
Scientific Society Revises Climate Change Statement: science advances
Climate Debate Gets Ugly as World Moves to Curb CO2
Senators try to get climate change legislation back on track
What exactly went wrong at Copenhagen? Can somebody give a short summary?
Scanning the endless droolings of deniers and tr0lls here, I suggest we just leave them alone to their own malicious devices. As Mark Twain so wisely remarked: "It's hard to make a person understand something if that person's salary depends on not understanding it."
Here's the question you keep refusing to answer, galileonardo:
With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has been global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
galileonardo: "Your question has been answered already by me, thanks."
Lie. Your denier response G:
G) "Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject"
does not count as a valid answer to the question.
So again please answer the question, thanks.
If you can't answer that very simple question then why should and how could anybody trust your understanding and judgment - and your honesty - about something as complex as global climate change?
Hopefully you'll answer this time as I'm not sure why you are evading this science-related question, I'll keep trying until you share your sources for replication. Otherwise, I will logically conclude that you do not wish for your scientific presentations to be transparent.
If you can't answer that very simple yes or no question then why should and how could anybody trust your understanding, judgement and honesty about something as complex as global climate?
For the sake of your scientific integrity and credibility, please do let us all know whether or not upside-down Tiljander makes its appearance in your picture. I asked you 6 days ago. This thread has been live plenty long enough for you to answer the question I've repeatedly asked you. Are you ever going to answer that very simple yes or no question, or are you instead going to keep evading it and pretending it was never asked?
I'll make you deal, galileonardo: I'll answer your question after you finally answer the question I asked you first.
I love irony.
------------------------
Here's the question you keep refusing to answer, galileonardo:
With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has been global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
galileonardo: "Your question has been answered already by me, thanks."
Lie. Your denier response G:
G) "Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject"
does not count as a valid answer to the question.
So again please answer the question, thanks.
If you can't answer that very simple question then why should and how could anybody trust your understanding and judgment - and your honesty - about something as complex as global climate change?
Here's another hint for you - a giveaway, even:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
You have acted in a pathetic manner and show contempt (of me, no matter but...) of the larger audience as you are essentially telling them that you think they are so stupid as to buy your story. Hence the repeated spamming.
I doubt it's going to gain you any fans. That could jeopardize your chances of getting your super special badge. Whoever stumbles upon your stumblings would surely conclude you to be a skeptic plant lobbing meatballs.
You don't have to worry about it though Pub. I'm pretty sure it's just the two of us here now. No need to hide the frailties of your argument beneath yet another wave of spam, though, as noted, I'm sure you'll do it again.
As predicted, you "invariably spin away some nonsense" (again) in your latest wave of lame commentary. Same old "you're a liar" "obfuscation" "evade answering" baloney. Didn't work the first time so I'm not sure why you keep repeating your tactic (a student of the oft-repeated-lie theory perhaps?). I've also heard such repetition with the expectation of a different result likened to insanity. (Continued)
It is worth noting that you did at least drop the "Jones didn't say it has cooled since 1998" meme when I pointed out the shallowness of your statement, so you're at least making a little bit of progress.
Though I must also note that you, in a mann-er that would make the Hockey Team proud, "moved on" with a sad deflection trying "to change the subject." Changed it to what? Of course, the question everybody knows the answer too. Those who didn't already know simply had to follow my bread crumbs to Jones" interview. The answers were there. You were told to "[d]o some more reading. You just might be surprised." I was even more blunt in telling you to "listen more than speak." But you did neither.
Even after I pointed out almost all of my relevant quotes the impact upon you was apparently shallow, but make no mistake your CPS science project failed. I'll remind you just how badly and elaborate next. (Continued)
So what part of the following that I've already explained to you do you not agree with, galileonardo?
----------------------------
1998 was a very strong El Nino year - perhaps the strongest on record. That year the outlying heat wasn't added to the system - it was just transferred from the deeper oceans to the surface and atmosphere, where in the succeeding years it was transferred back into the ocean. Which is to say, both of the correspondents in that private, stolen email knew that said observed "cooling" was primarily and likely entirely short-term ocean oscillation that had little or nothing to do with the long term global warming trend.
This is basic stuff, galileonardo - that is, it's basic to anyone who understands basic climate science.
The BBC interviewer asked Jones a stupid question and your stupid cherry-picking of one interview absolutely does not have the significance you claim. "Cooling" over intervals less than ~20 years are absolutely irrelevant. Get that through your worthless head. The only intervals of any significance are 30+ years, and every single one shows temperature increase.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
In one of your comments below you even admit that the answer to your silliness is in the interview I linked to, but then go on again to say I haven't answered the question. I should have known better than to expect you to yield despite the barrage you suffered.
I almost didn't even post my recent comment with the Jones quotes because I thought maybe, just maybe, you might go "digging some more for those quotes if you enjoy crow." But apparently you didn't. Maybe you did but you didn't want to bring up what you found, hence the "squawk, answer me, squawk, nothing to see here, squawk" routine.
Had you done so at my prompting the other night or any of the other times I directed you to see the light, you may have visited the full volume of my statements and avoided further embarrassment (I didn't think it was necessary to provide you with every last quote but again, I should have known better). Exhibit W coming up. (Continued)
You say that as if those statements are somehow contradictory, which they are not. You are lying when you say you have answered the question.
You are a liar, galileonardo.
With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has been global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
galileonardo: "Your question has been answered already by me, thanks."
Lie. Your denier response G:
G) "Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject"
does not count as a valid answer to the question.
So again please answer the question, thanks.
If you can't answer that very simple question then why should and how could anybody trust your understanding and judgment - and your honesty - about something as complex as global climate change?
If you can't answer that very simple question then why should and how could anybody trust your understanding and judgment - and your honesty - about something as complex as global climate change?
"Yes, I am a Publicola puppet. This Barnumesque display is for...what exactly? Your question has been answered already by me, thanks. Do some more reading. You just might be surprised."
Instead of doing more reading and seeing the extent of my comments, you went on some bizarre, laughable, and highly-ineffective defamation campaign. My statement is 100% accurate despite your ramblings. I went on:
"Did Phil Jones say it has cooled since 1998? [Hint: I've already answered it correctly a couple of times.] I'll remind you again, the answers to both of our questions...are irrelevant."
Again, 100% accurate. But this should put your asinine game to rest. Apr 27, 2010 at 06:23:56 I said:
“I'll...just give you one factually correct argument: it has cooled since 1998. Even Phil Jones himself said so. Since you asked for links:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt
HadCRUT's numbers since 1998 trend downward...and I believe a downward trend on a global temperature dataset translates to cooling, unless down is up.”
Uh, wait a minute. That's not it. Good reminder though. Some of that reading you failed to do. (Continued)
Apr 27, 2010 at 17:54:04
Preface: One of your AGW gang said, "[T]here has been no recent cooling." My response in part:
"It appears your talking points are fictional and wrong. Did you happen upon the BBC interview with the CRU's Phil Jones? Here it is for your reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Give it a read and see what "one of the world's leading climate scientists" has to say about this and other subjects.”
So who first made reference to the Jones' interview, Pub? Did you read it? I know you did given your subsequent comments/silly question. Is the answer to your question within the interview I linked to? Afraid so, so that would be the first time I answered your question before you even asked it my puppeteer friend. It gets much better:
Apr 27, 2010 at 18:51:20
“Please read his answers to A-C here and get back to me:
[Same link to Jones' interview, you can visit again just up the thread if you're a glutton for punishment.]
Oh, while you're at it, go do some research on the trend in his actual data during that time period. Who is in denial here?”
So if you had listened you wouldn't even have to had read the whole interview, just the answers to questions A-C. That was answer number two. Perhaps you should listen more than speak. (Continued)
galileonardo: "I'm glad to see you have so much of it but I do not, so what is "plenty long enough" for you doesn't work in the real world for me."
That's pretty funny, given that all I'm asking for is an A, B or C answer to that question, and given that you've spent quite a bit of time lying and otherwise pretending to have answered that question while also trying to change the subject.
Gotta love denier response G:
G) "Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject"
or not.
With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has been global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
galileonardo: "Your question has been answered already by me, thanks."
Lie. I hate to be the one to inform you galileonardo but your denier response G:
G) "Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject"
does not count as a valid answer to the question.
So again please answer the question, galileonardo.
As DocScull has observed, if you can't answer this very simple question about what Dr. Jones said in an interview published online then why and how can we trust your judgment - or your honesty, for that matter - about something as complex as global climate change?
I wish I had time to deal with you guys tonight but I don't. From what I've gleaned there's a lot of silliness going on but being met first thing with this sad Publicola barrage warrants at least a brief reply (if this remains open I hope to be back this weekend).
Pub, you took cherry-picking to the extreme with this post and get the thread's gold medal. I have to laugh because you are either being blatantly misleading or proving that you're so "intellectually advanced" (I'm guessing the former but...). Here's the full sentence you so sadly cherry-picked from. Actually, better yet. Here's my whole comment:
"So that was supposed to be a #1, right? Anyway, yes dissenting scientists like Susan Solomon, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and co-chair of IPCC WG1. And Jan Esper, yep, big-time dissenter. He must have tricked Briffa and Osborn into working together. Anders Moberg too and just because I have to throw him in the mix, you have John Christy, the guy Jones was writing to when he said it had cooled since 1998. Cheers!"
I think it's time you visit the doctor and have him check on your satire or honesty gland (or both). I look forward to addressing other gems like realpolitics' "oops, I meant then" LOL post when time permits.
lol..
Downthread you link-dump multiple studies that you deceptively represent as all countering the "consensus" view on CO2" -- aka dener tactic "#6 - Obfuscation".
You then further deceptively misrepresent authors of these studies as "dissenting scientists" of the AGW consensus - starting with Dr. Solomon. Unlike you - that is, unless you were *intentionally* being deceptive - I was and am very well aware that Dr. Solomon is decidedly NOT a "dissenting scientist" of the consensuss, as I then went on to demonstrate.
And for that you claim that I "cherry picked to the extreme" her name out of your deceptive and obfuscatory rhetoric - LOL.
Here's a tip for you, galileonardo: If you don't want to get called on your obfuscatory and deceptive rhetoric then stop obfuscating and deceiving.
As I explained to you in detail below, this too is deceptive rhetoric.
But hey don't let that stop you from continuing to repeat it ad nauseum anyway, which based on everything else you've written here it evidently won't. Cheers!
?
You are trying to imply that climatologist Dr. Susan Solomon of NOAA is a "dissenting scientist" on the reality of AGW theory?!?
LOL..
Well then - I think I now understand why you deny the scientific consensus supporting AGW, galileonardo, what with all those "dissenting scientists" like Dr. Solomon out there...
Here are excerpts from Congressional testimony by "dissenting scientist" Dr. Susan Solomon with respect to global warming, March 17, 2009:
----------------------
I'd now like to turn briefly to some robust aspects of climate change projections and impacts. By about the end of the 21st century, carbon dioxide concentrations could become as high as 1000 parts per million if emissions worldwide continue rising at a rate typical of the last decade, which is about 2% per year. The best current science implies that with a sustained level of 1000 ppmv over carbon dioxide, an average day would be about 10 degrees F warmer than today, which corresponds to a greatly changed climate. Heat wave as bad or worse than the worst current heat waves (such as the one in Europe in 2003 that led to the deaths of more than 10,000 people) would become common. There is now increased confidence that decreased rainfall can be expected as the world warms in parts of southwestern North America, west Australia, southern Europe, and both northern and southern Africa.
continued...
Droughts comparable to the dust bowl can be expected to occur in the future not just occasionally in limited regions, but in all of these places and at the same time. Many of the world's most desolate deserts would expand as semi-arid soils dry out. Glaciers and snowpack that provide water to at least a billion people would disappear. Fires would become more common in these dry regions, and fire frequency is also expected to increase in many locations that dependent upon snowpack for their water supply, such as California. Insect test would become more common, with attendant damage to crops and forests. All of these impact are based on physical processes that are well understood, and represent aspects of the science for which confidence is very high. ...
If the world chooses to stop carbon dioxide increases and the attendant global warming at any level: 2 degrees F, 4 degrees F, or something else, this would require a reduction in global carbon emissions by at least 80%. *When* we cut emissions would affect how much global warming occurs, so decisions and actions on timing are important in determining the extent of the human-induced climate change we can expect. ...
continued...
Sea level rose by about 6 inches in the 20th century. How much further it will rise is not well understood. It is well understood that water expands when heated, and this is an important source of sea level rise. It is also clear that small glaciers world wide have lost mass as the world has warmed, supplying more liquid water to the ocean and contributing to sea level rise. These two processes are well understood and can be expected to produce up to 3 feet of sea level rise within the next two to three centuries if carbon dioxide continues to increase. Three feet of sea level rise would inundate many small island and low lying coastal regions, such as Florida, and this is already becoming part of coastal planning in many regions. A third process many be very important but is very poorly understood, the rapid flow of the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. There is evidence for locally rapid ice flows, but it is not yet possible to integrate this contribution over larger areas as would be needed to quantify the total contribution to sea level rise. The potential contribution could be on the order of a few meters over centuries, but this is very uncertain.
---
http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/Susan_Solomon_03_17_09.pdf
As an example of how one-sided the honest efforts to communicate clearly on this topic have been, consider the basic, indisputable arithmetic rules of computing a percentage change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-sandler/climate-deniers-are-pollu_b_549894.html?show_comment_id=45727551#comment_45727551
If you won't admit to the proven facts, conversation with you is a waste of time.
Let them earn their access to peer-reviewed journals by publishing scientifically meritorious studies and not because of some quota system to let deniers in the dialogue, although I know you are not implying that their should be some quota system.
With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has been global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
galileonardo: "Your question has been answered already by me, thanks."
Lie. I hate to be the one to inform you galileonardo but your denier response G:
G) Evade answering the question repeatedly, and then when called on it lie and say you already answered it and try to change the subject
does not count as a valid answer to the question.
So again please answer the question. As DocScull has observed if you can't answer a very simple question about what Dr. Jones said in an interview published online then why and how can should we trust your judgment - or your honesty, for that matter - on something as complex as global climate change?
Of course you haven't seen that, because it's a straw man. AGW theory says CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are substantially if not primarily responsible for the global warming trend in recent decades, not "since we emerged from the LIA."
----------------------------------------------
On global warming, the science is solid
March 6, 2010
.
Contrary to what one might read in newspapers, the science of climate change is strong... [There is] no doubt regarding the following key points:
• • The global climate is changing.
A 1.5-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature over the past century has been documented... Numerous lines of physical evidence around the world, from melting ice sheets and rising sea levels to shifting seasons and earlier onset of spring, provide overwhelming independent confirmation of rising temperatures...
• • Human activities produce heat-trapping gases.
Any time we burn a carbon-containing fuel such as coal or natural gas or oil, it releases carbon dioxide into the air. ... Other heat-trapping gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are also produced by agriculture and waste disposal. The effect of these gases on heat energy in the atmosphere is well understood...
• • Heat-trapping gases are very likely responsible for most of the warming observed over the past half century.
There is no question that natural causes, such as changes in energy from the sun, natural cycles and volcanoes, continue to affect temperature today... But despite years of intensive observations of the Earth system, no one has been able to propose a credible alternative mechanism that can explain the present-day warming without heat-trapping gases produced by human activities.
----
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html
Only because you don't know the difference between local weather and global climate, and seek to ignore the role of CO2 in global warming.
Me: "Indeed. And said global warming deniers invariably mislead and lie with respect to what Phil Jones actually said, which is that from 1995 forward the data have shown a warming trend."
galileonardo: "How exactly does one mislead and lie when presenting direct multiple links to Jones' exact words?"
Deniers usually don't link to Jones' exact words, and even when they do they still invariably misleads and lie anyway.
To illustrate my point here's a pop quiz for you, galileonardo. With respect to what Jones said about the global temperature trend from 1995 to the present in that BBC interview, which of the following choices is the characterization of what Jones said that both does not lie and also does not mislead those who do not understand what statistical significance is (which is to say, most people):
A) "There has been no global warming since 1995"
B) "There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995"
C) "The data indicate that there has global warming since 1995, and with a level of statistical significance that is quite close to 95%"
Hint: the correct answer is not the patently false lie that the Daily Mail used as a headline:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
---------------------------------------
galileonardo: {{{ ... crickets ... }}}
"While this has been said already, the burden of proof is with ye AGW folk who are so self-assuredly convinced that the available evidence points the finger at CO2 as the principal cause of the current warming period and projected warming."
In the 1950s. Maybe in the 1960s and 1970s. Definitely not from the 1980s to today. You are egregiously misinformed about what is proven, what questions remain open, and what margins of uncertainty are.