Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[n_huffhines]

By the way, can you explain this? Al Gore got rich off of Apple and Google and his TV station. Whar's the big bucks in them thar alarmist hills? Do you think it compares to the big bucks in the Marcellus shale?

Doesn't he have a company that sells some sort of BS service that "offsets" carbon footprints?

 

[volinbham]

First off, none of Lovelock, Tol, or Gore are climate scientists. We covered Lovelock in the official thread. That's a pretty gnarly spin on the Tol article, but to be expected from the daily mail. Gore's first statement is stupid (sea level will rise ~1m by 2100) but your linked statement is more-or-less accurate, though Gore still said it in a profoundly stupid way.

In response to your questions:

1) There are a range of projections based on different growth projections. I'm not sure why you specify Hansen's predictions (the science has come a long way since 1988...) but they've been good so far.

2) It's not just a guess, it's a measurement. And surface temperatures are still within the range of IPCC projections.

3) While no single weather event can be attributed specifically to climate change, it does affect weather patterns and in general warmer waters breed bigger tropical storms.

4) This is getting away from the physical science, but yes. Drought is certainly a major cause of famine and political unrest.

5) Specifically what? Ocean acidification is a big problem. Climates are changing faster than species can migrate or adapt (especially in the tropics where many species have narrow niches). We are presently witnessing the sixth mass extinction in Earth's history.

Your wording ("settled science") suggests you're going to take this down the same fallacious path as Crichton. Before you do take a look at the links in my response to '79. Science is always evolving and refining itself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a useful predictor. In fact the defining characteristic of science is its predictive power. Can the IPCC give you lotto numbers for 2100? No. But we have more than enough data to warrant action.

My point is that the "settled" part of settled science (a term that is repeatedly used to dampen any questioning of GW and it's prescriptions) is not settled across the board on the GW issue.

The degrees of certainty fall from what is most "settled" (there is warming and that CO2 is a major culprit) to the bad storms we had this year are a result of GW (not at all settled).

Much of what I've seen from the GW evangelist side is treating it ALL as settled and trying to stifle debate rather than let the miracle of unbiased science (an illusion) lead us.

As a quick example let's take the oceans holding heat as the reason why temperatures have flattened since the high water mark (pun intended).

The projections are based on surface temperature data or proxies. It has been collected or inferred over time to produce the model. Now that the reality doesn't match the model the response; "well it had to be getting warmer as we predicted so the heat has to be somewhere - voila! it's in the ocean".

The ocean may very well have gotten warmer. The problem I see is that we don't have the ocean temp data for the same time period as the surface projections. Clearly it is possible (likely even) that at times when the surface data observed past peaks, troughs and flat periods that the ocean temps were the moderating factor as is being suggested now. If so, the explanation is problematic since this effect was ignored in the data used to build the predictive model but is now being used to explain why the predicted trend slope is not matching the data. You either need to factor the historical ocean data in (which is impossible since we don't have the records) or recognize your predictive model is compromised.

In short, it appears the response to the model not matching the prediction is not "maybe the model is wrong" but there must be another reason my model didn't work.

 

[Grand Vol]

By the way, can you explain this? Al Gore got rich off of Apple and Google and his TV station. Whar's the big bucks in them thar alarmist hills? Do you think it compares to the big bucks in the Marcellus shale?

You do realize Current TV was a flop, right?

 

[volinbham]

By the way, can you explain this? Al Gore got rich off of Apple and Google and his TV station. Whar's the big bucks in them thar alarmist hills? Do you think it compares to the big bucks in the Marcellus shale?

Al got rich from books, movies, speaking about GW. He got rich by creating organizations to sell carbon credits and other "tools" to lower GHGases.

Here's an article that outlines one of Gore's business ventures

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype - Forbes

In typical Gore fashion, he explained that while yes his estate and boat used tons of energy he buys carbon credits as offsets. What he left out is that he bought them from his own company.

Any "green energy" industry will fund and lobby for GW severity. Look at the fiascos we've had under this current administration (Solyndra etc) - all driven by the alarmist spin on GW.

Look at grant funding, publication acceptance preferences, governmentally supported scientific research (besides typical grant funding).

There are clear economic incentives to promote the worst case scenario of GW.

It's ironic that those screaming the loudest about Big Oil funding being pseudo-science believe in the angelic purity of science that supports their view.

 

[volinbham]

You do realize Current TV was a flop, right?

Yeah but Al Jazeera bought it (ironically with tons of oil money) for a big chunk.

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Yeah but Al Jazeera bought it (ironically with tons of oil money) for a big chunk.

Al Gore is a smart capitalist.

 

[Grand Vol]

Yeah but Al Jazeera bought it (ironically with tons of oil money) for a big chunk.

Terms of the deal were confidential and Current was in financial straits when it was bought. I'd probably be willing to guess they were not making money when they sold it and probably didn't make as much off the deal.

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Terms of the deal were confidential and Current was in financial straits when it was bought. I'd probably be willing to guess they were not making money when they sold it and probably didn't make as much off the deal.

"Al Jazeera did not disclose the purchase price, but people with direct knowledge of the deal pegged it at around $500 million, indicating a $100 million payout for Mr. Gore, who owned 20 percent of Current."

REPORT: Al Gore Made $100 Million In The Current TV Sale, And Hoped To Close The Deal Last Year Before Taxes Jumped - Business Insider

 

[volinbham]

Al Gore is a smart capitalist.

Indeed.

 

[volinbham]

Terms of the deal were confidential and Current was in financial straits when it was bought. I'd probably be willing to guess they were not making money when they sold it and probably didn't make as much off the deal.

Everything I saw about it was consistent with what Abe posted - he made bank.

He also made bank on carbon credits and general GW evangelism

 

[Grand Vol]

"Al Jazeera did not disclose the purchase price, but people with direct knowledge of the deal pegged it at around $500 million, indicating a $100 million payout for Mr. Gore, who owned 20 percent of Current."

REPORT: Al Gore Made $100 Million In The Current TV Sale, And Hoped To Close The Deal Last Year Before Taxes Jumped - Business Insider

Damn.

Never mind, he did make off with a butt ton of cash.

 

[BartW]

Funding.
"Our"? You're a paid scientist?

Yes. So are you suggesting scientists are fabricating data to ensure funding? Be careful, you’re on a slippery slope to conspiracy town.

My favorite part of the “hoax” myth is that scientists are making up data so they can keep receiving grant money. You really have to wonder what people think grant money is when they accuse scientists of compromising their morals to fabricate for grants. What do grants give a PhD scientist in earth science or climatology? An assistant professor’s salary? It’s not like we can take grant money and go out and buy a Porsche. It is clear PhD training is not the easy path to wealth and success. Most working scientists are usually paid little more than school teachers, and if you are one of the 60% of students who enroll in a PhD program who successfully graduate with their PhD in the US you then have about a 1 in 3 chance for job in academia, with about a 1 in 7 chance of obtaining a tenure track job that may one day advance to full professor. A full professor of science (not medicine or law who get paid lots more) might get paid as high as 80-90k a year after decades of costly training and post-doc or assistant professor salaries (think school teacher). There are a lot easier ways of getting rich. And perhaps the most obvious flaw that is often pointed out, you get better pay for consulting for think tanks and oil companies when you deny the science.

Doesn't he have a company that sells some sort of BS service that "offsets" carbon footprints?

Everything I saw about it was consistent with what Abe posted - he made bank.
He also made bank on carbon credits and general GW evangelism

Al got rich from books, movies, speaking about GW. He got rich by creating organizations to sell carbon credits and other "tools" to lower GHGases.
Here's an article that outlines one of Gore's business ventures
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype - Forbes
In typical Gore fashion, he explained that while yes his estate and boat used tons of energy he buys carbon credits as offsets. What he left out is that he bought them from his own company.
Any "green energy" industry will fund and lobby for GW severity. Look at the fiascos we've had under this current administration (Solyndra etc) - all driven by the alarmist spin on GW.
Look at grant funding, publication acceptance preferences, governmentally supported scientific research (besides typical grant funding).
There are clear economic incentives to promote the worst case scenario of GW.
It's ironic that those screaming the loudest about Big Oil funding being pseudo-science believe in the angelic purity of science that supports their view.

That article has a pretty gnarly spin too (by the way, the Tol article referenced earlier was so rotten that the IPCC uncharacteristically released an official rebuttal). I particularly like the lulzy “CO2 is plant food!” talking point. But I’ll let it slide and focus on the point: it doesn’t tell you at all how Al Gore got rich! Though it certainly insinuates something nefarious… Where’s the money coming from? The only source of income your article considers is GIM and even that, the article points out, hasn’t done too well. How has Al Gore made a fortune off of carbon credits or whatever when there’s never been a cap-and-trade system in place?

What green energy industry is “lobbying for GW severity”? Do you think they have anywhere near as much pull as the fossil fuel industry? How was Solyndra “driven by alarmist spin”? You don’t think we’d be funding alternative energy research if it weren’t for global warming? Heck we still give oil companies billions in subsidies each year.

You guys love to bring up Solyndra, but a surprising stat we looked up in the official thread (straight from DoE) is that that green energy investment program has had a 97% success rate. The implication that Solyndra’s flop is representative of the entire industry is disingenuous, to say the least.

My point is that the "settled" part of settled science (a term that is repeatedly used to dampen any questioning of GW and it's prescriptions) is not settled across the board on the GW issue.
The degrees of certainty fall from what is most "settled" (there is warming and that CO2 is a major culprit) to the bad storms we had this year are a result of GW (not at all settled).
Much of what I've seen from the GW evangelist side is treating it ALL as settled and trying to stifle debate rather than let the miracle of unbiased science (an illusion) lead us.
As a quick example let's take the oceans holding heat as the reason why temperatures have flattened since the high water mark (pun intended).
The projections are based on surface temperature data or proxies. It has been collected or inferred over time to produce the model. Now that the reality doesn't match the model the response; "well it had to be getting warmer as we predicted so the heat has to be somewhere - voila! it's in the ocean".
The ocean may very well have gotten warmer. The problem I see is that we don't have the ocean temp data for the same time period as the surface projections. Clearly it is possible (likely even) that at times when the surface data observed past peaks, troughs and flat periods that the ocean temps were the moderating factor as is being suggested now. If so, the explanation is problematic since this effect was ignored in the data used to build the predictive model but is now being used to explain why the predicted trend slope is not matching the data. You either need to factor the historical ocean data in (which is impossible since we don't have the records) or recognize your predictive model is compromised.

In short, it appears the response to the model not matching the prediction is not "maybe the model is wrong" but there must be another reason my model didn't work.

Oceans control some of the short-term variation in temperature (La Nina vs. El Nino) but they don’t control long-term trends. When scientists use climate models they’re looking at trends, not X precise temperature one model run calculates for X precise year. That’s why these models typically average several runs for several different initial conditions, and why they have a “spin-up” time.

There is actually a pretty good network of shallow (though not deep) ocean temperature measurements. But ocean temperature aside, it’s a simple heat balance problem. We can measure how much energy is incident on Earth and how much is leaving Earth. Presently, Earth is gaining heat at a rate equivalent to four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Alarming eh?

And regarding the storms complaint again:

“But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science.”

I asked one of the country’s top climatologist, Michael Mann, to respond to that, and he replied:

The statement is disingenuous, very carefully worded to imply doubt where there is none. The term “the latest” is used as a sleight of hand. Of course, we don’t attribute individual meteorological events to climate change in a purely causal manner, because the link is statistical. It is like the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, or the link between a baseball player taking steroids and the number of home runs he hits in the season. We don’t talk about any one home run being caused by the steroids. Its the wrong question, the wrong framing. We know that statistically, the player hit more home runs because of the steroids. And, analogously, we know that we’re seeing more severe and prolonged heat waves and drought, extreme flooding, and more devastating hurricanes, because of human-caused climate change. Just the opposite of what the authors appear to want you to think.

It’s nice to engage someone besides the official thread regulars like BOT and CC, but if we’re not going to talk about Crichton’s nonsense here I think it’s time to merge…

 

[FLVOL69]

Yes. So are you suggesting scientists are fabricating data to ensure funding? Be careful, you’re on a slippery slope to conspiracy town.





That article has a pretty gnarly spin too (by the way, the Tol article referenced earlier was so rotten that the IPCC uncharacteristically released an official rebuttal). I particularly like the lulzy “CO2 is plant food!” talking point. But I’ll let it slide and focus on the point: it doesn’t tell you at all how Al Gore got rich! Though it certainly insinuates something nefarious… Where’s the money coming from? The only source of income your article considers is GIM and even that, the article points out, hasn’t done too well. How has Al Gore made a fortune off of carbon credits or whatever when there’s never been a cap-and-trade system in place?

What green energy industry is “lobbying for GW severity”? Do you think they have anywhere near as much pull as the fossil fuel industry? How was Solyndra “driven by alarmist spin”? You don’t think we’d be funding alternative energy research if it weren’t for global warming? Heck we still give oil companies billions in subsidies each year.

You guys love to bring up Solyndra, but a surprising stat we looked up in the official thread (straight from DoE) is that that green energy investment program has had a 97% success rate. The implication that Solyndra’s flop is representative of the entire industry is disingenuous, to say the least.



Oceans control some of the short-term variation in temperature (La Nina vs. El Nino) but they don’t control long-term trends. When scientists use climate models they’re looking at trends, not X precise temperature one model run calculates for X precise year. That’s why these models typically average several runs for several different initial conditions, and why they have a “spin-up” time.

There is actually a pretty good network of shallow (though not deep) ocean temperature measurements. But ocean temperature aside, it’s a simple heat balance problem. We can measure how much energy is incident on Earth and how much is leaving Earth. Presently, Earth is gaining heat at a rate equivalent to four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Alarming eh?

And regarding the storms complaint again:

It’s nice to engage someone besides the official thread regulars like BOT and CC, but if we’re not going to talk about Crichton’s nonsense here I think it’s time to merge…

Agreed..John Crichton

 

[volinbham]

Yes. So are you suggesting scientists are fabricating data to ensure funding? Be careful, you’re on a slippery slope to conspiracy town.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. (I assume you are not suggesting that about those scientists who challenge some of these findings even if Big Oil gave them a grant?)

I'm suggesting that (and some of their own words say it for point 1)

1. Scientists the firmly believe in their work recognize they must focus on the worst consequences to motivate action. Thus the criticism of the IPCC summary that emphasizes the worst.

2. There is a selection bias in a) what science/scientists get funded, b) what findings get published.

That article has a pretty gnarly spin too (by the way, the Tol article referenced earlier was so rotten that the IPCC uncharacteristically released an official rebuttal). I particularly like the lulzy “CO2 is plant food!” talking point. But I’ll let it slide and focus on the point: it doesn’t tell you at all how Al Gore got rich! Though it certainly insinuates something nefarious… Where’s the money coming from? The only source of income your article considers is GIM and even that, the article points out, hasn’t done too well. How has Al Gore made a fortune off of carbon credits or whatever when there’s never been a cap-and-trade system in place?

Forget the spin and focus on the facts - it was just the first article I came to. As for him getting rich here you can look it up - he made a killing. Also, he was running a fund. He does better if the funds investments do better but he would still make a ton of money managing the fund.

What drove money into the fund? His evangelism of the issue.

Likewise the Tol article was just the first one I came to. The larger point was he had been part of IPCC and found the advocacy tactics to moving well beyond science into a political agenda. Just an example.

What green energy industry is “lobbying for GW severity”? Do you think they have anywhere near as much pull as the fossil fuel industry? How was Solyndra “driven by alarmist spin”? You don’t think we’d be funding alternative energy research if it weren’t for global warming? Heck we still give oil companies billions in subsidies each year.

I don't think we'd have funded companies like Solyndra, the battery company, Fiskar, etc. without the alarmist presentation of GW and the lobbying efforts of those that benefit from such spending. Sure we fund research but funding these companies wasn't research; it was akin to venture capital and it was clearly driven by the green agenda of this administration. If you follow the Solyndra story (and others like it) the lobby money/campaign contribution money trails are quite clear.

The "oil subsidies" are quite different and while I see both sides of their merit they are light years apart from what was virtually direct investment in companies. Part of the problem here to was the due diligence on those investments was crap due to the agenda - the cause trumped the fiscal soundness of the investment.

Want DoE to fund basic research on green energy? Fine. Want DoE to pick market winners/losers given the political agenda? No effin' way.

You guys love to bring up Solyndra, but a surprising stat we looked up in the official thread (straight from DoE) is that that green energy investment program has had a 97% success rate. The implication that Solyndra’s flop is representative of the entire industry is disingenuous, to say the least.

I'll have to see what they are claiming. My bet is the story isn't anywhere near that rosy. If they are talking investments/loans akin to Solyndra there is no way this is true - no VC firm or private equity firm gets anywhere close to that number and DoE is not on par with those type firms in vetting and picking winners/losers.

Oceans control some of the short-term variation in temperature (La Nina vs. El Nino) but they don’t control long-term trends. When scientists use climate models they’re looking at trends, not X precise temperature one model run calculates for X precise year. That’s why these models typically average several runs for several different initial conditions, and why they have a “spin-up” time.

There is actually a pretty good network of shallow (though not deep) ocean temperature measurements. But ocean temperature aside, it’s a simple heat balance problem. We can measure how much energy is incident on Earth and how much is leaving Earth. Presently, Earth is gaining heat at a rate equivalent to four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Alarming eh?

The point stands that the model is build on "surface" temps. The data for the last 17 years is significantly below the models. Maybe its in the ocean but the historic data used build the model had to have occurrences where the oceans absorbed or release heat - thus the data on which the projections are based is missing data if we are trying to compensate for ocean temperature rise to explain only one portion of the model (the portion that isn't showing the expected results)

This is my point about certainty - you provide this quote

We know that statistically, the player hit more home runs because of the steroids. And, analogously, we know that we’re seeing more severe and prolonged heat waves and drought, extreme flooding, and more devastating hurricanes, because of human-caused climate change.

How settled do you believe this claim to be? We have temp data and CO2 data to provide scientific certainty on GW and AGW. However, we don't have the same level of data on heat drought, extreme flooding, hurricanes so there is an estimation that these items in the past were not a the levels of some we've seen more recently. They are called 100 year floods for a reason.

Further, there is an inference that is based on correlation (above issue not withstanding) we have causation.

This link is not established in the manner that CO2 and warming is yet it is claimed with the same veracity.

 

[BartW]

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. (I assume you are not suggesting that about those scientists who challenge some of these findings even if Big Oil gave them a grant?)

I’m not suggesting it; I’m outright stating it. The climate denial campaign mirrors the tobacco denial campaign (and scientific denialism in general) to a T. Not only do today's 'skeptics' use the exact same tactics, they involve many of the same organizations and even some of the same people. Gloss over the last few pages of the official thread. It should concern you that proven frauds like Seitz, Singer, and Milloy are leading the anti-AGW crusade. Not only did they do big tobacco’s dirty work, they’ve also opposed the scientific consensus on everything from ozone depletion to asbestos to acid rain to DDT… basically rejecting any science that indicates we might need regulation.

I’m not saying all big oil grants are shady, but it is HIGHLY suspicious that the majority of climate skeptics are largely oil-funded, and that they’re all associated with the same network of libertarian thinktanks. Furthermore, so much blatant misinformation and propaganda gets echoed between those thinktanks and into the ‘skeptic’ blogosphere that it’s hard to take anything they do seriously.

I'm suggesting that (and some of their own words say it for point 1)
1. Scientists the firmly believe in their work recognize they must focus on the worst consequences to motivate action. Thus the criticism of the IPCC summary that emphasizes the worst.
2. There is a selection bias in a) what science/scientists get funded, b) what findings get published.

1) The worst case scenario is worth discussing, but the summary is in no way the worst case scenario. It’s the consensus “most likely” scenario. Climate sensitivity is generally believed to be around 3C per doubling CO2; it could be as low as 2, but it could also be as high as 6-7. The “consensus” predictions from the IPCC have always aimed to be conservative precisely because they don’t want to come off as alarmist. And in some cases their predictions have turned out to be too conservative (for example, the rate of sea level rise and arctic ice melt). It sounds alarmist to you because the situation really is serious. CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in over 3 million years. The last time they were this high Earth was 2-3 C warmer and sea levels were 30 feet higher. Camels roamed the high Arctic.
2) Good research will absolutely get published. If anyone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel prize. Are you suggesting editors will only publish work that fits their apparently uniform liberal agenda?

The reason Singer and pals don’t publish in real journals isn’t because their results conflict with all editors' agendas, it’s because their work is crap that would never get through peer review. But the skeptics largely refuse to debate scientists in the halls of science, instead resort to spreading misinformation through books, op-eds, congressional testimony, and interviews. It's easy to spread disinformation when nobody's fact-checking you.

Forget the spin and focus on the facts - it was just the first article I came to. As for him getting rich here you can look it up - he made a killing. Also, he was running a fund. He does better if the funds investments do better but he would still make a ton of money managing the fund.
What drove money into the fund? His evangelism of the issue.

Here’s a decent list:

How Gore became as rich as Romney

So he’s made some coin from speeches and GIM but it’s not the majority source of his wealth. I don’t see the global warming exploitation. It looks to me like he’s just a smart businessman. And as a smart businessman, I don’t see what’s wrong with him advising people to invest in alternative energy if he thinks alternative energy will be important in the near future. What exactly is nefarious here?

Likewise the Tol article was just the first one I came to. The larger point was he had been part of IPCC and found the advocacy tactics to moving well beyond science into a political agenda. Just an example.

Tol felt that his position that global warming will be a net economic positive is underrepresented in the summary for policymakers, though he readily admits that warming greater than 3C will be a net negative. His and others’ work on potential benefits of global warming is certainly in the full report and is even noted in the summary. He just feels his work deserved more weight. I bet several IPCC authors felt the same. Only so much can go into a summary.

Also, the dude withdrew last year but the daily mail article (btw, did you read IPCC's response?) didn’t go up until the day before WGII was released. I wonder why?

I don't think we'd have funded companies like Solyndra, the battery company, Fiskar, etc. without the alarmist presentation of GW and the lobbying efforts of those that benefit from such spending. Sure we fund research but funding these companies wasn't research; it was akin to venture capital and it was clearly driven by the green agenda of this administration. If you follow the Solyndra story (and others like it) the lobby money/campaign contribution money trails are quite clear.
The "oil subsidies" are quite different and while I see both sides of their merit they are light years apart from what was virtually direct investment in companies. Part of the problem here to was the due diligence on those investments was crap due to the agenda - the cause trumped the fiscal soundness of the investment.
Want DoE to fund basic research on green energy? Fine. Want DoE to pick market winners/losers given the political agenda? No effin' way.
I'll have to see what they are claiming. My bet is the story isn't anywhere near that rosy. If they are talking investments/loans akin to Solyndra there is no way this is true - no VC firm or private equity firm gets anywhere close to that number and DoE is not on par with those type firms in vetting and picking winners/losers.

Energy Fact Check

I agree that the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the alternative energy industry (or oil), which is why I’m for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. I was just pointing out that Solyndra isn’t representative of the entire alternative energy industry like some would have us believe...

The point stands that the model is build on "surface" temps. The data for the last 17 years is significantly below the models. Maybe its in the ocean but the historic data used build the model had to have occurrences where the oceans absorbed or release heat - thus the data on which the projections are based is missing data if we are trying to compensate for ocean temperature rise to explain only one portion of the model (the portion that isn't showing the expected results)

No you missed my point entirely. Oceans don’t affect long-term trends, only short-term variability. Look at the escalator plot again.

Skeptics cherrypick short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data. You really can't talk about climate trends over periods less than 30 years. When the temperature picks back up we’ll undoubtedly hear “There’s been no surface temperature change since 2007!” It wouldn’t be the first, second, or even third time 'skeptics' have moved that date.

This is my point about certainty - you provide this quote
How settled do you believe this claim to be? We have temp data and CO2 data to provide scientific certainty on GW and AGW. However, we don't have the same level of data on heat drought, extreme flooding, hurricanes so there is an estimation that these items in the past were not a the levels of some we've seen more recently. They are called 100 year floods for a reason.
Further, there is an inference that is based on correlation (above issue not withstanding) we have causation.
This link is not established in the manner that CO2 and warming is yet it is claimed with the same veracity.

We have adequate historical data. 100 year floods are happening more frequently than every 100 years. This winter Europe and especially the UK had record-setting rainfall. Australia has been having crazy record heat and bushfires. There are severe droughts all over the world and even in the US. Climate change is already affecting us. Just ask the insurance industry.

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business

Warmer waters breed more powerful storms and higher sea level means higher storm surge. That’s elementary school science and math. It’s not just a statistical relationship.

I’m not sure why you’re harping on storms. IMO they’re one of the less troubling effects of AGW. What we need to worry about is food and water security.

 

[BartW]

Now Fox News Is Defending Tobacco-Cancer Denial

:no:

 

[volinbham]

I’m not suggesting it; I’m outright stating it. The climate denial campaign mirrors the tobacco denial campaign (and scientific denialism in general) to a T. Not only do today's 'skeptics' use the exact same tactics, they involve many of the same organizations and even some of the same people. Gloss over the last few pages of the official thread. It should concern you that proven frauds like Seitz, Singer, and Milloy are leading the anti-AGW crusade. Not only did they do big tobacco’s dirty work, they’ve also opposed the scientific consensus on everything from ozone depletion to asbestos to acid rain to DDT… basically rejecting any science that indicates we might need regulation.

I’m not saying all big oil grants are shady, but it is HIGHLY suspicious that the majority of climate skeptics are largely oil-funded, and that they’re all associated with the same network of libertarian thinktanks. Furthermore, so much blatant misinformation and propaganda gets echoed between those thinktanks and into the ‘skeptic’ blogosphere that it’s hard to take anything they do seriously.

So you are saying that scientists who disagree or have alternative findings are have other than scientific motives but not those finding support of GW. Do you not see the problem there? Kinda like saying all Democrat law makers are lying pieces of crap but all Republicans have pure motives.

Also while there is plenty of over the top skepticism there is plenty of over the top GW alarmism. You've concluded they aren't even close but I would imagine your own personal ideals shade that comparison a bit. I can post wacky, over the top alarmism all day long.

1) The worst case scenario is worth discussing, but the summary is in no way the worst case scenario. It’s the consensus “most likely” scenario. Climate sensitivity is generally believed to be around 3C per doubling CO2; it could be as low as 2, but it could also be as high as 6-7. The “consensus” predictions from the IPCC have always aimed to be conservative precisely because they don’t want to come off as alarmist. And in some cases their predictions have turned out to be too conservative (for example, the rate of sea level rise and arctic ice melt). It sounds alarmist to you because the situation really is serious. CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in over 3 million years. The last time they were this high Earth was 2-3 C warmer and sea levels were 30 feet higher. Camels roamed the high Arctic.

Please - it only seems alarmist because I'm unaware?

The last sentence raises many questions.

2) Good research will absolutely get published. If anyone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel prize. Are you suggesting editors will only publish work that fits their apparently uniform liberal agenda?

I don't know why you feel compelled to build straw man arguments. I haven't called this a liberal agenda (at least not the science agenda part). I've seen and know that publication is driven by confirmation and extension. Likewise I bet a casual glance at funding priorities would show an overwhelming bias towards documenting the effects of GW rather than questioning whether effects occur. That is is the problem with "settled science"; it has a selection bias effect on what subsequent science is deemed appropriate and within the bounds of the proper frameworks.

Here’s a decent list:

How Gore became as rich as Romney

So he’s made some coin from speeches and GIM but it’s not the majority source of his wealth. I don’t see the global warming exploitation. It looks to me like he’s just a smart businessman. And as a smart businessman, I don’t see what’s wrong with him advising people to invest in alternative energy if he thinks alternative energy will be important in the near future. What exactly is nefarious here?

Nefarious again is a word you've chosen. The point I was making was that Al's agenda became a source of revenue for him.

To gain investment for his fund he had to evangelize the perils of GW. You surely aren't claiming that Al didn't exaggerate both the extent of and near-term effects of GW are you?

People raise hell with Glenn Beck and other talk show guys for preaching doom and gloom on the economy then taking money for promoting companies selling good. Al Gore was doing the same thing.

The larger point about Al Gore and others was that there's money to be made in hyping GW and it's effects. That is the grease for an agenda. If you believe Big Oil has an agenda it's absolutely naive to thing Big Green doesn't. Hyping GW is the primary fuel for Big Green

Energy Fact Check

A quick comment about the link - you rail about the agenda of skeptics and deniers then post something from a trade org supporting renewable energy as a "Fact check"

I agree that the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers in the alternative energy industry (or oil), which is why I’m for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. I was just pointing out that Solyndra isn’t representative of the entire alternative energy industry like some would have us believe...

Full of straw men in this post. Who is claiming Solyndra is "representative of the entire alternative energy industry". I'm beginning to see why you don't see many statements about GW as alarmist.

I pointed out Solyndra as an example of how there is money to be made in a green agenda. Follow the trail of the money in the Solyndra case and you see investors, donors, politicians and lobbyists all tied nicely together. It became almost inevitable that DoE would make this "investment".

No you missed my point entirely. Oceans don’t affect long-term trends, only short-term variability. Look at the escalator plot again.

Skeptics cherrypick short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data. You really can't talk about climate trends over periods less than 30 years. When the temperature picks back up we’ll undoubtedly hear “There’s been no surface temperature change since 2007!” It wouldn’t be the first, second, or even third time 'skeptics' have moved that date.

No you've missed my point on this. I'm not going to write it out again. I tried it 2x. If you are interested go back and take a look and I'll try to clarify specific points. Otherwise were are spinning wheels here.

We have adequate historical data. 100 year floods are happening more frequently than every 100 years. This winter Europe and especially the UK had record-setting rainfall. Australia has been having crazy record heat and bushfires. There are severe droughts all over the world and even in the US. Climate change is already affecting us. Just ask the insurance industry.

Once again you are speaking with certainty - even what you posted from Mann? contradicts what you've posted above - we can't claim any particular event was caused by GW.

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business

Warmer waters breed more powerful storms and higher sea level means higher storm surge. That’s elementary school science and math. It’s not just a statistical relationship.

I'm not meteorologist but part of storm strength is relative temperature - warmer water relative to not warmer air temps. It is the temperature differential that yields the energy. With a storm surge, the intensity is a function of storm strength rather than water level. A strong storm pushes more water than a weak one regardless of water level.

My larger point is that as move down the consequence chain the certainty with which we can state "x" will result is diminished.

Put another way, if we have a cone of uncertainty the fact that the earth has gotten warmer is at the narrow end. Claiming droughts this year are the result of that are not at that end. I imagine even IPCC is not making certainty predictions about those effects with the same precision or 95% confidence they assign to AGW.

However - GW evangelists (you are starting to sound like one yourself) make statements about the certainty of a) existence of GW, b) extent of GW, c) meteorological effects of GW, d) migratory pattern of humans effects, e) agricultural effects, f) wildlife effects, etc. with the same level of certainty.

It is all treated as "settled science"

Likewise, I see these GW evangelists claiming someone is a denier if they question ANY of a - f above.

In short, it has moved well beyond science into political agendas.

That was the point of the thread as I see it.

I’m not sure why you’re harping on storms. IMO they’re one of the less troubling effects of AGW. What we need to worry about is food and water security.

See above and they are as the daily GW clarion calls - see the recent NBC show for example.

 

[volinbham]

Now Fox News Is Defending Tobacco-Cancer Denial

:no:

You have an interesting set of standards. You use MediaMatters which is cherry picking from a story on Fox to come up with a headline that Fox is defending tobacco-cancer denial (note the headline doesn't say second-hand smoke - cancer).

The study referenced does have that conclusion about second-hand smoke and the link to cancer.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes. So are you suggesting scientists are fabricating data to ensure funding? Be careful, you’re on a slippery slope to conspiracy town.

Are scientists better than everyone else? I don't think so. Whether you are in the business world, a teacher, or a politician, people game the system for job security.

Open your eyes. Whether or not they fabricate the data isn't the question, it's the policy implications that I have trouble with. They don't understand the economics of what they do.

 

[BartW]

So you are saying that scientists who disagree or have alternative findings are have other than scientific motives but not those finding support of GW. Do you not see the problem there? Kinda like saying all Democrat law makers are lying pieces of crap but all Republicans have pure motives.
Also while there is plenty of over the top skepticism there is plenty of over the top GW alarmism. You've concluded they aren't even close but I would imagine your own personal ideals shade that comparison a bit. I can post wacky, over the top alarmism all day long.

All politicians are lying pieces of crap

But seriously, the fake scientists that work for anti-regulation thinktanks have a bad track record. Does it not concern you that the same organizations and individuals bankrolled by Morris and Reynolds to deny the risks of smoking are now leading the charge against global warming?

And the amount of ridiculous sh!t they echo does not compare to over-the-top GW alarmism. That’s not my bias speaking. I’ve seen what’s out there on the internets. I’ve spent months in the official thread re-debunking the same bogus myths that have been debunked over and over, yet still get recycled through the skeptic blogosphere. The amount of intentional misinformation is disgusting.

Please - it only seems alarmist because I'm unaware?
The last sentence raises many questions.
I don't know why you feel compelled to build straw man arguments. I haven't called this a liberal agenda (at least not the science agenda part). I've seen and know that publication is driven by confirmation and extension. Likewise I bet a casual glance at funding priorities would show an overwhelming bias towards documenting the effects of GW rather than questioning whether effects occur. That is is the problem with "settled science"; it has a selection bias effect on what subsequent science is deemed appropriate and within the bounds of the proper frameworks.

I’m saying that while it may sound alarmist to you, the IPCC’s “consensus” is relatively conservative. Things could be a lot worse than we’re letting on but if we even mention those possibilities we get branded as alarmist. Even conservative predictions are branded alarmist.

The funding argument shows a misunderstanding of how science works. Research that merely confirms what we already know doesn’t get funded or published. Exciting work challenges or extends our body of knowledge. The results of funded experiments aren’t pre-determined. Thousands of studies could easily have yielded negative results. Again, if someone even had an alternative working hypothesis to explain the numerous independent lines of evidence that have formed the present consensus they would definitely get funded. And if their hypothesis gained traction they’d be in line for a Nobel prize.

Scientists are skeptics. We tear eachother’s work apart. It’s not some good ole boys club where we pat eachother on the back and say “yeah that sounds right”

Nefarious again is a word you've chosen. The point I was making was that Al's agenda became a source of revenue for him.
To gain investment for his fund he had to evangelize the perils of GW. You surely aren't claiming that Al didn't exaggerate both the extent of and near-term effects of GW are you?
People raise hell with Glenn Beck and other talk show guys for preaching doom and gloom on the economy then taking money for promoting companies selling good. Al Gore was doing the same thing.
The larger point about Al Gore and others was that there's money to be made in hyping GW and it's effects. That is the grease for an agenda. If you believe Big Oil has an agenda it's absolutely naive to thing Big Green doesn't. Hyping GW is the primary fuel for Big Green

You (and many others) imply Al Gore got rich solely off of GW evangelism. I pointed out that that simply isn’t true – the majority of his business has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions. I agree that Al Gore is a moron and he’s definitely said things unsupported by science, but his sins have been exaggerated by the right’s smear campaign. OMG Al Gore is flying on a jet, Al Gore lives in a big house, Al Gore invented the internet, Al Gore this Al Gore that. He’s an ex-politician turned businessman. Yeah he gave that lame Inconvenient Truth talk, but he’s hardly relevant to the conversation.

Full of straw men in this post. Who is claiming Solyndra is "representative of the entire alternative energy industry". I'm beginning to see why you don't see many statements about GW as alarmist.
I pointed out Solyndra as an example of how there is money to be made in a green agenda. Follow the trail of the money in the Solyndra case and you see investors, donors, politicians and lobbyists all tied nicely together. It became almost inevitable that DoE would make this "investment".

Maybe you didn’t mean to imply that, but it’s been implied by others in the official thread several times. Again I agree the gubment shouldn’t be picking winners and losers in alternative energy.

No you've missed my point on this. I'm not going to write it out again. I tried it 2x. If you are interested go back and take a look and I'll try to clarify specific points. Otherwise were are spinning wheels here.

Oceans don’t govern long-term trends. The long-term trend is determined by the heat balance, that is, whether more energy is entering or leaving the system.

Here’s an example I’ve used to try to explain the difference between weather (chaotic) and climate. Imagine you are filling a swimming pool with a hose. Now, somebody jumps in the pool. There are waves all over the place. According to chaos theory, it’s impossible to determine the precise water level at some position (X,Y) at a distant future time T. However, if we know the average water level we started out at and we know the rate at which the pool is filling, we can determine the average water level for any T.

We don’t need to know the dynamics of how a splash generates waves in the pool to project future water levels. Likewise we don’t need to know the specifics of how oceans have influenced short-term variability to project long-term temperature trends. All we need to know is how much energy is entering and leaving the Earth system. Presently the Earth system is heating at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

Once again you are speaking with certainty - even what you posted from Mann? contradicts what you've posted above - we can't claim any particular event was caused by GW.
No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business
I'm not meteorologist but part of storm strength is relative temperature - warmer water relative to not warmer air temps. It is the temperature differential that yields the energy. With a storm surge, the intensity is a function of storm strength rather than water level. A strong storm pushes more water than a weak one regardless of water level.

Warmer water does by itself breed more powerful storms. But additionally, global warming has resulted in stratospheric cooling (one of the many confirmed predictions of AGW), so not only is the water warmer there’s also a larger temperature difference. As sea level rises storm surge will push farther inland. That’s just math, I don’t know how you can argue against it.

My larger point is that as move down the consequence chain the certainty with which we can state "x" will result is diminished.
Put another way, if we have a cone of uncertainty the fact that the earth has gotten warmer is at the narrow end. Claiming droughts this year are the result of that are not at that end. I imagine even IPCC is not making certainty predictions about those effects with the same precision or 95% confidence they assign to AGW.
However - GW evangelists (you are starting to sound like one yourself) make statements about the certainty of a) existence of GW, b) extent of GW, c) meteorological effects of GW, d) migratory pattern of humans effects, e) agricultural effects, f) wildlife effects, etc. with the same level of certainty.
It is all treated as "settled science"
Likewise, I see these GW evangelists claiming someone is a denier if they question ANY of a - f above.
In short, it has moved well beyond science into political agendas.
That was the point of the thread as I see it.

The IPCC has different qualifiers for different levels certainty (extremely likely, very likely, likely, more likely than not, unlikely, and very unlikely). It’s not all the same. Take a look at AR5.

Questioning doesn’t make you a denier. As scientists, we question everything. Denialism isn’t a position. It’s is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. It’s incredibly formulaic across a wide range of “issues” (HIV/AIDS, vaccinations, GMOs, ID, tobacco, moon landing, homebirthers, the list goes on…). It’s a specific concept, not just some insult people throw around. Quite a fascinating topic really. Here are two good places to start if you want to familiarize yourself:

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Denialism Blog

The point of this thread as I understood it is that ‘scientific consensus’ is political and meaningless. But as I’ve pointed out (and nobody has attempted to refute) Crichton’s argument is severely flawed.

You have an interesting set of standards. You use MediaMatters which is cherry picking from a story on Fox to come up with a headline that Fox is defending tobacco-cancer denial (note the headline doesn't say second-hand smoke - cancer).

The study referenced does have that conclusion about second-hand smoke and the link to cancer.

The cherry-picking here is that of Fox selecting one study with marginal results when there is a vast body of work indicating secondhand smoke does cause cancer. The very National Cancer Institute they cite unequivocally states that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

The irony is Fox’s backing of the Heartland Institute (remember that billboard?) which outright denied that smoking is bad for you period. In fact a number of the goons over at Fox (notably Milloy) were themselves employed in tobacco’s denial campaign.
 

 

[BartW]

Are scientists better than everyone else? I don't think so. Whether you are in the business world, a teacher, or a politician, people game the system for job security.

Open your eyes. Whether or not they fabricate the data isn't the question, it's the policy implications that I have trouble with. They don't understand the economics of what they do.

How does global warming alarmism give scientists job security? If global warming weren’t real they’d study something else. And if scientists were in it for the money they’d be better off working for the Heartland Institute.

Your second statement highlights the fact that opposition to acting on climate change is political, not scientific.

 

[volinbham]

All politicians are lying pieces of crap

But seriously, the fake scientists that work for anti-regulation thinktanks have a bad track record. Does it not concern you that the same organizations and individuals bankrolled by Morris and Reynolds to deny the risks of smoking are now leading the charge against global warming?

And the amount of ridiculous sh!t they echo does not compare to over-the-top GW alarmism. That’s not my bias speaking. I’ve seen what’s out there on the internets. I’ve spent months in the official thread re-debunking the same bogus myths that have been debunked over and over, yet still get recycled through the skeptic blogosphere. The amount of intentional misinformation is disgusting.

There are legit scientists who question and have research questioning the degree of certainty and the effects. From what I see they get routinely attacked and have their motives questioned. They become scientific outcasts undeservedly so.

I’m saying that while it may sound alarmist to you, the IPCC’s “consensus” is relatively conservative. Things could be a lot worse than we’re letting on but if we even mention those possibilities we get branded as alarmist. Even conservative predictions are branded alarmist.

Wait, the IPCC is holding out? What happened to science being pure?

The funding argument shows a misunderstanding of how science works. Research that merely confirms what we already know doesn’t get funded or published. Exciting work challenges or extends our body of knowledge. The results of funded experiments aren’t pre-determined. Thousands of studies could easily have yielded negative results. Again, if someone even had an alternative working hypothesis to explain the numerous independent lines of evidence that have formed the present consensus they would definitely get funded. And if their hypothesis gained traction they’d be in line for a Nobel prize.

Scientists are skeptics. We tear eachother’s work apart. It’s not some good ole boys club where we pat eachother on the back and say “yeah that sounds right”

I don't know your background or history in science, publication and funding but I'll share mine.

Your indication that I don't understand how science works simply is without merit. I'm trained in the scientific method, I perform research using this method, I publish using this method and I apply for grants using this method. Further, for the last 15 years I've also worked closely with people from the medical and natural sciences (I'm in the social sciences). I know how it works. Work must be built upon work. There are prevailing theories and funding priorities. Straying to far from the status quo results in difficulty receiving funding and nasty reviews. I agree that straight replication is not publishable but the system dictates what makes it through and what does not. It is a fantasy to claim that it is purely objective and wholly merit-based.

You (and many others) imply Al Gore got rich solely off of GW evangelism. I pointed out that that simply isn’t true – the majority of his business has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions. I agree that Al Gore is a moron and he’s definitely said things unsupported by science, but his sins have been exaggerated by the right’s smear campaign. OMG Al Gore is flying on a jet, Al Gore lives in a big house, Al Gore invented the internet, Al Gore this Al Gore that. He’s an ex-politician turned businessman. Yeah he gave that lame Inconvenient Truth talk, but he’s hardly relevant to the conversation.

You continue to make these exaggerated claims. I never said Al Gore got rich "solely" off GW evangelism.

I said he made a boatload of money by hyping GW then profiting from the hype.

Why you have to continually build these straw men is a mystery to me; particularly given you are claiming to be a pure scientist who only deals in fact.

Oceans don’t govern long-term trends. The long-term trend is determined by the heat balance, that is, whether more energy is entering or leaving the system.

Here’s an example I’ve used to try to explain the difference between weather (chaotic) and climate. Imagine you are filling a swimming pool with a hose. Now, somebody jumps in the pool. There are waves all over the place. According to chaos theory, it’s impossible to determine the precise water level at some position (X,Y) at a distant future time T. However, if we know the average water level we started out at and we know the rate at which the pool is filling, we can determine the average water level for any T.

We don’t need to know the dynamics of how a splash generates waves in the pool to project future water levels. Likewise we don’t need to know the specifics of how oceans have influenced short-term variability to project long-term temperature trends. All we need to know is how much energy is entering and leaving the Earth system. Presently the Earth system is heating at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

I understand the distinction but that was not my point.

Warmer water does by itself breed more powerful storms. But additionally, global warming has resulted in stratospheric cooling (one of the many confirmed predictions of AGW), so not only is the water warmer there’s also a larger temperature difference.

From what I've read there is less certainty about the impact on storm strength.

As sea level rises storm surge will push farther inland. That’s just math, I don’t know how you can argue against it.

Seriously? More water isn't being pushed, the water is just being pushed from a higher level. Additionally, it may or may not go further inland depending on the lay of the land - that's just simply geography. In either case, the storm surge isn't stronger - it is just occurring from a different place.

The further you get from discussing temperature data the more you are moving into speculation but you keep stating it like it was gospel.

The IPCC has different qualifiers for different levels certainty (extremely likely, very likely, likely, more likely than not, unlikely, and very unlikely). It’s not all the same. Take a look at AR5.

Questioning doesn’t make you a denier. As scientists, we question everything. Denialism isn’t a position. It’s is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. It’s incredibly formulaic across a wide range of “issues” (HIV/AIDS, vaccinations, GMOs, ID, tobacco, moon landing, homebirthers, the list goes on…). It’s a specific concept, not just some insult people throw around. Quite a fascinating topic really. Here are two good places to start if you want to familiarize yourself:

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Denialism Blog

Would you consider the guys at UAH or Curry as deniers? Are they less than pure scientists?

The point of this thread as I understood it is that ‘scientific consensus’ is political and meaningless. But as I’ve pointed out (and nobody has attempted to refute) Crichton’s argument is severely flawed.

I give you credit for consistency. Now questioning whether or not agenda has a role in explaining something like IPCC is tantamount to calling scientific consensus meaningless. The straw men are out in force.

I'm surprised you don't see how your continual exaggeration of people's positions may call into question your objectivity.

The cherry-picking here is that of Fox selecting one study with marginal results when there is a vast body of work indicating secondhand smoke does cause cancer. The very National Cancer Institute they cite unequivocally states that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

The irony is Fox’s backing of the Heartland Institute (remember that billboard?) which outright denied that smoking is bad for you period. In fact a number of the goons over at Fox (notably Milloy) were themselves employed in tobacco’s denial campaign.
 

You don't see the MediaMatters headline and story as being misleading?

Was Fox really denying tobacco causes cancer? Of course not but you gleefully claim they are to smear Fox. Didn't you complain that Al Gore was being smeared?

The less you exaggerate the more people might take seriously your positions that no exaggeration is occurring in IPCC.

 

[Grand Vol]

Okay, never mind. Threads should be merged...

 

[BartW]

There are legit scientists who question and have research questioning the degree of certainty and the effects. From what I see they get routinely attacked and have their motives questioned. They become scientific outcasts undeservedly so.

There are legit scientists who work in academia (the 3%). I respect them for at least engaging with real scientists. But they do tarnish their reputation by (1) associating with thinktanks that churn out obvious BS (2) repeating some of that obvious BS (3) failing in their predictions and (4) smearing their colleagues. When others call them out on obvious BS they’ll retract their statement and sometimes admit fault, but never apologize. And it doesn’t matter if they do; the misinformation is immortalized on the internet.

Can you give specific examples of unwarranted criticism? I find it ironic that you accuse climate scientists of the very smear campaign the right has undertaken on them. The crap out there is ridiculous, they get death threats on a regular basis. IPCC fudges data. Michael Mann is Jerry Sanduzky. Climate scientists are Nazis. One of the same tactics used by tobacco, incidentally.

Wait, the IPCC is holding out? What happened to science being pure?

It’s all in the literature and in the report, but it’s not emphasized in the summary. Tol is an outlier on the low danger side, some are outliers on the high danger side. Both warrant consideration but only so much goes into a summary.

I don't know your background or history in science, publication and funding but I'll share mine.
Your indication that I don't understand how science works simply is without merit. I'm trained in the scientific method, I perform research using this method, I publish using this method and I apply for grants using this method. Further, for the last 15 years I've also worked closely with people from the medical and natural sciences (I'm in the social sciences). I know how it works. Work must be built upon work. There are prevailing theories and funding priorities. Straying to far from the status quo results in difficulty receiving funding and nasty reviews. I agree that straight replication is not publishable but the system dictates what makes it through and what does not. It is a fantasy to claim that it is purely objective and wholly merit-based.

I’m a geologist from a physics background.

Nothing is politic-free, but it’s equally fantasy to claim that a good idea will be denied funding and publication if it doesn’t conform to the agenda. Science doesn’t stifle dissent, it encourages it. If some of this oil-funded thinktank “research” did real useful original work instead of nitpicking and cherrypicking existing work, it’d get published too.

You continue to make these exaggerated claims. I never said Al Gore got rich "solely" off GW evangelism.

I said he made a boatload of money by hyping GW then profiting from the hype.

Why you have to continually build these straw men is a mystery to me; particularly given you are claiming to be a pure scientist who only deals in fact.

I’m sorry I’m jaded from the official thread. Everyone seems to imply that he made most of his money by hyping AGW. Sure he’s made some, but it’s only a fraction of his wealth. The Gore bashing is so overplayed.

Seriously? More water isn't being pushed, the water is just being pushed from a higher level. Additionally, it may or may not go further inland depending on the lay of the land - that's just simply geography. In either case, the storm surge isn't stronger - it is just occurring from a different place.
The further you get from discussing temperature data the more you are moving into speculation but you keep stating it like it was gospel.

Let’s say a hurricane hits Florida (and then Alabama :bammer. If base sea level were a foot higher, do you not see that the same storm surge would push water further inland?

Would you consider the guys at UAH or Curry as deniers? Are they less than pure scientists?

First of all you won’t get any of them to say AGW doesn’t exist. Again I respect them for at least putting their work through peer-review, but they do occasionally echo denialist talking points.

Judith Curry has a bad habit of making scientific-sounding pronouncements without having actually read the relevant literature, and then backing down the minute she is challenged by someone who has or who has actually contributed to that literature. Curry was also a big climategate rumormonger. She may be the most debunked “real” scientist.

The UAH guys have been performing the same song and dance about satellite measurements for years. First it was “satellites show cooling” then “satellites don’t show enough warming” and eventually it got reduced to “satellites don’t show enough warming in the tropical lower troposphere.” Their analysis has always been the outlier and they’ve repeatedly had to make significant corrections (most of which increased their trend) as people pointed out mistakes in their code. They’re cherrypicking and moving goalposts. Spencer is also a big creationist.

I could go on about Curry and UAH. They probably aren’t the best examples for you to draw on.

Not all skeptics are as dishonest as your Singers and Milloys. Some people just seem to be contrarian by nature and instinct. God bless ‘em, they’ve made the case all the stronger when acting as an honest scientist.

I give you credit for consistency. Now questioning whether or not agenda has a role in explaining something like IPCC is tantamount to calling scientific consensus meaningless. The straw men are out in force.
I'm surprised you don't see how your continual exaggeration of people's positions may call into question your objectivity.

I was referring to OP's Crichton bit, not your post.

You don't see the MediaMatters headline and story as being misleading?
Was Fox really denying tobacco causes cancer? Of course not but you gleefully claim they are to smear Fox. Didn't you complain that Al Gore was being smeared?
The less you exaggerate the more people might take seriously your positions that no exaggeration is occurring in IPCC.

What do you find misleading about the article? The title? ETS denial is a form of tobacco denial.

Point remains fox regularly draws on organizations and individuals that shilled for big tobacco when they need ‘expert’ commentary on global warming.

 

[BartW]

Okay, never mind. Threads should be merged...

Yeah, no aliens here...