Climate Gate?

With regards to climategate:
Can someone from the AGW-affirmative side give a link to the prominent peer reviewed papers which contain the empirical evidence that temperature variances seen in the 20th century are statistical outliers from the ordinary temperature behavior over the last 10,000 years? Chris asserts that there is a massive volume of these papers, but I can't seem to find any that aren't linked back to the CRU, Jones, or Mann. It would be really helpful to my understanding, to know what the research for this assertion (and several other assertions) is based on. If, for the sake of argument, one discounts all parties involved in the recent scandal does the face of AGW argument change significantly?

A good addition to the link box would be Commentary's Jonathon Tobin's review of Haye's Nation piece: Global-Warming Cognitive Dissonance at the Nation a snippet: "How does Hayes explain this refusal of so many Americans to accept the dogma that is repeated endlessly in the media and throughout the culture almost without challenge? Of course, he ignores recent scandals such as the East Anglia affair, as well as the fact that, contrary to predictions, the planet hasn’t gotten any warmer in the past decade, something even the New York Times has acknowledged.

Instead, Hayes mostly blames it on the economic crisis and partisan hatred for Barack Obama. But that’s not all. He also blames the global-warming activists themselves for not being sufficiently scary. That’s right. Despite all the apocalyptic threats that have been put forward on behalf of this thesis based on theoretical models, Hayes believes that we haven’t had enough environmental hysteria. He believes the warming alarmists must stop talking about “green jobs” and the economic opportunities they claim will spring from the disastrous cap-and-trade policies they advocate. Instead, he wants them to just scream “the planet is melting.” I guess that’s

Quoting yggdrasil: With regards to climategate:
Can someone from the AGW-affirmative side give a link to the prominent peer reviewed papers which contain the empirical evidence that temperature variances seen in the 20th century are statistical outliers from the ordinary temperature behavior over the last 10,000 years?

Chris asserts that there is a massive volume of these papers, but I can't seem to find any that aren't linked back to the CRU, Jones, or Mann. It would be really helpful to my understanding, to know what the research for this assertion (and several other assertions) is based on. If, for the sake of argument, one discounts all parties involved in the recent scandal does the face of AGW argument change significantly?

That would be quite an argument on which to act "for the sake of." So far there's no evidence that anything like that is called for. Meanwhile that's quite a job of searching and cross-referencing you're requesting.

In fact, jobs aren't goods. Jobs are what you have to do to *get* wealth. They're a cost, not a good. Point being, Hayes and Welch (!) both miss the main flaw in all "green jobs" BS, which is that you can create lots of jobs while getting much, much poorer along the way. The number of jobs saved, created, or even "saved or created" tells you *nothing* about the welfare merits of a policy decision. Abolish bulldozers, and see how many ditch-digging jobs you create... and see how much more we have to work and pay to dig any given ditch. More jobs, yes, but more poverty too. There's a reason labor saving technologies used to be celebrated as advancements... Labor is a resource to be conserved, not wasted with net-loss make-work that boosts politicians' Green PR points. "Green" or not, "jobs" are a red herring, and a completely BS policy criterion. How about freedom and wealth instead?

Quoting drawnasunder: In fact, jobs aren't goods. Jobs are what you have to do to *get* wealth. They're a cost, not a good.

Point being, Hayes and Welch (!) both miss the main flaw in all "green jobs" BS, which is that you can create lots of jobs while getting much, much poorer along the way. The number of jobs saved, created, or even "saved or created" tells you *nothing* about the welfare merits of a policy decision.

Abolish bulldozers, and see how many ditch-digging jobs you create... and see how much more we have to work and pay to dig any given ditch. More jobs, yes, but more poverty too.

There's a reason labor saving technologies used to be celebrated as advancements... Labor is a resource to be conserved, not wasted with net-loss make-work that boosts politicians' Green PR points.

"Green" or not, "jobs" are a red herring, and a completely BS policy criterion. How about freedom and wealth instead?

How about freedom, wealth, and sustainability? How do you solve for all three?

That is a VERY relevant argument. The question of the significance of recent temperature increase is THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT OF AGW THEORY. If you want people to believe that a volume of literature confirms this premise you should be able to sight at least some of it. I don't understand what are you talking about this being "quite a job". I just want one paper. I do academic research all the time, and, if one is well versed in a field, it takes about 5 seconds to pull up researched papers on an empirical topic that is well established. The fact that AGW-affirmatives will not do this is evidence that one of three is true:
1.) They don't really understand the field
2.) They don't have respect for the people they are talking too.
3.) The evidence doesn't exist
Which would you prefer me to infer from the lack of an answer?

If you throw out all of Stephen Glass' articles, what does the body of work that remains at The New Republic look like? Seems like a fair question.

Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book.

Quoting yggdrasil: That is a VERY relevant argument. The question of the significance of recent temperature increase is THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT OF AGW THEORY. If you want people to believe that a volume of literature confirms this premise you should be able to sight at least some of it.

I don't understand what are you talking about this being "quite a job". I just want one paper. I do academic research all the time, and, if one is well versed in a field, it takes about 5 seconds to pull up researched papers on an empirical topic that is well established. The fact that AGW-affirmatives will not do this is evidence that one of three is true:
1.) They don't really understand the field
2.) They don't have respect for the people they are talking too.
3.) The evidence doesn't exist
Which would you prefer me to infer from the lack of an answer?

Apparently you've done a search and come up empty. You're asking for unpaid help to finish the job. If you have a premise, then why don't you do the legwork yourself in support of it? I take exception to the lazy implication that the existence of this stolen data, and

Quoting drawnasunder: Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book.

In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth. And the systemic ability of the planet to sustain our existence is infinitely malleable, despite any effects we might have on components such as atmospheric chemistry, soil erosion, displaced ecosystems, etc... I think you might be a smidge overconfident.

Quoting drawnasunder: If you throw out all of Stephen Glass' articles, what does the body of work that remains at The New Republic look like?

Seems like a fair question.

Pretty much the same, don't you think?

You're right, I have done several searches and come up empty, and yes I suppose it is too much to ask others to do the work for me (but given the ease of such a search if you are familiar with the subject this is not much). I am a statistician, not a climate scientist, and I have other work to do other than pouring over literature that does not have direct applications to my research. However, I am concerned because I don't know what to believe due to the horrible state of the climate research literature that is readily available to the public. My main question though is, what about you? If you have never seen the research papers how are you so certain that there is a good case for the science? Aren't you curious? So far scandal has brought serious aspersions on validity of the primary research concerning the statistical significance of global warming. I call it primary because it was the primary source for the IPCC and the EPA. Now, it's a very relevant question what the state of the research is in, if, in the worse/best case scenario, Mann et al

Notice, however, that when asked for good articles not written by Glass, the readership of TNR did not have trouble naming examples.

Yep, it looked pretty much the same. Good for them. To get to that point though, TNR went through every article he worked on during his time there, re-fact-checking every single datum they could, with original sources. They had to, to save their reputation. CRU needs to do the same. Oh wait, the original data is gone... Stephen Glass' reputation was rightfully destroyed, and no one at TNR brags about the articles he wrote that *weren't* fudged. Let's see how convincing and open the review process is. I remain to be convinced about their integrity.

Quoting yggdrasil: You're right, I have done several searches and come up empty, and yes I suppose it is too much to ask others to do the work for me (but given the ease of such a search if you are familiar with the subject this is not much).

I am a statistician, not a climate scientist, and I have other work to do other than pouring over literature that does not have direct applications to my research. However, I am concerned because I don't know what to believe due to the horrible state of the climate research literature that is readily available to the public.

My main question though is, what about you? If you have never seen the research papers how are you so certain that there is a good case for the science? Aren't you curious? So far scandal has brought serious aspersions on validity of the primary research concerning the statistical significance of global warming. I call it primary because it was the primary source for the IPCC and the EPA. Now, it's a very relevant question what the state of the research is in, if, in the worse/best case scenario, Mann et al

Quoting drawnasunder: Yep, it looked pretty much the same. Good for them.

To get to that point though, TNR went through every article he worked on during his time there, re-fact-checking every single datum they could, with original sources. They had to, to save their reputation.

CRU needs to do the same. Oh wait, the original data is gone...

Stephen Glass' reputation was rightfully destroyed, and no one at TNR brags about the articles he wrote that *weren't* fudged.

Let's see how convincing and open the review process is. I remain to be convinced about their integrity.

It's a tendentious analogy. I'd like to see how they possibly accomplish an investigation that isn't transparent in the present circumstances. You're assuming a whole lot more than is currently evident.

Hippest matchup in the history of BHTV. The glasses alone...

In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth. And the systemic ability of the planet to sustain our existence is infinitely malleable, despite any effects we might have on components such as atmospheric chemistry, soil erosion, displaced ecosystems, etc... More or less, yeah, that's right. Except substitute "ingenuity" for "material" and "humans" for "the planet". Planless, unorganized, open-ended, messy invention, innovation, trial and error stretching out into the unforseeable future. Scary, no? I think you might be a smidge overconfident.
Overconfident? I'm not the one in a lab coat trying to run the world.

...in support of the allegation of corruption via Exxon and right-wing think-tanks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092001078.html http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2 http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

Quoting drawnasunder: In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth. And the systemic ability of the planet to sustain our existence is infinitely malleable, despite any effects we might have on components such as atmospheric chemistry, soil erosion, displaced ecosystems, etc...

More or less, yeah, that's right. Except substitute "ingenuity" for "material" and "humans" for "the planet". Planless, unorganized, open-ended, messy invention, innovation, trial and error stretching out into the unforseeable future. Scary, no?

I think you might be a smidge overconfident.
Overconfident? I'm not the one in a lab coat trying to run the world.

Nope, you're not. I think I could devise another metaphor if I tried, though.

I hope no one relies on the "The Nation" or "Reason" for political or scientific understanding of anything. "The Nation" is just a bunch of left-wing idealoges who think the NYT is too "Right-wing" while "Reason" is simply a joke. Matt's superficial and evasive position on climate change is expected. He's thinks its happening but can't explain why except his scientific reporter says so. As for "Climategate" - Matt's position is- so what. Brilliant.

If you rely on the peer review process, what do you do when that process is impugned? Duck'nCover? Or vet the players, data, and process again? CEI!!! Big Oil!!!

Quoting drawnasunder: If you rely on the peer review process, what do you do when that process is impugned? Duck'nCover? Or vet the players, data, and process again?

CEI!!! Big Oil!!!

I believe in the cleansing power of light. Do you have something to add, or do you think that exclamation points are a valid form of argument?

I'd like to see how they possibly accomplish an investigation that isn't transparent in the present circumstances Well you may be in luck! We'll see. I will not be holding my breath waiting for a candid review from CRU.

Quoting BeachFrontView: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/243...1:34&out=11:51

lol. This is a great pairing.

That was basically how I felt about the subject until a few weeks ago. I didn't necessarily believe that skeptics were frauds (There are quite a few intelligent well spoken AGW-negatives including Dr. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, and Christopher Landsea), but I heard the case that the majority of peer reviewed papers supported the affirmative side, and this was good enough for me. After climategate I feel like I have been betrayed, I can never accept affirmative argument based purely on authority again. The problem is the scandal seems to suggest that the peer review process itself was corrupted in order manufacture, in the minds of people such as myself, the concept that there was no controversy. It is possible for the peer review process to be subverted, especially in sciences that are "soft". Plenty of absolutely factually ridiculous arguments have been accepted as part of consensus in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and economics (all of which claim to be science). The problem with consensus in these fields is that there is much uncertainty and almost no opportunity to perform definitive experiments. That's why when anthropologists say they are certain about something, it is

Quoting look: lol. This is a great pairing.

Yep. Very good diavlog. Hayes and Welch are a perfect subject and aesthetic match. Chris's observations regarding China were spot on - (which means I share them.) My impression from my trips there was pretty much the same; China's growth is both laudable and monstrous.

I like sunlight too: let's get all the models out in the open for the public to see. I've been amused by the harsh commentary from programmers so far on what little has been released at this point. And I'll add this: you should re-read your indicting documents against exxon, cei, etc. spreading climate "misinformation" at odds with scientific consensus. Have you heard the expression "begs the question"? Kettle, meet pot. And this "!!!"

Quoting nikkibong: Hippest matchup in the history of BHTV. The glasses alone...

Hippest pair, I'll agree, but I wish Matt would move on with the glasses...they really remind me of the pair one of my fifth-grade teachers wore. Something a little darker and and rectangular would look sharp, I think.

best mccain impression ever http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/243...5:47&out=16:02

Quoting yggdrasil: That was basically how I felt about the subject until a few weeks ago. I didn't necessarily believe that skeptics were frauds (There are quite a few intelligent well spoken AGW-negatives including Dr. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, and Christopher Landsea), but I heard the case that the majority of peer reviewed papers supported the affirmative side, and this was good enough for me.

After climategate I feel like I have been betrayed, I can never accept affirmative argument based purely on authority again. The problem is the scandal seems to suggest that the peer review process itself was corrupted in order manufacture, in the minds of people such as myself, the concept that there was no controversy.

It is possible for the peer review process to be subverted, especially in sciences that are "soft". Plenty of absolutely factually ridiculous arguments have been accepted as part of consensus in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and economics (all of which claim to be science). The problem with consensus in these fields is that there is much uncertainty and almost no opportunity to perform definitive experiments. That's why when anthropologists say they are certain about something, it is

Quoting drawnasunder: I like sunlight too: let's get all the models out in the open for the public to see. I've been amused by the harsh commentary from programmers so far on what little has been released at this point.

And I'll add this: you should re-read your indicting documents against exxon, cei, etc. spreading climate "misinformation" at odds with scientific consensus. Have you heard the expression "begs the question"? Kettle, meet pot.

And this "!!!"

You don't win many arguments, do you? If you have something relevant to say, say it. Vague insinuations don't make your points for you.

I completely agree, though I will point out, that in my field at least, we welcome skeptics we don't shun then so there never is a siege mentality (there really can't be, because the doors are always open) This seems to be the only science where this attitude holds in reverse.

That's a different song than the one Gore et all. has been singing for the last five years. Hie followers have damned more critics with vague insinuations than any other faction on the contemporary political scene.

Quoting yggdrasil: I completely agree, though I will point out, that in my field at least, we welcome skeptics we don't shun then so there never is a siege mentality (there really can't be, because the doors are always open)

This seems to be the only science where this attitude holds in reverse.

Just to be clear: I'm making a distinction between skeptics and "so-called" skeptics. The quality of the questions being asked is salient, as is the intellectual honesty of the averred critics.

So are the scientists like Lindzen, McIntyre, and Dyson real skeptics?

Quoting yggdrasil: That's a different song than the one Gore et all. has been singing for the last five years. Hie followers have damned more critics with vague insinuations than any other faction on the contemporary political scene.

That's a separate issue. I take issue with the superlative sense of the second assertion. There's been plenty of that, in the political arena, from all sides.

Quoting nikkibong: Yep. Very good diavlog. Hayes and Welch are a perfect subject and aesthetic match.

Chris's observations regarding China were spot on - (which means I share them.) My impression from my trips there was pretty much the same; China's growth is both laudable and monstrous.

I just tried to find an old National Geographic article I read several years on the building of the Three Gorges Dam. The turmoil about the flooding of so many towns and ancient temple artifacts, complicated by chemical-leaching from old factories, was fascinating. Also, I read somewhere that the Chinese are so keen on development that, IIRC, only nine square city-blocks of the very old part of Beijing were set aside for preservation. I hope you can come back on Apollo and talk about your experiences in the Far East.

Quoting yggdrasil: So are the scientists like Lindzen, McIntyre, and Dyson real skeptics?

I love Dyson, but I think he's been a crank on this issue. I can't judge McIntyre's work because I don't understand all of the assumptions Mann was making, or if even know if he has a counterargument. I'll give you Lindzen, but hasn't he backed off somewhat?

There are actually very few global temperature datasets (CRU, GISS) and the overlap between them is huge. Think about it, there us only one temperature reading for Stockholm. It not like CRU and NASA each have their own measuring station there. Almost all the "global warming" shows up only when raw data is "adjusted" by a non-public process. Most of the thousands of peer reviewed papers that "support" AGW simply assume is it happening and predict effects based on it. Its a house of cards. If the AGW case were as strong as the proponents claim, they would have no fear of releasing data and processes.

Too vague? I'll spell it out. You cite The Associated Press, Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - Britain's leading scientific academy has accused oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. of misleading the public about global warming and funding groups that undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. That is amusing, given recent, ongoing disclosures about how that consensus has been formed and maintained The Royal Society said Wednesday that it had written to Exxon asking it to halt support for groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change." That is funny, given recent, ongoing disclosures about how scientists have represented the science of climate change to the public. "It's bizarre that a company like ExxonMobil should be funding an organization that so clearly is putting out information that is at odds with the opinion of the scientific community," That is funny, given that it is not bizarre in the least. No one else would have the means or motive to publish analysis in their favor. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about

yeah sorry about that, I couldn't resist the glib retort though

Quoting NormD: ...
If the AGW case were as strong as the proponents claim, they would have no fear of releasing data and processes.

I think the East Anglia data theft proves that that isn't the case. Without an expert understanding of the field, the details can be cast in many ways that seem to make points completely at odds with the intent of the researchers. They certainly have a perfectly valid fear that their work will be misconstrued.

McIntyre's work looks good from the 30,000 foot level, and even if his conclusions are mistaken he is definitely making his arguments in good faith I have decided that after the semester ends I am going to dedicate some time to reading both Mann and McIntyre and coming to some of my own conclusions.

Well at least you spent a few more words, this time. Still:

Quoting drawnasunder: You cite The Associated Press, Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - Britain's leading scientific academy has accused oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. of misleading the public about global warming and funding groups that undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

That is amusing, given recent, ongoing disclosures about how that consensus has been formed and maintained

The Royal Society said Wednesday that it had written to Exxon asking it to halt support for groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change."

That is funny, given recent, ongoing disclosures about how scientists have represented the science of climate change to the public.

You're still not making an argument. At best this is just an attempt at false equivalence, that doesn't even bother to connect the dots. Also: It would be good to try to keep track of the idea that the specific allegation here is in regard to corruption; that is, in this case, the barter of money or goods for a specified conclusion.

Quoting drawnasunder: The Guardian, Friday 2 February 2007
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered

Quoting yggdrasil: (There are quite a few intelligent well spoken AGW-negatives including Dr. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson, and Christopher Landsea)

These men are apparently not skeptics of AGW. They have differences over how the science should affect policy. They feel that the whole thing has become a political circus. They are correct. If scientists are subjected to political pressure, and no doubt this is the case, well, the stakes are rather high. 1. We can take adequate measures and later say 'we didn't need to', or 'we're glad we did'. 2. We can take half-measures and later say 'we didn't need to', or we can begin to suffer with no hope of respite. 3. We can do nothing and later say 'we're glad we did', or say 'goodbye'. The bet is that AGW is a false alarm. I think it's a stupid bet. Freeman Dyson
Richard Lindzen
Christopher Landsea

I should add that Lindzen is said to agree with 90% of accepted climate science. He has his own hypothesis about the other 10%. I wouldn't know where to slice that pie to examine that 10%, but I'm sure some research would turn up an answer. It is worth noting that Lindzen's idea is still hypothesis, as I understand it. Landsea's disagreement is over the degree to which warming affects hurricane strength. Seems legit to me.

Sorry, I just have to comment again, but this is another thing I found very unsavory about the AGW-aff side of the argument. The CONSTANT reliance on pascals wager in order to excuse sloppy or half done science. We can discuss the likelihood of bad consequences after we determine what the probabilities actually are. The real problem with Pascals wager is not that we should not allow potential consequences to interfere with our judgment, but rather the binary nature that dichotomy imposes on the decision making process. There are obvious a whole range of possible solutions we could take to climate change abd they all need to be considered. What we need is function that will measure the total economic consequence of being wrong in all cases. In statistics we call the penalty incurred by errors in predictions as a loss function, but for the most part these loss functions of developed by economists. I know that Bjorn Lomburg has written at great length about weighing the consequences of decisions, although the AGW-affs will hate me for mentioning him. Still, this discussion of consequences still doesn't liberate us

Quoting yggdrasil: Sorry, I just have to comment again, but this is another thing I found very unsavory about the AGW-aff side of the argument. The CONSTANT reliance on pascals wager in order to excuse sloppy or half done science. We can discuss the likelihood of bad consequences after we determine what the probabilities actually are.

The real problem with Pascals wager is not that we should not allow potential consequences to interfere with our judgment, but rather the binary nature that dichotomy imposes on the decision making process. There are obvious a whole range of possible solutions we could take to climate change abd they all need to be considered. What we need is function that will measure the total economic consequence of being wrong in all cases.

In statistics we call the penalty incurred by errors in predictions as a loss function, but for the most part these loss functions of developed by economists. I know that Bjorn Lomburg has written at great length about weighing the consequences of decisions, although the AGW-affs will hate me for mentioning him.

Still, this discussion of consequences still doesn't liberate us

Quoting Aemjeff Quoting drawnasunder: Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book.
"In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth." 99 plus percent of the wealth created and consumed by humans came from the top 100 feet of a planet 8000 miles in diameter. All of it came from the top few thousand feet. There is not an infinate supply of of material but there is a heck of a lot of it once we develope the technology to exploit it.

Quoting tickknob: Quoting Aemjeff

Quoting drawnasunder: Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book.

"In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth."

99 plus percent of the wealth created and consumed by humans came from the top 100 feet of a planet 8000 miles in diameter. All of it came from the top few thousand feet. There is not an infinate supply of of material but there is a heck of a lot of it once we develope the technology to exploit it.

Most of that material is unavailable, and it's mostly iron and to a lesser extent silicon. Among other problems, these are not energy sources. And, in any case, with needs increasing exponentially, no finite source can be adequate. (Even useful radioactive compounds aren't unlimited.) It's not a closed system, but right now the feedback frequency between inputs (mostly solar energy) and useful energy sources (mostly fossil fuel) is measured in many millions of years. And the many of the outputs are toxins, or have effects on systemic (atmosphere, soil, water, etc...) chemistry that feeds back in harmful ways. Pitches that posit infinite resources or

First I didn't mean to imply that the costs are only on the Aff side, a good decision making model has penalties (different ones of course) for error in either in either direction (Aff or Neg). What I am really complaining about is just the kind of argument that begins with the vacuous statement that "We have to do something!" and ends with an appeal to Pascal's Wager. This is just plain over-simplified thinking. There is more than one way to react to AGW (if it does happen) and it certainly doesn't stand to reason that by doing the first knee jerk thing we think of (carbon reduction) will necessarily solve the problem. This also doesn't solve the problem of liklihood of it happening, if the likelihood is very small if would have a large bearing on whether we spend trillions to fight it or just try to develop some contingency plans on the cheap (along with all the other ones for small probability disasters such as meteor striking the earth). This is a complicated problem and we need good science.

Quoting yggdrasil: ...

I have no problem with that characterization, with the caveat that achieving sustainability seems like an unavoidable goal, and controlling our carbon output, by whatever means, appears to be a fundamental component of any such strategy.

Quoting drawnasunder: More or less, yeah, that's right. Except substitute "ingenuity" for "material" and "humans" for "the planet". Planless, unorganized, open-ended, messy invention, innovation, trial and error stretching out into the unforseeable future. Scary, no?

No. No economy has ever functioned this way, none ever will. There's an easy first step to reversing your ignorance on this point: take a Federal Reserve Note out of your billfold and ask yourself, 'who printed this?'

Not necessarily, carbon will naturally be phased out of human energy systems over the course of the next century just on the fact that they will likely be cheaper than their competitors. The real dilemma is whether we can wait 100 years or only 50 (Again this demonstrates why accurate statistical estimates of risk are so importantly). Rushing things will cost a lot of money, and this is a non-trivial issue. I personally think the biggest goal of the next century should be bringing more people from poverty to something apparoaching a middle class standard of living (The last 15 years have seen an amazing reduction in poverty particlaiy in India and China). These efforts will only be retarded if there is an enormous increase on the price of energy over the next three decades, it could in fact cost developing countries a decade worth of progress in this direction. This is a huge negative consequence to acting on AGW without thoroughly exploring the consequences. Of course ensuring that the average Bangladeshi has pluming and access to clean water is moot if the whole

Are you saying that there have never been any unplanned economies? And that your evidence is modern fiat currency?

Quoting Aemjeff Quoting tickknob: Quoting Aemjeff
Quoting drawnasunder: Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book. "In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth."
99 plus percent of the wealth created and consumed by humans came from the top 100 feet of a planet 8000 miles in diameter. All of it came from the top few thousand feet. There is not an infinate supply of of material but there is a heck of a lot of it once we develope the technology to exploit it. "Most of that material is unavailable, and it's mostly iron and to a lesser extent silicon. Among other problems, these are not energy sources. And, in any case, with needs increasing exponentially" Al Gore says the center of the Earth is millions of degrees. He may be off a couple of orders of magnitude but he is right about one thing - there is a lot of energy down there. Enough to power civilization for a long time. Why should needs increase exponentially? According to the UN demographers world population will peak in forty years and

Quoting yggdrasil: The real problem with Pascals wager is not that we should not allow potential consequences to interfere with our judgment, but rather the binary nature that dichotomy imposes on the decision making process. There are obvious a whole range of possible solutions we could take to climate change abd they all need to be considered.

I assume you are referring to my earlier post when you later use the terms 'vacuous', 'over-simplified thinking' and 'knee-jerk'. As is clear from your statement above, you are conflating two issues: first, whether or not there is a need to do something - a binary issue, and second, choosing from whatever options present themselves as to what to do, if it is concluded that something should be done. It would be wise, at this juncture, when we find overwhelming evidence that the planet is heating up as a direct result of the actions of human beings, to collectively decide to begin taking real steps. If you're in the 'growth first' crowd, there will never be enough evidence of AGW to suit you. James Hansen on Copenhagen

Quoting tickknob: Quoting Aemjeff

Quoting tickknob: Quoting Aemjeff
Quoting drawnasunder: Wealth, in all its varied forms, is a pretty good proxy for "sustainability" in my book.

"In other words - there is an infinite supply of material to form the basis for that wealth."
99 plus percent of the wealth created and consumed by humans came from the top 100 feet of a planet 8000 miles in diameter. All of it came from the top few thousand feet. There is not an infinate supply of of material but there is a heck of a lot of it once we develope the technology to exploit it.

"Most of that material is unavailable, and it's mostly iron and to a lesser extent silicon. Among other problems, these are not energy sources. And, in any case, with needs increasing exponentially"

Al Gore says the center of the Earth is millions of degrees. He may be off a couple of orders of magnitude but he is right about one thing - there is a lot of energy down there. Enough to power civilization for a long time. Why should needs increase exponentially? According to the UN demographers world population will peak in forty years and

Overwelming evidence? Of what? Warming is VAGUE, a warming trend could be small, it could be large, it could be measurable only over a thousand years. You still haven't quantified ANYTHING which is the essential part to determining what is a reasonable response. You can't make the jump to a policy decision without accurately putting odds on the risks. If I were to say to you that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that there are meteors that are large enough to wipe out civilization and that meteors hit earth frequently and therefore you need to buy a trillion dollar space ship to shoot them down. You would probably raise objections due to the fact that I have not demonstrated the the probability that a civilization ending meteor will hit the earth in the near future. You also might have some question as to whether a trillion dollar spaceship is the best answer. Everyone seems to understand the concept of quantifying risk in these extreme examples, but they unplug their brain at the mention of AGW. WHY?

The story is still unfolding...... ".....McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to "Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart

Quoting harkin: The story is still unfolding......

Hey, Christopher Booker! Now there's a change from linking to George Will! Change we can believe in! Or not:

Views on science

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]

Agreed. If I knew anythign about China, I'd be happy to be your interlocutor, Nikkibong. Although I suppose that we might could work something out in which we compare/contrast different models of growth and modernization in the 3rd world (I've spent some time in Bahrain, which is a decent microcosm of the various Gulf States). Let me know if you're interested and you think that might be valuable to the listening public.

I don't know -- evolutionary biologists have certainly been accused of shutting out the opposition. Regardless of whether you think global warming deniers are bigger cranks than creationists, I think it's safe to say the "authorities" who agree with the ideas of both climate change and evolution are put in a similar position.

How about this (via The Loom)?

Quoting Baltimoron: How about this (via The Loom)?

Permalink for the latter.

Much obliged.

Quoting yggdrasil: Overwelming evidence? Of what?

You need to get a grip. The Bush administration professed belief in life-threatening AGW. The Pentagon is preparing for water war. They are not going to be caught with their pants down. There is a world-wide consensus of opinion among climate experts that AGW is a threat to the Biosphere. You want to read the papers? You wouldn't fucking understand them. Neither would I. But unless you want to indict the great majority of climatologists for personal bias and financial interest in perpetrating a fraud on the global community, or perhaps even collective conspiracy, then come back down to Earth. Park your fucking car and ride public trans or bike or walk. Sacrifices are going to be made. In 2006, 8.4 gigatons of carbon were emitted by our species. About 220 gigatons were emitted naturally. Put that extra 8.4 gigatons on one side of the scale and see what happens. So Freeman Dyson says chill out. James Lovelock says we're fucked. The truth certainly lies somewhere between. I hope Dyson is correct. I don't see efficacious steps being taken soon enough, if someone like James Hansen is right.

Oh yeah! Lovelock's models predict a brief cooling period before a tipping point is reached, and the ride begins. A Great Jump to Disaster

Yeah, I tend to agree on China as well. Lots to laud, and much to abhor. All wonderful and awful all at once (modernization yay!). The people are great though and like Americans generally. It would be a pity for relations to ever turn belligerent between the U.S. and China.

Did you even read my comment beyond the first line? Claiming the world is ending and then stating that the evidence is too esoteric for anyone to understand other than people who already believe is the behavior of religious CULTISTS not scientists. My curiosity about the numbers of the matter is completely legitimate. I don't know what my position on AGW is, but I know what my position on evidence is. I want to see the papers, the evidence, the models and confidence intervals for prediction. Will I understand them? I have understood the arguments made in the other climate journal papers I have read so far. But that is beside the point. Science is about numbers, about results, about SKEPTICISM.
Once you discard these qualities you are no longer doing science, you are practicing some weird perversion of religion. And if raving hysterics like you can rob science of it's integrity that would be the greatest crime of all. Take a look at what you are saying.

Quoting yggdrasil: I personally think the biggest goal of the next century should be bringing more people from poverty to something apparoaching a middle class standard of living (The last 15 years have seen an amazing reduction in poverty particlaiy in India and China).

An arguably unspectacular show in India China, too

Quoting yggdrasil: Claiming the world is ending and then stating that the evidence is too esoteric for anyone to understand other than people who already believe is the behavior of religious CULTISTS not scientists. My curiosity about the numbers of the matter is completely legitimate. I don't know what my position on AGW is, but I know what my position on evidence is.

(...)

Science is about numbers, about results, about SKEPTICISM.
Once you discard these qualities you are no longer doing science, you are practicing some weird perversion of religion. And if raving hysterics like you can rob science of it's integrity that would be the greatest crime of all. Take a look at what you are saying.

You ate truly projecting! Proponents painstakingly point out the process will take time, and in certain geographical points, might even be favorable. You're mistaking the political need for a crisis with the practice of science. Skepticism? More like denial! If you are so passionate, then do the work!

Have you been following this thread? You are basically agreeing with me. The whole discussion started over me asking if anyone had links to the peer reviewed papers describing statistically significant temperature increase in the 20th century. I have no political position besides the fact that I want to critically examine the thesis of AGW, like ANY scientist should.

And, I sent you a link!

Have you been following this thread? You are basically agreeing with me. The whole discussion started over me asking if anyone had links to the peer reviewed papers describing statistically significant temperature increase in the 20th century.

I have no political position besides the fact that I want to critically examine the thesis of AGW, like ANY scientist should.

Have a go. Get yerself a subscription to Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and go to work. Did ya need me ta tell ya? Jesus.

Quoting Ray: Climate Gate?

this is quite amazing. Obama now makes statement that we cannot afford the stimulus plan. hmmm.... ???? Lets move them all into poordom. IN TRUTH, i just cannot believe the ill of this goverment. You would think that the world would of became awake by now, knowing that the computer has in fact, eaten up the money. Well, I see, when the tv came out, no one could manipulate it except the movie star? Now, we have the movie star in the White House. Playing games? Banks now charge fees for a debit card, if the funds are not there? Thats BS. Funny, whenever I make a debit for myself, if the funds are not there, I cannot get any money. Why is it that someone else is any different than me on my debit card? Because of that, scam artists are all over the internet. If they can get your numbers, gone. And another fee for the bank to. Its like they do love it, the banks. Ill Climate Gate. You bet. Obama is not any differ than Bush. Another Skull and Bones yup, right to the core. Like to say, no more stimulus? Fact is, they never let the stimulus into the private sector anyway. Which means, only loss of more jobs. Now they

You and DenvilleSteve need to hang out.

Quoting nikkibong: Chris's observations regarding China were spot on - (which means I share them.) My impression from my trips there was pretty much the same; China's growth is both laudable and monstrous.

Disclaimer: I've observed that expats in the region tend to adopt a weird kind of chauvinism related to the place where they "go native". I tend to mirror pro-Japanese South Koreans who don't like China. I tend to view Sinic culture as alien to native Korean culture, and that the elite Chinese influences grafted onto the popular culture are cancerous, bureaucratic, and generally unsuited for Korea. I do tend to favor those enlightened Korean nobles who returned from Japan and the US and battled the conservative, pro-Chinese factions for influence. That nasty Japanese colonization is a dealbreaker, but I've met very few South Koreans who like Chinese culture even with the gift the nasty Japanese give the Chinese. I've never been to China. My wife has a lot of skin allergies, and just visiting Gwangju and Daejeon on the western side of the Korean peninsula caused her a week of puffy dryness and hair loss in yellow air I had to move

Ironically enough this link is to a paper by Kevin Trenberth also implicated in climategate.

Quoting kezboard: You and DenvilleSteve need to hang out.

Don't know about that. But maybe the Secret Service should look into it...

And, so can you divine any problems with his presentation, or did you just consult a list and assume the paper is tainted?

And the world's smartest people get together to show us how it's done........
"Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be

I'm still waiting for all these well paying jobs that were to occur with the information technology revolution - the ones that were going to provide a launching pad for the rust belt and other high unemployment areas affected by deindustrialization. John Nesbitt, futurist author, sold quite a few books pushing that fantasy. The jobs angle as a selling point of the green revolution is bogus and should not be taken seriously. John

Quoting seaviews7: this is quite amazing. Obama now makes statement that we cannot afford the stimulus plan. hmmm.... ???? Lets move them all into poordom. IN TRUTH, i just cannot believe the ill of this goverment. You would think that the world would of became awake by now, knowing that the computer has in fact, eaten up the money. Well, I see, when the tv came out, no one could manipulate it except the movie star? Now, we have the movie star in the White House. Playing games? Banks now charge fees for a debit card, if the funds are not there? Thats BS. Funny, whenever I make a debit for myself, if the funds are not there, I cannot get any money. Why is it that someone else is any different than me on my debit card? Because of that, scam artists are all over the internet. If they can get your numbers, gone. And another fee for the bank to. Its like they do love it, the banks. Ill Climate Gate. You bet. Obama is not any differ than Bush. Another Skull and Bones yup, right to the core. Like to say, no more stimulus? Fact is, they never let the stimulus into the private sector anyway. Which means, only loss of more jobs. Now they say, thats

Quoting harkin: And the world's smartest people get together to show us how it's done........

Don't forget Sheryl Crow telling us to use one square of toilet paper and to pee in the shower. If these folks practiced what they preached, they might be a tad more credible to folks like me.

Quoting Ken Davis: You need to get a grip.

The Bush administration professed belief in life-threatening AGW. The Pentagon is preparing for water war. They are not going to be caught with their pants down. There is a world-wide consensus of opinion among climate experts that AGW is a threat to the Biosphere. You want to read the papers? You wouldn't fucking understand them. Neither would I. But unless you want to indict the great majority of climatologists for personal bias and financial interest in perpetrating a fraud on the global community, or perhaps even collective conspiracy, then come back down to Earth. Park your fucking car and ride public trans or bike or walk. Sacrifices are going to be made.

This is a good and reasoned analysis. I don't agree with everything you say, but I can see you're thinking about all of this, which is what I am doing. First, it may seem to be a petty observation but your admonition to park my fucking car seems absurd when one sees stuff like the congregation of private planes in Copenhagen (what, no trains?) or recently, the two private jumbo jets which carried the president and the

Quoting yggdrasil: Freeman Dyson

Just to be clear, Dyson is not a global warming skeptic. He says CO2 from mankind are altering the climate. However, he does say he doesn't think we understand all the implications, and his thoughts on it are all big-think style solutions and meditation. Rather than 'negative,' I would call him apolitical.

Quoting yggdrasil: This is a huge negative consequence to acting on AGW without thoroughly exploring the consequences.

Of course ensuring that the average Bangladeshi has pluming and access to clean water is moot if the whole country is going to be swallowed up by the sea. Still we need to know the probability that this will happen, when it is likely to happen, and what effect carbon reduction strategies will have before we decide to make it that much harder for millions of Asians to achieve the sort of middle class existence that most Westerners already enjoy.

Great question about Bangladesh. I could add New Orleans and Venice to that list. Those cities will definitely be under water soon if the predictions are correct, but we never hear about ameliorating that situation (like evacuating them!). I guess it's too complicated. Better to focus on pushing back climate change. There will be no way to measure our success for a hundred years so we won't be held responsible. We are so small and our problems are so complex.

Quoting badhatharry: ...
Second, I don't think you can dismiss the very human trait of doing things for political and personal reasons But unless you want to indict the great majority of climatologists for personal bias and financial interest in perpetrating a fraud on the global community Scientists rely on their jobs to pay the bills and if it's easier to keep your job by going along with the program, I would say that many will. Science is not pure. Results can be interpreted many ways. And pesky outliers are best ignored.

This climate-gate thingy has just confirmed in a lot of people's minds that the debate is definitely not over as some seemed to want us to believe.
...

I strongly recommend reading what our fellow commenter (Osmium) has said on this point. Those of us who haven't worked as PhD's in the field ought to try and understand the process as it is, rather than how we imagine it:
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...40837#poststop
(Apologies to Osmium for generating possibly unwanted attention, but this is a perspective that all of us engaged in this debate should understand before we go about making assertions about what we believe the underlying motivations are in the field.)

Another great article on the 'decline' and why the excuses being made don't float: "Since the release of CRU’s FOI2009, alarmists have continued their claim that there’s nothing deceptive about the “trick” and that it has been openly discussed in scientific journals like Nature since 1998.

But I defy anyone to compare the above chart -- the one to which Jones wrote he had applied MNT -- to the unadulterated version above it and tell me there’s been no deception committed. At least with MBH98, a sharp eye might recognize the ruse. Here, there is no indication given whatsoever that the graph represents an amalgam of proxy and measured temperatures. This, my friends, is fraud." Wonder if we'll get more of a response than an attack on the author (known now as 'The CRU Method')......

Quoting harkin: Another great article on the 'decline' and why the excuses being made don't float:

"Since the release of CRU’s FOI2009, alarmists have continued their claim that there’s nothing deceptive about the “trick” and that it has been openly discussed in scientific journals like Nature since 1998.

But I defy anyone to compare the above chart -- the one to which Jones wrote he had applied MNT -- to the unadulterated version above it and tell me there’s been no deception committed. At least with MBH98, a sharp eye might recognize the ruse. Here, there is no indication given whatsoever that the graph represents an amalgam of proxy and measured temperatures. This, my friends, is fraud."

Wonder if we'll get more of a response than an attack on the author (known now as 'The CRU Method')......

harkin, you're not even trying, are you? I mean, except for flinging spitballs into the arena and waiting to see if anything happens. One thing I do like about the site you linked to, it has a name that canonically demonstrates the need for "scare quotes" in written English.

Quoting AemJeff: I strongly recommend reading what our fellow commenter (Osmium) has said on this point. Those of us who haven't worked as PhD's in the field ought to try and understand the process as it is, rather than how we imagine it:
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...40837#poststop
(Apologies to Osmium for generating possibly unwanted attention, but this is a perspective that all of us engaged in this debate should understand before we go about making assertions about what we believe the underlying motivations are in the field.)

We all try to imagine things. That's what we do. Our culture is all about imagining and trying to get inside each others' heads. As we go along our imaginings become more sophisticated and maybe, just maybe, more accurate. I have known a few PhD candidates in my day. They start with a thesis, spend years gathering data and eventually they publish their thesis and the results defending it. From what one of them says, the whole exercise is to establish whether or not they are good at doing research in the currently prescribed manner. If they are successful and if they are still sane, they get the wear PhD after their

Quoting drawnasunder: Are you saying that there have never been any unplanned economies?

Yes. You can't even have an agrarian economy without planning.

Quoting drawnasunder: And that your evidence is modern fiat currency?

No. I'm saying that you have no idea what an unplanned economy would even be.

Quoting badhatharry: First, it may seem to be a petty observation but your admonition to park my fucking car seems absurd when one sees stuff like the congregation of private planes in Copenhagen (what, no trains?) or recently, the two private jumbo jets which carried the president and the first lady (separately) to that same city.

This makes a commoner like me wonder just how seriously I should take all of this when those who are shouting it from the rooftops don't feel the need to conserve in the least.

Second, I don't think you can dismiss the very human trait of doing things for political and personal reasons But unless you want to indict the great majority of climatologists for personal bias and financial interest in perpetrating a fraud on the global community Scientists rely on their jobs to pay the bills and if it's easier to keep your job by going along with the program, I would say that many will. Science is not pure. Results can be interpreted many ways. And pesky outliers are best ignored.

badhatharry, I agree with you about cars, etc. I am not a big believer

Quoting AemJeff: harkin, you're not even trying, are you? I mean, except for flinging spitballs into the arena and waiting to see if anything happens. One thing I do like about the site you linked to, it has a name that canonically demonstrates the need for "scare quotes" in written English.

I liked this artcle. But then I would, wouldn't I? And, by the way, Jeff, the "scare quotes" appear primarily in the first few paragraphs. Which makes me presume that's about as far as you read.

Quoting AemJeff: harkin, you're not even trying, are you? I mean, except for flinging spitballs into the arena and waiting to see if anything happens. One thing I do like about the site you linked to, it has a name that canonically demonstrates the need for "scare quotes" in written English.

oooops never mind, you meant the name of the site. It's so hard to keep up with all the sarcasm demonstrated here!

Quoting badhatharry: Don't forget Sheryl Crow telling us to use one square of toilet paper and to pee in the shower. If these folks practiced what they preached, they might be a tad more credible to folks like me.

Why is this remotely relevant? The content of a given cause is not related to those who espouse it. I have no particular affection for Richard Gere, for example, but he seems on point on Chinese human rights abuses. If I found out that Gere was buying silks imported from China, would that make human rights abuses there any less real?

Quoting badhatharry: I liked this artcle. But then I would, wouldn't I?

And, by the way, Jeff, the "scare quotes" appear primarily in the first few paragraphs. Which makes me presume that's about as far as you read.

I was joking about the the title: American "Thinker." And I've rarely, if ever, seen an honest post on that site. The article harkin linked to was tendentious bullshit hidden behind a gloss of "analysis" (there are those scare-quotes again!) that's at odds with any objective account of the facts. The entire piece is strewn with loaded adjectives ("the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide," e.g.) and half truths (proxies and reconstructions, and complex mathematical "tricks" intended to allow the data to show its patterns are common methods in every scientific discipline, and aren't a priori evidence that something fishy is happening), all designed to cast a pall on what, in any other field of study, is considered business as usual. (Is it possible that the methods discussed here have problems? Definitely. This article doesn't give an honest account of whether that's actually the case.)

So we should pee in the shower and only use one square of toilet paper? Personally I think we should go French and clean our assholes with jolting shots of water. We'd save so many trees that way too. Of course we'd probably exacerbate whatever water issues we have, but all them saved trees would be sucking up so much CO2 it might be worth it.

Quoting Lyle: So we should pee in the shower and only use one square of toilet paper?

Personally I think we should go French and clean our assholes with jolting shots of water. We'd save so many trees that way too. Of course we'd probably exacerbate whatever water issues we have, but all them saved trees would sucking up so much CO2 it might be worth it.

Did I say that? (And, for what it's worth: I'm not particularly alarmed by climate change. So don't paint me with the hysterics brush.) My point was a principled one: that a causes have merit (or lack thereof) regardless of who espouses them. I'll give one more example: I think Andrew Sullivan is an idiot, a fraud, a buffon --- etc. - but I still think that torture is wrong.

Quoting Lyle: So we should pee in the shower and only use one square of toilet paper?

Of course not. People who talk like that are crazy. PS I tried to come up with a funny response, but I'm having trouble concentrating, because I have to pee but my office doesn't have a shower.

Exactly,

I mean I appreciate the effort but this is a link to a paper that I have already read by Trenberth, it concerns explaining away the recent decline. That's not exactly what I am interested in. I wanted papers that demonstrate the warming itself is significant and papers from people not involved in CRU. This paper fails on both of these criterion (Trenberth was involved in CC).

And where did badhatharry say he'd take climate change more seriously if Ms. Crow truly did? He said he'd take Ms. Crow more seriously, if she truly was serious. You read him wrong nikkibong.

Quoting badhatharry: First, it may seem to be a petty observation but your admonition to park my fucking car seems absurd when one sees stuff like the congregation of private planes in Copenhagen (what, no trains?) or recently, the two private jumbo jets which carried the president and the first lady (separately) to that same city.

If you park your car, you're not the absurd one. With me it's largely a question of aesthetics. I don't want to leave garbage in my wake. It's true that riding public conveyances leaves garbage behind, and even bicycling involves tossing worn out tires away, if no other use can be found for them. But the littering is lessened in degree. Walking the hour's round-trip to the market with my ruck lengthens my life a moment or two every time. Then there's the pleasure of not being a customer of the gasoline makers, the insurers, the automakers, the entire shit-storm. It isn't for everyone, particularly suburbanites. In Korea, one can go almost anywhere by train or bus. It's a great system.

Quoting Lyle: Personally I think we should go French and clean our assholes with jolting shots of water.

Are you confusing France with Morocco, Lyle? Or do you frequent peculiar establishments when you come to Paris? A reference to bidets perhaps? They long ago went out of fashion, and besides---how shall I say this politely?---they were for les dames.

Oh yes, a woman's anus is so much different than a man's. You must not have been to Japan or India where they're also popular. The hotel I lived in in China had one too, which was probably a luxury though. And yes, Islamic toilet etiquette requires the use of water too. Wasn't there a bloggingheads on this as well? Maybe it was on NPR or was an article in the NYTimes. Two women talked about how anal cleansing would be better served by the use of water and not paper. I think the conversation was in context of how billions of flushes a day was not environmentally sound.

Just became a member to answer you! ;-)

Quoting yggdrasil: With regards to climategate:
Can someone from the AGW-affirmative side give a link to the prominent peer reviewed papers which contain the empirical evidence that temperature variances seen in the 20th century are statistical outliers from the ordinary temperature behavior over the last 10,000 years?

No. Nobody can. Temperature reconstruction don't go back 10000 years, because, as you can imagine, polar ice or trees may not be that old. Here is one paper (post-IPCC AR4) with 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction based on borehole geothermal records:
Hegerl, G.C., T.J. Crowley, M. Allen, W.T. Hyde, H.N. Pollack, J. Smerdon, and E. Zorita, 2007: Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. J. Climate, 20, 650–666.

Quoting yggdrasil: Chris asserts that there is a massive volume of these papers, but I can't seem to find any that aren't linked back to the CRU, Jones, or Mann. It would be really helpful to my understanding, to know what the research for this assertion (and several other assertions) is based on. If, for the sake of argument, one discounts all parties involved in the recent scandal does the face of AGW argument change significantly?

If you go to American Meteorological Society's website and search for "global warming" or "climate change", you'll find the massive volume of "these" papers

I noticed that there is plenty of rhetoric in your reply but no actual examples of what you find so egregious.

Quoting piscivorous: I noticed that there is plenty of rhetoric in your reply but no actual examples of what you find so egregious.

I was pretty specific considering the length of the post. If you can't find direct references to "proxies and reconstructions, and complex mathematical 'tricks' intended to allow the data to show its patterns" in that article, then I'd suggest you haven't read it. I realize I've given a couple of your erstwhile allies a fair bit of hell for non-specificity; but before you make the charge, you should be sure it actually fits.

Quoting osmium: badhatharry, I agree with you about cars, etc. I am not a big believer in individual gestures, because I think they are quite small, even when multiplied by lots of people. Conservation only becomes important at policy level, where you can affect, say, the way a mine or power plant operates.

I don't think there is a large financial interest of scientists. Maybe I am delusional, but scientists are commoners as well. Almost be definition, scientists care if you think they're smart, not if they're rich and powerful. The ones who care about money go make drugs or move to emerging markets to build plants. There's no money in climate--I honestly think people do it only for two reasons: 1) they fell into it, 2) they love it.

If you want to say maybe there's groupthink, then I would be forced to say "well maybe ... and certainly at some level." The money argument, though, I don't believe.

I really appreciate your insights on how science is messy, etc., but I wonder if loving climate change has obscured some scientists' objectivity. And if they'd rather be right, or seen as right, that is a combination that could lead to extremes in policy that negatively affect certain groups, and as far as I'm concerned, the environment, in some

Quoting look: I really appreciate your insights on how science is messy, etc., but I wonder if loving climate change has obscured some scientists' objectivity. And if they'd rather be right, or seen as right, that is a combination that could lead to extremes in policy that negatively affect certain groups, and as far as I'm concerned, the environment, in some cases. e.g., ethanol production yielding excess fertilizer run-off, continued use of fossil fuels to move it around and process it, use of corn when sugar beet(?) or switchgrass yield more ethanol, methane release, corn scarcity for the poor, etc. As far as money, from what I understand, East Anglia received tens of millions of dollars in grant money. Finally, the person who released the emails. A jealous co-worker or an alarmed citizen?

Well, I was talking more about loving science, not climate change. I know there are exceptions, but science is too tedious to go into because you love a political position. Scientists love science I think. Incidentally, I don't know any scientists who believe in ethanol from corn. Someone must, but I distinctly remember the lab I was working in 3 years ago going out for our Christmas lunch, and we made fun of that (then flavor of the month) the entire time. I think ADM probably has more

Quoting osmium: Well, I was talking more about loving science, not climate change. I know there are exceptions, but science is too tedious to go into because you love a political position. Scientists love science I think.

Incidentally, I don't know any scientists who believe in ethanol from corn. Someone must, but I distinctly remember the lab I was working in 3 years ago going out for our Christmas lunch, and we made fun of that (then flavor of the month) the entire time. I think ADM probably has more to do with that than anyone in academia.

Tens of millions, sure, but over what time frame? A corporation would giggle at tens of millions. It sounds like a lot, but your average TGI Friday's does five million a year. And bankers play with waaay more. Tens of millions is just how you get things done--it's not a ton. I'm sure they are not rolling in dough, and I'm willing to bet the boss doesn't drive anything fancy. (And if he does, they make fun of him.)

I had another post I wrote somewhere about how recently all fuel cell research money has dried up, a few years after people were going into it because of all the work to do. That's

Quoting look: But if East Anglia needs tens of millions, because that's big moola to them, and someone on the ADM board knows someone in Congress, and some climate scientists love planet Earth, and think they know best, and want to be seen as smart (right), and want the prestige of University chairs, and can impress potential relationship partners, and live in a charming university setting, with a cozy fire in a book-lined study, and have a delightful accent, and hob-nob with elites at Copenhagen...

Some people in science are douchebags, just like everywhere. But a lot of people in a science have an essentially blue collar work ethic. I would like to say those people end up being the most respected by their peers, but maybe that is wishful thinking.

Quoting look: But I like your point about science turning like a freight train. The truth will out, because it's too big to hold in now. I hope. And I'll bet you will win out in the long run with your fuel cells. I hope you'll come back on Apollo and talk about them, but one question for now: with hydrogen fuel cells, is it a problem that separating the hydrogen from water

Currently hydrogen production, on the scale that it would take to run or vehicles, would be at least as energy intensive, as the fuel(s) it would replace and the change to the fuel deliver infrastructure would also be grossly expensive. But with the new generation of high temperature nuclear reactors being developed for production sometime around 2020 the the cost will be minimal and volume production no problem which leaves the infrastructure costs as the primary limiting factor towards moving to a carbonless future.

So I guess that platitudes about "...tendentious bullshit hidden behind a gloss of "analysis" (there are those scare-quotes again!) that's at odds with any objective account of the facts." and "The entire piece is strewn with loaded adjectives ..."("the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide," e.g.) and half truths (proxies and reconstructions, and complex mathematical "tricks" intended to allow the data to show its patterns are common methods in every scientific discipline, and aren't a priori evidence that something fishy is happening)," and "all designed to cast a pall on what, in any other field of study, is considered business as usual." are specifics to you. Lets see- did I leave out anthing Oh yes you conclusion "(Is it possible that the methods discussed here have problems? Definitely. This article doesn't give an honest account of whether that's actually the case.)" What particular thing do you consider specifics in your comment, for I fail to see them.

Quoting piscivorous: So I guess that platitudes about "...tendentious bullshit hidden behind a gloss of "analysis" (there are those scare-quotes again!) that's at odds with any objective account of the facts." and "The entire piece is strewn with loaded adjectives ..."("the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide," e.g.) and half truths (proxies and reconstructions, and complex mathematical "tricks" intended to allow the data to show its patterns are common methods in every scientific discipline, and aren't a priori evidence that something fishy is happening)," and "all designed to cast a pall on what, in any other field of study, is considered business as usual." are specifics to you. Lets see- did I leave out anthing Oh yes you conclusion "(Is it possible that the methods discussed here have problems? Definitely. This article doesn't give an honest account of whether that's actually the case.)" What particular thing do you consider specifics in your comment, for I fail to see them.

Congratulations! You've quoted me very nearly verbatim!

Yep and there are still no specifics in it!

Quoting piscivorous: Yep and there are still no specifics in it!

Then you should point at me and laugh, because I'm incapable of coherent argument. See you later, pisc. I'm finished with this game.

I think I did that with my previous comment.

Quoting nikkibong: Why is this remotely relevant? The content of a given cause is not related to those who espouse it.

I have no particular affection for Richard Gere, for example, but he seems on point on Chinese human rights abuses. If I found out that Gere was buying silks imported from China, would that make human rights abuses there any less real?

Yeah, I don't like Richard Gere, either. (now that's really irrelevant) Hmmmm. If a tree falls in the forest? If Gere buys Chinese silk? Such Buddhist conundrums! Of course human rights abuses exist outside of what Richard Gere does or doesn't do, but the very reason we have spokesmen for issues is because it is assumed that they will influence others to support the cause based on their character or in Crow's case, her tone-deafness. Do you really think all those Hollywood types get together and make those heart wrenching ads because they figure no one cares what they think?
IMHO, spokesmen ought to be very careful about what they do. Richard Gere in Chinese silk pajamas might impact donations to the Save the Silk Workers of China Association, particularly if they in any

Quoting nikkibong: (And, for what it's worth: I'm not particularly alarmed by climate change. So don't paint me with the hysterics brush.)

This is good news! However, we won't let you-know-who know. You know how senstive he is.

Quoting osmium: badhatharry, I agree with you about cars, etc. I am not a big believer in individual gestures, because I think they are quite small, even when multiplied by lots of people. Conservation only becomes important at policy level, where you can affect, say, the way a mine or power plant operates.

I don't think there is a large financial interest of scientists. Maybe I am delusional, but scientists are commoners as well. Almost be definition, scientists care if you think they're smart, not if they're rich and powerful. The ones who care about money go make drugs or move to emerging markets to build plants. There's no money in climate--I honestly think people do it only for two reasons: 1) they fell into it, 2) they love it.

If you want to say maybe there's groupthink, then I would be forced to say "well maybe ... and certainly at some level." The money argument, though, I don't believe.

Thanks for your reply. As far as conservation becoming important at a policy level..... Yes, and that's what really concerns me. I guess when I see elitist policy makers attending conferences in private jets and limousines, I get crazy at the thought of them making rules about what I can and cannot do and about what those

(v): to make bigger

I did some asking at Carl Zimmer's blog. And there's other references beneath that one.

Quoting Baltimoron: I did some asking at Carl Zimmer's blog. And there's other references beneath that one.

Thanks for that link. I call everyone's attention to Greg Peterson's comment (#31), as well, in particular, the first few sentences.

Quoting yggdrasil: With regards to climategate:
Can someone from the AGW-affirmative side give a link to the prominent peer reviewed papers which contain the empirical evidence that temperature variances seen in the 20th century are statistical outliers from the ordinary temperature behavior over the last 10,000 years?

Chris asserts that there is a massive volume of these papers, but I can't seem to find any that aren't linked back to the CRU, Jones, or Mann. It would be really helpful to my understanding, to know what the research for this assertion (and several other assertions) is based on. If, for the sake of argument, one discounts all parties involved in the recent scandal does the face of AGW argument change significantly?

This does not exactly fulfill your request, but I think it comes close. From today's NYT (emph. added):

Global Warming Is Not Slowing, Report Says

Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday.

The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating

Quoting badhatharry: Thanks for your reply. As far as conservation becoming important at a policy level..... Yes, and that's what really concerns me. I guess when I see elitist policy makers attending conferences in private jets and limousines, I get crazy at the thought of them making rules about what I can and cannot do and about what those things will cost, because it won't really doesn't appear to apply to them.

As far as scientists....I am quite sure they as common as anyone (just a lot smarter in ways I can only dream of). The point I am making is not that little Johnny dreams one day of working for a university with a liberal agenda and discovering that the world will come to an end if the smart scientists don't do something about it. Although now that I think of it, maybe that is where it all starts.....Johnny in front of the TV, watching the Syfy channel.

What I am talking about is the influence of the environment. Take for instance the drug company environment. That one has the mandate to make lots of money because it has to pay for its R&D. Of

Quoting osmium: Some people in science are douchebags, just like everywhere. But a lot of people in a science have an essentially blue collar work ethic. I would like to say those people end up being the most respected by their peers, but maybe that is wishful thinking.

Well, the point is not to win. The point is to find something that turns out to be worth doing. But thank you.

The smartness/dumbness of making hydrogen all depends on the price of electricity--if it's cheap, it's a great idea. If not, then not. I am not a big believer in hydrogen fuel cells, even though I have done work on them--I think hydrogen is too big, i.e. requires too big a tank. For now I'm learning about/working on batteries. People will give you money for that these days, and really it's what I wanted to do to start with, so it's win-win for now.

Coincidentally, Ian and I were just talking about whether or not we could get them to let us do another. This time we would talk about something with more science in it, like batteries. Talking about 'the literature' was meta, but I wanted to do it for Behe-gate reasons.

To clarify, I only meant that

For God's sake, think out a sentence and then say it.

Quoting AemJeff: Congratulations! You've quoted me very nearly verbatim!

Jeffskers, maybe we should come up with some sort of Godwin rule for over-wrought verbiage. Perhaps defined by the ratio of loaded nouns, adjectives, and adverbs to the length of the post. Scare quotes counts as three.

Quoting look: Jeffskers, maybe we should come up with some sort of Godwin rule for over-wrought verbiage. Perhaps defined by the ratio of loaded nouns, adjectives, and adverbs to the length of the post. Scare quotes counts as three.

I'd be happy if we just kept just a rough idea what's likely not to be viewed as helpful by an informed, detached observer. Freighted appeals full of suasion and tendentious characterizations of a topic aren't a good place to begin if you're interested in a debate. In fact, I generally take the presentation of that sort of appeal as an indication that the person presenting it isn't interested in debate, as such - they just want to assert that they've divined the settled truth of the matter. That's not to say there can't ever be a good argument embedded in a such presentation. But, it's perfectly fair, I think, to present a strong challenge in such a case. Needless to say that if that challenge is simply met by word games, we're not going anywhere.

Quoting AemJeff: I'd be happy if we just kept just a rough idea what's likely not to be viewed as helpful by an informed, detached observer. Freighted appeals full of suasion and tendentious characterizations of a topic aren't a good place to begin if you're interested in a debate. In fact, I generally take the presentation of that sort of appeal as an indication that the person presenting it isn't interested in debate, as such - they just want to assert that they've divined the settled truth of the matter. That's not to say there can't ever be a good argument embedded in a such presentation. But, it's perfectly fair, I think, to present a strong challenge in such a case. Needless to say that if that challenge is simply met by word games, we're not going anywhere.

I get the sense that when you say you'll wait for East Anglia or the UN to investigate the matter, your objectivity is compromised, and suggests a reliance on institutions to keep your faith in your settled opinion of what science has decided. Both article you've rejected (first pisc's, then harkin's) are very similar in content, with the

Quoting look: I get the sense that when you say you'll wait for East Anglia or the UN to investigate the matter, your objectivity is compromised, and suggests a reliance on institutions to keep your faith in your settled opinion of what science has decided.

Both article you've rejected (first pisc's, then harkin's) are very similar in content, with the American Thinker being much more brief, and its intro of two short paragraphs, much less tendentious.

If my objectivity is compromised (and of course it might be) that wouldn't be very good evidence. Two items, one from a political blog, one from an uncredentialed crank, vs. a public investigation by people within the scientific community at a time when knives have been drawn, and they're under intense scrutiny. Does that really sound to you like a balanced pair of points of view? If you say it does, then I conclude either you're playing this conversation for laughs, in which case I'm done with it; or you don't fully understand the status of the players. American Thinker and Monckton can say any damn thing they want to. The same goes for me, and you. The people conducting that investigation do not

Quoting AemJeff: If my objectivity is compromised (and of course it might be) that wouldn't be very good evidence. Two items, one from a political blog, one from an uncredentialed crank, vs. a public investigation by people within the scientific community at a time when knives have been drawn, and they're under intense scrutiny. Does that really sound to you like a balanced pair of points of view? If you say it does, then I conclude either you're playing this conversation for laughs, in which case I'm done with it; or you don't fully understand the status of the players. American Thinker and Monckton can say any damn thing they want to. The same goes for me, and you. The people conducting that investigation do not have that luxury. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to imagine them generating a uselessly biased report. But they have a lot more skin in this game than any of the rest of us. They're being watched by both allies and adversaries. And they have specific expertise. If they screw it up, by the way, it's doubtful, that theirs will be the last word.

So to review, two guys throwing rocks from the

Quoting look: First, have you heard anything in the media sources you favor talking about Gore saying the email situation is nothing to be alarmed about, because they're all over 10-years old? If so, will you link me a source that talks about them not actually being that old? Or talks about it, but has found it to be a false accusation? When I googled it, the first page was filled with conservative sources.

I'm saying your extreme reaction to these sources indicate bias. The material presented was informative. It's nothing you couldn't take look at, and dismiss, or put in the back of your mind for further consideration as this plays out. Last word to you, if you wish.

When have I ever referred to Gore as a source? "Extreme reaction?" You seem to think I care primarily about someone's affiliation. I don't cite opinion pieces, and I don't cite from places like FDL or KOS, either. I don't take seriously primarily ideological assertions on scientific topics generally, and I take statements about the quality of the output of working professionals by politically motivated outsiders with a huge grain of salt. And I'm pretty hard on what looks like liberal anti-science to me

Quoting AemJeff: When have I ever referred to Gore as a source?

I didn't say you did. I wanted info about what you may have heard about the Gore email statements.

"Extreme reaction?"

Yes.

You seem to think I care primarily about someone's affiliation. I don't cite opinion pieces, and I don't cite from places like FDL or KOS, either. I don't take seriously primarily ideological assertions on scientific topics generally, and I take statements about the quality of the output of working professionals by politically motivated outsiders with a huge grain of salt. And I'm pretty hard on what looks like liberal anti-science to me as I am on the conservative version (see http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=4108 for instance.)

Understood, though I can't check out your link now. I appreciate your non-partisan media standards.

I think you're trying awfully hard to find a justification for pointless stuff that doesn't belong in the conversation. If you read the conversation I had with yggdrasil, I went on in some detail about what I believe is a reasonable way to approach this. Just because you seem to want to be generous to a specific point of view doesn't mean that my point of view is unfair or politically motivated.

I was not defending the

Quoting look: I didn't say you did. I wanted info about what you may have heard about the Gore email statements. Yes. Understood, though I can't check out your link now. I appreciate your non-partisan media standards.
I was not defending the motivations of the authors, merely the possible value of the contents. Will you please give link to beginning of yggdrasil convo?

I haven't read Gore's statement. Here's the link you asked for. Let's be clear that I'm not really claiming to be nonpartisan. My point of view is obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to have read even a small part of my output on this site. I make an effort to argue in good faith. I think enough of that effort that I take it personally when you imply I'm being partisan and "extreme." I call out bad faith when I think I see it. I care, probably inordinately, about science, and scientific process. I really don't care if somebody comes from the Left or the Right - if they seem to be, in my view, trying to corrupt the process, I'm pretty likely to react. (The simple definition of "distortion" here is looking for data to supports a preordained conclusion.) I've been clear about my opinion of Monckton, and much (though

Quoting AemJeff: ... I think that opinion is justified.

and you think that those of us that see the facts differently than you don't believe are opinions are justified. It would be easier to believe this if you dropped the insult and denigration that you use towards those who hold a different point of view. Instead you profess that we are trying to "corrupt the process."

Quoting piscivorous: and you think that those of us that see the facts differently than you don't believe are opinions are justified. It would be easier to believe this if you dropped the insult and denigration that you use towards those who hold a different point of view. Instead you profess that we are trying to "corrupt the process."

Pisc, I don't insult people for disagreeing with me. I'm not so cautious when I think they're not being honest. I formed my opinion of the quality of your contributions on this when you started linking to press releases and editorials run on completely unreliable, arguably useless outlets like Canada Free Press. You act as if any adhering to any significant standard of discourse is beneath you. I defined "corruption," in this context earlier. I stand by that. I guess I actually do believe you're sincere; but, I think you're also deeply mistaken - not just factually, but in terms of how to even approach the argument fairly.

Quoting AemJeff: I haven't read Gore's statement. Here's the link you asked for.

Let's be clear that I'm not really claiming to be nonpartisan. My point of view is obvious to anyone unfortunate enough to have read even a small part of my output on this site. I make an effort to argue in good faith. I think enough of that effort that I take it personally when you imply I'm being partisan and "extreme." I call out bad faith when I think I see it. I care, probably inordinately, about science, and scientific process. I really don't care if somebody comes from the Left or the Right - if they seem to be, in my view, trying to corrupt the process, I'm pretty likely to react. (The simple definition of "distortion" here is looking for data to supports a preordained conclusion.) I've been clear about my opinion of Monckton, and much (though not all) of the right-o-sphere, in this regard, and I think that opinion is justified.

Understood, and thanks for the link. I hope you'll be cautious about who you accuse of trying to corrupt the process. It wastes time, hurts feelings, and, I think, indicates a lack of good will on your part. Conservatives here have no doubt you're sincere, why do you

Quoting look: Understood, and thanks for the link. I hope you'll be cautious about who you accuse of trying to corrupt the process. It wastes time, hurts feelings, and, I think, indicates a lack of good will on your part. Conservatives here have no doubt you're sincere, why do you doubt them?

I hope it's obvious that I screwed up a little there. I used "corrupt" in my assertion and then stupidly defined "distort," instead. I don't doubt "conservatives;" and I have a lot of good will, I think. I can be far too impatient with what I think are badly flawed arguments. But it's certainly true that I don't have much goodwill at all for people like Monckton, whom I strongly believe are cynical and abusive of the very process of discourse.

Quoting AemJeff: I hope it's obvious that I screwed up a little there. I used "corrupt" in my assertion and then stupidly defined "distort," instead. I don't doubt "conservatives;" and I have a lot of good will, I think. I can be far too impatient with what I think are badly flawed arguments. But it's certainly true that I don't have much goodwill at all for people like Monckton, whom I strongly believe are cynical and abusive of the very process of discourse.

Yes, you have a lot of good will, but it stops with you party, in the case of some, I think. I'm not talking about Monckton, but fellow board members, where there often seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of an assumption of bad faith. I think it stems from an adherence to the concept of stereotypes...on all of our parts. And I think it's gotten the best of us to the point that quality posters like gc, TSE, BN, Hans Gruber, Exeus99, and mvantony take a powder from sheer boredom and/or frustration. Do you ever wonder if Wolfgangus lurks...I miss him.

Quoting look: Yes, you have a lot of good will, but it stops with you party, in the case of some, I think. I'm not talking about Monckton, but fellow board members, where there often seems to be a knee-jerk reaction of an assumption of bad faith.

I think it stems from an adherence to the concept of stereotypes...on all of our parts. And I think it's gotten the best of us to the point that quality posters like gc, TSE, BN, Hans Gruber, and Exeus99 take a powder from sheer boredom and/or frustration. Do you ever wonder if Wolfgangus lurks...I miss him.

I miss Wolfgangus, too; and everybody else you listed.

Yes and you expect me to believe that anything for Realclimate.com should be taken as the truth the hole truth and nothing but the truth. Gee it isn't the "deniers" that has been caught with their fingers; no strike that, their whole arm in the cookie jar. You should really go back and look at some of the rhetoric you use in your unbiased comments. You belittle the sources I sometimes use and decry them as opinion pieces and then defend yourself how, by stating that your opinion is superior and brooking no debate. While I may have linked to a couple of pure opinion pieces; I don't believe I have, but having provided many links on this subject, I can't be 100% sure, and I abhor absolutist arguments. I can tell you that my goal has been to only link to pieces that have a basis in science, that I can agree with, in the associated opinion. I don't care if that is Canada Free Press or Congressional testimony. It is not my fault that you see CFP and immediately jump to the conclusion that, because of the source, there can be no truth there. There is an old Chinese

Quoting piscivorous: Yes and you expect me to believe that anything for Realclimate.com should be taken as the truth the hole truth and nothing but the truth. Gee it isn't the "deniers" that has been caught with their fingers; no strike that, their whole arm in the cookie jar. You should really go back and look at some of the rhetoric you use in your unbiased comments. You belittle the sources I sometimes use and decry them as opinion pieces and then defend yourself how, by stating that your opinion is superior and brooking no debate. While I may have linked to a couple of pure opinion pieces; I don't believe I have but having provided many links on this subject, I can't be 100% sure, and I abhor absolutist arguments. I can tell you that my goal has been to only link to pieces that have a basis in science, that I can agree with, in the associated opinion. I don't care if that is Canada Free Press or Congressional testimony. It is not my fault that you see CFP and immediately jump to the conclusion that, because of the source, there can be no truth there. There is an old

(And, dude, if you want to have your links taken reasonably seriously

is that oak or cherry?

DougJ: Everyone who works for Reason or subscribes to Reason should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

You don't agree with Beck that it was truly an epic feat of journalism and historical scholarship to read a high school text book and learn that, oh my God, the Soviet Union made a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany?

Quoting piscivorous: Yes and you expect me to believe that anything for Realclimate.com should be taken as the truth the hole truth and nothing but the truth. Gee it isn't the "deniers" that has been caught with their fingers; no strike that, their whole arm in the cookie jar. You should really go back and look at some of the rhetoric you use in your unbiased comments. You belittle the sources I sometimes use and decry them as opinion pieces and then defend yourself how, by stating that your opinion is superior and brooking no debate. While I may have linked to a couple of pure opinion pieces; I don't believe I have, but having provided many links on this subject, I can't be 100% sure, and I abhor absolutist arguments. I can tell you that my goal has been to only link to pieces that have a basis in science, that I can agree with, in the associated opinion. I don't care if that is Canada Free Press or Congressional testimony. It is not my fault that you see CFP and immediately jump to the conclusion that, because of the source, there can be no truth there. There is an old Chinese

Quoting kezboard: You don't agree with Beck that it was truly an epic feat of journalism and historical scholarship to read a high school text book and learn that, oh my God, the Soviet Union made a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany?

Sounds like SOMEONE was converted by watching that documentary. ;^)

Quoting look: Love that.

If you mean just the line you bolded, well, whatever resonates. But if you mean the whole passage you quoted, I seriously question your own open-mindedness. Not to mention your memory. If you seriously think pisc's shared sources haven't been two-thirds op-eds from people with no relevant expertise and one-third plain bad science, in which some carefully selected tree is held up as proof that the whole forest doesn't exist, you're doing nothing but rooting for someone who clings to a belief you'd evidently like not to question yourself. I'm not going to bother trying to illustrate this to you further. Either you'll go back and take another look -- and by the way see how in virtually every case, strong rebuttals were provided by Jeff, me, or others -- or you won't. But your blind instinct to applaud someone who is just plain wrong doesn't make you look good. [Added] If I'm wrong in my assessment of your mindset, then you might first have a look at this and this.

Quoting bjkeefe: If you mean just the line you bolded, well, whatever resonates. But if you mean the whole passage you quoted, I seriously question your own open-mindedness. Not to mention your memory.

If you seriously think pisc's shared sources haven't been two-thirds op-eds from people with no relevant expertise and one-third plain bad science, in which some carefully selected tree is held up as proof that the whole forest doesn't exist, you're doing nothing but rooting for someone who clings to a belief you'd evidently like not to question yourself.

I'm not going to bother trying to illustrate this to you further. Either you'll go back and take another look -- and by the way see how in virtually every case, strong rebuttals were provided by Jeff, me, or others -- or you won't. But your blind instinct to applaud someone who is just plain wrong doesn't make you look good.

[Added] If I'm wrong in my assessment of your mindset, then you might first have a look at this and this.

I meant the bolded; it's a clever proverb. Thanks for the 'added.' That's quite generous of you. As far as NASA and NOAA data, I have heard they are

Quoting look: I meant the bolded; it's a clever proverb.

Thanks for the 'added.' That's quite generous of you. As far as NASA and NOAA data, I have heard they are possibly corrupt and that they may have been in league with East Anglia in fudging the numbers. But as I am really not in the mood for an argument, and considering that the last time you and I discussed climate you ended by calling me a right winger, I'll leave it to you and someone with thicker skin than I.

As you wish. I would encourage you, however, to think more deeply about who you have heard this "possibly corrupt" and "in league with" and "fudging" talk from. It is a serious mistake to confuse occasional human shortcomings and the mistakes made in the fits-and-starts nature of scientific research with how well-founded is the much more comprehensive body of work.

Quoting bjkeefe: As you wish.

I would encourage you, however, to think more deeply about who you have heard this "possibly corrupt" and "in league with" and "fudging" talk from. It is a serious mistake to confuse occasional human shortcomings and the mistakes made in the fits-and-starts nature of scientific research with how well-founded is the much more comprehensive body of work.

Yes, that is why I said 'possibly' and 'may have been.' I'm going to need someone to hold my hand while I cross the street in about an hour...are you available?

Quoting look: Yes, that is why I said 'possibly' and 'may have been.'

The first thing to say is that, overwhelmingly in this context, these are nothing more than weasel words used by the less hysterical denialists. The second thing to say is that even if you're sincere in this degree of hedging, you're still laboring under a rather severe misapprehension of the actual state of affairs. This is not entirely your fault, as the MSM has until just a year or two ago covered this area largely in a he said/she said style, but it is crucial that you (1) reflect upon the reality that the overwhelming weight of informed scientific judgment is clearly on one side and (2) not mistake legitimate disputes about the best approaches for mitigation for credible criticism of the underlying science.

I'm going to need someone to hold my hand while I cross the street in about an hour...are you available?

Nope. Better for you to learn how to do some of these things for yourself. Besides, it sounds like you've had too much hand-holding lately, and all it has done is lead you astray.

It was Goldberg's goatee thing that put me over the edge.

Quoting bjkeefe: DougJ: Everyone who works for Reason or subscribes to Reason should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Talk about guilt by association -- why shouldn't Gillespie be free to air his views where he sees fit?

Quoting nikkibong: Talk about guilt by association -- why shouldn't Gillespie be free to air his views where he sees fit?

Isn't he responsible for those views after he expresses them?

Quoting AemJeff: Isn't he responsible for those views after he expresses them?

jeff, did the post keefe flagged say anything about the *content* Gillespie's remarks? i'm afraid you've lost me.

Quoting nikkibong: jeff, did the post keefe flagged say anything about the *content* Gillespie's remarks? i'm afraid you've lost me.

Yeah... did you click through the link?

Beck may be a strange mix of comedy and pathos, but he’s also bringing substantive discussion to cable news and creating arguments that can be engaged, refuted, or amended,” Gillespie said after the film aired.

I'd call that pretty tendentious, even if it's dressed up as a judgment-free characterization. Beck operates in an environment where "substantive discussion", engagement (in the logical sense) and refutation are irrelevant.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah... did you click through the link?

I'd call that pretty tendentious, even if it's dressed up as a judgment-free characterization. Beck operates in an environment where "substantive discussion", engagement (in the logical sense) and refutation are irrelevant.

That has nothing to do with what Gillespie said on the program, though. I didn't watch it, and I suspect you didn't either. We have no idea how objectionable his presence was. Saying people who read Reason should be ashamed is just stupid - if not outright witch-hunty.

Quoting nikkibong: That has nothing to do with what Gillespie said on the program, though. I didn't watch it, and I suspect you didn't either. We have no idea how objectionable his presence was. Saying people who read Reason should be ashamed is just stupid - if not outright witch-hunty.

I didn't watch it. I'll make the assertion here that lending your respectability to Beck (or Limbaugh, etc...) is objectionable, prima facie. I'm also pretty sure that Brendan was referring to those responsible for content at Reason, not to the readers - but he can speak for himself on that, if he wants.

Jeff, this is not a big deal. But for the record:

Quoting AemJeff: I'm also pretty sure that Brendan was referring to those responsible for content at Reason, not to the readers - but he can speak for himself on that, if he wants.

Quoting bjkeefe: DougJ: Everyone who works for Reason or subscribes to Reason should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Quoting nikkibong: Jeff, this is not a big deal. But for the record:

I missed that, and I disagree with that level of inclusion.

Quoting kezboard: It was Goldberg's goatee thing that put me over the edge.

Where is Nate when I need him to photoshop a goatee onto M. Goldberg?

That has nothing to do with what Gillespie said on the program, though. I didn't watch it, and I suspect you didn't either. We have no idea how objectionable his presence was. Saying people who read Reason should be ashamed is just stupid - if not outright witch-hunty.

Gillespie was first on the program to trash Che Guevara, which I don't have a problem with (although I think it's totally straw-man-ish to present Che as an "icon of the left" while you're attempting to define the Democrats as "the left"), and secondly to give Glenn Beck libertarian cred. That's the objectionable part. Anyway, I did see the program. It sucked. Speaking for myself, I would be ashamed to be associated with it. I think that it's pathetic how the right-wing inevitably discovers its inner libertarian whenever the Democrats are in charge, and I think it's really pathetic when libertarians turn around and kiss their asses for that, and that the amount of ass-kissing that's going on right now shows how silly libertarianism is as a movement. Does that mean that Reason contributers/subscribers should be ashamed? That's their call. If they think it's swell for Gillespie to support a guy who

Quoting AemJeff: I missed that, and I disagree with that level of inclusion.

For the record, I do, too. You do not need to be ashamed for subscribing to Reason, nikkibong. (Pitied, perhaps.) I just thought DougJ's post was worth reading, and I quoted its thesis directly to act as link bait. I do, however, think Reason, and Gillespie in particular, say a lot of awfully eyebrow-raising things, and whether you want to resort to invoking the easy cliché or not, someone like Matt Welch does eventually have to come to grips with his association with those two.

Quoting look: Where is Nate when I need him to photoshop a goatee onto M. Goldberg?

Why are you calling Jonah Monsieur? Don't you think he'd take it as a grievous insult to be called French? .

Quoting bjkeefe: Why are you calling Jonah Monsieur? Don't you think he'd take it as a grievous insult to be called French?

.

Dammit.

Quoting look: Dammit.

The Internets do, as it happens, provide something along the lines of the Photoshoppery you desire: (pic. source)

No the logic of the French is indisputable French Revolutionary Calendar

Quoting piscivorous: No the logic of the French is indisputable French Revolutionary Calendar

They really thought this through, didn't they:

There were twelve months, each divided into three ten-day weeks called décades. The tenth day, décadi, replaced Sunday as the day of rest and festivity. The five or six extra days needed to approximate the solar or tropical year were placed after the months at the end of each year.

lol

Quoting bjkeefe: The Internets do, as it happens, provide something along the lines of the Photoshoppery you desire:

You're forcing my hand, you know. [opens photoshop]

Quoting look: You're forcing my hand, you know. [opens photoshop]

You own a copy of Photoshop? Elitist!!!1! ;^)

As far as crazy nationalist schemes go, it's one of the more logical, really, and it didn't kill anybody, which is more than you can say for many other revolutionary bad ideas. I've always kind of liked it, since the first day of the year is my birthday.

May otto and nikki forgive me:

Quoting bjkeefe: You own a copy of Photoshop? Elitist!!!1!

;^)

Er, no, it's Paint.

Quoting look: Er, no, it's Paint.

Heh. Yeah, me, too, although I keep vowing to learn how to use The Gimp. (?)

Quoting look: May otto and nikki forgive me:

Purely by coincidence, I just encountered an even more disturbing face-mullet, on one Gary Coby.

Quoting look: May otto and nikki forgive me:

LOL! That is awesome. How about a handlebar mustache, now?

Quoting TwinSwords: LOL!

That is awesome. How about a handlebar mustache, now?

Nay, I shall stay my hand and earnestly repent of my actions...but is it me, or does this make her look like Attackerman's sister?

Quoting bjkeefe: Purely by coincidence, I just encountered an even more disturbing face-mullet, on one Gary Coby.

B, I laughed so hard at this, this morning. The comments are priceless. And I liked this:

He will totally architect their demise.

Quoting bjkeefe: Heh. Yeah, me, too, although I keep vowing to learn how to use The Gimp.

(?)

Nice to know. Thx.

Quoting look: Nice to know. Thx.

y/w. I'd be interested in hearing about your experience, should you download it and play around with it. Warning: it is a bit overwhelming at first glance. There do appear to be a bunch of helpful-looking tutorials to get you started. Also, the video series You Suck At Photoshop, besides being masterfully entertaining, might give you some suggestions about what to think is possible to do with tools more powerful than Paint. (Hoping to get myself off the stick, obvs.)

Quoting look: B, I laughed so hard at this, this morning. The comments are priceless. And I liked this:

Glad you liked it. The more people laughing at this sort of consultant-speak, the better.

Quoting bjkeefe: y/w. I'd be interested in hearing about your experience, should you download it and play around with it. Warning: it is a bit overwhelming at first glance. There do appear to be a bunch of helpful-looking tutorials to get you started.

Also, the video series You Suck At Photoshop, besides being masterfully entertaining, might give you some suggestions about what to think is possible to do with tools more powerful than Paint.

(Hoping to get myself off the stick, obvs.)

LOL

This is basic to intermediate, but for you it's going to be stupid hard...

Quoting bjkeefe: The Internets do, as it happens, provide something along the lines of the Photoshoppery you desire:

And more!