Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

no backdown - none!

the University of Virginia (UVa) has chosen to fight the frivolous and politically motivated investigation initiated by the states avowed AGW denier, wingnut Republican Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli. There absolutely is no case - no substance, to Cuccinelli's fishing expedition... per the UVa petition - here:

earlier letter from the American Association of University Professors and the American Civil Liberties Union (of Virginia)... urging UVa to legally challenge Cuccinelli - here:

[waldo]

just when you thought denier poster-boy Christopher Monckton had no credibility left, he heads out on another of his dog&pony tours... financed by the usual suspects. Monckton was fresh off his latest tour of Australia... when he got the call from the U.S. Republican Party to appear as their single spokesperson before the recent hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. While the Democrats brought forward several prominent climate scientists to offer testimony... the Republicans either could not, or would not get a single scientist to testify - hence, the call to Monckton.

even after repeated debunking, Monckton keeps coming back... for more. His schtick follows basically the same act while he tours, country to country, city to city - several lengthy youtube videos have been captured of Monckton's presentation... a presentation that rarely changes up. While on a recent tour through the U.S., Monckton appeared at Bethel University - Minnesota, and so inspired John Abraham, a university engineering professor, to take up the challenge to critique Monckton's presentation. What resulted was probably the single-most diligent and devastating rebuke to Monckton ever put forward. Abraham's work is a long, tedious, slide-by-slide critique unraveling Monckton's traveling road show of lies, deceit, misinformation and incompetence. Even if you only sample a short 5 or 10 minutes worth... enjoy! Abraham's critique of Monckton - here:

Edited May 31, 2010 by waldo

[bloodyminded]

While the Democrats brought forward several prominent climate scientists to offer testimony... the Republicans either could not, or would not get a single scientist to testify - hence, the call to Monckton.

!!!!

This beggars belief. Even in denial-land, surely there must be someone better than this blustering old aristocrat.

[waldo]

!!!!

This beggars belief. Even in denial-land, surely there must be someone better than this blustering old aristocrat.

it just boggles the mind... that Monckton would be the sole witness the Republicans called... their sole rebuttal to the testimony of 4 eminent climate scientists (as called by the Democrats). Link to the website for the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - here: there's also a link on that page to a video of the full committee meeting... as well, as a few pics of those called to give testimony. The first photo from that linked page about sums it up... 4 eminent climate scientists... and Monckton!

on the other hand, perhaps Republican's were simply channeling their support base - ya think? As for the real value that any single snapshot polls hold, this recent Gallup poll on global warming, factoring in the effect of the media blitz around Hackergate, clearly shows the delineation between the (American) classifications of liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative... with a further breakout along defined party affiliation (Democrat vs. Independent vs. Republican). Most telling - indeed.

as a contrast/comparison, this latest Nanos poll asks Canadians to rank issues in terms of focus for the upcoming G8/G20 meetings... ranking global warming highest. The regional vs. gender vs. age vs. party affiliation provides interesting comparisons.

[WIP]

.....and even the mainstream media are starting to pay attention. From Newsweek:

Link: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html

What a total piece of crap!

Didn't you notice that your Newsweek article says nothing about the science? All it talks about is a fickle, scientifically illiterate populace that is questioning global warming. Should we be surprised? Half of U.S. adults question the Theory of Evolution, and believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And Newsweek says nothing about the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaign run by oil, gas and coal companies which funds phony climate science organizations, think tanks and their media mouthpieces to push the ridiculous message that we can just keep belching smoke and raising atmospheric CO2 levels, without suffering any consequences. If Newsweek had any credibility they wouldn't run this piece without any rebuttals. But, since we're hearing lately about Newsweeks cashflow problems, and that they may stop publishing in the near future, a suspicious person may jump to the conclusion that they've just taken a bag of money from Exxon or BP to run this crap.

[WIP]

it just boggles the mind... that Monckton would be the sole witness the Republicans called... their sole rebuttal to the testimony of 4 eminent climate scientists (as called by the Democrats). Link to the website for the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - here: there's also a link on that page to a video of the full committee meeting... as well, as a few pics of those called to give testimony. The first photo from that linked page about sums it up... 4 eminent climate scientists... and Monckton!

on the other hand, perhaps Republican's were simply channeling their support base - ya think? As for the real value that any single snapshot polls hold, this recent Gallup poll on global warming, factoring in the effect of the media blitz around Hackergate, clearly shows the delineation between the (American) classifications of liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative... with a further breakout along defined party affiliation (Democrat vs. Independent vs. Republican). Most telling - indeed.

as a contrast/comparison, this latest Nanos poll asks Canadians to rank issues in terms of focus for the upcoming G8/G20 meetings... ranking global warming highest. The regional vs. gender vs. age vs. party affiliation provides interesting comparisons.

I listened to an audio program that included several excerpts from the hearings. "Lord" Monckton got raked over pretty bad. It was noted by one member of the Senate panel that he doesn't even have a legitimate claim to using the title "lord" in the first place, and of course he doesn't have the scientific credentials to justify his appearance before the committee as an expert witness. I guess he was the only phony expert available that the Republicans could call upon that day.

[Keepitsimple]

What a total piece of crap!

Didn't you notice that your Newsweek article says nothing about the science? All it talks about is a fickle, scientifically illiterate populace that is questioning global warming. Should we be surprised? Half of U.S. adults question the Theory of Evolution, and believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And Newsweek says nothing about the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaign run by oil, gas and coal companies which funds phony climate science organizations, think tanks and their media mouthpieces to push the ridiculous message that we can just keep belching smoke and raising atmospheric CO2 levels, without suffering any consequences. If Newsweek had any credibility they wouldn't run this piece without any rebuttals. But, since we're hearing lately about Newsweeks cashflow problems, and that they may stop publishing in the near future, a suspicious person may jump to the conclusion that they've just taken a bag of money from Exxon or BP to run this crap.

No need to get apoplectic. My point is simply that the mainstream media in many countries are now starting to publish articles that put "scepticism" in a more acceptable light - or at least less "dismissive". Your comment that "If Newsweek had any credibility they wouldn't run this piece without any rebuttals" is hilarious. For years, alarmist articles were run by the media with nary a hint of a rebuttal from the many prominent sceptics. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - you expect rebuttals? They dumbed down the AGW side for the readers......and no doubt, they'll do the same for the sceptic side. As I said, it appears that the debate is finally going to open up.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[WIP]

No need to get apoplectic. My point is simply that the mainstream media in many countries are now starting to publish articles that put "scepticism" in a more acceptable light - or at least less "dismissive". Your comment that "If Newsweek had any credibility they wouldn't run this piece without any rebuttals" is hilarious. For years, alarmist articles were run by the media with nary a hint of a rebuttal from the many prominent sceptics. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - you expect rebuttals? They dumbed down the AGW side for the readers......and no doubt, they'll do the same for the sceptic side. As I said, it appears that the debate is finally going to open up.

This is no different than "teach the controversy" advice in many U.S. school systems that have degraded science education. There is no debate based on the science, the so called skeptics are only interested in creating confusion. They don't have to have a coherrent alternative theory, and that's why they don't bother presenting any. Some climate skeptics like Lord Munk, say the Earth has been cooling for the last 15 years, and there are no connections between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature; others say, yes it's warming and there's a greenhouse gas connection, but that's because of solar activity or other natural causes; and then there's the Bjorn Lomborg school of confusion, who says yes, CO2 levels are rising, yes the Earth is warming, and yes the spike in temperatures is primarily caused by what we're doing, but guess what? It's not worth our while to take action against climate change, instead we need to prepare ourselves for a world with higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. This suggestion is the stupidest of all in light of new paleo-climate research that provides more accurate and more detailed analysis of past CO2 levels. I linked this article before, but it needs to be put out again in light of Lomborg's bad advice: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report Needless to say, trying to adapt to a climate that hasn't existed in 15 million years would be something that the human race, let alone human civilization has never had to deal with.

If you step back and look at the range of climate change denial arguments, you see that Munk and Lomborg have nothing in common except that they both advocate a do nothing strategy. And that's what the climate change denial strategy is all about! It's just a strategy of creating confusion, and thereby preventing public pressure for action on climate change. It's a game played by energy companies that want to keep business as usual and stand in the way of efforts to prevent a disaster that the CIA estimates will cause mass migrations of millions of people over the next 20 years.

[waldo]

If you step back and look at the range of climate change denial arguments, you see that Munk and Lomborg have nothing in common except that they both advocate a do nothing strategy. And that's what the climate change denial strategy is all about! It's just a strategy of creating confusion, and thereby preventing public pressure for action on climate change. It's a game played by energy companies that want to keep business as usual and stand in the way of efforts to prevent a disaster that the CIA estimates will cause mass migrations of millions of people over the next 20 years.

and, of course, you have the agents... and the lappers (like Simple) who aid and abet. Simple's got into the MLW deniers demonstrated mode of scurrying about for anything that smacks of their longed for, as Simple keeps howling about lately, "opening of the debate". Of course, he ignores the real debate - the scientific debate; the long running open debate that absolutely shows the science that supports the theory of AGW climate change... the long running open debate that absolutely represents the overwhelming consensus that supports the theory of AGW climate change. Simple prefers to ignore the science and the consensus in favour of howling pieces of crap, ala Newsweek.

of course, Simple drops his Newsweek article link and doesn't think it will be scrutinized for content, for motive, for background, etc. The ever diligent Joe Romm, after taking that error-riddled, un-fact-checked article to pieces on it's content, quite easily/readily presents the struggling and on it's death bed newsrag Newsweek, for what it really has become:

So what explains the catastrophically bad Newsweek piece? Let me offer several explanations.

1) As noted, they have cozied up to Big Oil to find alternative funding sources: “Newsweek since 2007 has sold advertising packages to the oil industry’s biggest influence group that included the right to co-host forums on energy issues.” See also TPM Muckraker on this, “Newsweek And Oil Lobby Team Up To Host Climate Change Event With Lawmakers.” I do think that influences the perspective of reporters – see Newsweek gets duped by Big Oil. How else to explain the piece by Rana Foroohar titled “Big Oil Goes Green for Real” with greenwashing lines like “So how should we take the spate of new green announcements from the world’s major oil firms?” Sounds doubly naive these days, no?

2) Newsweek’s top competitor is, of course, Time magazine. And Time has made a name for itself as one of the few major popular media outlets that consistently gets the climate science story right. So little sister has to differentiate herself from big sister. I had made this point in my book Hell and High Water. One magazine published a 2006 cover article with a science-based warning emblazoned in huge letters, “BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED. Climate change isn’t some vague future problem-it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace.” Even back then, Time noted, “Most people aren’t aware of the broad scientific consensus on warming.” That same week Newsweek published an article that extensively quoted the anti-scientist disinformers, claiming “to be fair, neither side has a monopoly on hot air in this debate,” falsely equating one or two mild overstatements by advocates of action on global warming with major campaigns to deny the science entirely and delay action indefinitely.

3) Relatedly, a collapsing news magazine needs a new spin. Slate noted a few weeks ago in a piece titled, “Newsweek Has Fallen Down and Can’t Get Up - The institutional forces behind the demise of a magazine”:

The 30-year debate in the journalism reviews, among industry analysts, and over beers between reporters about the fate of the newsweekly category was settled today by Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham, who announced that he wants to sell Newsweek. If the infinitely patient and hideously rich Graham can’t see a profitable future for the money-losing magazine, that future doesn’t exist. The category has finally gone to mold and will, in another 30 months or 30 years, advance to putrefaction.

In a CP article from 2 years ago, that you can find in my book, Straight Up, “Media enable disinformer spin 2: What if the MSM simply can’t cover humanity’s self-destruction?“ I quoted Newsweek principal editor Jon Meacham:

“

I absolutely believe that the media is not ideologically driven, but conflict driven. If we have a bias it’s not that people are socially liberal, fiscally conservative or vice versa. It is that we are engaged in the storytelling business. And if you tell the same story again and again and again – it’s kind of boring.

"

yup, "kinda boring journalism" just won't do. So, with this article, Newsweek discards it's Science editor, who actually does get the science (and has written accordingly), in favour of it's Economics editor's POS writings... obviously, according to it's own principal editor, Newsweek can't afford to be consistent (let alone factual... or unbiased), in the face of Newsweek's recent years death-bed spiral culminating in it's for sale announcement - May07,, non-boring storytelling is the order of the day - hence the May28 POS article!

[Shady]

Looks like Al Gore and his wife are splitting up. It's been a tough year for him. First climategate, and now this. Poor Albert Gore Jr.

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Al Gore and his wife are splitting up. It's been a tough year for him. First climategate, and now this. Poor Albert Gore Jr.

Yeah...such a shame...we often see this when couples receive huge sums of money!

[waldo]

I listened to an audio program that included several excerpts from the hearings. "Lord" Monckton got raked over pretty bad. It was noted by one member of the Senate panel that he doesn't even have a legitimate claim to using the title "lord" in the first place, and of course he doesn't have the scientific credentials to justify his appearance before the committee as an expert witness. I guess he was the only phony expert available that the Republicans could call upon that day.

you may have heard Monckton respond to the question from one of the Democrat committee members who asked Monckton why he felt he was chosen, as the sole witness, to offer testimony for the Republicans... of course, the question was a challenge to Monckton's credibility as it also emphasized his lack of scientific credentials. In answering, Monckton defended his choice as the sole witness, saying that, "his thick skin and political experience made him more suited than a scientist to be subjected to such a hearing, and that he was happy to do so to allow the thousands of skeptical scientists to continue with their work." That's right... Monckton was simply helping buffer the work of those thousands of skeptical scientists from being interrupted by the nuisance hearing!

various past MLW posts have addressed the ongoing U.S. Republican "war on science"... this latest series of meetings of the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, simply amplifies the Republican position against science. Truly, you would think calling Monckton would be a tough act to follow... but never count a denier Republican out! Following that earlier May meeting where Monckton championed the Republican cause, the latest May20 meeting had the Republicans "bounce back"; after taking such criticism over calling Monckton at the earlier May8 session, they stepped up and called noted skeptic scientist, Will Happer, as their single witness to offer testimony. Democrats, as before, called 4 witnesses: Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council, Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego, Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University and Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Again, a 4:1 discrepancy in Democrat vs. Republican witnesses called to offer testimony before the committee hearing.

highlights of the latest May 20 meeting start off with opening statements by the respective Democrat and Republican committee members... a part of the Republican opening statement included admonishment of the Democrats for the "treatment" Monckton received in the earlier May8 meeting. But it gets better... after completing their opening statements, the Republican members then walked out on the hearing without even listening to the testimony, or asking a single question. It was left entirely to the Democrats to proceed with the 5 called witnesses. Yes, for sure, the ongoing U.S. Republican "war on science" continues strong... relentless!

[Oleg Bach]

well the various space agencies are saying that about orbital space around the planet, there's so much junk flying about up there it's becoming hazardous to space travel...but now astronauts worry about paint chips hitting them...who would have though that possible 20 years ago...

everything has limits...including the endless universe.

[WIP]

you may have heard Monckton respond to the question from one of the Democrat committee members who asked Monckton why he felt he was chosen, as the sole witness, to offer testimony for the Republicans... of course, the question was a challenge to Monckton's credibility as it also emphasized his lack of scientific credentials. In answering, Monckton defended his choice as the sole witness, saying that, "his thick skin and political experience made him more suited than a scientist to be subjected to such a hearing, and that he was happy to do so to allow the thousands of skeptical scientists to continue with their work." That's right... Monckton was simply helping buffer the work of those thousands of skeptical scientists from being interrupted by the nuisance hearing!

various past MLW posts have addressed the ongoing U.S. Republican "war on science"... this latest series of meetings of the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, simply amplifies the Republican position against science. Truly, you would think calling Monckton would be a tough act to follow... but never count a denier Republican out! Following that earlier May meeting where Monckton championed the Republican cause, the latest May20 meeting had the Republicans "bounce back"; after taking such criticism over calling Monckton at the earlier May8 session, they stepped up and called noted skeptic scientist, Will Happer, as their single witness to offer testimony. Democrats, as before, called 4 witnesses: Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council, Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego, Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University and Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Again, a 4:1 discrepancy in Democrat vs. Republican witnesses called to offer testimony before the committee hearing.

highlights of the latest May 20 meeting start off with opening statements by the respective Democrat and Republican committee members... a part of the Republican opening statement included admonishment of the Democrats for the "treatment" Monckton received in the earlier May8 meeting. But it gets better... after completing their opening statements, the Republican members then walked out on the hearing without even listening to the testimony, or asking a single question. It was left entirely to the Democrats to proceed with the 5 called witnesses. Yes, for sure, the ongoing U.S. Republican "war on science" continues strong... relentless!

Thanks for that! I noticed the last time I got into the global warming debates here that when I followed the links to these so called skeptical scientists, their experts all have different stories to tell, and I suspect that's part of the reason why the Republicans only feature one at time at these Congressional hearings.

There are scientists who earn a good living working for conservative think tanks and writing books for this audience, and more importantly, many now are working for universities that have become totally dependent on grants and endowments from oil and coal companies, which may bias their research. Of the most prominent names I recognize who are continually on FoxNews and rightwing infotainment sites, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer -- they all have different and conflicting theories about climate. If they appeared together on a panel, and informed critic could start comparing their various conflicting claims and that would be the end of the debate.

They can't agree on whether there is global warming; if so, is it related to atmospheric CO2 levels; and they can't even agree on the most crucial point about whether AGW is a significant factor. Some aren't really skeptics at all, but just claim we can adapt to whatever environmental changes occur over the coming decades and centuries. That's a non-falsifiable argument since if they're wrong, and the human race degrades to eventually extinction, no one will be around to say 'I told you so'.

[wyly]

Thanks for that! I noticed the last time I got into the global warming debates here that when I followed the links to these so called skeptical scientists, their experts all have different stories to tell, and I suspect that's part of the reason why the Republicans only feature one at time at these Congressional hearings.

There are scientists who earn a good living working for conservative think tanks and writing books for this audience, and more importantly, many now are working for universities that have become totally dependent on grants and endowments from oil and coal companies, which may bias their research. Of the most prominent names I recognize who are continually on FoxNews and rightwing infotainment sites, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer -- they all have different and conflicting theories about climate. If they appeared together on a panel, and informed critic could start comparing their various conflicting claims and that would be the end of the debate.

They can't agree on whether there is global warming; if so, is it related to atmospheric CO2 levels; and they can't even agree on the most crucial point about whether AGW is a significant factor. Some aren't really skeptics at all, but just claim we can adapt to whatever environmental changes occur over the coming decades and centuries. That's a non-falsifiable argument since if they're wrong, and the human race degrades to eventually extinction, no one will be around to say 'I told you so'.

good observation...some will even say that we are going through AGW but disagree on how quick or severe it will be...as you correctly point out bringing them to a hearing they contradict each other which destroys the skeptical arguement...

[Keepitsimple]

good observation...some will even say that we are going through AGW but disagree on how quick or severe it will be...as you correctly point out bringing them to a hearing they contradict each other which destroys the skeptical arguement...

Which only goes to show that these prominent scientists (sceptics) do not claim to have all the answers. They just know that there are many more questions to be asked. The AGW alrmists however - DO have all the answers - the science is settled, the verdict is in, humans are destroying the planet. As I've shown through a number of articles, at least some sort of debate is starting to take hold.....and that's a good thing......a very good thing. Why not spend a year or two (or 5 if necessary) with properly structured debates, fully covered by the media and get the public fully on side.....because clearly, they are not ready to pay the price. If the science is truly solid, there should be very little to fear and much to gain.

[waldo]

Thanks for that! I noticed the last time I got into the global warming debates here that when I followed the links to these so called skeptical scientists, their experts all have different stories to tell, and I suspect that's part of the reason why the Republicans only feature one at time at these Congressional hearings.

There are scientists who earn a good living working for conservative think tanks and writing books for this audience, and more importantly, many now are working for universities that have become totally dependent on grants and endowments from oil and coal companies, which may bias their research. Of the most prominent names I recognize who are continually on FoxNews and rightwing infotainment sites, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer -- they all have different and conflicting theories about climate. If they appeared together on a panel, and informed critic could start comparing their various conflicting claims and that would be the end of the debate.

They can't agree on whether there is global warming; if so, is it related to atmospheric CO2 levels; and they can't even agree on the most crucial point about whether AGW is a significant factor. Some aren't really skeptics at all, but just claim we can adapt to whatever environmental changes occur over the coming decades and centuries. That's a non-falsifiable argument since if they're wrong, and the human race degrades to eventually extinction, no one will be around to say 'I told you so'.

I'm certainly not aware of any forum where denier scientists or industry puppets had their competing theories questioned... exposed... where they not only had to respond to purposeful targeted challenges from a panel/public, but also had to respond to challenge from each other - one denier scientist to another... one competing denial meme to another. I doubt you will ever see it; clearly, as you suggest, an informed challenge would quite easily pit their various conflicting denier claims against each other, pitting denier against denier... and that would be the end of the debate.

far be it from me to turn down any opportunity with your reference to our own homegrown Tim Ball, or as he proclaims himself, "Canada's first climatologist". One could readily trot out the critique against Ball's complete lack of research and publication, but I'll simply reference the UofC audit that highlighted several points of interest starting with Barry Cooper (the UofC political science professor... a part of the "Calgary School"... mentor and friend of Stephen Harper)... Cooper, who channeled oil industry contributions through a UofC trust account (the "Science Education Fund")... Cooper, who steered significant portions of that UofC trust account to the denier organization, Friends of Science... which, in turn, used those funds to support the antics of the likes of Ross McKitrick and Tim Ball. Unfortunately (for Ball) one of his recent forays led him into a most unexpected result. If you missed it, this article covers a stop on Ball's recent speaking tour - where Ball comes up against informed University of Victoria students, particularly some well versed in climate modeling (re: UofVic professor, Dr. Andrew Weaver - Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis).

[waldo]

good observation...some will even say that we are going through AGW but disagree on how quick or severe it will be...as you correctly point out bringing them to a hearing they contradict each other which destroys the skeptical arguement...

Which only goes to show that these prominent scientists (sceptics) do not claim to have all the answers. They just know that there are many more questions to be asked. The AGW alrmists however - DO have all the answers - the science is settled, the verdict is in, humans are destroying the planet. As I've shown through a number of articles, at least some sort of debate is starting to take hold.....and that's a good thing......a very good thing. Why not spend a year or two (or 5 if necessary) with properly structured debates, fully covered by the media and get the public fully on side.....because clearly, they are not ready to pay the price. If the science is truly solid, there should be very little to fear and much to gain.

ya ya, when Simple is pressed, he'll pull out the "science is settled" meme... count on it!

Simple's conspiracy shines threw... peer review science can't be trusted, as it doesn't provide the result Simple likes to hear/read. So Simple links to a go-to article touting "the Sun" from denier "journalist" extraordinaire Lawrence Solomon... of course Simple ignores the sound beat-back to Solomon's article. So Simple scurries about and finds a POS article from the near-death rag, Newsweek... of course Simple ignores the beat-back to the Newsweek article. Whereupon Simple proclaims, "some of the debate is starting to take hold". Ya, ya... only in Simple ton's mind/world!

[Shady]

The AGW alrmists however - DO have all the answers

You nailed it! The AGW true-believers behave more like religious zealots than scientists. Science is about asking questions. But how do you ask questions when you have none? That's the oxymoronic behavior that plagues the AGw alarmist/true-believer crowd.

[waldo]

just when you thought denier poster-boy Christopher Monckton had no credibility left, he heads out on another of his dog&pony tours... financed by the usual suspects. Monckton was fresh off his latest tour of Australia... when he got the call from the U.S. Republican Party to appear as their single spokesperson before the recent hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. While the Democrats brought forward several prominent climate scientists to offer testimony... the Republicans either could not, or would not get a single scientist to testify - hence, the call to Monckton.

even after repeated debunking, Monckton keeps coming back... for more. His schtick follows basically the same act while he tours, country to country, city to city - several lengthy youtube videos have been captured of Monckton's presentation... a presentation that rarely changes up. While on a recent tour through the U.S., Monckton appeared at Bethel University - Minnesota, and so inspired John Abraham, a university engineering professor, to take up the challenge to critique Monckton's presentation. What resulted was probably the single-most diligent and devastating rebuke to Monckton ever put forward. Abraham's work is a long, tedious, slide-by-slide critique unraveling Monckton's traveling road show of lies, deceit, misinformation and incompetence. Even if you only sample a short 5 or 10 minutes worth... enjoy! Abraham's critique of Monckton - here:

the Guardian's Monbiot... "how the gurus of climate scepticism repeat a pattern of manipulation" - Viscount Monckton, another fallen idol of climate denial

Another one bites the dust. Every so often, someone with a strong stomach and time to spare volunteers to devote weeks or months of their life to a grisly task: investigating the claims of a person who dismisses the science or significance of man-made climate change. Dave Rado did it with Martin Durkin's film, the Great Global Warming Swindle. Howard Friel did it with Bjørn Lomborg. Ian Enting did it with Ian Plimer.

It involves slow, painstaking work, following the sources, checking the claims against the science. But the result in all cases has been the same: a devastating debunking of both the claims and the methods of the people investigated.

Now another fallen idol of climate change denial must be added to the list: Viscount Monckton's assertions have been comprehensively discredited by professor of mechanical engineering John Abraham, at the University of St Thomas in Minnesota.

The problem is that people like Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole act as an echo-chamber for each other's discredited beliefs. However nutty their views are, they will be affirmed by other members of the closed circle. Speaking and listening only to each other, as we saw at the Heartland Institute conference last month, their claims become ever weirder and more extreme as they isolate themselves from reality. In circumstances like this, it doesn't matter how comprehensively they are discredited, they will merely dig their holes even deeper.

[Keepitsimple]

If you missed it, this article covers a stop on Ball's recent speaking tour - where Ball comes up against informed University of Victoria students, particularly some well versed in climate modeling (re: UofVic professor, Dr. Andrew Weaver - Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis).

Waldo, I hope you'll forgive me - you're still on IGNORE but I decided to open this last post of yours. The 2.5 hour audio that is referenced at the end of the article is indeed very interesting and there was a lot of give and take from the audience.....as it should be. One thing you neglected to mention is that the audience was exclusively the Young Conservatives organization. It's worth listening to.

[Shady]

One thing you neglected to mention

Waldo neglects to mention many things. It's part of his MO. Then he wonders why nobody trusts him.

[GostHacked]

Waldo neglects to mention many things. It's part of his MO. Then he wonders why nobody trusts him.

/facepalm.

[Shady]

/facepalm.

You should have used this instead... PIC

[waldo]

far be it from me to turn down any opportunity with your reference to our own homegrown Tim Ball, or as he proclaims himself, "Canada's first climatologist". One could readily trot out the critique against Ball's complete lack of research and publication, but I'll simply reference the UofC audit that highlighted several points of interest starting with Barry Cooper (the UofC political science professor... a part of the "Calgary School"... mentor and friend of Stephen Harper)... Cooper, who channeled oil industry contributions through a UofC trust account (the "Science Education Fund")... Cooper, who steered significant portions of that UofC trust account to the denier organization, Friends of Science... which, in turn, used those funds to support the antics of the likes of Ross McKitrick and Tim Ball. Unfortunately (for Ball) one of his recent forays led him into a most unexpected result. If you missed it, this article covers a stop on Ball's recent speaking tour - where Ball comes up against informed University of Victoria students, particularly some well versed in climate modeling (re: UofVic professor, Dr. Andrew Weaver - Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis).

Waldo, I hope you'll forgive me - you're still on IGNORE but I decided to open this last post of yours. The 2.5 hour audio that is referenced at the end of the article is indeed very interesting and there was a lot of give and take from the audience.....as it should be. One thing you neglected to mention is that the audience was exclusively the Young Conservatives organization. It's worth listening to.

Simple, ignore all you want... I'll just let my recent quote of Monbiot scale to your personal level of denialism:

However nutty their views are, they will be affirmed by other members of the closed circle. Speaking and listening only to each other, their claims become ever weirder and more extreme as they isolate themselves from reality. In circumstances like this, it doesn't matter how comprehensively they are discredited, they will merely dig their holes even deeper.

as for the Ball vs. UofVic reference, is there something of significance you'd like to bring forward concerning the UofVic Young Conservatives Club? Would it be that even persons of a conservative bent, with proper guidance and teaching (re: UofVic professor, Dr. Andrew Weaver - Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis), even those persons can become informed and challenge the nonsense of climate deniers like Tim Ball... is that the point you'd like to make, Simple?

of course, that fledgling club has only just now resurfaced, although it doesn't appear to have been long lasting as you can't find the "Young Conservatives Club" referenced within the summary accounting of clubs put out by the UofVic Student Union Association. Perhaps it's folded... again Young Conservatives fold two years in a row - UVic Young Conservatives blame little time and student hostility for inactive club. But, again Simple, what was the point you wanted to make?