The New Climate Game

[Keepitsimple]

Slowly but surely, North America is starting to pay attention to the "other" side:

Climate scientists play a good game of whack-a-mole.

Right from the early days of the global warming controversy, they whacked any scientist who dissented from the view that CO2 was warming the planet in a dangerous way. Up popped other skeptical scientists, and WHACK!! Down they went.

Up popped skeptical journalists and WHACK! Down they went, too. Then more whacks for new scientists who surfaced, or pesky scientists who resurfaced.

Today, decades later, the climate science establishment is still whacking away, faster and more frenetically than ever, as more and more skeptical scientists, journalists and politicians surface. And now there's a new species of skeptic in need of whacking down -- the many inquiries that have sprung up in the wake of Climategate, the unauthorized release of some 3,000 documents from the computers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University showing that data had been manipulated and destroyed.

East Anglia University was the first to establish an inquiry into its conduct. Then it started a second inquiry to complement the first. The Met Office, the UK government's meteorological department, announced its inquiry to redo the data that CRU had destroyed, a process that would take it three years. The UK's Information Commissioner's Office began an inquiry, to ascertain whether the country's Freedom of Information Law had been broken. The local police force, working with Scotland Yard, also began an inquiry.

All these would and will need to be whacked, and more would, too. The IPCC itself announced an inquiry. Across the Atlantic, Penn State University, home to Michael Mann, one of America's most important doomsayers, launched an investigation.

The UK government also decided it needed an inquiry, and fast, to address Climategate before it could call national elections, which were imminent. Its House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee expedited matters by holding a one-day hearing into Climategate during which it took no direct testimony from skeptical scientists. With nothing much discovered the members of the parliamentary committee declared its job done.

"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," explained the committee's chair, Phil Willis, en route to the hustings, but "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."

.....snip

In some cases, whacking was not required-- at least not by the climate change establishment. The inquiries set up by East Anglia University have as their members people of satisfactory credentials. Consider Lord Oxburgh, who chairs one of the two inquiries. He is also the head of Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, a lobby group for global warming legislation, and an advisor to Climate Change Capital, which aims to cash in on the $45-trillion market in the coming low-carbon economy. Others on the inquiries have strikingly similar credentials, so much so that the London Telegraph reported that "almost all their members were committed, even fanatical advocates of global warming."

Link: http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2785623

[waldo]

Whaaaa! Lawrence Solomon... we've already touched upon his litany here on MLW before... so ya, that's a reeeaaaaal stretch to see him write something like that... hey, Simple? Your friends at the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute really like him - he's carved out a nice little niche for himself - fer sure! Particularly his recent book that profiled 10 prominent scientists, where he labeled them all as "Deniers"... even though none of them are. Can you say... "fraud", Simple?

Lawrence Solomon's "Deniers"

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Speaker Trading on His Fraudulent Book Title

Self-described "environmentalist" Lawrence Solomon has become the toast of the oil-industry-backed climate change denier community ever since the spring 2008 release of his book,

The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so)

.

The problem, then and still, is that nobody in Solomon's overheated text actually denies that humans are causing climate change. He admits as much on Page 45 of his book, saying:

"As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers.

"None of them were deniers."

That's a little point that Solomon never seems to mention on the speaker circuit. At least, in the radio and television interviews I've heard - and in his endless series of quibbling trivia that he has written in the Canadian business flyer the National Post - he never seems to say something forthrightly honest like: "none of the people in my book are deniers, really. They just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled."

Neither does Solomon acknowledge the

complaints that he has received

(and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented.

He just sits, smiling for the camera, while someone introduces him as the author of a whole book and series on scientists who deny climate change - as if that were actually true.

Solomon's next public "appearance" as a denier expert comes in an open conference call scheduled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008 at 10 a.m. (presumably that's Inside-the-Beltway Standard Time).

Turn on, tune in and don't hold your breath waiting for Larry Solomon to acknowledge what he so surprisingly admitted in his own text: that his book title, which implies fraud, is actually an example of fraud, and one that's working out very well for this suddenly more-famous author.

PS: Getting Judged by the Company You Keep

Regarding the photo of Lawrence Solomon at a "CEI" lectern, it's interesting to note that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is so discredited on the issue of climate change that Exxon Mobil agreed to stop giving them money

.

don't let facts actually get in the way of Solomon's columns... or his book (which was simply a summation of his newspaper columns)... to the point that one of his 10 profiled scientists actually took up the cause and pushed back at Solomon's bullshit diatribe and forced the National Post to... finally... issue an apology:

"National Post: Apology to Dr. Nigel Weiss

Nigel Weiss, professor of astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, believes that the warming trend in Earth's climate is caused by greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and that the effect of a potential future reduction in solar activity would not reverse or cancel out that trend, but might have a small effect in mitigating it. He has held these views for several years. Incorrect information appeared in a column in the Financial Post on Feb. 2. The National Post withdraws any allegation that Dr. Weiss is a global warming "denier" and regrets the embarrassment caused him by the Feb. 2 column and a further column on Feb. 9."

when in doubt Simple... just check Sourcewatch

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist for the Financial Post, the National Post, and the managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation. [1] He is also a climate change skeptic and authored a book titled, "The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud," [2] which is based on a series of articles he wrote for the National Post. [3]

Solomon writes in his book "The Deniers" that "As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." Richard Littlemore criticized Solomon for not making clear that the people profiled in the book believe that humans cause global warming, "they just argue about tiny bits of science that even the IPCC admits remain unsettled. ... Neither does Solomon acknowledge the complaints that he has received (and rebuffed) from legitimate scientists whose work he has misrepresented." [4]

Solomon was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank.[5]

New Scientist criticized Solomon's assertion, in a June 7, 2008, column, that carbon dioxide is "nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients." Solomon also warned that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could lead to "food production dropping worldwide." However, the magazine points out, Solomon is misrepresenting a 2004 study that concluded that "the change in biomass" over two decades "is largely due to sunnier days in the Amazon and nothing to do with any 'life-giving nutrients' in CO2 or anything else." [6]

yesindeedee, Simple... as you say, slowly but surely, the lazy dishonest journalists are being exposed for what they truly are. There's certainly no shortage of critical attachment to Solomon's writings... would you like... more... Simple? It seems we've had a recent rash of like Solomon spewing from the usual suspects - apparently... it has something to do with the recent British HOC exoneration of CRU and Phil Jones - go figure!

[waldo]

hey Simple... as you say, here's a little more of that starting to pay attention to the "other" side

the latest crock video - enjoy!

[Michael Hardner]

I feel that this thread is going to just be an echo of the other one.

[Bonam]

Aren't they all?

[waldo]

I feel that this thread is going to just be an echo of the other one.

Aren't they all?

now... if yours is a lament to the lack of rarefied intellectualism, then raise the bar, oh damning overseers

alternatively, if you genuinely wonder, as did I, why this OP warranted a new thread...

[Michael Hardner]

now... if yours is a lament to the lack of rarefied intellectualism, then raise the bar, oh damning overseers

alternatively, if you genuinely wonder, as did I, why this OP warranted a new thread...

Generally, this discussion has developed to the point where it's kind of an intellectual ping-pong with a couple of teams of 2 or 3. I for one appreciate it, especially when the parties stick to the facts.

I'm learning a lot from both sides, especially about latest developments. Ultimately, it has given me more faith in the science, but less faith in the scientists. And, as ever, the biggest problem is in communicating what is happening.

I appreciate your posts on this topic, Waldo, Shady et al.

[Shady]

Generally, this discussion has developed to the point where it's kind of an intellectual ping-pong

I agree, except for the intellectual part. Waldo's modus operandi is to denounce and attack any anti-AGW reference or scholar. Apparently in waldo's world, there isn't a single honest scientist in the entire world that disagrees, even slightly, with AGW. It's really difficult to have any real discussion with someone who's that radical, and that opposed to anything that counters their belief.

[waldo]

:lol: Shady holding court on "intellectual prowess"!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Apparently in waldo's world, there isn't a single honest scientist in the entire world that disagrees, even slightly, with AGW.

And in your world there is not a single honest scientist who supports it, to you it's all some big conspiracy.

[Pliny]

And in your world there is not a single honest scientist who supports it, to you it's all some big conspiracy.

Although global warming may be true, as the temperature has risen 1 degree over the last century, it has not been proven if this is an anthropogenic or natural cyclic event.

If it were proven that climate change were not anthropogenic should we do anything in the natural warming and cooling cycle?

So all waldo has is that there is some global warming. I suggest, in order for waldo to escape the upcoming calamity he predicts that he buy some lunar real estate and in the meantime promote NASA.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Although global warming may be true, as the temperature has risen 1 degree over the last century, it has not been proven if this anthropogenic or a a natural cyclic event.

Even if it were proven that climate change were anthropogenic what would we do, or should we do anything, in the natural warming and cooling cycle?

The cycles are largely known, and there will never be proof of anthropogenic cause.

There isn't much more we could ask for in terms of evidence, without being in a situation where it's too late to respond, which it may already be.

So all waldo has is that there is some global warming. I suggest, in order for waldo to escape the upcoming calamity he predicts he buy some lunar real estate and in the meantime promote NASA.

We can set the bar so as to never do anything until the sky has actually fallen, I suppose.

[waldo]

Although global warming may be true, as the temperature has risen 1 degree over the last century, it has not been proven if this is an anthropogenic or natural cyclic event.

If it were proven that climate change were not anthropogenic should we do anything in the natural warming and cooling cycle?

So all waldo has is that there is some global warming. I suggest, in order for waldo to escape the upcoming calamity he predicts that he buy some lunar real estate and in the meantime promote NASA.

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon. With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

[bloodyminded]

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon. With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

If the right-wing pundits and bloggers were to suddenly have a change of heart and get on board...there would be wide acceptance among the current naysayers.

And no, I'm not kidding, much less exaggerating.

[Bonam]

With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

Can't resist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

[waldo]

Can't resist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

perfect! To which all Pliny needs to do is respond in defining his criteria for a proven proof... what observations, what evidence would Pliny consider as a "proven proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

[Pliny]

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

I believe that the mean temperature has risen over the last century by a degree. It shows a slight downward trend right now though.

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

I think the science claims it has.

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Science attributes it to mankind. Funny but as we progress through time and a slight downward trend should not be happening.

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon. With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

The theory of AGW climate change is based upon reams of data attempting to prove a premise true and not prove the factual existence of anything. It isn't about correct observation it is about aligning data to fit a theory. It's sort of like someone told you the earth was round so you went and collected the reams of data and all the authoritative proclamations that that concept was wrong and ignored all the contrary data.

I resent the demagogic fear-mongering that surrounds Climate Change. There is too much evidence that the science is politically tainted. Politicians have too much of a proclivity to fear-monger for their own aggrandizement or to push the agenda of their political masters.

It seems you easily see big oil's influence in countering climate change but political influence to you is invisible. And it seems the scientists most involved with collecting the data are more political than scientific.

So what's proof to me. If things are getting warmer because of levels of CO2 being anthropomorphically generated let's take advantage and cut our heating costs for awhile and we also won't generate as much CO2. If science has proven CO2 creates global warming perhaps we are on our way to controlling our climate. I do know it is idiotic to take political-economic steps that are entirely about resolving political problems and accomplish nothing regarding the scientific problem. Or that steps taken to intentionally change/reverse any climate change would be idiotic. WE could reduce our production of CO2. Why don't we just let science do that - WITHOUT political interference. Do you feel the issue has to be made political or nothing will get done?

If so, you admit to a political influence in the science. You're arguments aren't really about the science, you are well convinced by science, they are about the politics and moving the agenda along as fast as possible.

[Pliny]

We can set the bar so as to never do anything until the sky has actually fallen, I suppose.

What are you going to do if the sky is falling, Michael. Do we have the technology to stop the sky from falling? Should we invent sky-falling preventative measures?

We are talking about climate change. For some reason there is a concern to reverse a change in the climate. We all want to reduce the amount of garbage we produce. Let's just do that. Heck, we are trying to do that. Should we run around the chicken coop stirring up fear while we are doing that? Or maybe we can bring in the fox who will provide a solution for us - can you imagine his solutions?

[Michael Hardner]

What are you going to do if the sky is falling, Michael. Do we have the technology to stop the sky from falling? Should we invent sky-falling preventative measures?

Maybe. But it sounds like you're responding to fear-mongering with brute resistance to do anything, rather than counter the fear-mongering.

[waldo]

So what's proof to me. If things are getting warmer because of levels of CO2 being anthropomorphically generated let's take advantage and cut our heating costs for awhile and we also won't generate as much CO2. If science has proven CO2 creates global warming perhaps we are on our way to controlling our climate. I do know it is idiotic to take political-economic steps that are entirely about resolving political problems and accomplish nothing regarding the scientific problem. Or that steps taken to intentionally change/reverse any climate change would be idiotic. WE could reduce our production of CO2. Why don't we just let science do that - WITHOUT political interference. Do you feel the issue has to be made political or nothing will get done?

If so, you admit to a political influence in the science. You're arguments aren't really about the science, you are well convinced by science, they are about the politics and moving the agenda along as fast as possible.

you didn't answer the questions:

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon.

With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

[Shady]

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period. Cue jeopardy theme.....now!

[waldo]

Maybe. But it sounds like you're responding to fear-mongering with brute resistance to do anything, rather than counter the fear-mongering.

which presumes one accepts your premise that dealing in consensus science and offering projections, projections that run the gamut of risk assessment, constitutes "fear mongering".

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period. Cue jeopardy theme.....now!

Who cares it still needs to be shown it was a global event rather than a isolated one before it is relevant.

[waldo]

I'm still waiting for the AGW true-believers to explain the causes of the medieval warm period. Cue jeopardy theme.....now!

should we put up a post to refresh your recall on the outstanding MWP questions you refuse to answer... by the way, you left us hanging... advising you were fact gathering - building a wealth of information to respond with. How many more weeks (nay months) will you keep us in suspense!

btw, should I also quote the questions you also refuse to answer in relation to your much "Shady ballyhooed" Science Daily linked article... the article you claimed was "all I need" to put the nail into the AGW climate change theory coffin. Lil buddy, you can run - you can't hide - (gentle reminder #7... would you like another teaser clue?)

[bloodyminded]

which presumes one accepts your premise that dealing in consensus science and offering projections, projections that run the gamut of risk assessment, constitutes "fear mongering".

I read it more as a "even by the 'sceptics' own standards, the argument seems dubious" method of argumentation.