Climate Science 101

[Michael Hardner]

Are we starting to know less and less about more and more? Europe is getting a lesson in economics right now.

I have thought about metrics around things like knowledge, relative happiness, civic participation and so on as a measure of how healthy a society is. Economic knowledge - general knowledge of what it's supposed to do - would be at the top of the pyramid.

[dre]

Really ? From an environmental standpoint, I would think that they're beneficial. Why ?

- Bigger entities have more power to enact change

- Thin margins make them more susceptible to public opinion

- Economies of scale means more efficient use of energy

See Wal Mart's Wiki for examples.

The problem with that is that Walmart is notorious for pressuring its suppliers to move their operations to countries with the lowest labor and environmental standards possible. They also heavily encourage the non-durable paradigm, where you keep buying the same stuff over and over again, buy offering a lot of low quality products at rock bottom prices... the idea being "who cares if I have to replace my DVD player every year, its only $15!!!"

[Pliny]

The problem with that is that Walmart is notorious for pressuring its suppliers to move their operations to possible.

Countries with the lowest labor and environmental standards need work. It's called redistributing the wealth.

It will take awhile for them to reach our standard of living but if they work hard they can do it.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I have thought about metrics around things like knowledge, relative happiness, civic participation and so on as a measure of how healthy a society is. Economic knowledge - general knowledge of what it's supposed to do - would be at the top of the pyramid.

All you need to know about economics today is that the government needs to deliver entitlements to the citizens. Things that every citizen needs -food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.

[RNG]

All you need to know about economics today is that the government needs to deliver entitlements to the citizens. Things that every citizen needs -food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.

The death knell of civilization as we know it. Look at France right now. They are so screwed.

[lukin]

The science about man made global warming is far from settled. Anyone interested in understanding that the science is far from settled need to read `The Deniers`by Lawrence Solomon. It`s a great book.

[Michael Hardner]

All you need to know about economics today is that the government needs to deliver entitlements to the citizens. Things that every citizen needs -food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.

The government needs to do this ? Is that your assessment or the government's assessment ? Do you agree with this need ?

[Michael Hardner]

The science about man made global warming is far from settled. Anyone interested in understanding that the science is far from settled need to read `The Deniers`by Lawrence Solomon. It`s a great book.

It will never be 100% settled, just as scientific facts are never understood 100%. Science is built on doubt and discussion.

That said, by any measure we have consensus on human caused warming.

The time has come to discuss what - if anything - to do. See other thread.

[waldo]

The science about man made global warming is far from settled. Anyone interested in understanding that the science is far from settled need to read `The Deniers`by Lawrence Solomon. It`s a great book.

hey lukin, what's that book about - anyway?

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!

[lukin]

hey lukin, what's that book about - anyway?

[/indent]

when in doubt Simple... just check Sourcewatch

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!

Your post is useless. Who from Greenpeace wrote the article you pasted? You're being duped waldo. Though, I'm not surprised. There's no doubt the green lobby is a powerful one. They can easily fool puppets like you.

[waldo]

Your post is useless. Who from Greenpeace wrote the article you pasted? You're being duped waldo. Though, I'm not surprised. There's no doubt the green lobby is a powerful one. They can easily fool puppets like you.

sorry to burst your bubble... ya, ya, noted denier Lawrence Solomon writes a book titled Deniers - yet not one... not one... of the 10 scientists he profiled is a denier of AGW. That's fraud lukin, that's fraud you're perpetuating. Did you just ignore the reference to the apology the National Post was forced to print?

[Michael Hardner]

sorry to burst your bubble... ya, ya, noted denier Lawrence Solomon writes a book titled Deniers - yet not one... not one... of the 10 scientists he profiled is a denier of AGW. That's fraud lukin, that's fraud you're perpetuating. Did you just ignore the reference to the apology the National Post was forced to print?

Though I do criticize your style, I must admit that in some cases - outright ridicule is sometimes called for.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[waldo]

lukin - you're nothing more than a parrot, you clearly have difficulty with even the most basic concepts - you beak-off about settled science and doomsday scenarios while not having a clue - any clue - not even a reference point, to understand the recognized and accepted uncertainties. As I mentioned, not one of those original 10 scientists profiled in Solomon's National Post article series deny AGW climate change - not one. 3 of the 10 are described as publicly denouncing what Solomon wrote... what the NP carried - one of those took it as far as seeking legal recourse... causing the NP to retract the article and offer a written apology. This is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

hockey stick theory? What's that? You absolutely have no clue... that you continue to reference Wegman shows you're not even in the game. I threw you a link a few weeks back showing the ongoing investigative work done concerning the 'Wegman Report'... the allegations of plagiarism and purposeful distortion and deceipt... of the academic investigation (currently in process). Even without the discredited Wegman aspect, when it all comes back to a decade old issue, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) sided with Mann... quite literally dozens of reconstructions have been done in the follow-up decade (several more just in recent months) - each and every one of them has brought forward support of the original Mann 'hockey-stick' reconstruction results. This is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

of course, your continued beak-off targets Gore's movie. If you actually channeled even a smallish segment of your vitriol into reading unbiased review/critique of that movie, you'd understand there are very few mistakes within it - that overall, the science within the movie is well captured and presented in relation to the accepted consensus views. Your obvious difficulty is in accepting the consensus views... this is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

[lukin]

sorry to burst your bubble... ya, ya, noted denier Lawrence Solomon writes a book titled Deniers - yet not one... not one... of the 10 scientists he profiled is a denier of AGW. That's fraud lukin, that's fraud you're perpetuating. Did you just ignore the reference to the apology the National Post was forced to print?

Actually if you read the book, you would realize that the scientists he mentions all have raised serious questions with claims made by scientists preaching human-caused climate change. They don't "deny" that humans aren't causing climate change, they question some of the aspects of AGW that seem to be false.

For instance Dr. Christopher Landsea questioned whether human actions were causing stronger hurricanes. He doesn't think they are.

Dr. Edward Wegman and Stephen McIntyre questioned the hockey stick theory. The hockey stick theory of Michael Mann was full of inaccuracies.

The list of scientists who have argued against the doomsday scenarios of the "sky is falling scientists" is growing. Many of these scientists have debunked many of the fallacious claims made in Al Gore's mockumentary.

The NP offered an apology with regards to one scientist in the book, Nigel Weiss. The other scientists have found holes the positions of the likes of Al Gore.

As for fraud, read the book and tell me what's fraudulent. Waldo, you can't just rely on your Greenpeace buddies to give you quotes to post on this website. Read something before offering hollow quotes. it makes you look like an ass.

Anyone who relies on Sourcewatch for facts is obviously out to lunch. Back to the Rainforest Action Network conference call, waldo. They'll be able to tell you what to say next.

Edited October 23, 2010 by lukin

[Slim]

Though I do criticize your style, I must admit that in some cases - outright ridicule is sometimes called for.

Oh I know. I find myself looking for waldo's posts just to see him ream the crap out of people.

[lukin]

The Green Lobby is powerful. Billions of dollars have been given to scientists from governments to write convincingly that ghgs are causing climate change. These scientists either find what they are told to find, or they have their funding cut. With the media on side with the doompreachers, it's easy to see how the mass population has been brainwashed, without thinking critically, that humans aren't causing ghgs. Many scientists who know that climate change is 99.99% natural keep their opinions to themselves to avoid repercussions from the powerful green lobby. Freedom of speech is rare in this debate.

Anyone who wants to know how and why this debate got started need to read "The Real Global Warming Disaster" by Christopher Booker.

All need to research the impact Maurice Strong has had in this situation. It will answer many questions.

And finally, waldo, you still haven't told me what you do on a personal level to combat climate change. It's a simple question that you can't answer.

[Pliny]

Pliny: All you need to know about economics today is that the government needs to deliver entitlements to the citizens. Things that every citizen needs -food, clothing, shelter, health care and education.

The government needs to do this ? Is that your assessment or the government's assessment ? Do you agree with this need ?

It's my assessment of the current frame of mind of the average citizen and what they consider government should be supplying, for now, the poor, but potentially everyone.

It's a rather Pavlovian stimulus-response learning technique. If we bark, we get a treat. This is the learned experience. Soon more and more are barking for their treats without any idea of where they come from, how they get there, who made them, and most don't care - the government has promised them entitlements it is no longer their responsibility to provide for themselves. The promise has been made so buck up.

What people learn, in place of economics, is to appeal to government for their needs. It's the road to tyranny.

[wyly]

Oh I know. I find myself looking for waldo's posts just to see him ream the crap out of people.

it is entertaining watching him engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed...

[Pliny]

And finally, waldo, you still haven't told me what you do on a personal level to combat climate change. It's a simple question that you can't answer.

Better be careful or Waldo may just jet on over in his personal jet from his 20,000 sq.ft. mansion...but naaww....I don't think he has the intestinal fortitude.

His big game is debunking debunkers and that is all that ever occurs. His debunkers debunk debunkers of AGW and then when more evidence of a political/economic, and not a purely scientific, argument leaks to the surface he's there putting his finger in the hole, with his army of debunkers debunking debunkers.

The dyke is about to burst and Waldo is trying to plug all the holes. He is running out of fingers though.

[Pliny]

lukin - you're nothing more than a parrot, you clearly have difficulty with even the most basic concepts - you beak-off about settled science and doomsday scenarios while not having a clue - any clue - not even a reference point, to understand the recognized and accepted uncertainties. As I mentioned, not one of those original 10 scientists profiled in Solomon's National Post article series deny AGW climate change - not one. 3 of the 10 are described as publicly denouncing what Solomon wrote... what the NP carried - one of those took it as far as seeking legal recourse... causing the NP to retract the article and offer a written apology. This is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

hockey stick theory? What's that? You absolutely have no clue... that you continue to reference Wegman shows you're not even in the game. I threw you a link a few weeks back showing the ongoing investigative work done concerning the 'Wegman Report'... the allegations of plagiarism and purposeful distortion and deceipt... of the academic investigation (currently in process). Even without the discredited Wegman aspect, when it all comes back to a decade old issue, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) sided with Mann... quite literally dozens of reconstructions have been done in the follow-up decade (several more just in recent months) - each and every one of them has brought forward support of the original Mann 'hockey-stick' reconstruction results. This is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

of course, your continued beak-off targets Gore's movie. If you actually channeled even a smallish segment of your vitriol into reading unbiased review/critique of that movie, you'd understand there are very few mistakes within it - that overall, the science within the movie is well captured and presented in relation to the accepted consensus views. Your obvious difficulty is in accepting the consensus views... this is nothing new - so... you beak-off a lot!

I wouldn't mention parroting too much, Waldo. All you do is parrot your favourite sources....oh, and they are the only ones that are credible scientists with peer reveiwed backing. All others are discredited, by guess who...your favourite sources.

If anything is melting, and GHWB said it best, "it is the economy, stupid". And I think you will find less and less interest and concern with the somewhat undetermined theory of AGW. Funding will be gone because of that and perhaps that fact more than anything else will reveal the truth about it, be it yay or nay.

You, yourself have no clue.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

it is entertaining watching him engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed...

The Great Spectator has spoken.

If he used any "wits" he would realize the parrot he is. He has no credibility, as do most skeptics, because he relies entirely on what he reads from others and parrots it as reasons why the there is no room for debate without ever having looked himself.

It is rather impossible to argue with someone who argues no one can really be right but you are wrong.

[lukin]

The Great Spectator has spoken.

If he used any "wits" he would realize the parrot he is. He has no credibility, as do most skeptics, because he relies entirely on what he reads from others and parrots it as reasons why the there is no room for debate without ever having looked himself.

It is rather impossible to argue with someone who argues no one can really be right but you are wrong.

It's a waste of time trying to have a debate with a sock puppet.

[Slim]

Well of course he's going to cite sources, guys. If he didn't, you would all just dismiss him for having nothing to back up his claims.

And really, none of us are climate scientists, so we HAVE to rely on studies done by experts. That's what waldo's doing. And doing it very, very well. I have yet to see any of his points properly refuted.

[lukin]

The Great Spectator has spoken.

If he used any "wits" he would realize the parrot he is. He has no credibility, as do most skeptics, because he relies entirely on what he reads from others and parrots it as reasons why the there is no room for debate without ever having looked himself.

It is rather impossible to argue with someone who argues no one can really be right but you are wrong.

The thing with wyly is she believes that we humans are doomed if we continue our current ways. Yet she brags about her European vacation in which she had to hop on an evil carbon-emitting jet to arrive at her destination. That's why these doompreachers can't be taken seriously.

And waldo is nothing more than an expert at copying and pasting.

[Pliny]

Well of course he's going to cite sources, guys. If he didn't, you would all just dismiss him for having nothing to back up his claims.

And really, none of us are climate scientists, so we HAVE to rely on studies done by experts. That's what waldo's doing. And doing it very, very well. I have yet to see any of his points properly refuted.

I have yet to see his refutations actually refute something effectively.

The Solomon publications are an example. He says they are fraudulent. Where are all the lawsuits? Because one of the scientists demanded a retraction, and got it, does not refute the whole body of work. The same as a CRU e-mail does not refute the whole body of work on climate science. It does add in the factor that there is some definite political interference in the science and perhaps further and future scrutiny is necessary.

The fact is that certain things aren't adding up and certain politicians are eager to have legislation enacted that would benefit them and change the economic structure of the globe with all it's inherent turmoil. If anything Waldo should be condemning Al Gore for muddying the waters of the scientific debate but oddly Al Gore is his hero.

This is not a scientific debate here. Waldo likes to throw up his cut and paste arguments as though the argument is about science. It isn't, that argument is for scientists. The real debate here is a concern for the planet. There is such fervor and eagerness, especially from politicians to promote the sky is falling, and demand we carry visions of a dying planet around in our heads while some rub their hands together and smack their lips.

Of course, waldo is never 100% right and doesn't claim to be. He is only 95% right or maybe 51% right but however right he is you are wrong 100%. Twenty years from now he will be arguing that the anthropogenic global warming data wasn't real science and those scientists have been effectively discredited. The same as the scientists that predicted the coming ice age in the sixties. The fact remains there was no shortage of politicians and "environmentalists" promoting the ice-age theories and looking to enact solutions regardless of whether the science was correct or not. Should we have erred on the side of caution and started powdering the polar ice caps with black ash to warm things up?

So in conclusion, waldo's arguments are a ruse. A straw man to focus attention on. As though the debate is really about the science. So waldo let's say you're right 99.9%, where do we go form here? Do you have a nice den somewhere that can accommodate all of us or maybe just a few intellectuals and the dull masses may have to be sacrificed.