PDA

View Full Version : AGW Alarmists should not fly first class


Pages : [1] 2

Chief Pedant
11-14-2009, 10:18 AM
If one takes the position that AGW is real and that "we"--mankind--should do "something" about it, one has accepted a premise of responsibility to a greater good. Having accepted that premise constrains one to either acting according to the premise of responsibility or else acting hypocritically.

I hold that no AGW alarmist who is also of the opinion that there is some sort of larger responsibility to change our individual and collective behaviour can be consistent to their construct without substantial--indeed, near-draconian--changes in their personal lifestyle.

As the perp for the thread comparing Mr Gore's Nobel for AGW alarmism to conferring a Nobel for Domestic Safety upon a wife-beater who establishes domestic abuse shelters, I admit to coming to this debate with a bias.

However I am curious about what defenses AGW alarmists might mount for a specific proof case of hypocrisy: flying first class if it is your sincere belief that AGW is a serious problem and we should do something about it. As always with any (dare I say it?) Religion or Great Cause, the devil is in the details of behaviour in determining what we truly Believe.

I'm not interested in covering Mr Gore's behaviour in particular--I've mocked that elsewhere. I'm interested in a defense of this particular case example, since as a frequent flyer I see no benefit to first class other than a fairly trivial addition to my personal comfort and convenience, and since it comes at a cost of contributing to global warming.

Finagle
11-14-2009, 10:23 AM
I'm confused. How does a first class passenger have a larger carbon footprint than the mooks back in steerage? The extra energy to heat the hot towels?

Unless you're willing to argue that the airlines are going to trash the first class section and put more dense seating up front, you could equally well argue that first class passengers are doing a public service by filling (expensive) seats that would otherwise be vacant and wasted. So they're actually taking one for the team.

Broomstick
11-14-2009, 10:31 AM
First of all, I think I've figured out that the "GW" part of "AGW" is global warming, but it would be helpful if at some point you made it crystal clear what your acronyms stand for.

Second - for extreme long distances, and overseas travel would qualify, flight is arguably more efficient that some other modes of transport, particularly if the aircraft is filled to capacity. So it's not just a matter of "flight=bad" but that you have to look at the particulars of any one flight to determine if it is the least damaging mode of transport for the purpose.

Squink
11-14-2009, 10:51 AM
No one should listen to silly moralizers.

Blake
11-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Second - for extreme long distances, and overseas travel would qualify, flight is arguably more efficient that some other modes of transport, particularly if the aircraft is filled to capacity. So it's not just a matter of "flight=bad" but that you have to look at the particulars of any one flight to determine if it is the least damaging mode of transport for the purpose.

Nobody is arguing that flight is bad. Issue is first class flight. Because of the extra large seats and extra leg room, first class flight means that the aircraft can not be filled to capacity. So it seems that you agree.

Of course Gore's standard defence is that he offets his huge fossil fuel usage by investing in other schemes. IOW despite declaring that this is a moral problem, he believes he can buy his way out of any dilemma. As for those who aren't well connected multi-millionaires, they just have to suffer fro their sins. Your analogy to a wife beater setting u a shelter seems very apt. Despite the fact that anyone beating anyone is immoral, he believes that if he helps out 10 other beaten wife, that offsets the immorality of his personal actions.

Oregon sunshine
11-14-2009, 10:59 AM
A= Anthropogenic

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 11:02 AM
Is air travel even a significant contributor to CO2?

And besides; there presently isn't any good alternative to petrochemical burning engines for long range flight. As opposed to power plants and cars, which do have such alternatives. So it's not really a good example; point out a person outspoken on AGW who drives a gas guzzler and you'd have a better point. Although the only point you'd have is that some people are self indulgent hypocrites, which isn't exactly news. And it doesn't work at all as an argument against the existence of AGW, which I suspect is the actual motivation of the OP. Rather like the people who bash Darwin and Dawkins in an attempt to discredit evolution.

Captain Amazing
11-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Nobody is arguing that flight is bad. Issue is first class flight. Because of the extra large seats and extra leg room, first class flight means that the aircraft can not be filled to capacity. So it seems that you agree.

Right, and if first class flight were gotten rid of, airline travel would probably be more energy efficient. But the question comes up then as to what degree an individual can accomplish meaningful change through his personal actions. If I, Al Gore, choose to fly coach instead of first class, the first class seats will still be on the airplane, and still be preventing the plane to be filled from capacity. In fact, since it's more likely for the coach seats to be filled on a plane than the first class seats, my sitting in coach rather than first class means that it's possible that someone who can't afford a first class seat won't be able to take the flight, while first class seats remain empty.

Raygun99
11-14-2009, 11:03 AM
The difference between your analogy and reality is that while you can't unbeat a wife, you can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:04 AM
Der Trihs, for your benefit will repeat: Nobody is arguing that flight is bad. Issue is first class flight. Because of the extra large seats and extra leg room, first class flight means that the aircraft can not be filled to capacity. So it seems that you agree.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Al Gore is a hypocrite. Hence, his adherence to the global warming proposition is suspect. We may therefore be assured that global warming is not really an issue, since its most famous public proponent has moral failings. Got it. Thanks.

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 11:08 AM
Der Trihs, for your benefit will repeat: Nobody is arguing that flight is bad. Issue is first class flight. Because of the extra large seats and extra leg room, first class flight means that the aircraft can not be filled to capacity. So it seems that you agree.Not until you can show that it makes a significant difference.

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:10 AM
If I, Al Gore, choose to fly coach instead of first class, the first class seats will still be on the airplane, and still be preventing the plane to be filled from capacity.

Ahh right. And since the TV has already been stolen I may as well buy it from that crackhead, because me not buying it won't return it to the owner.

Morality doesn't work that way, does it?

When you declare something to be a moral issue, as Mr. Gore so loudly does, you can't make these sorts of rationalistions, because morality isn't rational. Either financially supporting needless contribiutions to CO2 levels is immoral, as Gore clams, or it is not. Trying to rationalise that the TV set has already been stolen or that somebody else would buy the ticket is just that: rationalisation.

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:11 AM
Not until you can show that it makes a significant difference.

Are you saying that you don't believe that we could fit more passengers on a plane without first class?

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 11:18 AM
That I am aware of, there is no suggestion on the table to change anything to do with the aeronautic industry in regards to global warming. Nor is there any suggestion on the table, in fact, for individuals to change their day-to-day life at all. Anything else would be stupid. Moving the economy towards nuclear energy, upgrading the power grid to be more efficient, etc. these things have nothing to do with the individual and how he goes about his day. Intimating anything else isn't even dishonest, it's just plain off stupid. Why the heck would anyone think that a guy saying that we'd do better with nuclear energy is a hypocrite if he doesn't plant trees on the weekend? What do these things have to do with one another?

theR
11-14-2009, 11:28 AM
Are you saying that you don't believe that we could fit more passengers on a plane without first class?

Maybe you should clear up what you are actually advocating?

To fit more people into first class, you either need to convert the existing plane or get a plane that has no first class seats to begin with. Either of those processes certainly would use energy to be accomplished, so it seems you would need to show that the energy usage of replacing the first class section would still be a net gain compared to leaving them as first class. Building a whole new plane certainly doesn't seem reasonable or a net savings.

How much energy contributing to AGW would be saved by converting first class seating to economy, if any, and over what time period?

I certainly agree that new planes already slated to be produced would be more efficient without a first class section, but converting existing planes may not actually be worth it. It also is possible that net efficiency would be better with some amount of first class seating because that prevents rich people from buying their own planes, or that no first class seats anywhere would make it harder to fill the planes completely. Extremely unlikely, but consumer behavior can be odd.

Finally, as others have already pointed out, even if there is an advantage to eliminating first class, it's not going to be anywhere near the top of any list regarding cost versus reward in reducing AGW.

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 11:31 AM
Are you saying that you don't believe that we could fit more passengers on a plane without first class?I'm saying that if it won't make a significant difference then it doesn't matter. And therefore even if it's "wrong", it's only an insignificant wrong. Really; if the CO2 omissions of aircraft are such a problem, then the moral position to take would be opposing any kind of unnecessary flight at all; not making a tiny, basically symbolic change that will make no real difference.

In other words; the complaint seems to be that Gore isn't making enough of a spectacle of himself with hollow symbolic gestures of pseudo-self deprivation. That instead he should avoid first class just for the symbolism of doing so; no doubt making speeches about how noble and self sacrificing he is being, while still using CO2 spewing aircraft. Would that make the OP happier?

Patty O'Furniture
11-14-2009, 11:32 AM
Al Gore is a hypocrite. Hence, his adherence to the global warming proposition is suspect. We may therefore be assured that global warming is not really an issue, since its most famous public proponent has moral failings. Got it. Thanks.

Doctors shouldn't smoke, either.

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:36 AM
Nor is there any suggestion on the table, in fact, for individuals to change their day-to-day life at all.

:eek:

Are you seriously saying that you are completely unaware of Gore's suggestions on how individuals should change their day-to-day life?

Why the heck would anyone think that a guy saying that we'd do better with nuclear energy is a hypocrite if he doesn't plant trees on the weekend?

How about a guy saying that individuals should calculate the CO2 impact of their air travel (http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/) and reduce it by taking individual action (http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/), including such trivialities as changing their personal diet, then going on to always fly first class and live in house that uses 20 times more energy than the national average (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp).

Would that be hypocritical?

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:44 AM
I'm saying that if it won't make a significant difference then it doesn't matter. And therefore even if it's "wrong", it's only an insignificant wrong. Really; if the CO2 omissions of aircraft are such a problem, then the moral position to take would be opposing any kind of unnecessary flight at all; not making a tiny, basically symbolic change that will make no real difference.
Gore himself obviously thinks the CO2 emissions of aricraft is significant air travel, else why would he include air travel in his calculator?

And I agree, Gore should be avoiding all unnecessary flight.

And what is your standard of "significant"? Gore obviously thinks that air travel is significant. Isn't that alone sufficient evidence of hypocricy?

In other words; the complaint seems to be that Gore isn't making enough of a spectacle of himself with hollow symbolic gestures of pseudo-self deprivation. That instead he should avoid first class just for the symbolism of doing so; no doubt making speeches about how noble and self sacrificing he is being, while still using CO2 spewing aircraft. Would that make the OP happier?

If I can demonstrate that Gore's recreational and first class air travel produce more CO2 than the choice of light bulb of an average American (which Gore does think is significant and not a hollow gesture) will you admit that he is a hypocrite?

Squink
11-14-2009, 11:48 AM
Doctors shouldn't smoke, either.Nor should Focus on the Family support abortion companies. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/reproductivejustice/143852/focus_on_the_family%27s_insurance_plan_covers_abortion_%28and_other_ironies_of_the_latest_assault_on _choice%29/)

Half Man Half Wit
11-14-2009, 11:52 AM
If one takes the position that AGW is real and that "we"--mankind--should do "something" about it, one has accepted a premise of responsibility to a greater good. Having accepted that premise constrains one to either acting according to the premise of responsibility or else acting hypocritically.
Well, people are hypocrites -- but that's not always a bad thing. You're perfectly right in saying that the only consistent course of action, once one is convinced of AGW's harmfulness, is to do everything within one's power to minimize its impact -- but humans are capable of (sometimes rather shocking amounts of) cognitive dissonance; and, in the right context, that's one of our greatest assets. Just imagine what would happen if we were forced either to act in perfect accordance with what we have determined to be necessary to further our cause, Great or otherwise, or not act at all -- faced with the prospects of giving up cars, homes, lifestyles and other niceties, most people probably will very rapidly come to the conclusion that maybe this whole AGW thing isn't gonna be all that bad anyway and not do anything. Whereas, if permitted some judiciously applied hypocrisy, you can recycle your trash while keeping that shiny new car that perhaps gets a little worse gas mileage than would be optimal; but that way, at least the trash gets recycled! (Not to mention that it's probably not in all cases clear what the 'optimal' course of action is supposed to be, anyway...)

So, in order to further the cause, it's perhaps better for a lot of people to do things half-assedly than for everybody to do fuck all, perhaps even than for a few to become totally committed.

Similarly, Blake is completely right that a wife beater's shelter-building doesn't absolve him of his own immorality; but at the same time, as far as society is concerned, less women are ending up being beaten. That the two measures don't agree doesn't mean that one has to be discarded in favour of the other -- they just measure different things.

hansel
11-14-2009, 11:58 AM
Chief, when you were in university, did you go up to vegetarians and berate them for wearing leather shoes?

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 12:03 PM
And what is your standard of "significant"? Gore obviously thinks that air travel is significant. Isn't that alone sufficient evidence of hypocricy?Not if him choosing to fly first class makes no significant difference. If we are talking about a fraction of a percent difference in something that's only a fraction of a percent of the problem, how significant is that? If it's even that; would him choosing to fly other than first class actually make any difference whatsoever?

You can make a much better argument for him flying at all being hypocritical. Complaining about him taking first class smacks of complaining that he's a hypocrite because he emits extra CO2 by breathing too heavily while he's in that house of his.

If I can demonstrate that Gore's recreational and first class air travel produce more CO2 than the choice of light bulb of an average American (which Gore does think is significant and not a hollow gesture) will you admit that he is a hypocrite?Not the same thing. Light bulbs inevitably make a difference because there are so very many of them. Which is why there was concern about them before AGW hit the radar. There are far more light bulbs being used far more often than there people flying first class, or any class.

And again; if you want to complain, complain about him flying unnecessarily. You mentioned him flying recreationally; I'm quite sure than one of those flights is going to make a bigger difference than what class he flies in.

Is he a hypocrite? Quite likely; political leader generally are. That doesn't make AGW wrong though, nor does he alone make much difference to such a large scale problem. So it's fairly pointless to worry about.

hansel
11-14-2009, 12:08 PM
Let's try this argument: If you believe AGW is real, you must avoid all avoidable increases in your carbon footprint; if you don't, you're a hypocrite. The use of electricity is an avoidable increase in your carbon footprint. The use of manufactured products is an avoidable increase in your carbon footprint. Therefore, Al Gore is a hypocrite because he uses electricity and manufactured products.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 12:08 PM
Are you seriously saying that you are completely unaware of Gore's suggestions on how individuals should change their day-to-day life?
If someone asks what they can do, why wouldn't he answer? It doesn't surprise me to know that he has information on what the individual can do, but that's irrelevant to anything that actually matters. The number of people who are actually going to change the way they live, voluntarily, to help fight AGW is probably less than 1%. The amount that the 1% can actually affect their footprint is probably a tenth of a percent, and those 1% probably only had a footprint that was a hundredth of a percent go begin with. A tenth of a hundredth of 1% of the American carbon footprint is ultimately pointless. And trying to mandate that Americans should live differently than they do is plain off a non-starter.

Al Gore wouldn't be where he is if he was an idiot. If you think that he's relying on individual change as a solution to anything then I would have to seriously wonder how much thought you have put into this.

So like I said, if someone asks me what they can do and won't accept "Vote for me!" as being the end of it, then sure I'm going to tell them to plant trees and sort their trash and whatever else, but in reality all I'm going to care about is getting nuclear energy on the table, optimizing the power grid, updating electronics standards, etc. Those are the things you see actually being proposed for legislation, and not a one relies on the individual.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 12:09 PM
No, no, no! Christ Jesus, you're thick! If Al Gore is a hypocrite, that proves that there is no such thing as global warming! Try and keep up, won't you?

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 12:17 PM
If someone asks what they can do, why wouldn't he answer? It doesn't surprise me to know that he has information on what the individual can do, but that's irrelevant to anything that actually matters. The number of people who are actually going to change the way they live, voluntarily, to help fight AGW is probably less than 1%. The amount that the 1% can actually affect their footprint is probably a tenth of a percent, and those 1% probably only had a footprint that was a hundredth of a percent go begin with. A tenth of a hundredth of 1% of the American carbon footprint is ultimately pointless. I think you are unduly pessimistic. I do think that many, probably eventually most people can be convinced to change their lifestyles in ways that change their carbon footprint. And I do think that they can do so by far more than a "tenth of a percent". Something as simple as buying more efficient cars and lightbulbs would do better than that. I don't think you are going to convince people to live like it's the 19th century, but I don't think people are as obdurate and helpless as you claim.

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:24 PM
Squink, I agree with you. However what you have failed to address is that Gore has repeatedly and loudly stated that this is a moral issue. It's greater than environmental or economic or social. It is a moral issue and demands a moral response. Nobody forced him into a corner on that issue. Of his own free will he adopted the position of a moral crusader.

Doesn't that change things dramatically? Can a moral crusader still be hypocritical on the issue? Can he still engage in realpolitick and say "they just measure different things"?

We all accept that Lincoln would have accepted slavery if that was necessary because he was a military/political campaigner. Could Martin Luther King have said the same thing and retained a shred of credibility or any of your respect? We accept that Washington thought that violence was acceptable in overthrowing tyranny however much he may have despised it, but if Gandhi had said the same thing, would he retain your respect?

My contention here is that once somebody adopts something as a moral and ethical position, rather than environmental or economic, as Gore has done with AGW, then they are necessarily held to a higher standard because they have decided that their conduct on that issue is indicative of their morality. I don't believe that Gandhi was more moral than Washington or that King was more moral than Lincoln, but had they acted in a manner that betrayed their own stated moral position then I would judge them much more harshly.

It seems Gore wants to have the best of both worlds. He wants to take the moral high ground and portray his opponents as unethical, while simultaneously taking the pragmatic route open to purely practical problems. You can measure the mundane world many ways, not so morality. If the man believes it is moral issue then engaging in these actions are either moral or they are not, regardless of what other actions he may also engage in.

This really seems to me to be the modern equivalent of buying indulgences. Sure he knows what he does is immoral, but he's rich so if he spends enough money he believes he can buy his way out of any moral culpability.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 12:28 PM
Something as simple as buying more efficient cars and lightbulbs would do better than that.
How do either of those affect the individuals quality of life? A car is a car and a light bulb is a light bulb. Moving to newer technology without affecting the individual's experience of daily life is exactly the sort of thing that is actually being considered for change.

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:30 PM
Not the same thing. Light bulbs inevitably make a difference because there are so very many of them. Which is why there was concern about them before AGW hit the radar. There are far more light bulbs being used far more often than there people flying first class, or any class.


Ahh so morality is about quantity now is it? It's not immoral to own slaves, so long as you only own one? Is that your point?

Is he a hypocrite? Quite likely; political leader generally are.

But he portrays himself as a moral leader on this subject. Not a political leader.


That doesn't make AGW wrong though..

Has anyone made such an argument?


...nor does he alone make much difference to such a large scale problem. So it's fairly pointless to worry about.


1) He was given a freakin' nobel prize ostensibly because he made such a huge difference to the problem.

2) When the leader of a social movement is hypocrite whose actions contradict his stated position on the issue, that is an issue very much worthwhile worrying about. It calls into question the motives of the entire social movement.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 12:33 PM
....It calls into question the motives of the entire social movement.

Would you mind if we call you "Stretch"? As an honorific nick-name, of course.

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:38 PM
If someone asks what they can do, why wouldn't he answer? It doesn't surprise me to know that he has information on what the individual can do, but that's irrelevant to anything that actually matters. The number of people who are actually going to change the way they live, voluntarily, to help fight AGW is probably less than 1%. The amount that the 1% can actually affect their footprint is probably a tenth of a percent, and those 1% probably only had a footprint that was a hundredth of a percent go begin with. A tenth of a hundredth of 1% of the American carbon footprint is ultimately pointless.

And? I don't see what your point is? Are you arguing that the fact that most American's weren't going to allow blacks equal rights made that morally acceptable? Does morality depend upon numbers now?

And trying to mandate that Americans should live differently than they do is plain off a non-starter.


Yet Gore campaigns ceaselessly for laws and treaties designed to mandate that Americans should live differently than they do. Don;t you find a contradiction there?


Al Gore wouldn't be where he is if he was an idiot. If you think that he's relying on individual change as a solution to anything then I would have to seriously wonder how much thought you have put into this.

I don't think he's relying on that. I think he's relying on selling this as amoral issue, a Great Cause as the OP says. Yet he either doesn't believe that or is hypocritical as it applies to him.


So like I said, if someone asks me what they can do and won't accept "Vote for me!" as being the end of it, then sure I'm going to tell them to plant trees and sort their trash and whatever else, but in reality all I'm going to care about is getting nuclear energy on the table, optimizing the power grid, updating electronics standards, etc. Those are the things you see actually being proposed for legislation, and not a one relies on the individual.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is? Gore is telling others they should do things to address amoral problem that have less impact than what he himself is prepared to do. Isn't that hypocricy regardless of the impact? Once again, I can't wrap my head around this idea of numerical morality.

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:39 PM
Would you mind if we call you "Stretch"? As an honorific nick-name, of course.

Only if we get to call you Thicky. As an honorific nick-name, of course.

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 12:40 PM
Ahh so morality is about quantity now is it? It's not immoral to own slaves, so long as you only own one? Is that your point?A silly comparison. Owning one slave is wrong because owning slaves AT ALL is wrong. Emitting excess CO2 is wrong because there's too much of the stuff and because of the effects it is having; not because emitting any CO2 at all is wrong or because it's gaseous evil.

Has anyone made such an argument?It's pretty much implied. Otherwise why bother to bash Gore?

1) He was given a freakin' nobel prize ostensibly because he made such a huge difference to the problem. < shrug > And Kissinger was given a Peace Prize. The non-scientific Nobel Prizes have been a joke for a long time.

2) When the leader of a social movement is hypocrite whose actions contradict his stated position on the issue, that is an issue very much worthwhile worrying about. It calls into question the motives of the entire social movement.Except that he's either right or wrong regardless of his personal behavior, and regardless of his motives. Are you suggesting we should fry the planet out of spite if he's a hypocrite? "We may be living in a post apocalyptic wasteland, but we sure showed Al Gore!"

How do either of those affect the individuals quality of life? A car is a car and a light bulb is a light bulb. Moving to newer technology without affecting the individual's experience of daily life is exactly the sort of thing that is actually being considered for change.But those are on the individual level, which you said wouldn't work.

Captain Amazing
11-14-2009, 12:41 PM
When you declare something to be a moral issue, as Mr. Gore so loudly does, you can't make these sorts of rationalistions, because morality isn't rational.

It's not a question of morality, but of practicality. If the idea is to reduce carbon emissions, then you need to take the practical actions that will do that.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 12:45 PM
Only if we get to call you Thicky. As an honorific nick-name, of course.

Beats "Luci". Knock yourself out.

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 12:47 PM
:eek:

Are you seriously saying that you are completely unaware of Gore's suggestions on how individuals should change their day-to-day life?



How about a guy saying that individuals should calculate the CO2 impact of their air travel (http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/) and reduce it by taking individual action (http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/), including such trivialities as changing their personal diet, then going on to always fly first class and live in house that uses 20 times more energy than the national average (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp).

Would that be hypocritical?No. He has a big house. It certainly costs more to heat it than a conventional home. Also, he's got a staff that work out of it and purchases renewable energy when possible. He isn't advocating that you live in a hut. He's advocating that you make the painless changes that you can to assist the overall effort.

Seriously, doesn't it bother the AGW-Deniers that all they can come up with to argue against AGW is pathetic personal attacks that wouldn't even show anything if they were true?

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:52 PM
A silly comparison. Owning one slave is wrong because owning slaves AT ALL is wrong. Emitting excess CO2 is wrong because there's too much of the stuff and because of the effects it is having; not because emitting any CO2 at all is wrong or because it's gaseous evil.

:confused:

I have no idea what this is meant to mean. Are you arguing that if Gore realeses CO2 then that won't contribute to the problem? That it won't mean there is more than if he had not added it?

It's pretty much implied. Otherwise why bother to bash Gore?

For precisely the same reason that you ceasely bash religions my friend. An individual or group declares an issue to be one of morality, tries to grab the moral high ground and to dictate the lives of others based on their own stated moral position. Why wouldn't we scrutinise their own behaviour on the issue and bash them if it is hypocritical?

The non-scientific Nobel Prizes have been a joke for a long time.

So you are arguing that Gore has had an insignificant effect on this issue?

Except that he's either right or wrong regardless of his personal behavior, and regardless of his motives.

No, that's a classic false dilemma. He could easily be right on the facts and wrong on the morality, or vice versa, or neither, or both.

Are you suggesting we should fry the planet out of spite if he's a hypocrite? "We may be living in a post apocalyptic wasteland, but we sure showed Al Gore!"

Where did you get all that straw? Where did anyone suggest anything remotely like that?

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 12:55 PM
But those are on the individual level, which you said wouldn't work.
Those aren't the individual level. The individual has done nothing different from what he did yesterday. He needed a light bulb. He went out and bought a light bulb. He screwed the light bulb in its socket. It shone light just as much as the last light bulb did.


The infrastructure for how money turns into light has changed, but nothing has changed for the individual.

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:56 PM
No. He has a big house.

No he has three big houses and flies private jets.

It certainly costs more to heat it than a conventional home.

Right 20 times more. So what do you mean when you say "No". You odnt; seem to actually dispute the facts that I presented.


Also, he's got a staff that work out of it and purchases renewable energy when possible.

Like I said, indulgences. He knows it is immoral, but he is rich so he can indulge in the immoral behaviour by spending money. Or as the OP said, he's beating his wife and building shelters.

He isn't advocating that you live in a hut. He's advocating that you make the painless changes that you can to assist the overall effort.

More to the point, he is saying that I am immoral and unethical if I do not.

More nonsense from another AGW patsy and Gore apologist.

Lamar Mundane
11-14-2009, 12:57 PM
Squink, I agree with you. However what you have failed to address is that Gore has repeatedly and loudly stated that this is a moral issue. It's greater than environmental or economic or social. It is a moral issue and demands a moral response. Nobody forced him into a corner on that issue. Of his own free will he adopted the position of a moral crusader.

Doesn't that change things dramatically? Can a moral crusader still be hypocritical on the issue? Can he still engage in realpolitick and say "they just measure different things"?



Three quarters of Catholics use birth control. 40% approve of abortion and 63% approve of stem cell research. Of course people are hypocritical on moral issues. Look at Carrie Prejean. Look at all the lies told by Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman on a regular basis.

I'm amazed that people keep trotting out this tired and useless cliche. Do they really think they have a valid point?

Guess what, I live near the place that houses possibly the most dense population of climate scientists in the world, and do you know what? They drive cars to work, only a few ride bicycles. They all live in houses, not tents. The labs use electric lights and gas heat. They're all such hypocrits!

Therefore, what, exactly?

Blake
11-14-2009, 12:58 PM
The infrastructure for how money turns into light has changed, but nothing has changed for the individual.

How about the cost? 12c for an incandescent globe vs $5 for a fluorescent/LED?

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 01:04 PM
:confused:

I have no idea what this is meant to mean. Are you arguing that if Gore realeses CO2 then that won't contribute to the problem? That it won't mean there is more than if he had not added it?:rolleyes: I am - obviously - pointing out that the problem is too much CO2; that CO2 is not intrinsically evil like slavery. So your comparison between the two was silly.

For precisely the same reason that you ceasely bash religions my friend. An individual or group declares an issue to be one of morality, tries to grab the moral high ground and to dictate the lives of others based on their own stated moral position. Why wouldn't we scrutinise their own behaviour on the issue and bash them if it is hypocritical?It's not their hypocrisy that makes them so dangerous; considering that their basic positions are often evil or crazy, hypocrisy is often an improvement. Their problem is that they are wrong.

So you are arguing that Gore has had an insignificant effect on this issue?You talked about his Nobel Prize, not how much effect he had.

No, that's a classic false dilemma. He could easily be right on the facts and wrong on the morality, or vice versa, or neither, or both.No. If he's right on the facts then he's right on the morality, because the claimed facts are what make it a moral issue in the first place.

Where did you get all that straw? Where did anyone suggest anything remotely like that?Then what ARE you suggesting? That kind of lunacy seems a pretty straightforward extension of the idea that we should reject his advise even if he's right due to his alleged hypocrisy.

Blake
11-14-2009, 01:05 PM
Three quarters of Catholics use birth control. 40% approve of abortion and 63% approve of stem cell research. Of course people are hypocritical on moral issues.

No doubt about that. And that makes it acceptable does it? And it doesn't in any way weaken their position on the issue?

See to me that isn't acceptable. And a Catholic who I knew had abortion and then started to argue that anti-abortion laws do no harm wouldn't get much respect for their argument form me. Apparently you think differently.

I'm amazed that people keep trotting out this tired and useless cliche. Do they really think they have a valid point?

Given your inability to invalidate it, it appears the answer is yes.

Guess what, I live near the place that houses possibly the most dense population of climate scientists in the world, and do you know what? They drive cars to work, only a few ride bicycles. They all live in houses, not tents. The labs use electric lights and gas heat. They're all such hypocrits!

Therefore, what, exactly?

Good question:what, exactly? What has the actions of a group of scientists got to do with morality? As far as I know morality isn't a science, nor is it amenable to study by climate scientists. Right?

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 01:06 PM
Those aren't the individual level. The individual has done nothing different from what he did yesterday. He needed a light bulb. He went out and bought a light bulb. He screwed the light bulb in its socket. It shone light just as much as the last light bulb did.


The infrastructure for how money turns into light has changed, but nothing has changed for the individual.
Except that he now has light for less energy and less carbon.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 01:10 PM
Yet Gore campaigns ceaselessly for laws and treaties designed to mandate that Americans should live differently than they do.
Like? What law has he proposed that would lower the quality of life for Americans?

Gore is telling others they should do things to address amoral problem that have less impact than what he himself is prepared to do.
Let's look at another example.

Let's say that, as the mayor of a city, I've decided to make it my key issue to fight crime. The way that I intend to do this is by increasing the budget for police officers so we can expand the total number of officers in the city.

However, I have noted that the soccer mom contingent of my voter base is super gung-ho. They want to "Get active. Get involved." I can tell them till I'm blue in the face that they're unequipped to deal with crime. Not only do they have no training, but they don't even live anywhere near the locations where crime is actually an issue. Still, if I want to keep their vote, I have to make them happy. Telling them they're a bunch of morons if they think there's anything else they can do beyond voting for me and paying the extra taxes for the new police force is self-destructive. So I put together a "Community Watch" sort of list of things that they can do that are entirely pointless, but keep them happy.

Now, am I a hypocrite if I don't personally start up a community watch in my gated community? No. I can definitely be accused of cynicism, but that's entirely different. I never believed a community watch to be worthwhile. I never suggested a system of community watches as legislation. I never advised anyone to even do it. I simply answered what more could be done when asked by the lunatic fringe.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 01:11 PM
Except that he now has light for less energy and less carbon.

*shrug* I can't say that the individual cares. If the world changes around them to be carbon light, then good for it. So long as he doesn't have to do anything, it's all good.

Blake
11-14-2009, 01:17 PM
:rolleyes: I am - obviously - pointing out that the problem is too much CO2; that CO2 is not intrinsically evil like slavery. So your comparison between the two was silly.

:confused:

Still not making an ounce of sense.

We're talking about moral and immoral, not good and evil. Gore has stated that the consequences of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a moral issue. I assume you aren't suggesting that he argues that it is moral to exacerbate the problem? So surely emmissions of CO2 are intrinsically immoral.

I can't understand why you think he is arguing otherwise. What, like emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a moral issue, but it's morally neutral?

It's not their hypocrisy that makes them so dangerous; considering that their basic positions are often evil or crazy, hypocrisy is often an improvement. Their problem is that they are wrong.

Yet much of the time it is the hypocricy you decry. Nonetheless we shan't hijack this thread. I have told you why it is worth bashing Gore over.

You talked about his Nobel Prize, not how much effect he had.

I was calling into question your claim that Gore makes little difference to the problem, and so can be excused. The Nobel committee amongst others disagree with you, and now even you will not answer me when i ask whether you feel he has had an insignificant impact.

No. If he's right on the facts then he's right on the morality, because the claimed facts are what make it a moral issue in the first place.

That is a total non sequitur. Even if we accept the objective facts that Gore claims, how does that tell us what the moral course of action is? It is a fact that we can nuke Moscow. How do those facts tell us whether it is moral to do so?


Then what ARE you suggesting? That kind of lunacy seems a pretty straightforward extension of the idea that we should reject his advise even if he's right due to his alleged hypocrisy.

Only to you my friend, only to you. When you start seeing things that demonstrably are not there then I suggest that you question where the lunacy lies.

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 01:20 PM
No he has three big houses and flies private jets.And pays carbon offsets when he has to. Your argument is as silly as decrying stitching a wound up because, "It makes all these little punctures, it's just making the wound worse!!!!" Listen, I'll go slow, because it seems you're very upset about this and may not be thinking clearly. Al Gore, the human, can live in a cave and mutter quietly about how carbon is endangering the planet. Would you have heard about him if he had? No.

So Al Gore needs to get his message out. Al Gore needs to give presentations and promote his film and books in order for people to hear the message and provide the leverage to effect social change. Al Gore traveling is the hole the needle makes in my analogy above. It's a pin prick that helps the overall wound. If you refuse to understand that, I would suggest that you're frothing a bit hard.

Right 20 times more. So what do you mean when you say "No". You odnt; seem to actually dispute the facts that I presented.Show me in detail how much energy houses of similar size, built at similar times, of similar materials, that have similar home offices and in similar environments use electricity. Because you know that, right? You aren't simply pointing at a number and hooting because it seems bigger than your home's electric bill? Compare apples with apples or come off looking the fool.


Like I said, indulgences. He knows it is immoral, but he is rich so he can indulge in the immoral behaviour by spending money. Or as the OP said, he's beating his wife and building shelters.Unlike writing checks to a god that doesn't exist, these indulgences are useful. If you don't understand how carbon offsets work, educate yourself on them and get back to us.

More to the point, he is saying that I am immoral and unethical if I do not.He says to make simple, painless changes. Are you suggesting he is not?

More nonsense from another AGW patsy and Gore apologist.Isn't it more likely that the patsy is the fellow who believes in moronic pseudoscience rather than the vast majority of working climate scientists and every major climate science organization? Are you a moon-landing denier as well? :D

mswas
11-14-2009, 01:24 PM
It's not flying first class that makes Al Gore a hypocrite, it's flying in a private jet. But as long as he buys farmland to leave fallow in order to reduce his carbon footprint, then I guess it's ok.

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 01:39 PM
It's not flying first class that makes Al Gore a hypocrite, it's flying in a private jet. But as long as he buys farmland to leave fallow in order to reduce his carbon footprint, then I guess it's ok.Again, you are Al Gore. You need to promote your film and book. The publisher / production company needs to you fly from New York to LA to Austin to Chicago (for instance). It isn't realistic to fly commercial.

You appearing at all events will do a lot to sway public opinion, perhaps nudge it in the right direction and convert skeptics.

What do you do? Do you ignore the experts in swaying public opinion and fly coach, missing some of your dates or do you fly a private jet, do the publicity with the caveat that carbon offsets are purchased for the private jet fuel?

I propose that there is only one intelligent answer.

Blake
11-14-2009, 01:45 PM
Like? What law has he proposed that would lower the quality of life for Americans?

Firstly I have no idea where this came from. When was quality of life mentioned prior to this post?

Secondly Gore is a major supporter of "Cap and Trade", which everybody in the country, even Obama's own office, agrees will drive down spending power and reduce the standard of living. They would argue that it will be amnor decrease in SOL, but a decrease nonetheless. Of course others say it will be significant. The truth doubtless lies in the middle, but there seems to be no disputing that Gore supports laws that will lower the quality of life for Americans.


Telling them they're a bunch of morons if they think there's anything else they can do beyond voting for me and paying the extra taxes for the new police force is self-destructive. So I put together a "Community Watch" sort of list of things that they can do that are entirely pointless, but keep them happy.

Two problems: firstly Gore isn't running for office.

Secondly Gore didn't do that. He put considerable effort into encouraging people to become involved. He ended "An Inconvenient Truth" with "Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen." That was added before it was released, before the popularity of the issue. So clearly he isn't just humouring people who demanded that he give them something to do. He actively goes out and tells people that the should be doing things even when they are content to do nothing. His audiences never asked him what they could do, he told them what they should do.

Blake
11-14-2009, 01:49 PM
And pays carbon offsets when he has to. Your argument is as silly as decrying stitching a wound up because, "It makes all these little punctures, it's just making the wound worse!!!!"

No, it's like decrying a doctor who goes out and knifes one person each night, but says it's OK because he stitches up two people every day.

Morality doesn't work like that. If the act is immoral you don't get to make up for it later by paying an indulgence.


Anyway I've had enough of your ranting and personal insults so I won't respond to the rest of your post.

elucidator
11-14-2009, 01:57 PM
And bravely he did bugger off, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.....

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 01:59 PM
Secondly Gore didn't do that. He put considerable effort into encouraging people to become involved. He ended "An Inconvenient Truth" with "Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen." That was added before it was released, before the popularity of the issue. So clearly he isn't just humouring people who demanded that he give them something to do. He actively goes out and tells people that the should be doing things even when they are content to do nothing. His audiences never asked him what they could do, he told them what they should do.

Well hey, maybe he is an idiot and by extension a hypocrite. Personally, I would think it more likely that he's selling the idiots on what will sell them, but either way the truth of the matter is that these sorts of measures are impractical and are never going to be passed. Arguing over them is a waste of time.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 02:02 PM
When was quality of life mentioned prior to this post?
Because that's the only thing affects the individual. If I have to sit in economy instead of first class, that's affecting my quality of life. If I have to be out planting trees on the weekend instead of watching TV, that's affecting my quality of life. If I have to throw away my dryer and go back to hanging up clothes outside, again, this is affecting my quality of life. But anything which doesn't change my day-to-day life in any appreciable way is not affecting the individual.

The terms are synonymous.

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 02:02 PM
No, it's like decrying a doctor who goes out and knifes one person each night, but says it's OK because he stitches up two people every day.Not in the least. Al Gore has done more than any other human to change public opinion about AGW. If we end up doing anything to avert it he will hold a significant amount of the credit for it. Your example is simply childish and without any bearing on the facts. Some flights to promote his books and films (with carbon offsets purchased) to help reduce the billions of tons of carbon we puff into the air each year.

Morality doesn't work like that. If the act is immoral you don't get to make up for it later by paying an indulgence.Saying that an act is immoral regardless of circumstances isn't intelligent. Killing someone is immoral. Unless that person is trying to kill your child for instance. So now that we've established that immorality is based on circumstances, I think you'll come to realize that whether Gore's actions are immoral or not depend on the circumstances around said actions.

Anyway I've had enough of your ranting and personal insults so I won't respond to the rest of your post.I suppose I'd be upset too if someone pointed out that my arguments were completely without merit. :D

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 02:06 PM
Secondly Gore is a major supporter of "Cap and Trade", which everybody in the country, even Obama's own office, agrees will drive down spending power and reduce the standard of living. They would argue that it will be amnor decrease in SOL, but a decrease nonetheless. Of course others say it will be significant. The truth doubtless lies in the middle, but there seems to be no disputing that Gore supports laws that will lower the quality of life for Americans.Again a silly argument. Lowering quality of life in the short term to avert a catastrophe in the long term is a good thing. Do you save for your retirement? Why? According to your stance saving for your retirement is stupid, because you could be living better now. :rolleyes:

Blake
11-14-2009, 02:17 PM
Because that's the only thing affects the individual. If I have to sit in economy instead of first class, that's affecting my quality of life. If I have to be out planting trees on the weekend instead of watching TV, that's affecting my quality of life. If I have to throw away my dryer and go back to hanging up clothes outside, again, this is affecting my quality of life. But anything which doesn't change my day-to-day life in any appreciable way is not affecting the individual.

The terms are synonymous.

Used that broadly that's true. But used that broadly I would have to ask what law Gore supports WRT AGW that doesn't affect quality of life. If measures to combat AGW aren't being applied now then it is a pretty good indicator that it is because somebody doesn't want to do it, right? So if a law is passed and those things are done then doesn't that pretty much prove that the laws are affecting quality of life, as the term is used by you here?

Broomstick
11-14-2009, 02:23 PM
Is air travel even a significant contributor to CO2?
If you talking absolute quantities of CO2 probably not, however, on a per person per trip basis significantly more fuel is expended for flight than for driving (until, as I mentioned earlier, you get into extreme distances or if you have very large capacity aircraft)

And besides; there presently isn't any good alternative to petrochemical burning engines for long range flight.
In theory you should be able to burn biodiesel in a jet engine, although neither the current biodiesel nor the aircraft engines are optimized for that particular combination.

Brazil is the leader in alcohol-fueled airplanes, but I believe theirs are piston-driven, not jets.

So it's not inconceivable that you could use non-petrochemical fuels for long distance air travel. However, all such fuels to date contain less usable energy per unit, so it would be necessary to carry more units of fuel to make the same trip. This effectively reduces the useful range of the aircraft in question. Either you have to install larger fuel tanks, reduce the passenger/cargo portion of the payload, or both. At present, using petrochemical fuel is still the most economical option. If petrochemical fuels are no longer available, however, that will obviously change.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 02:29 PM
Used that broadly that's true. But used that broadly I would have to ask what law Gore supports WRT AGW that doesn't affect quality of life. If measures to combat AGW aren't being applied now then it is a pretty good indicator that it is because somebody doesn't want to do it, right? So if a law is passed and those things are done then doesn't that pretty much prove that the laws are affecting quality of life, as the term is used by you here?
Eh, I wouldn't count business decisions as counting towards individual lifestyle changes. Perhaps I should have gone specifically with "quality of life" to begin with, but so long as you now get the thrust of my point, it's not a particular loss. Either way, that was my intent.

And no, I wouldn't say that people would go ahead with the sorts of things that are good for AGW if they were really good. Arguments over AGW have little to do with reality. Point in fact, I'd personally say that it's mindlessly silly to pass any legislation to fight global warming. But, that all of the suggestions should still be put through just because hey, newer, better, cleaner technology! Giving the infrastructure an enema every other decade or so really isn't all that bad.

Blake
11-14-2009, 02:40 PM
Eh, I wouldn't count business decisions as counting towards individual lifestyle changes.

Yet most people spend more of their waking hours at work than anywhere else. So that seems like an unusual exemption. For example you are saying that if a law forced a contractor to use electric tools rather than petrol powered ones, and that meant that he worked longer hours, worked physically harder, suffered more injuries, spent less time with his kids and earned less money, that he would still have exactly the same quality of life becuase those are business decisions.

I couldn't agree with such arbitrary exclusions to what counts as quality of life.

And no, I wouldn't say that people would go ahead with the sorts of things that are good for AGW if they were really good.

I'm not making that argument. I;m simply saying that if our hypothetical contractor is currently using petrol tools he is probably doing so because he wants to. If you pass a law that forces hi to use electric tools, regardless of what effect that has, you have by definition reduced his quality of life. He has less liberty, fewer choices. Saying that doesn't count because it only affects the 10 hours a day he spends at work simply doesn't cut it.

Arguments over AGW have little to do with reality. Point in fact, I'd personally say that it's mindlessly silly to pass any legislation to fight global warming. But, that all of the suggestions should still be put through just because hey, newer, better, cleaner technology! Giving the infrastructure an enema every other decade or so really isn't all that bad.

I would argue that it really is all that bad. But that is another thread.

Snowboarder Bo
11-14-2009, 02:42 PM
Ahh right. And since the TV has already been stolen I may as well buy it from that crackhead, because me not buying it won't return it to the owner.

Morality doesn't work that way, does it?

When you declare something to be a moral issue, as Mr. Gore so loudly does, you can't make these sorts of rationalistions, because morality isn't rational. Either financially supporting needless contribiutions to CO2 levels is immoral, as Gore clams, or it is not. Trying to rationalise that the TV set has already been stolen or that somebody else would buy the ticket is just that: rationalisation.

You lose the argument. Morality is rational. In fact, rationality is the basis for morality. Or can you provide cites to back up your assertion that morality isn't rational?

Broomstick
11-14-2009, 02:45 PM
Something as simple as buying more efficient cars and lightbulbs would do better than that.
How do either of those affect the individuals quality of life? A car is a car and a light bulb is a light bulb. Moving to newer technology without affecting the individual's experience of daily life is exactly the sort of thing that is actually being considered for change.
There is a difference between telling people to get rid of cars and light bulbs and motivating them to change to more efficient cars and light bulbs. The former just ain't gonna happen in the real world. The latter, however, not only reduces carbon footprint, it's cheaper for the consumer to run those items. This means people who might not give a damn, or even believe in global warming, might well change their behavior because it saves them money. In other words, it not only appeals to doing the right thing, it also appeals to personal greed. A win-win in many scenarios.

So... this whole flying business. People are going to keep flying because it's just so darn useful - vastly reduced travel times, safety, access to all continents. Really, it's just too useful to do away with. So.... move to more efficient aircraft. Jet engines have become more efficient than they were a couple decades ago, and emit less crap and CO2, not because the airline industry is moral or concerned about carbon footprint (it's not and it doesn't) but because it saves money. And really, that's the only way you're going to get people on board with the reduce/reuse/recycle meme of conservation, ecology, and solving environmental problems like global warming. Convince them it will save them money or make them money.

A deposit on beverage cans doesn't make recycling aluminum more efficient - what it does do is help keep litter off the streets because suddenly discarded cans have value and a certain segment of the population uses that fact to make some money.

Um... back to flying. OK, the airlines themselves have made improvements. Never mind it's greed motivated, one of the effects is less greenhouse gas being spewed out of the engines. And the name of the game is to reduce emissions as, practically speaking, you aren't going to eliminate them. Traveling first class on an airline is going to emit less crap per person per unit of travel than a private jet due to economy of scale and slower speed (airlines try to fly at an efficient speed, balancing speed with fuel burn and ideally optimizing profits while minimizing costs - private jets normally travel faster, which is less efficient in fuel and because more fuel is burned emits more greenhouse gas per person per unit of travel). So, if the choices are private jet vs. first class airliner then first class really is less hypocritical in this case than private jet. It's not as good as coach, but it's not the worst of all worlds. Also, one must consider the time spent traveling, the size of the human being (Mr. Gore is fairly tall), and possible health issues. It doesn't do any good to travel in coach for 12 hours if at the end of it you expire from deep vein thrombosis because you couldn't even shift around those 12 hours.

So I'm less offended by Mr. Gore traveling first class to Europe on airline than some, I guess. Might have been happier if he'd gone coach, but frankly, expecting him to either not go at all or to go by means other than flight would have been ridiculous.

Sage Rat
11-14-2009, 02:48 PM
Yet most people spend more of their waking hours at work than anywhere else. So that seems like an unusual exemption. For example you are saying that if a law forced a contractor to use electric tools rather than petrol powered ones, and that meant that he worked longer hours, worked physically harder, suffered more injuries, spent less time with his kids and earned less money, that he would still have exactly the same quality of life becuase those are business decisions.
Let's look at the actual proposals that have been made, for legislation:

1) Move to alternate energy sources both on the national infrastructure and portable motor front. Develop oil-independence.
2) New coal energy plants need to capture CO2 emissions.
3) Design buildings that are more energy efficient, retrofit older buildings as possible.
4) Increase the energy efficiency requirements of new electronics. (E.g. try to phase out incandescent lights.)
5) Update the national power grid to be more efficient.
6) Work with developing nations to get them on the newest, cleanest technologies as they come up.

And yeah, now you'll say that we'll have to spend more money for that, etc. So let me just quote myself from the old thread where I brought this list up:

The central point was that if the federal government's yearly spending (http://pureland.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/deficit600-760860.gif) has gone from anything from a $500 billion per year deficit to $300 billion surplus within my lifetime, and yet I'd be hard pressed to say where that particularly affected my lifestyle at any point through that, it seems odd to say all of a sudden that spending large quantities of money is somehow going to magically make my life hell. It's never done so before, and this would be the first case where that money would actually be being spent on something that's maximizing the efficiency of the economy, rather than something which just gets blown up, blasted to the moon, or otherwise destroyed.

Within the timeframe we care about (up to about 2050), power consumption should either double or triple from modern day (http://www.solcomhouse.com/images/figure_66carb.jpg). Currently, nuclear energy contributes 19.3% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png) of the nation's power, and that 19.3% is costing us $1.3 billion in subsidies per year (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf) (PDF). If we go nuke to build all the rest of our energy to meet 2050 power usage, we'll have to have 5-10 times as many nuclear power plants, meaning $6.5 to $13 billion (unadjusted for future inflation) in subsidies per year.

$13 billion dollars a year is not a staggering amount. NASA's yearly budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget) is more than that ($17 billion). Which do we need more to live luxurious lives, power to our house or NASA?

The cost of updating the US national power grid is estimated at around $60 billion over the space of many years (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=power%20grid&st=cse).

Overall, adding these things up, you're probably looking at something no more than $100 billion a year. Where on the other hand, the CBO is saying that the Iraq war will have costed $2.4 trillion by 2017 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War), or an average of $171 billion per year, with no clear advantage to having spent it.

Chief Pedant
11-14-2009, 04:47 PM
Chief, when you were in university, did you go up to vegetarians and berate them for wearing leather shoes?
But of course. Still do. One of my closest friends is a strict vegan and we have fun with her all the time. "Hey; you get liver flukes. Do you get to treat them?"

Chief Pedant
11-14-2009, 04:57 PM
No, no, no! Christ Jesus, you're thick! If Al Gore is a hypocrite, that proves that there is no such thing as global warming! Try and keep up, won't you?

This is beyond stupid, although it nicely demonstrates the propensity of alarmists to be overly sensitive in the hope that exaggeration will distract from the point of whether or not an Alarmist position requires change X in personal behaviour. We are all Believers in theory. What does it mean to practice your belief?

This thread is neither about Mr Gore nor about AGW being an incorrect hypothesis. It is about the following issue:

If one accepts AGW as a critical issue requiring immediate correction (I am using the term Alarmist as shorthand for that), then is it defensible to engage in personal behaviours which promote it unnecessarily? I choose flying first class as an index case; feel free to substitute a large house, new golf clubs or a big car.

The world is heating from anthropogenic CO2 tipping the climate balance. Fine. May I continue my profligate ways since my individual vote for behavioural change will affect only me and not save the world? And for the Alarmists here who think not--who do not see a connection between some sort of general AGW philosophy and personal behaviour--why not?

If I may bring in the Mahatma instead of Mr Gore: I must be the change I want to see in the world.

Bryan Ekers
11-14-2009, 05:02 PM
Are you saying that you don't believe that we could fit more passengers on a plane without first class?

I'll hazard a guess that without the people willing to pay the premium for First Class, the airline goes bankrupt and nobody gets to fly at all.

Chief Pedant
11-14-2009, 05:04 PM
One more quick thing...I realize for those who Believe, attacking Mr Gore is like attacking the Pope in front a devout Catholic (another parallel of AGW alarmists and religion...) but I am much more interested in the broader question of what is personally required from AGW alarmists in terms of personal behavioural change which, by itself, will not effect a significant difference on the future of the world even if AGW is absolutely correct.

I would be happy to mock Mr Gore elsewhere, but that is not the purpose of my particular question, and I apologize for stepping on the sensitivities of those who hold him in high esteem.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 05:36 PM
Of course, rather than speculate on the difference between first class and coach, you could actually try to figure it out.

I did exactly that for a blog post I made about 8 years ago. Here's the analysis:

An average first-class airline seat takes up the space of roughly 3 economy seats, when aisle room and support for first class is factored in (this number was calculated by comparing the floorplan of a 767 configured with nothing but economy seating, and one which has a first-class area in the front third of the plane, and counting how many seats were lost to the first-class section).

Now, a 767 normally gets about 60 miles per gallon per economy passenger seat, according to Boeing. It therefore only gets about 20 miles per gallon per first-class seat. So if a person in first class flies 2000 miles, he'll be responsible for consuming 66 more gallons of gas as compared to someone flying economy.

Based on the difference between CAFE standards of cars and light trucks (21 mpg vs 27), you would have to drive about 6000 miles before the difference in gas consumption would equal the added fuel costs that say, 'environmentalist' Bill Maher incurs by flying first class on his way to the Playboy Mansion. And we haven't even talked about the energy required to keep the bunnies warm.

In other words, choosing to fly one trip in first class instead of coach would cause your carbon footprint to be as big as the difference between driving 6000 miles in a typical SUV vs driving 6000 miles in a typical small car.

So let's say you're one of the hoi polloi, flying to the upcoming Copenhagen conference on global warming. If you're flying from New York, your round drip will be 7,712 miles. If you flew coach, you'd be responsible for burning 129 gallons of gas if you lfew in a 767. If you fly first class, you're responsible for burning about 386 gallons of gas.

The difference, 257 gallons, is the equivalent of driving a typical SUV about 5,400 miles.

So you're burning an extra 257 gallons of gas just so you can have a little more elbow and leg room, you earth-raping bastard.

Oh, and the argument that the first-class seats are already there is irrelevant. That gas-hogging SUV sitting on the car lot is already there too, and if you buy a Prius instead, someone else will buy the SUV. I hope you can spot the fault in that logic (i.e. if you could convince all the rich and famous to stop flying first-class, they'd make more airplanes with efficient cattle car seating).

But this pales in comparison to Al Gore's profligacy. Al Gore tends to travel in a Gulfstream IV. A Gulfstream IV burns about 5000 lbs of fuel in the first hour of flight, and 3000 lbs of fuel per hour at cruise altitude. Nashville is 4523 miles from Copenhagen. So Gore's round trip will be about 9,000 miles. That' 16 hours of cruise X 3000 lbs, plus 2 hours of climb at 5,000 lbs. Al Gore will therefore burn about 58,000 pounds of jet fuel to travel to the Copenhagen conference. At 6.75 lbs/gal, that's about 8600 gallons of jet fuel Gore will burn.

Jet fuel when burned in air creates about 21 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon. So Al Gore's trip to Copenhagen will spew about 181,000 lbs of CO2 into the air, or about 90 tons.

The C02 footprint per capita is about 20 tons per year. That includes not just the CO2 the average person emits in driving, heating the house, etc, but the CO2 used to make the goods they buy, the food they eat, etc. One trip to Copenhagen by Al Gore then emits as much C02 as 4.5 Americans do in an entire year.

Or for fun, let's compare it to owning a light truck vs a car. Gasoline creates about 19 lbs of C02 per gallon. So Al Gore's trip to Copenhagen is the C02 emitting equivalent of burning 9,526 gallons of gasoline.

A light truck at the CAFE limit burned 4.76 gallons per 100 miles. A passenger car at the CAFE limit burns 3.7 gallons per 100 miles. A Prius burns about 2 gallons per 100 miles.

So how many people would we have to convince to buy a Prius instead of an SUV in order to save back the CO2 Gore burns in one trip? If a person sells an SUV and buys a Prius, he'll save about 2.76 gallons per 100 miles. The average miles driven per year is about 12,000 in the US. So you can expect to save about 331 gallons of gas in a year by driving a Prius instead of an SUV.

Therefore, about 30 people will have to drive Priuses for a year instead of SUVs, just to save back the carbon Al Gore burned on one trip to Copenhagen.

Al Gore probably makes 20 trips a year or more in a private jet. Think about that. And he could easily fly coach - most people wouldn't want to sit near him anyway.

And don't get me started on his house. Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen.

Lobohan
11-14-2009, 05:41 PM
One more quick thing...I realize for those who Believe, attacking Mr Gore is like attacking the Pope in front a devout Catholic (another parallel of AGW alarmists and religion...)Religion is believed for no reason. AGW is believed because the vast majority of climate scientists find the evidence for it compelling. Not believing in AGW is akin to religion. Deciding to believe things based on ignorance and personal preference.

but I am much more interested in the broader question of what is personally required from AGW alarmists in terms of personal behavioural change which, by itself, will not effect a significant difference on the future of the world even if AGW is absolutely correct.We should all make painless changes when possible. Traveling to support a book or movie that informs people about the dangers we're facing is not only necessary, it is a huge value. As my disposal of Blake's ignorant argument showed, flying (with carbon credits) is well worth getting the word out to hundreds of millions of Americans.

I would be happy to mock Mr Gore elsewhereLacking a more substantive, intelligent argument against his actions I certainly can see that.

, but that is not the purpose of my particular question, and I apologize for stepping on the sensitivities of those who hold him in high esteem.I don't personally fawn over him, but I do find it distasteful how global warming deniers are so bereft of worthwhile arguments.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 06:16 PM
I don't personally fawn over him, but I do find it distasteful how global warming deniers are so bereft of worthwhile arguments.

It works both ways. I get annoyed that the people advocated expensive and radical reductions in CO2 won't engage in the larger debates about the best course of action, choosing instead to attack the 'global warming deniers' who are easy targets.

mswas
11-14-2009, 06:17 PM
Again, you are Al Gore. You need to promote your film and book. The publisher / production company needs to you fly from New York to LA to Austin to Chicago (for instance). It isn't realistic to fly commercial.

Right, because it's so hard to get a flight from New York to LA, Austin or Chicago to promote your book. :rolleyes: I guess that there are flights to LA leaving every 5 minutes from New York are just not at close enough intervals. He just HAS to fly in a private jet, because of course every New York Times bestselling author only flies in private jets too.

You appearing at all events will do a lot to sway public opinion, perhaps nudge it in the right direction and convert skeptics.

Or you could simply organize your tour to accomodate a greener method of travel.

What do you do? Do you ignore the experts in swaying public opinion and fly coach, missing some of your dates or do you fly a private jet, do the publicity with the caveat that carbon offsets are purchased for the private jet fuel?

Carbon Offsets are evil, pure and simple. Reduction is the only way, buying a piece of desert to offset your pollution per acre is absolutely disgusting behavior.

I propose that there is only one intelligent answer.

Yes, and that would be scheduling your dates around your travel schedule so that you don't miss any of them. :rolleyes: You know, like every other business person on the planet who doesn't have a private jet. You only miss your dates if your publicist doesn't know how to schedule things properly.

'It doesn't matter what my carbon footprint is! I'm spreading awareness!'

It'd be interesting if you could quantify how much celebrity excess is justified under the mantle of 'spreading awareness'.

gonzomax
11-14-2009, 06:18 PM
Of course, rather than speculate on the difference between first class and coach, you could actually try to figure it out.

I did exactly that for a blog post I made about 8 years ago. Here's the analysis:



In other words, choosing to fly one trip in first class instead of coach would cause your carbon footprint to be as big as the difference between driving 6000 miles in a typical SUV vs driving 6000 miles in a typical small car.

So let's say you're one of the hoi polloi, flying to the upcoming Copenhagen conference on global warming. If you're flying from New York, your round drip will be 7,712 miles. If you flew coach, you'd be responsible for burning 129 gallons of gas if you lfew in a 767. If you fly first class, you're responsible for burning about 386 gallons of gas.

The difference, 257 gallons, is the equivalent of driving a typical SUV about 5,400 miles.

So you're burning an extra 257 gallons of gas just so you can have a little more elbow and leg room, you earth-raping bastard.

Oh, and the argument that the first-class seats are already there is irrelevant. That gas-hogging SUV sitting on the car lot is already there too, and if you buy a Prius instead, someone else will buy the SUV. I hope you can spot the fault in that logic (i.e. if you could convince all the rich and famous to stop flying first-class, they'd make more airplanes with efficient cattle car seating).

But this pales in comparison to Al Gore's profligacy. Al Gore tends to travel in a Gulfstream IV. A Gulfstream IV burns about 5000 lbs of fuel in the first hour of flight, and 3000 lbs of fuel per hour at cruise altitude. Nashville is 4523 miles from Copenhagen. So Gore's round trip will be about 9,000 miles. That' 16 hours of cruise X 3000 lbs, plus 2 hours of climb at 5,000 lbs. Al Gore will therefore burn about 58,000 pounds of jet fuel to travel to the Copenhagen conference. At 6.75 lbs/gal, that's about 8600 gallons of jet fuel Gore will burn.

Jet fuel when burned in air creates about 21 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon. So Al Gore's trip to Copenhagen will spew about 181,000 lbs of CO2 into the air, or about 90 tons.

The C02 footprint per capita is about 20 tons per year. That includes not just the CO2 the average person emits in driving, heating the house, etc, but the CO2 used to make the goods they buy, the food they eat, etc. One trip to Copenhagen by Al Gore then emits as much C02 as 4.5 Americans do in an entire year.

Or for fun, let's compare it to owning a light truck vs a car. Gasoline creates about 19 lbs of C02 per gallon. So Al Gore's trip to Copenhagen is the C02 emitting equivalent of burning 9,526 gallons of gasoline.

A light truck at the CAFE limit burned 4.76 gallons per 100 miles. A passenger car at the CAFE limit burns 3.7 gallons per 100 miles. A Prius burns about 2 gallons per 100 miles.

So how many people would we have to convince to buy a Prius instead of an SUV in order to save back the CO2 Gore burns in one trip? If a person sells an SUV and buys a Prius, he'll save about 2.76 gallons per 100 miles. The average miles driven per year is about 12,000 in the US. So you can expect to save about 331 gallons of gas in a year by driving a Prius instead of an SUV.

Therefore, about 30 people will have to drive Priuses for a year instead of SUVs, just to save back the carbon Al Gore burned on one trip to Copenhagen.

Al Gore probably makes 20 trips a year or more in a private jet. Think about that. And he could easily fly coach - most people wouldn't want to sit near him anyway.

And don't get me started on his house. Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/tips-from-al-gore-for-george-bush.php Please get started on his house, after you read what he did to it.

mswas
11-14-2009, 06:21 PM
The reason first class exists from the point of view of the airline is because they make a high proportion of that flight's income from first class. A first class seat is about 1.5 times the footprint of a coach one, meanwhile it typically costs three times as much. It doesn't increase the carbon footprint to ride first class because the flight has first class and is going to be flying anyway, so which seat you sit in makes no difference at all.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 06:49 PM
The reason first class exists from the point of view of the airline is because they make a high proportion of that flight's income from first class. A first class seat is about 1.5 times the footprint of a coach one, meanwhile it typically costs three times as much. It doesn't increase the carbon footprint to ride first class because the flight has first class and is going to be flying anyway, so which seat you sit in makes no difference at all.

And that SUV sitting on the lot is going to be sold to someone, so you might as well buy it and drive it, right? Same logic.

The point is, if Al Gore and the other Hollywood nitwits starting guilting people out of first class the same way they try to guilt people out of SUVs, then fewer people would fly first class, and the airlines would configure fewer of their planes that way, or at least make the first class sections smaller, which would allow them to fly more people on the same amount of fuel.

But Hollywood and Al Gore and the rest don't shame first-class flying, because that's what THEY do. They're all about trying to eliminate the bad habits other people have, not their own. The rules are always for the masses, never for the elites who make them. And when they do put on a show of frugality like the current trend for hollywood stars to drive Priuses, it's just for show. They'll drive them straight up to their 100 ft yachts and burn up all the carbon they saved just manoevering away from the dock.

heatmiserfl
11-14-2009, 06:54 PM
Ya know, if someone believes the scientists on global warming the last thing that person should be worrying about is whether Al Gore flies first class. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. ;)

What's the important part of this debate? Is it, Al Gore doesn't live in a cave and send out telepathic messages about AGW, therefore...

a) AGW doesn't exist.

b) AGW exists but Al Gore is an 'alarmist' and we have plenty of time drill baby drill.

c) AGW exists but Al Gore's flight travel is so much that we'd still have global warming no matter what we do.

d) AGW exists but I need someone to tell me what to do and Al Gore's occasional flight travel makes me confused.

e) AGW exists but Al Gore's hypocrisy has made me lose the will to save myself or my descendants.

f) it's irrelevant whether AGW exists because Al Gore is killing me with his moralizing.

mswas
11-14-2009, 06:56 PM
And that SUV sitting on the lot is going to be sold to someone, so you might as well buy it and drive it, right? Same logic.

I'm sorry but this idea is too stupid for print. It's not the same at all, for what should be obvious reasons. The plane is going to fly, and they couldn't afford to fly it if it weren't for the fact that they got 25% or more of their revenue from 10% of the seats. The plane has X number of seats, and the carbon footprint per seat is divided by X, a first class seat doesn't require more fuel than the coach seat.

The point is, if Al Gore and the other Hollywood nitwits starting guilting people out of first class the same way they try to guilt people out of SUVs, then fewer people would fly first class, and the airlines would configure fewer of their planes that way, or at least make the first class sections smaller, which would allow them to fly more people on the same amount of fuel.

And then they would have 2.5% more seats at the expense of about 10% of lost revenue. Flying first class doesn't increase the carbon footprint of the flight. Its carbon footprint is the same regardless. As it is airlines have trouble turning a profit as it is, if you take away first class it would be exceedingly difficult for them to turn a profit. When they are selling First class tickets for $ 1000 and Coach for $ 300 it's pretty easy to understand the economics of it. Also, the space let by having fewer bags due to fewer passengers can be sold to parcel shipment thus mitigating any specious carbon footprint increase that was made.

But Hollywood and Al Gore and the rest don't shame first-class flying, because that's what THEY do. They're all about trying to eliminate the bad habits other people have, not their own. The rules are always for the masses, never for the elites who make them. And when they do put on a show of frugality like the current trend for hollywood stars to drive Priuses, it's just for show. They'll drive them straight up to their 100 ft yachts and burn up all the carbon they saved just manoevering away from the dock.

I can't express my honest views on this argument on this forum.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 07:08 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/tips-from-al-gore-for-george-bush.php Please get started on his house, after you read what he did to it.

Yeah, I'd be happy to. Here's what Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp) has to say:

Gore's improvements cut the home's summer elecrtical consumption by 11 percent compared to a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by the Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20-30% more power due to a heat wave in the region during the same period.

Whoop-de-fricken'-do. So let's give him credit for cutting his energy usage by 40%. That means he's only using SEVEN times as much energy as his neighbors instead of twelve. What a saint.

This is like a guy driving a Hummer and then when being called on how wasteful it is, installing tires with less rolling resistance.

And of course, he could have made these changes years and years ago. He didn't until he got caught and started taking a bunch of bad publicity. In the meantime, he's still tooling around in his Gulfstream.

You know, there ARE environmentalists who walk the walk. Ed Begley Junior lives in a modest home and has a very small carbon footprint. So does Ralph Nader. Kudos to them.

If Gore really wanted to save the planet, he'd realize that his own hypocrisy is a major force in blunting his message, and he'd change his lifestyle. But he doesn't, because what Al Gore is really about is becoming the world's first Carbon Billionaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html).

I believe Al Gore is a net negative for the environmental movement. He's a big, fat, easy target for anti-global warming people. You guys should boo this self-serving clown off the stage, not hold him up as your prophet.

mswas
11-14-2009, 07:12 PM
If Gore really wanted to save the planet, he'd realize that his own hypocrisy is a major force in blunting his message, and he'd change his lifestyle. But he doesn't, because what Al Gore is really about is becoming the world's first Carbon Billionaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html).

I believe Al Gore is a net negative for the environmental movement. He's a big, fat, easy target for anti-global warming people. You guys should boo this self-serving clown off the stage, not hold him up as your prophet.

I was a bit harsh. While I think your argument regarding first class seats is eminently silly.

I have to admit.

You're right, Al Gore is one of the environmental movement's worst enemies.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 07:48 PM
I'm sorry but this idea is too stupid for print. It's not the same at all, for what should be obvious reasons. The plane is going to fly, and they couldn't afford to fly it if it weren't for the fact that they got 25% or more of their revenue from 10% of the seats. The plane has X number of seats, and the carbon footprint per seat is divided by X, a first class seat doesn't require more fuel than the coach seat.

This is just not true. There are airliner configurations that don't have first class seats. There are also configurations that have very small first-class sections. There are also distinctions between ulta-high quality seating, business class seating, and coach. It wouldn't take much reduction in demand for first-class seating before airliners would start reconfiguring with smaller first class sections.

And you don't need first-class to make a profit - if no one had first class seating, the price of coach tickets would go up. That might reduce airline travel overall, which would save even more carbon.

In fact, doesn't it make environmnental sense to lobby for a form of CAFE for the sky, mandating that airliners improve their passenger miles per gallon by X%? The easiest way to do that would be to eliminate first-class seating, and if everyone was required to do it, they wouldn't lose competitive advantage. They could raise overall ticket prices to compensate.

This is exactly what we demand of the auto fleet. They have to raise CAFE standards, and the way they do it is to make the vehicles smaller or install expensive equipment like direct injection. The people who buy cars are expected to absorb the cost. Why not do the same thing for airlines?


And then they would have 2.5% more seats at the expense of about 10% of lost revenue.

Where do you get 2.5% more seats from? In fact, in some airplanes the a first-class seat can take the place of three or more coach seats. For example, the 'World Business Class' cabin in a NWT Airbus A330 has 34 seats. The same aircraft configured with coach seats in that space can fit 80 seats.

A Boeing 777-300 is available in several configurations. In one, there are 30 first class seats, 84 business class seats, and 254 economy seats, for a total of 368 passengers. The same aircraft is available in an 'all-economy' configuration - and it has 500 seats.

In that configuration, a 767-300 is 36% more efficient in terms of passenger miles per gallon of gas burned. Why doesn't Hollywood march to have first-class banned? A 36% improvement in passenger-miles per gallon is nothing to sneeze about.

Flying first class doesn't increase the carbon footprint of the flight. Its carbon footprint is the same regardless.

Look at it this way - let's say a carrier has both configurations of the 767 available. If they get 500 economy bookings, they'll fly that version. If they get a lot of first class bookings, they'll fly the other. So if you and all your friends going to Cannes for the film festival agree to fly coach, you can book an airplane that will take you there on 36% less fuel.

If you feel really strongly about it, you can all offer to pay first-class fares in order to help the airline out.

As it is airlines have trouble turning a profit as it is, if you take away first class it would be exceedingly difficult for them to turn a profit.

You mean like the auto companies having their lucrative SUVs regulated away from them and needing to be bailed out?

Der Trihs
11-14-2009, 07:53 PM
:rolleyes:
I am - obviously - pointing out that the problem is too much CO2; that CO2 is not intrinsically evil like slavery. So your comparison between the two was silly.:confused:

Still not making an ounce of sense.

We're talking about moral and immoral, not good and evil. Gore has stated that the consequences of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is a moral issue. I assume you aren't suggesting that he argues that it is moral to exacerbate the problem? So surely emmissions of CO2 are intrinsically immoral.An even sillier statement. Do you think that Gore considers breathing immoral? That puts out CO as well. Once again; the problem is not that CO2 is evil; the problem is that we are putting out too much of it. If his actions result in a net lowering of of CO2 output, then they are "CO2 moral".

That is a total non sequitur. Even if we accept the objective facts that Gore claims, how does that tell us what the moral course of action is? It is a fact that we can nuke Moscow. How do those facts tell us whether it is moral to do so?Another silly argument. It's immoral in both cases because most people don't want to suffer and die. Are you seriously going to pretend that "billions of people suffering and major damage to civilization is a bad thing" is some sort of morally grey claim?

Only to you my friend, only to you. When you start seeing things that demonstrably are not there then I suggest that you question where the lunacy lies.In other words, you're in denial about where the thrust of your argument leads, as well as in denial about AGW.

One more quick thing...I realize for those who Believe, attacking Mr Gore is like attacking the Pope in front a devout Catholic (another parallel of AGW alarmists and religion...) but I am much more interested in the broader question of what is personally required from AGW alarmists in terms of personal behavioural change which, by itself, will not effect a significant difference on the future of the world even if AGW is absolutely correct.

I would be happy to mock Mr Gore elsewhere, but that is not the purpose of my particular question, and I apologize for stepping on the sensitivities of those who hold him in high esteem.First; as said, it is the anti-AGW position that is equivalent to religion, not the ones who acknowledge its reality.

Second, you are operating on the false assumption that Al Gore IS some sort of prophet, and that his personal morality or behavior has some sort of relevance to his claims. You are, again, acting just like the occasional religious believer who bashes Darwin or Dawkins, under the impression that making them look bad will magically invalidate evolution. Al Gore could live in a giant smoke spewing factory that melts down bicycles to make SUVs, and that wouldn't affect whether his claims are right or wrong.

And what makes you think he's held in great esteem by the "AGW alarmists" here? I'm fairly indifferent to the fellow. You come across, again, like a religious believer who is used to following prophets and preachers, and can't really grasp that some other people follow facts instead. People don't need to like Gore or agree with his personal behavior to agree with his claimed agenda.

mswas
11-14-2009, 08:00 PM
Sam Stone Your argument is far more compelling if you drop the comparison to cars. An SUV and a Compact are two separate cars that are not always driven at the same time as opposed to the seats in an airliner which fly regardless of how they are configured.

Do you have some cites regarding those Airbus configurations? I'd like to see them.

But again you are just looking at it as 'per passenger' rather than thinking about all the cargo space that is freed up for shipping parcels for UPS/Fed Ex/DHL/USPS or whomever buys such space. As I understand it the shipping of parcels is a huge portion of the money made on airline flights. If you are correct that 1st class seats can be replaced by almost 2.25 seats per unit, then you are ignoring the fact that this means that there are also 30 or so fewer people checking luggage, thus leaving space open for shipping.

Stoneburg
11-14-2009, 08:09 PM
Never got around to seeing the "Inconvenient..." film, and I am not very interested in gossip so I don't know what Gores private life is like but...

What the hell does it have to do with climate changes? If you can't accept that humans affect the climate how the hell can you think that mr Gores travel habits influence the validity of what he says. If the most deranged and immoral retard in history were to say that two plus two equals four, it would not be less true because of him saying it.

I'm also interested in knowing if you hold people who you agree with to the same standards. Rush Limbaugh said that drugs were bad, but he did drugs, so drugs are good... right? God said it was wrong to kill people, but he killed a bunch of people, so killing is good... right?

If I were to tell you climate changes aren't caused by man, but then go and buy low energy lamps, then obviously climate changes would be caused by man!

tomndebb
11-14-2009, 08:55 PM
[ Moderating ]

This has not gotten way off the rails, yet, but several of you need to dial it back a bit. Lobohan, you, in particular, have caught my eye in several posts, although you are not the only one.

Leave the personal comments for the BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

mswas
11-14-2009, 09:22 PM
An even sillier statement. Do you think that Gore considers breathing immoral? That puts out CO as well. Once again; the problem is not that CO2 is evil; the problem is that we are putting out too much of it. If his actions result in a net lowering of of CO2 output, then they are "CO2 moral".

Only if you can be moral by proxy. You're arguing that Al Gore's personal actions are mitigated by his ability to influence others. This is completely outside of the mainstream of moral understanding in our society.

If I reduce my carbon footprint it doesn't make Al Gore a more moral person than he is. It only makes ME a more moral person. But I am the kind of person that already shut off lights when I wasn't in the room and turned down plastic bags at the deli whenever I didn't need them.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 09:36 PM
Sam Stone Your argument is far more compelling if you drop the comparison to cars. An SUV and a Compact are two separate cars that are not always driven at the same time as opposed to the seats in an airliner which fly regardless of how they are configured.

You're still missing the point. The same aircraft is available in multiple configurations. If the demand for first-class declines, then airlines will order more aircraft configured for economy, and fleet fuel economy will increase.

If the demand for SUVs goes down, the auto makers will build fewer of them, and the fleet fuel economy will increase.

You're looking at it from the standpoint of individual aircraft already flying. But new airplanes are built and delivered all the time, and the current demand for first-class seating determines how they will be configured.

But changing behavior in cars and airplanes is all about future production, not the current fleet. Every SUV that's currently sitting on car lots will eventually be sold, but that's not an argument to buy an SUV, because if it takes longer to sell them or they have to be discounted becaue demand has dropped off, eventually the auto makers will make fewer SUVs. Likewise, if airplanes start flying with empty first-class seats, or with seats that had to be discounted heavily or given to economy passengers as promotions, then eventually the carriers will opt for fewer first class seats.


Do you have some cites regarding those Airbus configurations? I'd like to see them.

Here's an image of the seat map for the NWT Airbus A330: Airbus Seat Map (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Northwest_Airlines/Northwest_Airlines_Airbus_A330.php). Just looking at it, you can see how incredibly wasteful first class is. You can measure it yourself and figure out how many economy seats would fit in the first-class section.

Here's a cite for the Boeing 777-300: Boeing 777-300 Stats (http://zap16.com/civ fact/civ Boeing 777-300.htm).

From the cite:


Passengers single class:
up to 550.

Passengers two class:
- 58 business class.
- 284 economy class.

Passengers three class:
- 30 first class.
- 84 business class.
- 254 economy class.


But again you are just looking at it as 'per passenger' rather than thinking about all the cargo space that is freed up for shipping parcels for UPS/Fed Ex/DHL/USPS or whomever buys such space. As I understand it the shipping of parcels is a huge portion of the money made on airline flights. If you are correct that 1st class seats can be replaced by almost 2.25 seats per unit, then you are ignoring the fact that this means that there are also 30 or so fewer people checking luggage, thus leaving space open for shipping.

I'm not sure it works that way. Cargo and passenger freight may be stored differently, or may be limited by other factors. But it is a potential mitigating point.

Bryan Ekers
11-14-2009, 10:25 PM
You're still missing the point. The same aircraft is available in multiple configurations. If the demand for first-class declines, then airlines will order more aircraft configured for economy, and fleet fuel economy will increase.

Of course, that assumes the loss of revenue from first-class (and presumably business-class) seat sales doesn't cause the airline to fail. There are several no-frills airlines in operation, but they don't look poised to seize the entire industry to me.

Leaper
11-14-2009, 11:00 PM
Maybe this question will clear the air a little: how much does the OP, and those who agree with him, think Gore's actions (assuming their interpretation of such is correct) reflect on Al Gore vs. the very concept of AGW? Give a percentage.

Sam Stone
11-14-2009, 11:25 PM
Of course, that assumes the loss of revenue from first-class (and presumably business-class) seat sales doesn't cause the airline to fail. There are several no-frills airlines in operation, but they don't look poised to seize the entire industry to me.

I don't recall the environmental movement ever worrying about the health of the auto companies as they pushed for more emissions regulation and higher cafe standards. I certainly don't recall Al Gore making a stand for the profitability of auto companies against CAFE standards.

Blake
11-14-2009, 11:26 PM
Maybe this question will clear the air a little: how much does the OP, and those who agree with him, think Gore's actions (assuming their interpretation of such is correct) reflect on Al Gore vs. the very concept of AGW? Give a percentage.

You seem to be setting up a fasle dilemma: either it reflects on Gore's actions, it it reflects on the very concept of AGW. Why are those the only two choices? Why can't it reflect on Gore's beliefs? Or Gore's credibility? Or Gore's motivations? Or upon the motivations of those who espouse the dangers of global warming? Or upon the motivations of those who legislate RT global warming? Or upon the morality of responses to global warming? Or about a million other issues.


Why are we only given te choice between Gore's actions,and the very concept of AGW? Seems like a classic false dilemma tome, and no more worth addressing than "Do you still beat your wife?".

GIGObuster
11-14-2009, 11:40 PM
I'm not interested in covering Mr Gore's behaviour in particular--I've mocked that elsewhere. I'm interested in a defense of this particular case example, since as a frequent flyer I see no benefit to first class other than a fairly trivial addition to my personal comfort and convenience, and since it comes at a cost of contributing to global warming.

Wow, a point that was already explained and not as big as the deniers thought it was 3 years ago.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/cei_exaggerates_by_a_factor_of.php

The average person produces about 170 pounds of CO2 per day. According to the CEI video Gore only makes flights from one side of the USA to the other and never flies to somewhere in the middle of the country or on the same coast. This calculator says that a cross country flight produces 1600 pounds of CO2. It seems that the CEI believe that Gore must take 4,000,000*(170/1600)=400,000 cross-country flights every day of the year.

Taking a cross country flight even every second day would be a pretty brutal schedule, so CEI are out by at least a factor of a million.

So, if Gore doesn't fly around the country to warn people about global warming, no-one hears his message. If he does, CEI says "Don't listen to Gore, he's a hypocrite". Cute.


As another cite I like mentioned:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
It's worth pointing out that Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist. Debunking Gore does not disprove anthropogenic global warming.

Ludovic
11-14-2009, 11:58 PM
I think this is ridiculous concern trolling. From a pure economic perspective there isn't much difference between believing that no one should ride in first class and believing that everyone making anything over $50,000 should have a %100 marginal tax rate because having more leads to using more resources. In case you didn't notice environmentalists don't believe that either but that doesn't stop some people from wondering why they aren't flaming socialists.

Being a capitalist who believes that something should be available for a price is not incompatible with believing that sometimes we should make sure the actual price includes environmental effects that affect us in common. I wouldn't be surprised if some environmentalists want to add an environmental surcharge to first class seats.

Instead we have people rending out their hair because someone who holds an opposing view does not take a ridiculous stand that would hurt them in order to be "consistent" with some arbitary definition imposed on them from outside the movement.

Sam Stone
11-15-2009, 01:16 AM
The point is that the global warming movement has a problem when its biggest advocates also happen to be some of the worst CO2 emitters among the citizenry.

Or let me ask you - do you think it hurts the religious right when someone like Jim Bakker gets caught having an affair, or a 'morals crusader' gets caught doing other men in a public bathroom?

My point is simply that I have to question the motives of someone who demands that everyone else make personal sacrifices while he pollutes as much as ten of the people he wants to cut back. It harms the movement when its spokesmen fly from conference to conference in private jets and have grotesque hand-wringing meetings in the world's nicest resort areas, where they all stay in gigantic rooms and eat lavish meals and party the night away.

I'll take Al Gore seriously when he sells his mansion and his Gulfstream, donates the billion he's made in the carbon racket, and lives in a modest home or apartment like Ed Begley or Ralph Nader do. Just like I expect religious leaders who preach a life of sacrifice and austerity to actually live in austerity themselves. Lots of them do. The televangelists don't, and that's one of the biggest reasons I cannot take them seriously.

Or put more simply - if you're out there advocating that others endure sacrifice, and even that government enforce that sacrifice, then the least I would ask is, "You first."

elucidator
11-15-2009, 01:40 AM
The point is that the global warming movement has a problem when its biggest advocates also happen to be some of the worst CO2 emitters among the citizenry....

That pretty much the least of the problems that the global warming "movement" has. The biggest problem it/we have is that any possible solution to GW means that some people who make a buttload of money right now will have to stop. That can be a very diffcult proposition to sell, especially when those people have a lot of money, and would like to have a lot more.

And these people are very, very civic minded, they contribute money generously to legislators with the correct attitude towards maintaing a healthy climate for business to flourish. And, of course, to political organizations who share their skepticism about government regulation and red tape interfering with the wondrous workings of the free market.

Before long, tourists will take luxury cruise ships over the north pole to Russia and back. Maybe they'll catch a few bears in the Rockies and paint them white. Hey, gotta have polar bears, take pictures of, right? So what if they can't swim....

Ludovic
11-15-2009, 01:46 AM
Or put more simply - if you're out there advocating that others endure sacrifice, and even that government enforce that sacrifice, then the least I would ask is, "You first."

Like I said, it also works with taxes. The same argument when it comes to taxes is "you shouldn't support raising taxes on other people unless you donate most of your money to the government out of your own free will." Mandatory governmental regulations can create changes where free will cannot, in the environment as well as social programs.

If you simply enjoy the benefit of flying first class (of course, given the argument that it is worse for the enviroment, which is hardly proven today in a practical sense as other posters have shown,) you may prefer that the government create a program that disincentivises it and uses the proceeds from this to support environmental causes. If you purchase carbon credits for this luxury this can be the equivalent of an involuntary governmental program.

The analogy to religion fails because religious hypocrites fail on moral causes, which are not fungible. While many accuse environmentalism of being a religion, many in the movement are deeply practical and realize that there might be sweet spots where classical economics and environmental economics can together be maximized.

Leaper
11-15-2009, 02:43 AM
You seem to be setting up a fasle dilemma: either it reflects on Gore's actions, it it reflects on the very concept of AGW. Why are those the only two choices? Why can't it reflect on Gore's beliefs? Or Gore's credibility? Or Gore's motivations?


Uh, why can't all that be part of "reflect on Al Gore"?

Boyo Jim
11-15-2009, 02:58 AM
It's arguable that if Al Gore is on a plane, ANY plane, it is filled to capacity.

Bryan Ekers
11-15-2009, 07:36 AM
I don't recall the environmental movement ever worrying about the health of the auto companies as they pushed for more emissions regulation and higher cafe standards. I certainly don't recall Al Gore making a stand for the profitability of auto companies against CAFE standards.

Of course not - he was ensuring the destruction of American automakers and making China's economic domination inevitable.


But that's a side-issue.

Chief Pedant
11-15-2009, 08:40 AM
I am disappointed at the insistence on bringing in Mr Gore and I apologize for tweaking those of you who wish to defend him personally by mentioning him in the OP.

I am interested in finding out whether or not any AGW alarmist wishes to defend flying first class. In the 737 I was flying yesterday (yes; first class) the first class seats occupied about 70% more room than coach. In round numbers--and thank you SS for the calculation above)--that means I am, for my particular seat, producing about 70% more CO2 than is necessary, for my personal convenience.

Now if I understand those who say AGW is an emergent problem requiring fixing now--that it is critical--I want to hear a defense of why this behaviour is OK.

So far the only argument I have heard is that those seats would fly empty anyway, so why not take them? The short answer to this is that while my individual choice at that moment makes no difference, the collective choice to change behaviour does, and a collective decision is the sum of individual choices. So at a moral level, what tells me what I truly Believe is what I do; not what I say.

I want to hear--without mentioning Mr Gore or without interpreting this as an attack on him (for me that's like mocking an obese man selling diets)--whether the Chief Pedant needs to stop flying first class if the AGW alarmists here on the Dope persuade him that he needs to Believe.

If all I get are soft answers such as "Well, make your own decision..." then I admit to being unpersuaded that any AGW alarmists actually have convinced themselves that there is any crisis. AGW alarmism is simply another religion with some sort of technical belief system, the opportunity to participate in the Great Cause of proselytization, and no actual translation into behavioural change.

What, if any, is the position of the alarmist on whether or not flying first class is in opposition to the AGW alarmist construct?

Half Man Half Wit
11-15-2009, 08:58 AM
without mentioning Mr Gore or without interpreting this as an attack on him (for me that's like mocking an obese man selling diets)
Now, I don't really give a toss about what Gore does and doesn't do, but don't you think that including such snide remarks about him in your posts slightly decreases your chances of keeping him out of the discussion as you ostensibly wish?

Anyway, I stand by the answer I've given above -- that yes, it is hypocritical, and that morality can't be shoehorned into such simple-minded all-or-nothing, black-or-white schemes. It might be better in some cases to fly first class and plant a hectare of rain forest (or whatever) than it is to stay at home doing fuck all, if the issue is really about 'protecting the environment', whatever that may mean; nevertheless, it is essentially hypocritical.

Ludovic
11-15-2009, 09:36 AM
I am disappointed at the insistence on bringing in Mr Gore and I apologize for tweaking those of you who wish to defend him personally by mentioning him in the OP.

I am interested in finding out whether or not any AGW alarmist wishes to defend flying first class. In the 737 I was flying yesterday (yes; first class) the first class seats occupied about 70% more room than coach. In round numbers--and thank you SS for the calculation above)--that means I am, for my particular seat, producing about 70% more CO2 than is necessary, for my personal convenience.

Now if I understand those who say AGW is an emergent problem requiring fixing now--that it is critical--I want to hear a defense of why this behaviour is OK.

So far the only argument I have heard is that those seats would fly empty anyway, so why not take them? The short answer to this is that while my individual choice at that moment makes no difference, the collective choice to change behaviour does, and a collective decision is the sum of individual choices. So at a moral level, what tells me what I truly Believe is what I do; not what I say.

I want to hear--without mentioning Mr Gore or without interpreting this as an attack on him (for me that's like mocking an obese man selling diets)--whether the Chief Pedant needs to stop flying first class if the AGW alarmists here on the Dope persuade him that he needs to Believe.

If all I get are soft answers such as "Well, make your own decision..." then I admit to being unpersuaded that any AGW alarmists actually have convinced themselves that there is any crisis. AGW alarmism is simply another religion with some sort of technical belief system, the opportunity to participate in the Great Cause of proselytization, and no actual translation into behavioural change.

What, if any, is the position of the alarmist on whether or not flying first class is in opposition to the AGW alarmist construct?I don't put sugar in my porridge so you will probably not listen to me -- but I wouldn't want to anyway, as the "AGW alarmist" scare language is poisoning the argument from the start.

I haven't really thought about whether flying first class is enough of a priority to even mention, as there's a possibility that focusing on that might make people feel good enough that they don't take on the bigger issues.

If it does have a significantly deleterious effect, then of course I would ask people to try to do it less. I would also try to make sure that all of the hidden, common costs are being paid for. I suspect that they are, to a degree, to the extent that the higher ticket price is helping to pay for the extra fuel. In a similar way, I would feel that driving an SUV had less of a relative impact if we were recapturing all of its costs through gas taxes, but I have a feeling we are not.

So as long as we price the ticket properly to take into account the damage I don't see why one should feel bad about it, again, like I keep mentioning, any moreso than one would feel bad about simply having more possessions than some other random person.

Sam Stone
11-15-2009, 01:54 PM
So as long as we price the ticket properly to take into account the damage I don't see why one should feel bad about it, again, like I keep mentioning, any moreso than one would feel bad about simply having more possessions than some other random person.

I don't understand. People who drive SUVs buy more gas, and pay for more gasoline taxes. So why are SUVs bad?

The whole point to carbon taxes is to A) curb demand through higher taxes, and B) raise money specifically for the purpose of offsetting carbon emissions with reductions elsewhere. Just the fact that carbon emitters pay more is irrelevant - since energy costs money, they always do anyway.

valleyofthedolls
11-15-2009, 03:32 PM
However I am curious about what defenses AGW alarmists might mount for a specific proof case of hypocrisy: flying first class if it is your sincere belief that AGW is a serious problem and we should do something about it. As always with any (dare I say it?) Religion or Great Cause, the devil is in the details of behaviour in determining what we truly Believe

IMHO, yes if you believe in global warming, flying first class makes you a hypocrite. I'd go further, any sort of transportation that releases carbon emissions (and I'm extending that to the tires on bicycles) makes you a hypocrite.

As with anything, people can try to do the best they can but they often fall short of their goal (for a variety of reasons). You're a doctor, correct? Then that's a lesson I'm sure your profession knows fairly well.

By your use of the word "alarmist" and your rather sad use of the caps lock key, you obviously don't believe in global warming and have a poor opinion of those who do, so what do you get out of a question like this? What does it prove to you?

heatmiserfl
11-15-2009, 03:36 PM
I am disappointed at the insistence on bringing in Mr Gore and I apologize for tweaking those of you who wish to defend him personally by mentioning him in the OP.

How could you have interpreted the vast majority of posters repeatedly stating that Al Gore's personal life has no impact on the validity of AGW as people wishing to defend him personally?

whether the Chief Pedant needs to stop flying first class if the AGW alarmists here on the Dope persuade him that he needs to Believe.

If all I get are soft answers such as "Well, make your own decision..." then I admit to being unpersuaded that any AGW alarmists actually have convinced themselves that there is any crisis.
You're the one who thinks that flying first class is a major contributor to AGW. Most everyone else thinks we should be worrying about alternative energy sources.

Let me get this straight. Unless a bunch of message board people tell you to stop a behavior that we don't think will have much of an impact on AGW, AGW doesn't exist? Is that really what you're saying here? Well OK. If it will make you believe. Please, please, pretty please, stop flying first class. There!

By the way, 'AGW alarmist' is a climate change denier term. Not very helpful in a sincere discussion on reducing greenhouse emissions.

elucidator
11-15-2009, 03:57 PM
It simply means that, by any reasonable analysis, your rhetorical opponent has no rational option but to throw himself at your feet and blubber apologies.

Kimstu
11-15-2009, 06:24 PM
I get annoyed that the people advocated expensive and radical reductions in CO2 won't engage in the larger debates about the best course of action, choosing instead to attack the 'global warming deniers' who are easy targets.

Well, the global warming deniers are often asking for it, as in the case of Chief Pedant starting a thread pretty much, AFAICT, for the purpose of sneering at mainstream scientific views on anthropogenic global warming as "alarmism".


Or let me ask you - do you think it hurts the religious right when someone like Jim Bakker gets caught having an affair, or a 'morals crusader' gets caught doing other men in a public bathroom?

Bad analogy. I don't dispute your right to opine that Al Gore's energy-use choices are unjustified (I'm not sure whether I agree with your opinion, as I'd have to know more about the responsibilities and trade-offs involved for him, but you might be right), and I completely agree with you that anti-Gore voices make a lot of hay out of them to the detriment of the image of the environmental movement as a whole. But his choices aren't analogous to conservative-morals crusaders having affairs or guy-on-guy quickies outside of marriage.

The difference is that the conservative moralists argue that extramarital affairs and homosexual sex are always wrong under any circumstances. Gore's stated position on carbon emissions, on the other hand, is that they need to be reduced overall by means of a combination of public policy and private actions. He's not saying that nobody under any circumstances should ever fly first class or own an SUV or have energy-inefficient windows in their house or so on and so forth, so he is not technically being overtly hypocritical in the way that the pants-dropping conservative Christian leaders are.


I am interested in finding out whether or not any AGW alarmist wishes to defend flying first class.

I'm an AGW non-denier (which seems to be essentially what you mean by "alarmist"), and I definitely agree that flying first class is a comparatively inefficient and wasteful form of transportation (http://www.grist.org/article/the-answer-depends-on-whom-you-ask). Increasing the number of passengers per flight reduces per-person carbon footprint size, whereas having fewer passengers each taking up more room increases carbon footprint.

Does that mean that I think that nobody should ever fly first class, or that if they ever do then their opinions about AGW automatically become invalid? Of course not; anybody who would attempt to make such a sweeping generalization irrespective of circumstances or potential trade-offs is either stupid or else just trying to play "gotcha" with ideological opponents.


If all I get are soft answers such as "Well, make your own decision..." then I admit to being unpersuaded that any AGW alarmists actually have convinced themselves that there is any crisis. AGW alarmism is simply another religion with some sort of technical belief system, the opportunity to participate in the Great Cause of proselytization, and no actual translation into behavioural change.

This isn't a serious criticism on your part: it's just an attempt to set up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. You're trying to maneuver yourself into the position that if any AGW non-denier takes any action that fails to minimize their carbon footprint, then their opinions on AGW must not be serious and therefore you don't have to pay any attention to them because it's just a "religion". Nice try, but not persuasive.

The fact is that anthropogenic climate change doesn't depend on "belief", on opinions, or on personal consistency of opinions with actions. It's not some kind of debating game where you score points by cleverly nitpicking imperfections in the other side's policies. It's a physical phenomenon about whose fundamental causes and effects most scientists are in general agreement, although a great many factors and consequences are still imperfectly understood.

Attempting to change the subject from "what are the facts and uncertainties, and what's the best-guess strategy to follow while the subject remains imperfectly understood?" to "the whole thing is shown to be a bunch of hogwash because many people are inconsistent or hypocritical!" is merely an exercise in distraction. The only purpose it serves is apparently to make yourself feel better about being afraid to take the prospect of anthropogenic climate change seriously.

And JFTR, I personally don't fly first class, nor do I own a car. I live within walking/busing distance of my workplace and shopping locations, and make most of my trips by foot, bus or bike. I'm sure none of that will inspire you to modify your comforting belief that I'm just an "alarmist" enjoying a cost-free feeling of religious superiority, though.

Ludovic
11-15-2009, 07:32 PM
I don't understand. People who drive SUVs buy more gas, and pay for more gasoline taxes. So why are SUVs bad?

The whole point to carbon taxes is to A) curb demand through higher taxes, and B) raise money specifically for the purpose of offsetting carbon emissions with reductions elsewhere. Just the fact that carbon emitters pay more is irrelevant - since energy costs money, they always do anyway.We agree on both of these points. Part of what I was trying to say is that that's the problem, is that in the views of many, the current taxes are not enough to take into account common costs of carbon, and that they are not being specifically directed toward environmental solutions.

So right now it would appear that the driving of SUVs unnecessarily without also purchasing valid carbon offsets or the like is indeed a minor ethical lapse (I would not call it a moral lapse because I don't believe in morals.) Taxes on SUVs are barely enough to pay for the roads let alone the carbon emissions. (This is not to say that not shouting SUV drivers down from the rooftops makes one a hypocrite since there are always varying shades of everything.)

Whether or not First Class tickets also fall under this is a point I never considered, after all, there are certainly large sales taxes for instance associated with the purchase of first class tickets, the question is how these should be considered.

(Quick math, assume an $800 first class ticket with 5% sales tax, versus a $300 coach ticket. This is $25 the government is getting above the norm. I'm not sure what the carbon tax should be on the extra gasoline this extra large seat uses, but in a 1000-mile car trip in a fuel efficient vehicle getting 40 MPGs, carbon tax proponents have suggested that a $2 a gallon (!) surcharge be added, for a total of a $40 carbon tax on that 1000 mile trip. [a quick look at wiki show that this roughly accurately transfers over since airplanes are about as fuel efficient as the best cars per passengermile.] If we assume that each first class seat uses 50% more fuel, then it appears that the extra sales tax is almost exactly equal to what carbon tax proponents would suggest we install on fuel. )

The problem right now is that it is going toward general government rather than environmental programs. I really don't know if we should install an extra tax on top of that, I guess I would lean towards no. All I know is that the case of SUVs is more clear cut since it's hugely more inefficient than airplanes so a carbon tax if instituted would dwarf sales tax on the vehicle itself.

Chief Pedant
11-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Well, the global warming deniers are often asking for it, as in the case of Chief Pedant starting a thread pretty much, AFAICT, for the purpose of sneering at mainstream scientific views on anthropogenic global warming as "alarmism".


Bad analogy. I don't dispute your right to opine that Al Gore's energy-use choices are unjustified (I'm not sure whether I agree with your opinion, as I'd have to know more about the responsibilities and trade-offs involved for him, but you might be right), and I completely agree with you that anti-Gore voices make a lot of hay out of them to the detriment of the image of the environmental movement as a whole. But his choices aren't analogous to conservative-morals crusaders having affairs or guy-on-guy quickies outside of marriage.

The difference is that the conservative moralists argue that extramarital affairs and homosexual sex are always wrong under any circumstances. Gore's stated position on carbon emissions, on the other hand, is that they need to be reduced overall by means of a combination of public policy and private actions. He's not saying that nobody under any circumstances should ever fly first class or own an SUV or have energy-inefficient windows in their house or so on and so forth, so he is not technically being overtly hypocritical in the way that the pants-dropping conservative Christian leaders are.


I'm an AGW non-denier (which seems to be essentially what you mean by "alarmist"), and I definitely agree that flying first class is a comparatively inefficient and wasteful form of transportation (http://www.grist.org/article/the-answer-depends-on-whom-you-ask). Increasing the number of passengers per flight reduces per-person carbon footprint size, whereas having fewer passengers each taking up more room increases carbon footprint.

Does that mean that I think that nobody should ever fly first class, or that if they ever do then their opinions about AGW automatically become invalid? Of course not; anybody who would attempt to make such a sweeping generalization irrespective of circumstances or potential trade-offs is either stupid or else just trying to play "gotcha" with ideological opponents.


This isn't a serious criticism on your part: it's just an attempt to set up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. You're trying to maneuver yourself into the position that if any AGW non-denier takes any action that fails to minimize their carbon footprint, then their opinions on AGW must not be serious and therefore you don't have to pay any attention to them because it's just a "religion". Nice try, but not persuasive.

The fact is that anthropogenic climate change doesn't depend on "belief", on opinions, or on personal consistency of opinions with actions. It's not some kind of debating game where you score points by cleverly nitpicking imperfections in the other side's policies. It's a physical phenomenon about whose fundamental causes and effects most scientists are in general agreement, although a great many factors and consequences are still imperfectly understood.

Attempting to change the subject from "what are the facts and uncertainties, and what's the best-guess strategy to follow while the subject remains imperfectly understood?" to "the whole thing is shown to be a bunch of hogwash because many people are inconsistent or hypocritical!" is merely an exercise in distraction. The only purpose it serves is apparently to make yourself feel better about being afraid to take the prospect of anthropogenic climate change seriously.

And JFTR, I personally don't fly first class, nor do I own a car. I live within walking/busing distance of my workplace and shopping locations, and make most of my trips by foot, bus or bike. I'm sure none of that will inspire you to modify your comforting belief that I'm just an "alarmist" enjoying a cost-free feeling of religious superiority, though.

Thank you for a thoughtful (as always) reply.

If I wanted to sneer at AGW as a science, I would do so directly. I am personally an agnostic--pretty much completely ignorant on the issue and so far unmotivated to investigate it because I cannot for the life of me figure out what good it would do--and a cynic that most of us would actually change our behaviour for the public good. We haven't done so anywhere else, including robbing our children to pay for our current comforts. I'm uninterested in participating in a global movement to proselytize a belief that has no consequence in behavioural changes.

On the "Alarmist" front: I did not realize this was a particularly pejorative term. I mean to separate out those who feel AGW is a critical issue requiring emergency address from those who sort of accept it as a generally proven problem requiring some sort of address downstream...think missionaries evangelizing converts before the world ends as opposed to theists admitting there is a God.

I have not here, nor elsewhere, attempted to create an inference that, because AGW alarmists are hypocritical, that means AGW is false. Obviously it does not, anymore than hypocritical Christians mean there is no God. What is the case, I think, is that people who say they believe should have some sort of a construct about the consequences of such a belief. I am interested in exploring exactly what that construct is, particularly because it is my observation that the vast majority of AGW believers--alarmists and otherwise--have in fact not considered the ramifications of their belief.

So back to those ramifications--the point of my thread. Using first class as simply a prototypical practical decision point, it seems to me that if an individual cannot give up the minor convenience of flying more efficiently, they are unlikely to make any similar choices among the thousands of choices which we face all the time. And that, I think, does provide a sobering effect.

Sure, "we" should all do "something." Just not me, if it inconveniences me in any way. It's tons of fun to proselytize; not that much fun to stop sinning.

Kimstu
11-15-2009, 08:29 PM
I am personally an agnostic--pretty much completely ignorant on the issue and so far unmotivated to investigate it because I cannot for the life of me figure out what good it would do

With respect, I think that the appropriate technical term describing your chosen position on this issue is not "agnostic" but "ignoramus". An agnostic is somebody who feels that they do not know the answer to a question of belief on which there's no factual basis for knowledge (e.g., the existence of God).

Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, is an issue on which there's a very large factual basis for knowledge, although the knowledge is in many respects still inconclusive and uncertain. You've chosen not only to recognize the uncertainty of the current state of knowledge, but to deliberately remain "pretty much completely ignorant" of even those facts that are currently available. I don't think "agnostic" is the most accurate way to describe that attitude.


On the "Alarmist" front: I did not realize this was a particularly pejorative term.

Well, a standard definition of "alarmist" is "a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason" (emphasis added). The term intrinsically implies that the people you're describing probably have insufficient basis for their concerns, so I think you can see why those so described would consider it pejorative.


I mean to separate out those who feel AGW is a critical issue requiring emergency address from those who sort of accept it as a generally proven problem requiring some sort of address downstream.

Hmmm. Where do you draw the line between those two categories? How far "downstream" must an AGW non-denier be willing to place efforts to address the climate change problem for you to classify them as a non-"alarmist"?


What is the case, I think, is that people who say they believe should have some sort of a construct about the consequences of such a belief. I am interested in exploring exactly what that construct is, particularly because it is my observation that the vast majority of AGW believers--alarmists and otherwise--have in fact not considered the ramifications of their belief.

I concur with valleyofthedolls that this is an astonishingly idealistic view of human nature coming from a doctor, especially a self-described "cynical" one. Have you really never before encountered people who are genuinely persuaded that a certain course of action (smoking, drinking too much, eating too much, etc.) is bad for them, who have indeed considered "the ramifications of their belief" implying that they should change that course of action, but who nonetheless persist in that course of action anyway?

Imagining that nobody can really be genuinely worried about AGW if they fly first class seems kind of like imagining that nobody can really be genuinely convinced that smoking is bad for them if they don't stop smoking.

elucidator
11-15-2009, 09:08 PM
I think the analogy to addictive behavior is very apt. Please refer to the Standard Dirty Fucking Hippy lecture about buggering the planet so we can have more loud, shiny crap. Don't feel like typing it again, and you've all heard it. Still true.

BrainGlutton
11-15-2009, 10:07 PM
When you declare something to be a moral issue, as Mr. Gore so loudly does . . .

:confused: I don't recall that from his movie.

John DiFool
11-15-2009, 10:29 PM
If you take the OP argument to its logical conclusion, then if we believe know that AGW is real, we should all kill ourselves, as we as biological organisms are emitting CO2 with every breath, lest we be accused of hypocrisy. But our dead bodies give off methane, another global warming gas-guess we can't win for losing. Reductio ad absurdum.

Point is, if Gore is doing more good by crisscrossing the globe in his crusade, convincing people of the dangers etc. and getting them to change their own lifestyles and so on, than harm via any extra CO2 his modes of transportation give off, then really there's no problem AFAICT.

Chief Pedant
11-15-2009, 10:40 PM
Hmmm. Where do you draw the line between those two categories? How far "downstream" must an AGW non-denier be willing to place efforts to address the climate change problem for you to classify them as a non-"alarmist"?


I concur with valleyofthedolls that this is an astonishingly idealistic view of human nature coming from a doctor, especially a self-described "cynical" one. Have you really never before encountered people who are genuinely persuaded that a certain course of action (smoking, drinking too much, eating too much, etc.) is bad for them, who have indeed considered "the ramifications of their belief" implying that they should change that course of action, but who nonetheless persist in that course of action anyway?

Imagining that nobody can really be genuinely worried about AGW if they fly first class seems kind of like imagining that nobody can really be genuinely convinced that smoking is bad for them if they don't stop smoking.

OK; I'll go with ignoramus. At some point the time will be right to investigate AGW but for me it's not now...I'm gonna wait until the climate gets a chance to change over the longterm if no interim behaviour modification is expected. What's the rush if I can wait until something becomes illegal? And it ain't going to be illegal anytime soon, near as I can predict, to engage in all of the behaviours that have created a consumption-oriented society which, in turn, indulged itself at the cost of cooking gaia.

I like that smoking analogy, btw. Of course we can be worried about the result of our behaviour and persist in it. A non-ignoramus accepts that smoking is bad for you and that you should not smoke. And that, Kimstu, is exactly what I'm asking:

Are AGW alarmists worried about the predilection to put our personal comfort and convenience above the (presumably) more important concern that the world is burning up? They are only gonna be worried if they think it is wrong.

I am staggered at how hard it seems to be for AGW alarmists to admit that their belief requires them to change their personal indulgences in order to remain consistent with their AGW construct. Now if they just want to say, "Yep; it's wrong but I'm gonna do it anyway," fine. I want to know if it's wrong--as a case example (but substitute a thousand other elective indulgences)--to fly first class.

And if it's not wrong, why not when there is absolutely no defense for it other than "I am putting me in front of the needs of the world"?

I specifically chose this example because there is absolutely no arguable benefit to flying comfortably other than pure self indulgence. Safety; convenience of travel; time;--nothing. It makes for a very neat case comparison.

Lamar Mundane
11-15-2009, 11:50 PM
I specifically chose this example because there is absolutely no arguable benefit to flying comfortably other than pure self indulgence. Safety; convenience of travel; time;--nothing. It makes for a very neat case comparison.

It's a useless comparison. The net effect on CO2 emissions is the same if Al Gore flies coach or first class or paddles a dinghy across the Atlantic ocean, as has been pointed out numerous times.

I suggest that it is more moral for Al Gore to travel internationally giving speeches about global warming than it is for him to minimize his personal carbon footprint, just as it is for Bill Gates to keep making tons of money and giving half of it away rather than giving it all away and living as a pauper.

Sam Stone
11-16-2009, 03:09 AM
Wait a minute - in Al Gore's case, the hypocrisy goes a lot deeper than flying first class. Al tends to travel in a frickin' Gulfstream. In so doing, his trip to Copenhagen will burn 8600 gallons of fuel!

So let's recap:

Staying home and attending by teleconference: 0 gallons of fuel.
Traveling coach: 129 gallons of fuel.
Traveling first class: 386 gallons of fuel
Travel form chosen by the savior of the planet: 8600 gallons of fuel.

This isn't like Jim Bakker having an affair on the side. It's more like Jim Bakker preaching about marital fidelity and abstinence while being double-teamed on the pulpit by two co-eds.

His behavior should be embarrassing to his followers.

intention
11-16-2009, 06:11 AM
... By the way, 'AGW alarmist' is a climate change denier term. Not very helpful in a sincere discussion on reducing greenhouse emissions.

I find both of these terms, "alarmist" and "denier", unhelpful. They are both emotionally loaded with negative overtones. May I suggest the use of "AGW supporter" and "AGW skeptic" as more neutral terms?

intention
11-16-2009, 06:37 AM
... The net effect on CO2 emissions is the same if Al Gore flies coach or first class or paddles a dinghy across the Atlantic ocean, as has been pointed out numerous times. ...

I found this claim quite surprising. Do you mean that all of them are small compared to total emissions? Because flying a Gulfstream and paddling definitely do not have the "same net effect on CO2 emissions". What am I missing here?

Ludovic
11-16-2009, 08:24 AM
Much like the Democrats suddenly caring about corruption in the past decade or so, this thread has warmed my heart to think that those that normally wonder if we should even do anything about global warming suddenly want to take an absolute moral stance against doing anything that would remotely harm the environment.

Unfortunately, their newfound passion takes the form of the old conservative absolutism: thou shalt not take any plastic bags, tis a sin. No middle ground at all.

How can I argue with such fervent environmental crusaders, stuck in your ivory towers? Later.

Hentor the Barbarian
11-16-2009, 08:32 AM
May I suggest the use of "AGW supporter" and "AGW skeptic" as more neutral terms?I think those two terms describe only one side of the debate. I know I'm not a supporter of global warming, personally.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 09:08 AM
I think Hentor is right that "supporter" doesn't really make sense in the context of global warming (except perhaps to describe the people who want more global warming because they feel it's good for the crops, if there are still any of those around).

Nor is it useful to use the term "skeptic" as a blanket designation for all who espouse a particular policy viewpoint, including diehard climate change deniers. All of us except perhaps the most credulous are skeptical about at least some of the most extreme inferences drawn from climate change science. What we really have here is a spectrum of opinion that includes, I'd say, the following major categories:

Spectrum of opinion on anthropogenic climate change:

<--|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist ....... Realist ......... Skeptic ...... Denier


Chief Pedant, I'd still like to hear how and where you would draw the line between the "alarmists" or Chicken Little types who accept every dire warning about climate disaster in the popular press as gospel, and the category that I'm calling "realists".

RTFirefly
11-16-2009, 09:42 AM
Wait a minute - in Al Gore's case, the hypocrisy goes a lot deeper than flying first class. Al tends to travel in a frickin' Gulfstream. In so doing, his trip to Copenhagen will burn 8600 gallons of fuel!

So let's recap:

Staying home and attending by teleconference: 0 gallons of fuel.
Traveling coach: 129 gallons of fuel.
Traveling first class: 386 gallons of fuel
Travel form chosen by the savior of the planet: 8600 gallons of fuel.

This isn't like Jim Bakker having an affair on the side. It's more like Jim Bakker preaching about marital fidelity and abstinence while being double-teamed on the pulpit by two co-eds.

His behavior should be embarrassing to his followers.How so?

The reality - and I'm assuming, due to your post, that this issue hasn't been dealt with earlier in the thread - is that no amount of voluntary action is going to appreciably slow global warming. Even if 100 million people make significant changes in their lifestyles, the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who don't know about the issue, don't care, deny its validity, or are simply too caught up in their own struggles to get by are the ones who will keep the CO2 levels rising, absent appropriate carbon pricing mechanisms.

As an analogy, imagine that there's no global warming problem, but we've hit peak oil, yet our government's mandated $2/barrel petroleum and 30¢/gallon gasoline (and is purchasing and importing as much oil as is needed to maintain those price levels, in view of the resulting higher consumption).

One might, under those circumstances, view it as quite important to reduce petroleum consumption. But no amount of positive choices by those so inclined would have much effect as long as the price of oil and gasoline remained artificially low.

Same thing here: right now, the cost of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is zero, and until that's fixed, we're SOL. The important thing isn't whether Al Gore's Gulfstream jet dumps a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but whether his doing so helps get us closer to an appropriate pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. If it does, then he's making a positive difference with respect to controlling global warming. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Boyo Jim
11-16-2009, 09:46 AM
...Unfortunately, their newfound passion takes the form of the old conservative absolutism: thou shalt not take any plastic bags, tis a sin. No middle ground at all.

How can I argue with such fervent environmental crusaders, stuck in your ivory towers? Later.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating -- having no children and having had the surgery to prevent it in the future, I and my compatriot snippees have already done more to sustain the earth's resources than any other humans.

That's why we, and we alone, should be able to fly private jets, drive between rooms in our houses in SUVs, and operate gas-powered toasters and coal-fired reading lamps.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 10:11 AM
[...] this thread has warmed my heart to think that those that normally wonder if we should even do anything about global warming suddenly want to take an absolute moral stance against doing anything that would remotely harm the environment.

Unfortunately, their newfound passion takes the form of the old conservative absolutism: thou shalt not take any plastic bags, tis a sin. No middle ground at all.

How can I argue with such fervent environmental crusaders, stuck in your ivory towers? Later.

Well, there you have it, folks. If AGW realists are flexible and non-dogmatic in their views about choosing voluntary actions to reduce carbon emissions, Chief Pedant decides that "they haven't considered the ramifications of their belief", so he doesn't have to listen to them. On the other hand, if AGW realists are inflexible and dogmatic in their views about choosing voluntary actions to reduce carbon emissions, Ludovic decides that they're "absolutist crusaders", so he doesn't have to listen to them. Gotta love the catch-22.

If AGW "skeptics" would spend even a quarter as much time and effort considering the actual science and policy issues of anthropogenic climate change as they appear to spend on thinking up reasons to ignore people concerned about climate change, we might actually get somewhere with this problem.

Ravenman
11-16-2009, 10:13 AM
Boy, I sure hope there are no AGW-believing pilots out there. Do you know how much space the cockpit takes up? The carbon footprint of a pilot must be 10 times that of a first class passenger!

For those who have brought up the use of private aircraft for travel, I think there are some good points to be made there. But whether one flies on a plane in first class, coach, the cargo hold, or just being strapped to the wing, there is no logic to attributing a certain amount of CO2 emissions to where a passenger sits. The space argument makes no sense, because the size of the friggin' airplane doesn't change according to whether or not there are passengers filling a particular seat, and were that calculation to be true, then flight crews, what with their galleys and cockpits and all, would have a very large moral burden indeed.

A particular plane is going to burn fuel at a certain rate no matter how its layout is arranged. If there is more weight on the airplane, fuel burn will be slightly higher. Does this mean that fat people and those jackasses who insist on bringing 5 bags for a three day trip are hypocrites for going on vacation if they also believe in AGW?

intention
11-16-2009, 02:39 PM
I think Hentor is right that "supporter" doesn't really make sense in the context of global warming (except perhaps to describe the people who want more global warming because they feel it's good for the crops, if there are still any of those around).

Nor is it useful to use the term "skeptic" as a blanket designation for all who espouse a particular policy viewpoint, including diehard climate change deniers. All of us except perhaps the most credulous are skeptical about at least some of the most extreme inferences drawn from climate change science. What we really have here is a spectrum of opinion that includes, I'd say, the following major categories:

Spectrum of opinion on anthropogenic climate change:

<--|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist ....... Realist ......... Skeptic ...... Denier


Chief Pedant, I'd still like to hear how and where you would draw the line between the "alarmists" or Chicken Little types who accept every dire warning about climate disaster in the popular press as gospel, and the category that I'm calling "realists".

Could we start with less emotionally loaded terms? If you don't like "supporter", fine. But to call those you agree with "realists" is a self-referential joke. How about:

<--|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist ..... Believer ......... Skeptic ...... Denier

I would say the difference between an alarmist and a believer is billions and billions of dollars. If you think we should spend multi-billions of dollars on untried methods to abate a possible menace fifty years from now based on untested models, I'd say you were an alarmist. We're now in our third cycle of "ONLY TEN YEARS TO THE TIPPING POINT!!" hysteria, which began back in 1989 and has continued since.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 02:54 PM
Could we start with less emotionally loaded terms? If you don't like "supporter", fine. But to call those you agree with "realists" is a self-referential joke. How about:

<--|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist ..... Believer ......... Skeptic ...... Denier

I would say the difference between an alarmist and a believer is billions and billions of dollars. If you think we should spend multi-billions of dollars on untried methods to abate a possible menace fifty years from now based on untested models, I'd say you were an alarmist. We're now in our third cycle of "ONLY TEN YEARS TO THE TIPPING POINT!!" hysteria, which began back in 1989 and has continued since.The trouble is skeptical people should believe in AGW. Since the vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence for it to be overwhelming. Those who don't believe in AGW are choosing not to as a matter of blind faith or belief in a worldwide conspiracy by tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes.

Those of use who aren't climate scientists should put our trust in the vast majority of climate scientists around the world who are in consensus. Not the dozens of deniers who make a career of distorting graphs and data in order to sway public opinion, not scientific consensus.

That said:
<--|--------------|----------------------|-->
alarmist.......realist......conspiracy theorist

Lamar Mundane
11-16-2009, 02:58 PM
I found this claim quite surprising. Do you mean that all of them are small compared to total emissions? Because flying a Gulfstream and paddling definitely do not have the "same net effect on CO2 emissions". What am I missing here?

The question was about flying first class. Where Al Gore sits in a plane or even if he doesn't take a plane makes no difference to the net emissions of CO2 by that plane. There is no hypocracy. The seat is still going to be filled and the plane is still going to fly.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 03:20 PM
Could we start with less emotionally loaded terms?

"Believer" is certainly not a less emotionally loaded term than "realist", so I don't think that suggestion works.


But to call those you agree with "realists" is a self-referential joke.

Really? Do you honestly think that there's no middle ground anywhere between alarmism and skepticism that constitutes a realistic view of the AGW issue?

You and I might not agree on exactly what views should fall into the "realist" category versus the "skeptic" or "alarmist" category, but are you seriously arguing that you don't think there exists any scientifically realistic perspective on AGW at all in between those two categories?


The trouble is skeptical people should believe in AGW. Since the vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence for it to be overwhelming.

Yes. I'm having a little trouble with the notion that the only proper designation for people who accept a mainstream scientific theory is either "alarmist" or "believer". That sounds more than a little biased to me.

RTFirefly
11-16-2009, 04:44 PM
For those who have brought up the use of private aircraft for travel, I think there are some good points to be made there. But whether one flies on a plane in first class, coach, the cargo hold, or just being strapped to the wing, there is no logic to attributing a certain amount of CO2 emissions to where a passenger sits. The space argument makes no sense, because the size of the friggin' airplane doesn't change according to whether or not there are passengers filling a particular seat, and were that calculation to be true, then flight crews, what with their galleys and cockpits and all, would have a very large moral burden indeed.

A particular plane is going to burn fuel at a certain rate no matter how its layout is arranged. If there is more weight on the airplane, fuel burn will be slightly higher.To be fair, I think the argument is more like this: you've got the 'fixed' cost of flying the plane with just the pilots and crew, and then you've got the added cost for the weight of the passengers and luggage. If there were fewer people flying first class, then you'd have fewer first class seats in a given plane, and more total seats, which would mean you'd be spreading the 'fixed' costs over more passengers, resulting in more work being done with the same CO2 generation, if we view 'work' as the transportation of people from Point A to Point B.

But like I said, I think the entire argument's flawed: we're not going to substantially slow AGW by voluntary choices. Appropriate, mandatory pricing of activities that result in more CO2 in the atmosphere is the only way we get there. Once we've got that, then there'll be an added cost to air transport, but the added cost to the airline will be greater for those in first class than for those in coach, regardless of what they actually do with their ticket prices.

Chief Pedant
11-16-2009, 04:56 PM
The question was about flying first class. Where Al Gore sits in a plane or even if he doesn't take a plane makes no difference to the net emissions of CO2 by that plane. There is no hypocracy. The seat is still going to be filled and the plane is still going to fly.

Lemme just help you out here, 'cuz it's really easy to understand the difference.

For a GIVEN flight, yes. For collective change, no.

Here's the skinny: walk then bicycle then moped then car then fly coach then fly first...you get the idea. There is efficient transportation and there is inefficient transportation. First class is much less efficient transportation then is coach.

I used this as a comparison because the actual rest of the travel experience is identical, so it makes for an easy comparison.

If, collectively, we did not fly first class, first class would cease to exist and air transportation would become more efficient. Think Southwest versus a Gulfstream 5 if you want to understand it more clearly. Or imagine a Saudi prince who uses an entire 737 to get from point A to point B...now THAT's first class.

What you do, instead, is argue that our individual change is meaningless (and it is) and therefore we should not change (and we don't).

I'm not asking if flying first class on a given flight makes a difference in net CO2 output. I'm asking AGW alarmists to defend that it's OK to profess a concern about the impending doom of the planet and at the same time refuse to give up personal comfort and convenience since an individual's change makes no difference.

I submit that the sum effect of us taking such a position collectively will result in no change at all. Therefore if it's OK to fly first class it is hypocritical to promote a pretense that something should be done about AGW.

This has been presented as an attack on AGW by Kimstu, and others. Such is not the case. It's a request for AGW alarmists to defend whether or not they believe it is internally consistent to lobby for collective change while refusing to change personally.

I have made the observation that AGW, like Religion, is a Great Cause. I make the further observation that, like Religion, when a potential convert to the Great Cause begins questioning which behavioural changes the Great Cause actually requires, they are accused of attacking the Cause itself instead of simply being given a reason why or why not a given behaviour is acceptable.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 05:26 PM
It's a request for AGW alarmists to defend whether or not they believe it is internally consistent to lobby for collective change while refusing to change personally.

I don't think you'll find any alarmists here, but I'll attempt an answer from an AGW-realist perspective: Doesn't it depend on the nature and impact of both the personal and collective change?

If, for example, I vote for my municipality to start a curbside recycling program because it will reduce waste and save the town money, and the measure passes, then the program will indeed reduce waste and save the town money, even if I personally can't be arsed to separate my trash properly for recycling.

There's nothing inherently inconsistent about the "free rider" mindset of "I want this problem solved, but solved by means of other people's actions rather than my own". Sure, if everybody acted that way then the problem wouldn't get solved. But the reason that the "free rider" strategy is often successful is precisely because in many cases, most other people do act differently from the free rider.

So it is quite possible for a free-rider type to be sincere both in taking a problem seriously and wanting it solved, and also in refusing to change his/her own behavior in order to solve it.

Of course, most of the people who take AGW seriously, AFAICT, do change their behavior in some respects from how they would act if they didn't think AGW was a problem. The difficulty is that there's no general agreement on how much or what sort of behavioral change is enough, or whether personal behavioral change is an effective way overall to achieve emissions reductions.

Now, if you insist that people who take AGW seriously must not only refrain from flying first class themselves but also castigate others who fly first class or risk being internally inconsistent, I'll be happy to castigate you. "Stop flying first class, you selfish irresponsible Chief Pedant you!" Satisfied? But now, of course, Ludovic will come along and condemn me as a crusading absolutist. Sigh. It's tough to be a realist sometimes.


By the way, I'm still interested in learning where and how you draw the line between the categories of "alarmist" and "non-alarmist" (or what I'm calling "realist") on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

intention
11-16-2009, 05:28 PM
The trouble is skeptical people should believe in AGW. Since the vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence for it to be overwhelming. Those who don't believe in AGW are choosing not to as a matter of blind faith or belief in a worldwide conspiracy by tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes.

Those of use who aren't climate scientists should put our trust in the vast majority of climate scientists around the world who are in consensus. Not the dozens of deniers who make a career of distorting graphs and data in order to sway public opinion, not scientific consensus.

That said:
<--|--------------|----------------------|-->
alarmist.......realist......conspiracy theorist

I'd agree with that one ... with the obvious proviso that a realist is someone who agrees with me and not you. :D

You don't like "AGW supporter", you don't like "AGW believer", what is your next option?

PS - The world doesn't even contain "tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes" as you claim. That's a typical AGW supporter's trick, exaggeration. There's a look at the numbers here (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/06/lawrence-solomon-numbers-racket.aspx). And there's a relevant quote here (http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccscientists.html):

During the question and answer session (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac) of last week's William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many if not most of its members are not scientists at all. Its president for example is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had "some dealing with the climate." His complete answer was that he thought, "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate." In other words, even IPCC worshiper William Schlesinger is now acknowledging that 80 percent of the IPCC membership have had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

And for those who still believe in the "consensus", first we have Michael Chrichton on the subject:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. It's an excellent speech (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html), you should read it.

Next, we have Dr. Tim Ball (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16913):

Extreme left journalist George Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he was pointing a finger at me. He’s ignoring them again, which forces him to assume the deniers are at fault. He wrote, “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”

The sphere is expanding for several reasons.


All evidence rejects the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming or climate change.
Facts are gradually getting to the public despite obstructionism by journalists like Monbiot.
Temperature projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are consistently wrong.
Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere.
Motives of those pushing the need for reduction in CO2 are being exposed.
Economic costs of a completely unnecessary action are emerging.

If you shoot the messenger it changes the question to, “Who is the denier now?”

Finally we have a list of over 700 scientists who say there is no consensus. Here's a few:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC....The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium...which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

The full list is here (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9) (PDF). In short, the "consensus" is an illusion. How is the illusion maintained? By people like Al Gore, who has developed an organization which is currently spending $300 million dollars to spread his nonsense about "consensus" ... three hundred megabucks. And many of you guys say that the skeptics are in it for the money? Get real. Between the government and Al Gore and his ilk, there are billions of dollars out there spreading the climate change consensus "gospel".

PPS - For those who will predictably respond that some on the list are e.g. geologists, please note that the IPCC's scientist list contains geologists as well. Why? Because climate science is one of the broadest scientific disciplines known. It involves physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, solar science, geology, oceanography, cosmology, glaciology, computer science, statistics, economics, cryology, astronomy, and other disciplines as well. If you have complaints about that, tell the IPCC.

Ah, well. Cue the usual ad hominem attacks, claims of "Your facts must be wrong because I don't like the web site that came from", and the like ...

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 05:42 PM
Ah, well. Cue the usual ad hominem attacks, claims of "Your facts must be wrong because I don't like the web site that came from", and the like ...I assume you aren't a liar, so you must be very, very uninformed. The seven hundred scientists has been so thoroughly discredited that you can't even pretend that you have diligently looked into this issue. You are simply arguing from ignorance. The question looms, are you unwilling or unable to examine evidence in an diligent manner?

Of Inhofe 's "700 scientist" foolishness, I've already dismissed it personally on another board. I looked at the first fifteen pages of his linked scientist names.

Let's see how many climate scientists he's found to bulwark his idea. I went and looked at pages 10 to 25. From the document you linked to:

1. Nuclear Physicist / Chemical Engineer
2. Physics Professor
3. Physicist
4. A "research scientist"
5. A Meteorologist. (note, meteorologists aren't climate scientists)
6. Chemist
7. Geography Professor
8. Physicist
9. Professor of Ecology
10. An actual Climate Scientist... who works for Exxon http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._Knappenberger
11. A meteorologist.
12. Dr. Bruce West, evidently a mathematician
13. Hey, another Climate Scientist. Who works for a group of Coal Companies. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Balling
14. Meteorologist
15. Meteorologist
16. Nuclear Chemistry.
17. Hydrologist / Geologist
18. Physicist
19. Chemist / Biochemist
20. Statistician - which at least is related
21. Geologist
22. Solar Physicist
23. Biologist
24. Meteorologist
25. Chemist / Nuclear Engineer
26. Paleontologist
27. Economist
28. "A Teacher of Water Resources Planning"
29. Geophysicist
30. Physicist
31. Climatologist! He even wrote a quiz about AGW http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Globalwarmingquiz.pdf
32. Chemical Engineer
33. Chemist
34. Professor of Aerospace Engeering
35. Physicist
36. Geologist
37. Engineer

So on those fifteen pages we have three climate scientists of 37 people on the list. One works for an oil company, one for a coal company and the third made a quiz about AGW that looks like a retard typeset it.Why do you trust these amateurs as opposed to the vast majority of climate scientists around the world? Is it because you're willing to believe poorly presented drivel because it supports your personal preferences? You disbelieve AGW because you want to. Not because you have rational reason to.

Chief Pedant
11-16-2009, 05:48 PM
By the way, I'm still interested in learning where and how you draw the line between the categories of "alarmist" and "non-alarmist" (or what I'm calling "realist") on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

An Alarmist, for me, is sounding an Alarm: AGW is real. It is dangerous and we must act immediately and vigorously to avoid disaster; indeed, it may already be too late.

This is not the average AGW "realist" as far as I know, although most of my discussion around the issue occurs here since my personal circle is uninterested in the topic. The "realist" term is yours.

Sam Stone
11-16-2009, 06:03 PM
How so?

The reality - and I'm assuming, due to your post, that this issue hasn't been dealt with earlier in the thread - is that no amount of voluntary action is going to appreciably slow global warming. Even if 100 million people make significant changes in their lifestyles, the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who don't know about the issue, don't care, deny its validity, or are simply too caught up in their own struggles to get by are the ones who will keep the CO2 levels rising, absent appropriate carbon pricing mechanisms.

As an analogy, imagine that there's no global warming problem, but we've hit peak oil, yet our government's mandated $2/barrel petroleum and 30¢/gallon gasoline (and is purchasing and importing as much oil as is needed to maintain those price levels, in view of the resulting higher consumption).

One might, under those circumstances, view it as quite important to reduce petroleum consumption. But no amount of positive choices by those so inclined would have much effect as long as the price of oil and gasoline remained artificially low.

Same thing here: right now, the cost of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is zero, and until that's fixed, we're SOL. The important thing isn't whether Al Gore's Gulfstream jet dumps a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but whether his doing so helps get us closer to an appropriate pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. If it does, then he's making a positive difference with respect to controlling global warming. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter one way or the other.

So it's your position that there's nothing wrong with buying SUVs, running your lights 24/7, or otherwise being wasteful with energy, because these are individual choices and the only thing that will make a difference is government legislation? Anything goes, until the government passes a law?

That's what you seem to be saying about Al Gore. Or is it that so long as you are working towards getting government to force people to be frugal, it's okay to be as wasteful as you want to be because if you're successful at getting government to stop others from doing what you're doing, you'll have a bigger effect on global warming?

This sounds pretty much like mindset that causes the rich and powerful to be corrupt in the first place. Like the rich sinners in the Catholic Church buying indulgences. So long as you're serving the 'greater good', your own personal behavior is irrelevant. Is that it?

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 06:15 PM
I'd agree with that one ... with the obvious proviso that a realist is someone who agrees with me and not you.

Of course; that's how everybody defines "realist". It certainly seems more logical to use the term "realist" with the understanding that different people draw the boundaries of the "realist" categories in different places than to refuse to acknowledge the existence of any realistic perspective on AGW at all.

You don't like "AGW supporter", you don't like "AGW believer", what is your next option?

"Realist".

The world doesn't even contain "tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes" as you claim. [...] There's a look at the numbers here.

Actually, that article simply examines the number of scientists who officially reviewed and/or endorsed the particular IPCC report discussed therein. It says nothing about the total number of climate scientists in the world nor what percentage of them consider anthropogenic climate change to be a serious problem.

And for those who still believe in the "consensus", first we have Michael Chrichton on the subject:

The late novelist and climate-change-denier Michael Crichton was not a credible scientific source about climate, as this analysis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/) of his work points out.

Finally we have a list of over 700 scientists who say there is no consensus.

The credibility of that list has been questioned (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/inhofes_list_of_prominent_scie.php):

"One of the listed prominent scientists is Chris Allen, who holds no college degree, believes in creationism and belongs to a Southern Baptist church.

Allen is a weatherman at the FOX-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky. [...]

'My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture,' he wrote on Feb. 7, 2007.

[...] 'Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context,' wrote Allen." [...]

The list also includes a retired professor with no training in climate science who says that the earth "couldn't be more than 10,000 years old." And these names were listed as "prominent scientists" in an actual Senate report.


For those who will predictably respond that some on the list are e.g. geologists [...] Cue the usual ad hominem attacks, claims of "Your facts must be wrong because I don't like the web site that came from", and the like ...

I don't think you can reasonably expect to pre-empt criticism just by complaining about critics. The point of the criticism is that there just aren't that many reputable scientists out there who reject the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, and many of those who do are not specialists in climate science. In particular, this list of 700 "scientists" (compiled by the notorious hardcore climate-change-denier Senator Jim Inhofe) is quite suspect as an indicator of serious scientific opinion.

If you expect Inhofe's list of climate-change deniers to be taken seriously because 700 is a pretty big number, then you should naturally expect the views of the far larger number of scientists who hold the opposing mainstream position to outweigh them.

elucidator
11-16-2009, 06:16 PM
...So long as you're serving the 'greater good', your own personal behavior is irrelevant. Is that it?

Would you mind if we call you "Stretch"?

Sam Stone
11-16-2009, 06:28 PM
How so? From the standpoint of trying to curb CO2 emissions, an individual flying around in a personal jet aircraft, especially one as large as a Gulfstream, is about as bad as it gets.

I've seen global warming protestors chastise people for driving Ford Explorers. But it's perfectly okay for Al Gore to tool around in a personal jet when other modes of transportation are readily available to him.

The analogy is pretty close to having a religious leader openly flaunt a wildly opulent, promiscuous lifestyle while advocating austerity and abstinence for everyone else, and then having his believers shrug it off by claiming that since he's helping the world be better, the good he's doing is greater than the damage from his personal behavior, so hey, no problem. And if he needs a Dirty Sanchez twice a day to give him the energy to teach the evils of sex to everyone else, that's just fine.

After all, everyone knows that rules a for the masses. The elites really don't have to pay much attention to them.

intention
11-16-2009, 06:36 PM
...

The late novelist and climate-change-denier Michael Crichton was not a credible scientific source about climate, as this analysis (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/) of his work points out.

Your citation says nothing about Crichtons view of "consensus", which is what I quoted.

I don't think you can reasonably expect to pre-empt criticism just by complaining about critics. The point of the criticism is that there just aren't that many reputable scientists out there who reject the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, and many of those who do are not specialists in climate science. In particular, this list of 700 "scientists" (compiled by the notorious hardcore climate-change-denier Senator Jim Inhofe) is quite suspect as an indicator of serious scientific opinion.

Like I said, cue the ad hominem attacks. I don't care if Inhofe is a serial murderer, that's an ad hominem attack. Typical of AGW supporters.

If you expect Inhofe's list of climate-change deniers to be taken seriously because 700 is a pretty big number, then you should naturally expect the views of the far larger number of scientists who hold the opposing mainstream position to outweigh them.

Fine. Break out your list of quotations from 1400 climate scientists who do believe in AGW, and we'll compare lists. Until then, I've provided a list and you haven't. Don't bother saying "The American Physical Society (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/160-physicists-send-letter-to-senate-regarding-aps-climate-position/)" or the like, as their statements are not made by the members. As such, they only represent a few people.

I await your list of quotations from those who agree, put your money where your mouth is. Bring on your list, and let's see who is on it.

PS - Someone with a PhD in meteorology, or who is an atmospheric physicist, is a climate scientist in my book, so you can include them. As I pointed out, if you use Lobohan's criteria above, you would dismiss the IPCC conclusions out of hand, as most of their scientists are not "climate scientists" by his definition. Lobohan dismisses geologists out of hand, for example, despite the obvious connection (http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e) between climate science and geology.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Of Inhofe 's "700 scientist" foolishness, I've already dismissed it personally on another board. I looked at the first fifteen pages of his linked scientist names.

I must say, some of these actual listings in the Inhofe report are pretty funny. At the risk of being accused by intention of committing ad hominem attacks (which seems to be intention's term for "debunking"), may I present:

Economist Dr. Donald J. Boudreaux, the Chairman of the Department of Economics
at George Mason University, recently announced his skepticism. “I am a global-warming skeptic - not of the science of climate change (for I have no expertise to judge it), but a skeptic of combating climate change with increased government power,” Bourdreaux wrote on Feburary 17, 2008.

Oh, I see: he's an economist who is concerned about the potential for abuse of government power in climate-change policy, so that makes him one of "over 700 scientists (!) who say there is no consensus" on the science of climate change, even though he admits to having no expertise on the subject. Well, all right then. Anybody who could fail to be convinced by that must just be a fanatical AGW true believer.

Spreadsheet (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf) analyzing the expertise and relevant experience of each of the listed "scientists".

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 06:47 PM
I await your list of quotations from those who agree, put your money where your mouth is. Bring on your list, and let's see who is on it.You have moved the goalposts. As far as I can tell in the first 37 listed in Inhofe's drivel there are three climate scientists. Do me a favor and count up how many actual climate scientists there are in that rubbish and we'll talk, kay?

PS - Someone with a PhD in meteorology, or who is an atmospheric physicist, is a climate scientist in my book, so you can include them. As I pointed out, if you use Lobohan's criteria above, you would dismiss the IPCC conclusions out of hand, as most of their scientists are not "climate scientists" by his definition. Lobohan dismisses geologists out of hand, for example, despite the obvious connection (http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e) between climate science and geology.Sure, there can be. But if he's a guy that looks for oil in Texas he probably isn't up to speed on climate science. Just like the perfectly skilled chef at Outback Steakhouse probably can't transfer over to a Benihana without some cross training.

IPCC:
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.[54]

Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.[55]Okay, now show me a list of half as many climate scientists working in the field who disagree.

Again, you are choosing to accept unscientific drivel in the far minority because it sounds right to you.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 06:52 PM
I must say, some of these actual listings in the Inhofe report are pretty funny. At the risk of being accused by intention of committing ad hominem attacks (which seems to be intention's term for "debunking"), may I present:

Oh, I see: he's an economist who is concerned about the potential for abuse of government power in climate-change policy, so that makes him one of "over 700 scientists (!) who say there is no consensus" on the science of climate change, even though he admits to having no expertise on the subject. Well, all right then. Anybody who could fail to be convinced by that must just be a fanatical AGW true believer. Heh.

Spreadsheet (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf) analyzing the expertise and relevant experience of each of the listed "scientists".Woah, thanks for that. I'm gonna save this for the next time Intention brings up this silliness.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 07:04 PM
Your citation says nothing about Crichtons view of "consensus", which is what I quoted.

So? If the late Michael Crichton was not a credible source on climate science, then why should I care what he thought about scientific consensus on climate science?

It seems fairly pathetic to insist on quoting as an authority on a scientific debate someone whose ideas on science have been clearly exposed as fundamentally erroneous, and then to respond to that objection by saying "Well, but I'm only quoting his views on the topic of consensus in the abstract!"

For goodness' sake, can't you find someone with a little more credibility as a scientific authority to serve as your virtual spokesman on the topic of scientific consensus? Or are you just so enamored of the way Crichton whales on the "alien believers" that you can't resist continuing to cite him as your source of anti-consensus rhetoric?


Like I said, cue the ad hominem attacks. I don't care if Inhofe is a serial murderer, that's an ad hominem attack.

Um, no. As I suspected, you evidently don't understand what "ad hominem" means. "Ad hominem" critiques attempt to discredit an opponent's position on a particular topic based on some characteristic(s) unrelated to that topic.

So if Inhofe were indeed a serial murderer, and I said "Inhofe is not a reliable authority on the topic of climate change because he's a serial murderer", that would indeed be an ad hominem attack. Being a serial murderer does not necessarily prevent one from understanding climate science.

But when I say "Inhofe is not a reliable authority on the topic of climate change because he's a notorious hardcore climate-change denier", that's not an ad hominem attack, because that characteristic is not unrelated to the topic. Inhofe is an extremist ideologue with a huge axe to grind on the subject of AGW, and yes, that does impair his credibility as a reliable source of information about it.


Fine. Break out your list of quotations from 1400 climate scientists who do believe in AGW, and we'll compare lists.

Oh, so you're willing to make it an argument from authority based on numbers? If you're outnumbered 2 to 1 in cited authorities, then you lose?

Well, that simplifies things, as there are a lot more than 1400 climate scientist authors of peer-reviewed research articles supporting the AGW hypothesis out there, and I've got citation index access. I'll be back.

(Oh, by the way, even if we agree to include geologists and Ph.D. meteorologists and atmospheric physicists in our lists of authorities on climate scientists, I think you still have to weed out your economists and TV weathermen, so you'll still be a fair few shy of 700.)

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 07:11 PM
Kimsu already pointed at the "quality" of the researchers in the list of Inhofe.

Climate Progress takes a look at the main points brought forth by the discredited petition/dissent/list:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again/
Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points — will the media be fooled (again)?
December 11, 2008

Who will the media believe this time: The Senate’s leading climate denier, James Inhofe (R-OK), or their own lying eyes?

Deniers like Inhofe have a serious media problem — an ever growing number of studies, real world observations, and credible scientific bodies all point to human-caused emissions as the increasingly dominant cause of planetary warming and dangerous climate change.

What’s a denier to do? The answer is simple: Repackage previously debunked disinformation, release it as a “new” so-called “Full Senate Report” full of hysterical headlines, push it through right-wing news outlets, and hope the traditional media bites. Why not? It worked before.

elucidator
11-16-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm willing to entertain the notion that Sen Inhofe is a reasonable and rational man, with the most honest of intentions. But there are puzzling questions, if we are to entertain that notion and not shove it out the door, down into the street and under a bus....

We are presented with his thundering barrage of testimony, we are given to understand that these are scientists worthy of consideration, they are experts in their fields, their testimony may be taken to be conclusive.

Why then the obvious "duds", people who cannot be reasonably described so? Why would a man of Sen Inhofe's sterling character include such "duds" unless to dishonestly "pad" a signature count? A negligent, fumbling staffer, perhaps? Then why not rush to correct?

And if a man's character flaws can be offered as evidence relative to his opinions and arguments, is anyone going to offer us Sen Inhofe as a model of honesty, integrity, and reason? And if it can be proved that he is not, may we then assume than this thesis of his "debunking" GW is so much claptrap, balderdash, and tommyrot? Sir.

intention
11-16-2009, 07:12 PM
You have moved the goalposts. As far as I can tell in the first 37 listed in Inhofe's drivel there are three climate scientists. Do me a favor and count up how many actual climate scientists there are in that rubbish and we'll talk, kay?

Moved the goalposts? I specifically said:

PPS - For those who will predictably respond that some on the list are e.g. geologists, please note that the IPCC's scientist list contains geologists as well. Why? Because climate science is one of the broadest scientific disciplines known. It involves physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, solar science, geology, oceanography, cosmology, glaciology, computer science, statistics, economics, cryology, astronomy, and other disciplines as well. If you have complaints about that, tell the IPCC.

If you think that Dr. Joanne Simpson, "the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called 'among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years'" is unqualified because she is a meteorologist, email her and tell her so. Let me know how that goes, 'kay?

How many IPCC scientists would make your list? Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, he's a computer modeler with a PhD in applied mathematics. Michael Mann of hockeystick fame has a PhD in geology, the field you love to hate, so he's out. Rasmus Benestad has a PhD in physics, so he's out. Caspar Amman has a PhD in geosciences, sorry, no good. Raymond Bradley has a PhD in geosciences. Who are they? They run, and are the main contributors and authors, at the RealClimate blog, so by your inane criteria their opinions are worth nothing. Not a climate scientist in the lot.

Do you see how stupid your criteria are? By your criteria, RealClimate doesn't have a single climate scientist among the main men, so we can safely ignore their opinion.

William Connelley who is the climate nazi at Wikipedia has a PhD in numerical analysis, he's out. Lonnie Thompson of ice core fame (famous for alarm and not archiving his data) is another hated geologist. Malcolm Hughes, who wrote the hockeystick paper with Mann and Bradley, has a PhD in Ecology. Finally, James Hansen has a PhD in physics ... not a climate scientist among them, by your standards.

So tell me, Lobohan, which climate scientists are you talking about, since by your criteria James Hansen is not a climate scientist?

elucidator
11-16-2009, 07:17 PM
...William Connelley who is the climate nazi at Wikipedia ...

"Climate nazi"? Oh, dear. Come to think of it, "alarmist" isn't so bad, really....

intention
11-16-2009, 07:27 PM
"Climate nazi"? Oh, dear. Come to think of it, "alarmist" isn't so bad, really....

Yeah, you're 100% right, that was out of line. He should be called the "Climate Censor (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx)".

intention
11-16-2009, 07:29 PM
More on the "consensus" of the IPCC (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553&page=1):

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 07:31 PM
Moved the goalposts? I specifically said:



If you think that Dr. Joanne Simpson, "the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called 'among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years'" is unqualified because she is a meteorologist, email her and tell her so. Let me know how that goes, 'kay?

How many IPCC scientists would make your list? Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, he's a computer modeler with a PhD in applied mathematics. Michael Mann of hockeystick fame has a PhD in geology, the field you love to hate, so he's out. Rasmus Benestad has a PhD in physics, so he's out. Caspar Amman has a PhD in geosciences, sorry, no good. Raymond Bradley has a PhD in geosciences. Who are they? They run, and are the main contributors and authors, at the RealClimate blog, so by your inane criteria their opinions are worth nothing. Not a climate scientist in the lot.

Do you see how stupid your criteria are? By your criteria, RealClimate doesn't have a single climate scientist among the main men, so we can safely ignore their opinion.

William Connelley who is the climate nazi at Wikipedia has a PhD in numerical analysis, he's out. Lonnie Thompson of ice core fame (famous for alarm and not archiving his data) is another hated geologist. Malcolm Hughes, who wrote the hockeystick paper with Mann and Bradley, has a PhD in Ecology. Finally, James Hansen has a PhD in physics ... not a climate scientist among them, by your standards.

So tell me, Lobohan, which climate scientists are you talking about, since by your criteria James Hansen is not a climate scientist?I'm talking about scientist that work on climate issues. Not weathermen. Not particle physicists. Not geologists that hunt oil or do work assessing land for construction.

Climate scientists. Scientists who work on climate research. Many disciplines. Your list is a joke and your credibility is utterly spent. Sticking by Inhofe's list is laughable. And what about my thousands of IPCC people?

You are beveling in a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 07:33 PM
So tell me, Lobohan, which climate scientists are you talking about, since by your criteria James Hansen is not a climate scientist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[65] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[66]

As for Dr. Joanne Simpson:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0gv4Qg0lqSoJ:faculty.gordon.edu/ns/by/dorothy_boorse/documents/Globalclimateminorityreport.doc+Dr.+Joanne+Simpson+misquoted&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

3. Direct misquotes by omitting something or misrepresenting what a scientist actually said.

A. Here is a quote from scientist Joanne Simpson:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”

But what is in the ellipsis? Here is the quote missing from the paragraph:

“…What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

In fact, even that isn’t the whole story. The quote is from a much longer piece in which Dr. Simpson is specifically questioning the conventional wisdom on how climate change will affect hurricanes. It is posted with her permission on the web site of a climate change skeptic, and is quite critical of scientists on both sides of the discussion. The piece itself is primarily in support of a specific study on rainforest precipitation as a way to improve climate models.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

So while, Dr. Simpson is much less a supporter of the IPCC conclusions than many of her peers, the quote in the Minority Report is really not accurate and in fact, completely misrepresents he conclusions about what we ought to do given the risks we have.

The minority Report [from senator Imhofe’s] is not accurate, at least what I have been able to follow. Some of the people quoted are protesting that they were misrepresented. Many of the experts are not climate scientists, and the scientific claims do not hold up to scrutiny when you look at the data.

Sam Stone
11-16-2009, 07:38 PM
With all due respects to both sides of the, "My scientists are better than your scientists" debate, you're all engaging in pretty unscientific argumentation.

Science isn't a popularity contest. There are plenty examples from the history of science where the overwhelming majority of scientists happened to be wrong. This especially happens when a new theory comes along which challenges a widely held orthodoxy.

The science should stand on its own. And here's where the problem comes in - the reason you can find so many eminent scientists on both sides of the question is that the science in this case is not clear cut. I think all climatologists and earth science types would admit that our understanding of climate and of the earth's long-term response to changes in climate are incomplete. There's no experiment we can run which will categorically tell us whether the earth will be a certain temperature 50 years from now, even within very wide margins of error. We don't have two Earths, so we can't run controlled experiments. All we can do is mine historical data and try to piece together cause and effect, and build models which we hope will predict future events.

In a way, it's a lot like the study of history. We have evidence that the rise of philosophy X caused result Y. We can speculate what might have happened in Hitler had been killed in WWI, or if Napolean had decided Moscow was too cold for his liking and had stayed home. But in the end, human events are chaotic and unpredictable, and lessons from the past are filled with many confounding variables and factors that no longer exist, so extrapolating them into the future is dicey.

And yet, that doesn't stop us from drawing certain reasonable conclusions, such as believing that Hitlers are generally bad for the planet and human freedom is generally a productive force. But there's enough wiggle room that you can still find people on all sides of every political debate.

I don't mean to downplay the actual science involved in climate study - I believe there's plenty of it, and that it points to a future that will likely be warmer with man's CO2 emissions than it would be without them. It's just that there's enough wiggle room in the data and the models, and enough confounding variables and randomness in climate change, that there's room for equally good scientists to still disagree about what's going on.

My personal position is that yes, there is clearly a greenhouse mechanism for C02, and all else being equal, a planet with more CO2 in the atmosphere will be hotter than one with less CO2. From that standpoint, man-made global warming is occurring.

The question is whether all else is equal. If we had two identical earths, and we pumped a few trillion kg of CO2 into one of them, what would happen over the next 50 years? Would we still have two identical earths, except one is hotter than the other? Or would the injection of CO2 kick of changes that would bring back an equilibrium? Maybe they'd be identical again, except one would have more C02 locked up in the ocean floor from increased algae blooms and sequestration. Or perhaps the earth with more CO2 would go through a cycle of increased vegetation growth, which would over time wind up sequestered as fossil fuel. Maybe it would take a million years to sequester the CO2, or maybe it would be done in 20.

I think these are where the big unknowns are. What's the earth's response going to be to the increased CO2? What feedback mechanisms does the Earth employ, and how long do they take?

In my opinion, the farther you get from the basic science of CO2 causing warming, the shakier the science gets. There's an awful lot about long-term climate that's still a mystery, with major new discoveries being made all the time.

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 07:40 PM
I'm talking about scientist that work on climate issues. Not weathermen. Not particle physicists. Not geologists that hunt oil or do work assessing land for construction.

Climate scientists. Scientists who work on climate research. Many disciplines. Your list is a joke and your credibility is utterly spent. Sticking by Inhofe's list is laughable. And what about my thousands of IPCC people?

You are beveling in a conspiracy theory. Sorry.
Quite so, Lobohan.

Heh, even I figured out a long time ago that deniers are depending on conspiracy sites for their talking points.

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 07:47 PM
With all due respects to both sides of the, "My scientists are better than your scientists" debate, you're all engaging in pretty unscientific argumentation.

Science isn't a popularity contest. There are plenty examples from the history of science where the overwhelming majority of scientists happened to be wrong. This especially happens when a new theory comes along which challenges a widely held orthodoxy.

The science should stand on its own. And here's where the problem comes in - the reason you can find so many eminent scientists on both sides of the question is that the science in this case is not clear cut.
:rolleyes:

Thats is the point where you lost me, check the cites, one side has almost all the eminent scientists on their side, the other side...

Heck, deniers even have to misquote or ignore that many of the eminent scientists that they consider to be on their side, are complaining that they are appearing in the "denier" lists; many of those researchers have mentioned that they have requested to be taken out from those denier lists.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 07:52 PM
And here's where the problem comes in - the reason you can find so many eminent scientists on both sides of the question is that the science in this case is not clear cut.There aren't eminent climate scientists on the anti global warming side. That's what the discussion is about.

In my opinion...Might I suggest you get some advanced degree that lets you work in the field of climate science and get some peer-reviewed work published and then maybe your opinion will carry a bit more weight?

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 08:07 PM
The science should stand on its own.

No argument here. But when people refuse to argue the science, and instead just seem interested in justifying their own contrarian views on climate change by nitpicking their opponents' lifestyle choices or waving around lists of "scientific authorities" including economists, creationists, and TV weatherpeople, the science inevitably drifts to the back burner.

I think these are where the big unknowns are. What's the earth's response going to be to the increased CO2? What feedback mechanisms does the Earth employ, and how long do they take?

And the real kicker: What should we do while we're figuring these things out?

The majority of climate scientists seem to agree on a basic "precautionary principle" approach: namely, that the predicted problems are almost certainly real and most likely significant, and therefore we should take some fairly major action to slow/reduce GHG emissions, to be on the safe side. This attitude seems to be growing in popularity and influence, and a number of people are not at all happy about that.

elucidator
11-16-2009, 08:14 PM
...You are beveling in a conspiracy theory. Sorry.

If you bevel a conspiracy theory, is it still edgy?

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:32 PM
If you bevel a conspiracy theory, is it still edgy?Oh, a wiseguy huh? [/curly]

intention
11-16-2009, 08:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen



Hey, Lobohan said anyone who was a physicist was not a climate scientist, not me. You don't like it, take it up with him. I'm not the one who made the claim.

intention
11-16-2009, 08:34 PM
There aren't eminent climate scientists on the anti global warming side. That's what the discussion is about.

Might I suggest you get some advanced degree that lets you work in the field of climate science and get some peer-reviewed work published and then maybe your opinion will carry a bit more weight?

I have published peer reviewed work in climate science, and I have another paper being peer reviewed as we speak.

And Lindzen, and Pielke Jr. and Sr., and Christy, and Landsea aren't eminent? Say what? And the Japanese (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/) aren't signing on ...

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:39 PM
Hey, Lobohan said anyone who was a physicist was not a climate scientist, not me. You don't like it, take it up with him. I'm not the one who made the claim.No, I said that a generic physicist isn't necessarily a climate scientist.

Are you ready to admit that Inhofe's list is trash? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:40 PM
I have published peer reviewed work in climate science, and I have another paper being peer reviewed as we speak.

And Lindzen, and Pielke Jr. and Sr., and Christy, and Landsea aren't eminent? Say what? And the Japanese (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/) aren't signing on ...
As I recall you wrote a letter to the editor. Hardly makes you the equal of someone working in the field.

intention
11-16-2009, 08:41 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen


As for Dr. Joanne Simpson:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0gv4Qg0lqSoJ:faculty.gordon.edu/ns/by/dorothy_boorse/documents/Globalclimateminorityreport.doc+Dr.+Joanne+Simpson+misquoted&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

From that cite (emphasis mine):

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. For more than a decade now “global warming” and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding. There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.

Doesn't sound like the science is "settled" to me, as y'all love to claim.

intention
11-16-2009, 08:44 PM
As I recall you wrote a letter to the editor. Hardly makes you the equal of someone working in the field.

Well, since you are 100% wrong, I guess that make you the equal of a person making a false claim, full of bullshit, and totally contrary to the facts.

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 08:46 PM
Hey, Lobohan said anyone who was a physicist was not a climate scientist, not me. You don't like it, take it up with him. I'm not the one who made the claim.

Funny, I do clearly remember that you in the past dismissed a physicist for confirming that the climate models being used were good.

In any case, Hansen is working in climate research and even meteorologists continue to recognize his contributions.

(Yes, Intention missed who gave the award, there was another reason why I put that cite, but I was not surprised to see that he completely missed it)

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:47 PM
From that cite (emphasis mine):



Doesn't sound like the science is "settled" to me, as y'all love to claim.You should take a moment to read the quote. Go on, I'll wait. :D

You continually move the goal posts and proffer the lies of an idiot (Inhofe) as proof. Why do you have to resort to such underhanded tactics to support your beliefs?

intention
11-16-2009, 08:48 PM
No, I said that a generic physicist isn't necessarily a climate scientist.

Are you ready to admit that Inhofe's list is trash? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?

Look at your list above. Based solely on their listed education ("physicist", "geologist", "Professor of Ecology", etc.) you claim that they are not climate scientists. Your claim, not mine. Are you ready to admit that your categories are bullshit? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:49 PM
Well, since you are 100% wrong, I guess that make you the equal of a person making a false claim, full of bullshit, and totally contrary to the facts.Was it not you? I suppose it was some other conspiracy theory devotee on the board. My apologies.

Please link to an abstract of your article.

intention
11-16-2009, 08:51 PM
You should take a moment to read the quote. Go on, I'll wait. :D

You continually move the goal posts and proffer the lies of an idiot (Inhofe) as proof. Why do you have to resort to such underhanded tactics to support your beliefs?

I read the quote when it was posted. What is your point?

And as I said, I don't care if Inhofe is a mass murderer. Unlike you, I don't rely on underhanded tactics like ad hominem arguments.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:52 PM
Look at your list above. Based solely on their listed education ("physicist", "geologist", "Professor of Ecology", etc.) you claim that they are not climate scientists. Your claim, not mine. Are you ready to admit that your categories are bullshit? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?No, it's your argument that is bullshit. Inhofe's list has been soundly discredited and you're only looking a fool by trying to shore it up. A physicist who isn't working in climate science isn't qualified to assess the state of the art in climate science.

I suggest you take a look here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf [<-- PDF warning] so you can stop blindly parroting the 700 list.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 08:57 PM
I read the quote when it was posted. What is your point?

And as I said, I don't care if Inhofe is a mass murderer. Unlike you, I don't rely on underhanded tactics like ad hominem arguments.You don't understand what ad hominem means. Inhofe has a list that is a collection of some very few anti global warming climate scientists, many unqualified scientists, and many outright non-scientists. It also has selectively cropped the statements of people who think AGW is happening and mis-characterized what they said. It's not an ad hominem attack to suggest that a list you're proffering as fact is full of lies and does not say what you are saying it does.

I frankly find it amazing that you could be blindly ideological that you refuse to see that.

intention
11-16-2009, 08:57 PM
Was it not you? I suppose it was some other conspiracy theory devotee on the board. My apologies.

Conspiracy theory devotee? Are you off your head? I have never once said that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, not once. That's just another of your perverted fantasies. That is a sleazy tactic, to claim that I am a devotee of conspiracy theories. Give me a citation to me claiming a conspiracy, or apologize. That's fucking sick. I am as far from a conspiracy theorist as you can find.

Please link to an abstract of your article.

First link to an abstract of your article ...

What is this, dueling abstracts? This is nonsense. Again you want to make another ad hominem argument.

The issue is not whether you or I have published more or less. It is whether the arguments we advance are scientifically valid. That's all science cares about. Einsteins theory was not accepted because he had a whole heap of publications before he advanced E=MC2. It was accepted because it was correct. The same is true of you and I. The issue is whether what you or I say is correct, not how many publications we have under our belts.

Lobohan
11-16-2009, 09:04 PM
Conspiracy theory devotee? Are you off your head? I have never once said that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, not once. That's just another of your perverted fantasies. That is a sleazy tactic, to claim that I am a devotee of conspiracy theories. Give me a citation to me claiming a conspiracy, or apologize. That's fucking sick. I am as far from a conspiracy theorist as you can find.You think that AGW isn't true. The vast majority of climate scientists find it to be supported by the evidence we have. Some very few say this is not the case. You are proposing a conspiracy of the vast majority of climate scientists to silence the few truthful (as you see them). Histrionics do little to win others to your case.

First link to an abstract of your article ...

What is this, dueling abstracts? This is nonsense. Again you want to make another ad hominem argument.No, you made a claim that you are have a peer-reviewed article published on climate science. If you did, then you at least would be one person who could go on Inhofe's list.

The issue is not whether you or I have published more or less. It is whether the arguments we advance are scientifically valid. That's all science cares about. Einsteins theory was not accepted because he had a whole heap of publications before he advanced E=MC2. It was accepted because it was correct. The same is true of you and I. The issue is whether what you or I say is correct, not how many publications we have under our belts.I'm not a scientist. I don't publish papers. I'm saying that the vast majority of people who are qualified to judge AGW find your view to be in the far minority. Why should one believe you when all your side has is a literal handful of qualified scientists arrayed with an army of crackpots?

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 09:11 PM
From that cite (emphasis mine):

Doesn't sound like the science is "settled" to me, as y'all love to claim.
Nope, it just demonstrates that once again you can not differentiate a good source from a bad one, she is not denying the science behind AGW; as the cite mentioned, and you ignored, she is concentrating on the misuse of AGW research applied to Hurricane research.

There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences.

(Snip)

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

(snip)

Global warming impacts appear much more severe in polar latitudes than in tropical regions. The best news is that the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) is on schedule for a 2013 launch. In conclusion I can just pray that GPM scientists and engineers are as smart and as lucky as we TRMM participants have been.”


Simpson's skeptical attitude was born of her quest for the purity of the meteorologist's craft and the wild exaggerations of some that propose that there is solid evidence that we can with certainty blame hurricane activity to AGW, not yet with the current level of research IMHO, but getting closer. In the end it is very clear to me that the Dr. is not doubting that global warming is happening and we need to address it.

GIGObuster
11-16-2009, 09:14 PM
Conspiracy theory devotee? Are you off your head? I have never once said that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, not once.
By Your Cites Shall Ye Be Known.

:)

elucidator
11-16-2009, 09:54 PM
You know what this argument needs? A hippy! With the groundless optimism and the cheerful enthusiasm that made being us so much fun. My buddy Pete is about the only one I know who has remained truly faithful, but I don't think he posts here, so I'll just have to fill in as best I can. Groovy.

The bad news is there is every likelihood that we have a problem. Not end of the world, that's silly, the world will spin along much the same without us, and many, many years hence scientists will examine our history, and clack their mandibles together in approval and gratitude.

The good news is that there isn't an answer. The good news is that there are lots and lots of answers, some of which we know, some of which we don't, and some of which we haven't the foggiest.

If we pour oodles and gobs of money into ecological and energy research (like we screamed at you guys to do forty fucking years ago! but I digress...), if we make that huge investment, we are going to find out a bunch of really, really good stuff. We know something about how to turn sunlight into kilowatts, we could know a lot more. How to produce clean energy from bio-sources, how to create bio-sources tailored to circumstances. Is green, clean energy possible? What kind of idiot wouldn't try and find out? Well, us, for the most part.

So, if it turns out, in the fullness of time, that we decide that our fears of climate change were overblown somewhat, but in the meantime we hit the Einstein jackpot, we nurture the genius that shouts the "Eureka" that saves the world that Jack built.

Point being, it may very well be that even if we have our doubts about the gravity of the problem, there is a lot to be gained by assuming the problem is as bad as we think, if we find a way to solve that problem, we will solve a whole bunch of other problems. On Spaceship Earth, energy is the only currency that really matters. If we have enough cheap, green clean energy, the poorest amongst us will suffer only minor inconveniences, "poverty" will cease to have any meaning, we may forget what "starve" ever meant.

So, maybe it turns out to be wrong, or exaggerated. Remember The Mouse That Roared? How the deadly Q-Bomb turned out to be a dud, but had averted war and secured peace, even though it was a mistake? "The best bomb ever made", wasn't that the line?

Groovy.

Kimstu
11-16-2009, 10:35 PM
I have published peer reviewed work in climate science, and I have another paper being peer reviewed as we speak.


As I recall you wrote a letter to the editor. Hardly makes you the equal of someone working in the field.


Well, since you are 100% wrong, I guess that make you the equal of a person making a false claim, full of bullshit, and totally contrary to the facts.

You told us about your 2004 three-sentence Brief Communication Arising (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/abs/nature02689.html) in Nature, a comment on a Letter to Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6950/full/nature01833.html) (to which the letter's authors offered a rebuttal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/nature02737.html)), back in this May 2006 thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=369967&page=2) (the links start with post #57).

No, it's not a "letter to the editor", but it's not exactly an independent research paper either. There's no shame in that, and it's certainly closer than most of us here have ever got or ever expect to get to publishing peer-reviewed independent research on climate science, but I think it's fair for Lobohan to argue that it is not the equivalent of a significant research publication.

Best of luck with the review for your new publication, btw!

intention
11-16-2009, 11:30 PM
You don't understand what ad hominem means. Inhofe has a list that is a collection of some very few anti global warming climate scientists, many unqualified scientists, and many outright non-scientists. It also has selectively cropped the statements of people who think AGW is happening and mis-characterized what they said. It's not an ad hominem attack to suggest that a list you're proffering as fact is full of lies and does not say what you are saying it does.

I frankly find it amazing that you could be blindly ideological that you refuse to see that.

It is not ad hominem to attack the list. If you did that we wouldn't be discussing ad hominem attacks. But that's not what you do. You say that I

proffer the lies of an idiot (Inhofe) as proof

So I'd say, since you attack Inhofe to try to discredit a list of quotations, rather than find fault with a single quotation, that you don't understand what ad hominem means.

intention
11-16-2009, 11:32 PM
Conspiracy theory devotee? Are you off your head? I have never once said that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, not once.
By Your Cites Shall Ye Be Known.

And you by your lack thereof, since you can't come up with a single cite where I said there was a conspiracy. Put up or shut up.

intention
11-16-2009, 11:37 PM
You told us about your 2004 three-sentence Brief Communication Arising (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/abs/nature02689.html) in Nature, a comment on a Letter to Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6950/full/nature01833.html) (to which the letter's authors offered a rebuttal (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/nature02737.html)), back in this May 2006 thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=369967&page=2) (the links start with post #57).

No, it's not a "letter to the editor", but it's not exactly an independent research paper either. There's no shame in that, and it's certainly closer than most of us here have ever got or ever expect to get to publishing peer-reviewed independent research on climate science, but I think it's fair for Lobohan to argue that it is not the equivalent of a significant research publication.

Best of luck with the review for your new publication, btw!

Thanks, kimstu. My "Communications Arising" was definitely independent research, that's why they published it, because it contained new independent findings. And it was definitely peer reviewed, and quite strictly. I also have another peer-reviewed research article in Energy and Environment, the journal that you all love to hate. Their peer review was equally as stringent as that of Nature. Are either of them "significant"? Heck, I don't know, somewhere between earthshaking and totally trivial, I'd say.

intention
11-16-2009, 11:43 PM
Nope, it just demonstrates that once again you can not differentiate a good source from a bad one, she is not denying the science behind AGW; as the cite mentioned, and you ignored, she is concentrating on the misuse of AGW research applied to Hurricane research. ...

She says that

However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.

How is that not "denying the science behind AGW"? I've been making that exact same claim on this board for years, and have been roundly reviled for it. Now it's suddenly mainstream, suddenly it's not denying what's being the AGW claim????? I have said many times that there is very little evidence, only models behind the AGW claims, and people here have called me all kinds of unflattering names for saying exactly what she said ... but now you think that I was "not denying the science behind AGW"?

Say what?

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 12:08 AM
And you by your lack thereof, since you can't come up with a single cite where I said there was a conspiracy. Put up or shut up.
I said by your cites not by what you are saying, pay attention.

Inhofe does think that global warming is a nefarious creation of the United Nations:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/inhofes_conspiracy_theory.php

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/23/inhofe-650/
Earlier this month, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a report citing “more than 650 international scientists” who back up his claims that manmade global warming is a hoax. This list was a revision of his original compilation of 400 names earlier in the year. That list fell apart, however, when experts pointed out that many of those people 1) had no background in climate science, or 2) “demanded to be taken off, since they didn’t disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.”

Inhofe’s new report with 650 “experts” doesn’t seem to be much better. Anja Eichler, one of the scientists cited by Inhofe as believing that half of the earth’s warming is caused by the sun, said that her work was “misinterpreted”; in fact, she believes that “Earth’s temperature does not change randomly — it changes when it is driven to do so by an external forcing.” TNR’s Bradford Plumer also found others on this list new who appear to support the theory of manmade global warming.

Yesterday on MSNBC, David Shuster grilled Inhofe on his report, bringing up the case of Eichler. After pointing out all the problems with the report, Shuster asked, “Senator, if there is a hoax, isn’t it this report of yours?” Inhofe continued to dig in his heels, insisting that the “majority” still agreed with him:
The only way to keep up a hoax like that running for so long is with a...

Well I can trust that anybody else can guess what word is most appropriate to use here.

And I don't think I need to post the previous examples * were I found the sources of your cites proposing that a conspiracy is the best explanation on how items like the "hockey stick" and the researchers involved with it continue to be well respected in academia and continue to research and get more evidence.




* The Pit is the proper place to cite those whoppers, besides we are drifting from the thread subject, so see you there.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=540264

intention
11-17-2009, 12:09 AM
You know what this argument needs? A hippy! With the groundless optimism and the cheerful enthusiasm that made being us so much fun. My buddy Pete is about the only one I know who has remained truly faithful, but I don't think he posts here, so I'll just have to fill in as best I can. Groovy.

The bad news is there is every likelihood that we have a problem. Not end of the world, that's silly, the world will spin along much the same without us, and many, many years hence scientists will examine our history, and clack their mandibles together in approval and gratitude.

The good news is that there isn't an answer. The good news is that there are lots and lots of answers, some of which we know, some of which we don't, and some of which we haven't the foggiest.

If we pour oodles and gobs of money into ecological and energy research (like we screamed at you guys to do forty fucking years ago! but I digress...), if we make that huge investment, we are going to find out a bunch of really, really good stuff. We know something about how to turn sunlight into kilowatts, we could know a lot more. How to produce clean energy from bio-sources, how to create bio-sources tailored to circumstances. Is green, clean energy possible? What kind of idiot wouldn't try and find out? Well, us, for the most part.

So, if it turns out, in the fullness of time, that we decide that our fears of climate change were overblown somewhat, but in the meantime we hit the Einstein jackpot, we nurture the genius that shouts the "Eureka" that saves the world that Jack built.

Point being, it may very well be that even if we have our doubts about the gravity of the problem, there is a lot to be gained by assuming the problem is as bad as we think, if we find a way to solve that problem, we will solve a whole bunch of other problems. On Spaceship Earth, energy is the only currency that really matters. If we have enough cheap, green clean energy, the poorest amongst us will suffer only minor inconveniences, "poverty" will cease to have any meaning, we may forget what "starve" ever meant.

So, maybe it turns out to be wrong, or exaggerated. Remember The Mouse That Roared? How the deadly Q-Bomb turned out to be a dud, but had averted war and secured peace, even though it was a mistake? "The best bomb ever made", wasn't that the line?

Groovy.

As someone who went to the First Human Be-In in Golden Gate Park, and later that day drove my motorcycle full speed into the Pacific Ocean under the influence of an entire psychedelicatessen, I clearly qualify as a hippie. And I agree with much of what you said. We need to invest in "no-regrets" options. These are actions that will be of value whether or not GHGs are the secret thermostat that sets the planet's temperature.

One of these is certainly cheap non-polluting energy. However, as the corn biofuel debacle has shown, not everything "green" is beneficial. In a world short of food, cutting down trees to grow energy may be a bad idea™ (http://www.nordeco.dk/post/dada). Investing in basic energy research, however, seems like a no-brainer to me.

The main problem as I see it is that climate is the cause of human misery in a host of forms, from droughts and floods and excess heat and excess cold, from too much water and not enough. My "no-regrets" advice is that we promote ways to deal with those problems today, not in 50 years. Here's a couple of examples.

I read a lovely story (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0830_artglacier.html) about how a guy in India has found out how to make "artificial glaciers", by diverting water into ponds in flat areas and letting it freeze.

In Peru, they are using "fog nets (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/fog-nets-deliver-fresh-wa_n_356194.html)" to capture water out of the air.

Both of these are what we need, low-cost ways to solve today's climate related problems.

So rather than spending billions on reducing CO2 in the hope that it will somehow prevent dry conditions in 50 years, I say we should put money into developing more things like fog nets and artificial glaciers now. Whether or not CO2 is the secret global thermostat, those kinds of things will provide benefits now.

The problem with the 'let's bring down CO2 to maybe possibly reduce future climate problems' scheme is that people are dying today, right now, from the exact same climate problems you are saying will be occurring 50 years from now. We don't have time for "might work in 50 years" solutions when people are dying today.

Yes, fog nets are a hippy solution, and I'm proud of it. Groovy indeed.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 12:12 AM
You continually move the goal posts and proffer the lies of an idiot (Inhofe) as proof.


So I'd say, since you attack Inhofe to try to discredit a list of quotations, rather than find fault with a single quotation, that you don't understand what ad hominem means.

Nope, that's not correct; you're the one who is (still) misusing the concept of ad hominem. The logic goes like this:

- Senator Inhofe is the named author of the Senate minority report including the list of 700 "scientists".

- The issue of whether a work's author is a liar and/or an idiot is relevant to the trustworthiness of the work as a credible source on expert opinion in climate science.

- Consequently, claiming that Inhofe's list is unreliable because Inhofe is a liar and/or an idiot is not an ad hominem attack.

Whether or not Inhofe actually is a liar and/or an idiot, it is not an ad hominem argument to say that if he is, then his list should not be considered a credible source.

Now, you can certainly object that just calling Inhofe a liar and/or an idiot is not as convincing an argument as factually rebutting one of his specific claims. However, that doesn't mean that it's an ad hominem argument.


And you by your lack thereof, since you can't come up with a single cite where I said there was a conspiracy.

I didn't see anywhere you explicitly said there was a conspiracy, but you do give the impression that you are receptive to some conspiracy-theorist types like Lawrence Solomon, whose disparaging article on William Connelley you appear to endorse.

Solomon is notorious for misrepresenting the opinions of climate scientists on climate change and trying to present so-called "deniers" as having been "persecuted" for dissenting from climate "orthodoxy". jshore pointed out to you an instance of the debunking of Solomon's work in post #124 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11598123) just last month, and I'm rather surprised that you're still relying on Solomon as a source.

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 12:18 AM
She says that



How is that not "denying the science behind AGW"? I've been making that exact same claim on this board for years, and have been roundly reviled for it. Now it's suddenly mainstream, suddenly it's not denying what's being the AGW claim????? I have said many times that there is very little evidence, only models behind the AGW claims, and people here have called me all kinds of unflattering names for saying exactly what she said ... but now you think that I was "not denying the science behind AGW"?

Say what?

The context is "a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax."

And the last line mentions that:

"Global warming impacts appear much more severe in polar latitudes than in tropical regions."

She complains against both extremists, until you show me other places where she going against all of the science I will assume that she is more in agreement with most of the meteorologists that accept AGW.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 12:21 AM
I also have another peer-reviewed research article in Energy and Environment [...] Their peer review was equally as stringent as that of Nature.

Huh? Back in the May 2006 thread, you seemed to be saying (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7372996&postcount=60) that E&E was not a peer-reviewed journal and that you had never claimed it was:

You have lied in your claim that I said E&E was peer reviewed, which I never said.

Do you have a cite for the claim that articles in E&E are in fact peer-reviewed? Their home page (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm) and instructions for authors do not appear to indicate that this is so.

Not that something in a non-peer-reviewed journal is necessarily bad or substandard in any way, of course. But if we're giving special credit to peer-reviewed publications, then it's good to be clear on which ones they are.

intention
11-17-2009, 12:23 AM
Nope, that's not correct; you're the one who is (still) misusing the concept of ad hominem. The logic goes like this:

- Senator Inhofe is the named author of the Senate minority report including the list of 700 "scientists".

- The issue of whether a work's author is a liar and/or an idiot is relevant to the trustworthiness of the work as a credible source on expert opinion in climate science.

- Consequently, claiming that Inhofe's list is unreliable because Inhofe is a liar and/or an idiot is not an ad hominem attack.

Whether or not Inhofe actually is a liar and/or an idiot, it is not an ad hominem argument to say that if he is, then his list should not be considered a credible source.

Now, you can certainly object that just calling Inhofe a liar and/or an idiot is not as convincing an argument as factually rebutting one of his specific claims. However, that doesn't mean that it's an ad hominem argument.


I didn't see anywhere you explicitly said there was a conspiracy, but you do give the impression that you are receptive to some conspiracy-theorist types like Lawrence Solomon, whose disparaging article on William Connelley you appear to endorse.

Solomon is notorious for misrepresenting the opinions of climate scientists on climate change and trying to present so-called "deniers" as having been "persecuted" for dissenting from climate "orthodoxy". jshore pointed out to you an instance of the debunking of Solomon's work in post #124 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11598123) just last month, and I'm rather surprised that you're still relying on Solomon as a source.

Solomon got one thing wrong, and suddenly he's "notorious"? Really? And Connolley's actions on Wikipedia are egregious enough that he is currently the subject of an internal Wikipedia discussion on whether he is too opinionated to be an administrator, so it's a long, long way from being just Solomon's opinion. I know what Connolley is capable of, because he's reverted some very innocuous changes that I made, so I speak from personal experience ... do you?

The Inhofe logic goes like this:

Someone on Senator Inhofe's staff posted a list of scientists and quotations from what they have said.

I point people, not to Inhofe's web site, but to the list of scientists and quotations.

Rather than deal with the list and the quotations therein, you attack Inhofe.

Let me say again, it doesn't matter if Inhofe is an axe murderer. That is immaterial to the question of the scientists on the list and what they said. Did they say what they said? Did they mean what they said? Have they been misquoted? Is it true what they said? Those are relevant questions. Does Inhofe beat his meat in public and lie to his wife? Irrelevant. You persist in attacking the messenger ... which says something about the message ...

intention
11-17-2009, 12:27 AM
Huh? Back in the May 2006 thread, you seemed to be saying (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7372996&postcount=60) that E&E was not a peer-reviewed journal and that you had never claimed it was:

Do you have a cite for the claim that articles in E&E are in fact peer-reviewed? Their home page (http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm) and instructions for authors do not appear to indicate that this is so.

Not that something in a non-peer-reviewed journal is necessarily bad or substandard in any way, of course. But if we're giving special credit to peer-reviewed publications, then it's good to be clear on which ones they are.

E&E only peer-reviews some of the articles it prints, which is why I said it is not peer reviewed. I see I was not clear, I should have said sometimes the articles are not peer reviewed. I have had two articles published there, one of which was peer-reviewed and one of which wasn't. The peer review for the one was as stringent as that of Nature.

elucidator
11-17-2009, 12:32 AM
This scientists comments either lend themselves to misinterpretation, or she is willfully misinterpreted. Either way, wouldn't she be likely to have some further clarification as to her opinion available? Seeing how she is being misinterpreted one way or the other. Now, my google-fu is weak, but it shouldn't be a problem for one of you smart guys.

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 12:34 AM
Let me say again, it doesn't matter if Inhofe is an axe murderer.It does matter if he specifically gathers a list of misleading information and outright lies. Yet you persist in pointing to lies to shore up your story.

Since you've been shown that some of your key evidence is worthless and you're unwilling to cop to it, that sort of says something about your debating style, doesn't it?

intention
11-17-2009, 12:35 AM
The context is "a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax."

And the last line mentions that:

"Global warming impacts appear much more severe in polar latitudes than in tropical regions."

She complains against both extremists, until you show me other places where she going against all of the science I will assume that she is more in agreement with most of the meteorologists that accept AGW.

She says the AGW theory is based on models and not evidence. Some of you have repeatedly excoriated me for saying exactly the same thing. She says she mistrusts the models, although not as much as some scientists. She specifically says she is skeptical about AGW theory, but thinks we should act anyway. Not exactly middle-of-the-road.

Part of the problem with her statement is that she does not distinguish between "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming". So it is unclear whether she thinks some scientists are saying GW is a hoax, or AGW is a hoax. The same is true regarding her statement about the polar regions.

In the event, recent warming from 1980 to about 2000 has been more severe in the Arctic, while the Antarctic ice has reached the highest level since satellite measurements began ... go figure.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 12:36 AM
My "Communications Arising" was definitely independent research, that's why they published it, because it contained new independent findings.

:confused: We're talking about the three-sentence paragraph where you claimed that the data given in an earlier article didn't support the authors' conclusions (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/abs/nature02689.html), right? And they published a response disagreeing with you (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/nature02737.html)? Was there some additional content in that exchange that I missed in those links?

Because I would have described your contribution as definitely an original criticism of a new research finding, but not as a "new independent finding" in its own right. It appeared to be based solely on the data in the other authors' published article.

Not that there's anything wrong with contributing a publishable original criticism of other people's research, which is a valuable thing to do in the service of science, but I find the style of your description of it a bit confusing.

intention
11-17-2009, 12:45 AM
It does matter if he specifically gathers a list of misleading information and outright lies. Yet you persist in pointing to lies to shore up your story.

Since you've been shown that some of your key evidence is worthless and you're unwilling to cop to it, that sort of says something about your debating style, doesn't it?

If the list is misleading and contains outright lies, then the list is misleading and contains outright lies, whether Inhofe is an axe murderer or not. So whether he is an axe murderer or not is meaningless.

What "key evidence" has been shown to be meaningless? There are a host of climate scientists out there who say that the AGW theory is incorrect, that GHGs are not the secret climate thermostat. You have attacked Dr. Simpson's statement, but she said specifically that she is sceptical about the AGW theory. But even if you have dismissed Dr. Simpson's statement, what about the other 699? What about the scientists of the APS I cited above? What about the Japanese scientists I cited above? What about the sixty climate scientists who recently wrote the open letter (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf) to the Prime Minister of Canada?

And as Dr. Simpson points out, the AGW theory is not based on evidence, it is based on climate models. So what "worthless evidence" are you talking about?

Man, you are too much. You attack and discuss one scientist out of seven hundred, ignore all the other scientists I cite, attack the person who published the list, and sit back and congratulate yourself on winning the debate ... pathetic.

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 12:59 AM
She says the AGW theory is based on models and not evidence. Some of you have repeatedly excoriated me for saying exactly the same thing. She says she mistrusts the models, although not as much as some scientists. She specifically says she is skeptical about AGW theory, but thinks we should act anyway. Not exactly middle-of-the-road.

Part of the problem with her statement is that she does not distinguish between "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming". So it is unclear whether she thinks some scientists are saying GW is a hoax, or AGW is a hoax. The same is true regarding her statement about the polar regions.

In the event, recent warming from 1980 to about 2000 has been more severe in the Arctic, while the Antarctic ice has reached the highest level since satellite measurements began ... go figure.
So the answer is, no, she did not follow with more support for the denier's cause.

You see that is typical, if Inhofe was correct you would see much more coming from the people cited on the list, In this peculiar case, I would expect to see at least her complaint to the Meteorological society for giving a price to Hansen.

intention
11-17-2009, 12:59 AM
:confused: We're talking about the three-sentence paragraph where you claimed that the data given in an earlier article didn't support the authors' conclusions (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/abs/nature02689.html), right? And they published a response disagreeing with you (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6997/full/nature02737.html)? Was there some additional content in that exchange that I missed in those links?

Because I would have described your contribution as definitely an original criticism of a new research finding, but not as a "new independent finding" in its own right. It appeared to be based solely on the data in the other authors' published article.

Not that there's anything wrong with contributing a publishable original criticism of other people's research, which is a valuable thing to do in the service of science, but I find the style of your description of it a bit confusing.

Great. Now you want to argue semantics. I went out and did original research that disputed their facts. Nobody had done that research before, that's why it's called "original research". I didn't say it was a "new independent finding", putting that in quotes is bullshit designed to deceive the reader.

But so what? How many other amateur scientists have been published in Nature lately? I consider it an achievement. When and if you do the same, so will you ... no matter what someone wants to say to denigrate it.

Finally, you are so inutterably foolish and unaware of Nature's policies that you think that what I published was three sentences, oh, that's just precious ... sorry, that's only the opening, the rest is behind the Nature firewall. To show how stupid your "three sentence" claim is, I just posted it up here (http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Eschenbach_Nature.pdf) specially for you. Have at it.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Solomon got one thing wrong, and suddenly he's "notorious"? Really?

:dubious: "Got one thing wrong"? He portrayed a scientist's views on climate science in a way that the scientist himself in a letter to the editor (http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-ducks-correction-repeats-slander) described as a "slanderous fabrication", and then failed to apologize for or retract the portrayal, and you shrug it off as just "getting one thing wrong"?

At any rate, it's hardly just getting "one thing wrong" in Solomon's case. As has been frequently pointed out (http://climatedenial.org/index.php?s=deniers), the most egregious misrepresentation in his book The Deniers is the fact that many of the scientists he profiles aren't actually climate-change deniers:

The book purports to show that leading scientists, taking major personal risks, are prepared to ‘deny’ the stated consensus on climate change. The lengthy byline (added, one suspects, by some keen publicity person) is “the world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud”

And yet it slowly dawns on the reader that few of these ‘world renowned scientists’ disagree in any way that climate change is happening, is serious, and is primarily caused by human emissions. [...]

The first witness for the prosecution is Dr. Richard Tol, a critic of the Stern Report, who, as the book admits, is in every other way “a central figure in the global warming establishment”. Then we hear from Dr Christopher Landsea who argues that hurricanes are not increasing due to climate change. He is also a contributing author to the second UN IPCC report and agrees fully with its main conclusions. The book tells us that Dr Edward Wegman, who challenges the statistical basis of the famous ‘hockey stick’ climate graph, “does not dispute that man made global warming was occurring’.

Getting things wrong is not just a one-time oopsie but an essential part of Solomon's stock in trade as a climate science journalist. You should not be expecting your readers to consider him a credible source.


I know what Connolley is capable of, because he's reverted some very innocuous changes that I made, so I speak from personal experience

Okay, but I think you'll have to forgive us if we don't immediately assume that Connelley's disagreeing with your climate-change views, even on statements that you consider "very innocuous", must be a sign of his bad faith. There might possibly be other reasons why somebody would disagree with you.

Mind you, I know nothing of Connelley myself and do not, AFAIK, rely on his edited articles for any climate science information. But I certainly wouldn't automatically distrust him based on the word of Lawrence Solomon, or for that matter on yours.

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 01:12 AM
As for the open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada?

That letter claimed that "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models"

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

...

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don't have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.

If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.

Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.

Ah yes, Hansen, maybe he deserves a price..

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 01:14 AM
Because I would have described your contribution as definitely an original criticism of a new research finding, but not as a "new independent finding" in its own right. [...]

I went out and did original research that disputed their facts. Nobody had done that research before, that's why it's called "original research". I didn't say it was a "new independent finding", putting that in quotes is bullshit designed to deceive the reader.

:confused: Huh? You said right in post #182 of this very thread:

My "Communications Arising" was definitely independent research, that's why they published it, because it contained new independent findings.

That's why I put "new independent finding" in quotation marks, because I was directly quoting you.


But so what? How many other amateur scientists have been published in Nature lately? I consider it an achievement.

Indeed it is, as I already said. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by implying in any way that you shouldn't be proud of it.


Finally, you are so inutterably foolish and unaware of Nature's policies that you think that what I published was three sentences

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked you if there was any missing information there. Thanks for the link to the full seven paragraphs of your communication and the authors' response.

intention
11-17-2009, 01:52 AM
:confused: Huh? You said right in post #182 of this very thread:

That's why I put "new independent finding" in quotation marks, because I was directly quoting you.

You are right, my bad. But I think we have different meanings regarding "new independent finding". You are using it to indicate research on something new. Rereading what I wrote, I see that I meant new findings regarding their research.

I wasn't sure, which is why I asked you if there was any missing information there. Thanks for the link to the full seven paragraphs of your communication and the authors' response.

You said:

You told us about your 2004 three-sentence Brief Communication Arising in Nature, a comment on a Letter to Nature (to which the letter's authors offered a rebuttal), back in this May 2006 thread (the links start with post #57).

There's no satisfying you. First you claim it's only three sentences. I post the article, three quarters of a page in Nature Magazine, and you are like, so what, only seven paragraphs? Another thing you may not know is that there is a strict word limit on submissions to Nature, my work was as long as it could possibly be.

I suspect I'm the only person participating in this discussion to have anything published on climate science in Nature Magazine. So I may be wrong, but I'm no fool, and I have published peer-reviewed climate science, both in Nature and E&E.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 02:18 AM
There's no satisfying you. First you claim it's only three sentences.

Right, because it looks like only three sentences on Nature's website, which is why I asked you if there was any more.

I post the article, three quarters of a page in Nature Magazine, and you are like, so what, only seven paragraphs?

:confused: Who said anything about "so what, only" seven paragraphs? I was acknowledging that the full publication was indeed substantially longer than the three sentences I originally saw of it.

I suspect I'm the only person participating in this discussion to have anything published on climate science in Nature

Probably, but so what? According to you, publication records don't matter:

The issue is not whether you or I have published more or less. It is whether the arguments we advance are scientifically valid. That's all science cares about.

You seem to be flipflopping a bit on whether or not things like scientific reputation and publication success and so on should be taken into account when evaluating the credibility of someone's opinions on climate science.

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 02:56 AM
There's no satisfying you. First you claim it's only three sentences. I post the article, three quarters of a page in Nature Magazine, and you are like, so what, only seven paragraphs? Another thing you may not know is that there is a strict word limit on submissions to Nature, my work was as long as it could possibly be.

I suspect I'm the only person participating in this discussion to have anything published on climate science in Nature Magazine. So I may be wrong, but I'm no fool, and I have published peer-reviewed climate science, both in Nature and E&E.You're awfully proud of a litany of nitpicks less than a page long that got refuted soundly by the original authors. It really seems like claiming a peer reviewed article on climate science for that is bordering on fantasy.

But none of that matters, because even if you had any expertise in climate science you'd still be just one of a handful of experts against the vast majority of the working experts in the field.

intention
11-17-2009, 03:24 AM
As for the open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada?

That letter claimed that "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models"

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

...

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don't have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.

If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.

Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
Ah yes, Hansen, maybe he deserves a price..

Most of that was true, up until the end of the century. Since then ... no cookies. None of the models predicted the current flat-lining of the temperature for the past decade. In specific ...

1. "If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting." The models are not bad at reproducing the past. This is no surprise, as they are tuned (http://rs285.rapidshare.com/files/74023818/Kiehl_2007_GRL_Twentieth_century_climate_model_response_and_climate_sensitivity.pdf) to reproduce the past. Your citation, and you, seem to think this proves something. But if I build a model and tune it to reproduce the past, are we supposed to be impressed that it reproduces the past? If you are, you don't understand tuned models. This claim is a joke. The key issue is that in chaotic systems, being able to predict the past means nothing about the future, as many people have found out with stock market models. Or as the stock broker's ad says, "Keep in mind that past success does not guarantee future performance." ...

2. "models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct." Well, except for the last decade, when warming has neither continued nor accelerated. So no, so far they are not correct. And while there was warming, there was no "accelerated warming" over the last fifty years.

3. "models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed". Not so. The Reynolds v2 SST is available at KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl). It shows the same thing as the air temperature, which rose until 1998, and has been flat since then. So the models were wrong.

4. "models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed" Same problem. The models looked great last century. But in the 21st century, they kept rising, and the atmospheric temperature went flat.

5. "models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed" This relationship is basic science, and is predictable without any model at all. It would only be surprising if the models didn't show this.

6. "models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;" This is hogwash. There is no way to measure either incoming sunlight nor outgoing IR to an accuracy that would enable us to make this statement. The errors are far too large.

7. "models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening". Well, it was happening in the 20th century. Since 2001, it has been cooling. The models also predict warming in the Antarctic, and it has been cooling since 1979 (start of the satellite records). Antarctic ice coverage is currently at an all time high. Again not predicted by the models.

8. "models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this" Again, this has been known since not too long after the "Year without a summer (http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm)" after the eruption of Tambora.

So other than the simplest things (temperature drop after volcanic eruption), the models did well up to the turn of the century, and have done abysmally in the last decade.

Do you call that a success? Because I sure don't. We are currently way below the range that James Hansen predicted in 1988. And it's not only his models that were wrong (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/stormy-weather-salon.pdf). From a 1989 interview:

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

We had discussed "alarmist" above, and his claims are as good an example of "alarmist" as any.

So no, I'm not ready to give Jim Hansen a prognosticator's medal. As your article noted, "Twelve years later [up to 2000], he was proven remarkably correct" ... but since then, he has been proven remarkably wrong. There is a good discussion of various temperature projections here (http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm). In general, CO2 based models don't do well.

Regarding the claims above, you would do well to check the data at KNMI before making easily disproven assertions. KNMI (http://climexp.knmi.nl) (cited above) is an excellent source, you can download a variety of data (sea ice, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, model results, sea surface temperature, and a host more). You can pick the area of the world you want the results for. It is a surperb resource.

Now, you guys are all about "who said it", not "what was said". So let me cover that as well. As I noted above, this is not just my opinion. There are 60 climate scientists who signed on to the letter. You have provided the opinion of a self-described "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" who ignored everything since the year 2000. His assertions are easily disproven by a casual examination of the KNMI data. Your choice ... my point was simply that there is no "consensus".

intention
11-17-2009, 03:33 AM
Right, because it looks like only three sentences on Nature's website, which is why I asked you if there was any more.

:confused: Who said anything about "so what, only" seven paragraphs? I was acknowledging that the full publication was indeed substantially longer than the three sentences I originally saw of it.

My apologies, as you say that was not your meaning. I took it incorrectly. I get attacked here so much I fear I read it the wrong way, I'm a bit touchy after being repeatedly accused of everything from being a conspiracy theorist to being a flat out liar to mopery on the skyways and a host of other sins of commission and omission. Mea culpa, I struck back and you were not attacking.

Probably, but so what? According to you, publication records don't matter:

You seem to be flipflopping a bit on whether or not things like scientific reputation and publication success and so on should be taken into account when evaluating the credibility of someone's opinions on climate science.

You are 100% right that they don't matter to me. Unfortunately, they seem to matter very much to others here, and yet they want to abuse me despite my peer-reviewed publications. I mention it only to try to get people to stop treating me like the village idiot. It doesn't make my ideas right or wrong at all. It does mean that I have thought long and hard about these matters, and that my opinions are informed by that process. Doesn't make them right, but I'm not just pulling ideas out of the air.

My thanks to you for your tone. I will strive to be as courteous.

bengangmo
11-17-2009, 04:37 AM
Carbon Offsets are evil, pure and simple. Reduction is the only way, buying a piece of desert to offset your pollution per acre is absolutely disgusting behavior.




Why?

Blake
11-17-2009, 04:55 AM
I suspect I'm the only person participating in this discussion to have anything published on climate science in Nature Magazine. So I may be wrong, but I'm no fool, and I have published peer-reviewed climate science, both in Nature and E&E.

Which brings up an interesting point. I've been published on the issue of climate science in the premier journal in my field (Global Change Biology).

Has anybody on the alarmist side here actually been published on the issue anywhere at all? Normally I wouldn't care, since it's an obvious argument from authority. But since the issue has been raised, and all us skeptics have been labelled as ignorant and uneducated, I wonder if the alarmists actually have equivalent bona fides?

RTFirefly
11-17-2009, 05:01 AM
So it's your position that there's nothing wrong with buying SUVs, running your lights 24/7, or otherwise being wasteful with energy, because these are individual choices and the only thing that will make a difference is government legislation? Anything goes, until the government passes a law? Pretty much, yeah: if you run your air conditioner with the windows wide open, I may ridicule you as stupid, and my main objection to your SUV is that if you're in front of me in traffic, I can't see what's happening in front of you, so I hope you don't mind if I prefer to be in front of you than behind you (but that's a whole 'nother rant). But I'm not going to say you're immoral.

The main thing that worries me is that those who engage in such profligate energy use will be more inclined to fight against the true environmental costs of such energy use being imposed on their future energy use, since pretty much all of us like to keep on doing whatever it is that we've gotten used to being able to do.

Obviously I'm not worried about Al Gore's fighting against the imposition of a good costing system on his CO2 output. I'm worried about some of them other guys, but there's little to be done about that, other than let the recession and peak oil do their bit.

So long as you're serving the 'greater good', your own personal behavior is irrelevant. Is that it?No.

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 09:59 AM
So no, I'm not ready to give Jim Hansen a prognosticator's medal. As your article noted, "Twelve years later [up to 2000], he was proven remarkably correct" ... but since then, he has been proven remarkably wrong.
The point was also that even most meteorologists do not think that, and the award shows it.

Now, you guys are all about "who said it", not "what was said". So let me cover that as well. As I noted above, this is not just my opinion. There are 60 climate scientists who signed on to the letter. You have provided the opinion of a self-described "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" who ignored everything since the year 2000. His assertions are easily disproven by a casual examination of the KNMI data. Your choice ... my point was simply that there is no "consensus".
If that is so, then how to explain why even the top Meteorologists miss that? How to explain that the leadership and the majority of most scientific organizations perversely ignore how it is "easily disproven"?

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
NASA's Gavin Schmidt

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist." -gavin

Only by willfully ignoring the research and warnings (of deniers misinterpreting the "slowdown" periods in the warming trend) of Mojib Latif and others is that you can come up with verdicts like "there is no "consensus"" or that modelers were not aware that other factors could slow down the warming for a period.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/

Let me tell you that my background is in education and history, It is by looking at history that one can say that the consensus of today is way different that it was up to the 70's.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
American Meteorological Society (AMS)

The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1

"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 10:48 AM
Has anybody on the alarmist side here actually been published on the issue anywhere at all?

There's nobody here on the "alarmist" side, AFAICT. The climate change non-deniers here identify as "realists" or some other non-pejorative term.

If you want to call yourself a "skeptic" rather than a "denier" and have that nomenclature respected, you shouldn't insist on slapping pejorative labels on your opponents.

IIRC, there are others on the board who have published in climate science areas and have participated in climate-change threads, but I don't think there are any in this thread.

Blake
11-17-2009, 11:03 AM
Meh, I get tarred with the "denier" label routinely on these boards. You only have to look at this thread to see that in action, never mind every single past thread. Since this seems to be an issue where I'm going to have ad hominem labels applied to me, I thought I'd join in as well. It's not like I'm going to be referred to respectfully either way.

elucidator
11-17-2009, 11:08 AM
To be expected, really. We of the warming hysteria coalition have Gore and ACORN on our side to finance our conspiracy, all you guys got are Exxon, Citigroup, Shell, and two or three other penny-ante, two-bit corporate supporters.

gonzomax
11-17-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't get the point of arguing that the climate is getting worse due to man made pollution or not. We do know that we are wasting a lot of gas driving big huge vehicles. We also know they spew a lot of pollution. If we went to smaller cleaner cars, how could that be bad? Going to more efficient cars is a win /win. We become less dependent on oil if we conserve. We spew less dirt if we drive better ,less polluting vehicles. Are we taking someones right to pollute away from them? Is that a right they have?

Blake
11-17-2009, 11:40 AM
We do know that we are wasting a lot of gas driving big huge vehicles.

No, we are using a lot. There's a big difference.

We also know they spew a lot of pollution.

Do we? What constitutes a "lot", and is the unit metric or imperial?

If we went to smaller cleaner cars, how could that be bad?

You really don't know? If you seriously believe there is no downside to driving a smaller car, why do you think so many people don't do it? Do you honestly think that everybody who disagrees with you is too dumb to do things that are only beneficial to them?

Going to more efficient cars is a win /win.

Again, do you honestly think that everybody who disagrees with you is too dumb to do things that are only beneficial to them? Me, I stopped thinking like that at about 15. Most people do. You realise that if billions of people are doing something, it probably provides some benefit to them.

Kimstu
11-17-2009, 12:29 PM
Since this seems to be an issue where I'm going to have ad hominem labels applied to me, I thought I'd join in as well. It's not like I'm going to be referred to respectfully either way.

Well, I'd agree that if you did have a shot at being referred to respectfully, you've now pretty much pre-empted it. (Except perhaps for me, I try to keep referring to people respectfully even under provocation.)

Oh, and you as well as intention seem to be a bit unclear on the meaning of "ad hominem". If somebody claims that your views on climate change are worthless on the grounds that you're a climate change denier, that might be an inaccurate attack on your views, but it is not an ad hominem one.

An ad hominem argument is one based specifically on a characteristic of the opponent that is irrelevant to the subject of the argument. If somebody said that your views on climate change are worthless because you're, um, let's pretend they said a serial kitten-kicker, that would be an ad hominem argument. Because kitten-kicking tendencies, reprehensible though they may be in themselves, do not have any bearing on whether their possessor understands climate science.

Chief Pedant
11-17-2009, 01:16 PM
(Except perhaps for me, I try to keep referring to people respectfully even under provocation.)


FWIW your posts are easily my favorite Dope reading.

So...Al Gore is generally doing good. AGW realists are not alarmists and have an acceptable grasp on AGW based on rock-solid science. I am an AGW ignoramus.

I want to give you all of those, free of further debate, for the purpose of trying to get this question addressed:

Is it acceptable for AGW realists to fly first class on ordinary business trip flights?

I believe you have implied it is acceptable and I am left wondering why it is acceptable. If we say it's acceptable, do we not, by extension, make every behaviour acceptable independent of its effect on furthering AGW? Or is it the case that you do not agree with my premise that first class is a wonderful case example (since, from a functionality standpoint it, is identical to coach)? For me it's a perfect case study because one cannot bring in distracting arguments such as safety, expediency, time commitments and so on to defend what might otherwise be criticised as profligate (such as me flying my G5 to get somewhere).

intention
11-17-2009, 03:45 PM
There's nobody here on the "alarmist" side, AFAICT. The climate change non-deniers here identify as "realists" or some other non-pejorative term.

If you want to call yourself a "skeptic" rather than a "denier" and have that nomenclature respected, you shouldn't insist on slapping pejorative labels on your opponents.

"Realists"? Every person on earth thinks that they are a realist. Labelling one side in a discussion as "realists" is a joke. How is that any different from what you are arguing against?

How about, since our side of the discussion is called the "skeptics", you give up claiming to be the only "realists" in the room?

How about "skeptics" and "unskeptics"? You didn't like "AGW supporters", so how about "AGW unskeptics" instead? Because labelling one side "realists" is an insult, not a "non-pejorative term".

intention
11-17-2009, 03:49 PM
Quote:Now, you guys are all about "who said it", not "what was said". So let me cover that as well. As I noted above, this is not just my opinion. There are 60 climate scientists who signed on to the letter. You have provided the opinion of a self-described "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" who ignored everything since the year 2000. His assertions are easily disproven by a casual examination of the KNMI data. Your choice ... my point was simply that there is no "consensus".
If that is so, then how to explain why even the top Meteorologists miss that? How to explain that the leadership and the majority of most scientific organizations perversely ignore how it is "easily disproven"?

What is it that the top Meteorologists are missing? You'll have to be more specific here.

The citation made a variety of claims about the accuracy of the models. Unfortunately, he stopped comparing them at around the year 2000. Most people have noticed that, and admit that since 2000 the models are doing very poorly. His claims are "easily disproven" because he is ignoring recent history, which the top Meteorologists are not foolish enough to do.

LonesomePolecat
11-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Of course Gore's standard defence is that he offets his huge fossil fuel usage by investing in other schemes. IOW despite declaring that this is a moral problem, he believes he can buy his way out of any dilemma. As for those who aren't well connected multi-millionaires, they just have to suffer fro their sins. .Rather like the Catholic church selling indulgences.

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 04:32 PM
Rather like the Catholic church selling indulgences.Yes. Except the Catholic church was selling intercession with a God that didn't exist for a problem that was imaginary.

Whereas carbon offsets are putting money towards green endeavors (like wind turbines) to actually combat a real problem, like AGW.

Other than that exactly the same. :D

Now as to whether any one human's offsets are worth the trouble, I'm probably with you there. But it's a perfectly sound way to put your money where your mouth is if you're against carbon pollution.

LonesomePolecat
11-17-2009, 04:37 PM
To be expected, really. We of the warming hysteria coalition have Gore and ACORN on our side to finance our conspiracy, all you guys got are Exxon, Citigroup, Shell, and two or three other penny-ante, two-bit corporate supporters.Don't cry, Luci. You guys have got the International Panel on Climate Change on your side, even if they have been caught cooking the stats and refusing to make their data available to critics. (http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2)

intention
11-17-2009, 04:49 PM
FWIW your posts are easily my favorite Dope reading.

So...Al Gore is generally doing good. AGW realists are not alarmists and have an acceptable grasp on AGW based on rock-solid science. I am an AGW ignoramus.

I want to give you all of those, free of further debate, for the purpose of trying to get this question addressed:

Is it acceptable for AGW realists to fly first class on ordinary business trip flights?

I believe you have implied it is acceptable and I am left wondering why it is acceptable. If we say it's acceptable, do we not, by extension, make every behaviour acceptable independent of its effect on furthering AGW? Or is it the case that you do not agree with my premise that first class is a wonderful case example (since, from a functionality standpoint it, is identical to coach)? For me it's a perfect case study because one cannot bring in distracting arguments such as safety, expediency, time commitments and so on to defend what might otherwise be criticised as profligate (such as me flying my G5 to get somewhere).

There's an interesting study on this question here (http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid/398). One thing it says is that the passenger average load factor in 2005 (last year of the study) was 75%. Since there are empty seats on average, whether there is a first class or not, and whether you fly first class or not, is immaterial.

Doesn't really answer the core of your question, however, which is whether personal actions make a difference. In fact, even if the US and all of Western Europe could magically roll back their emissions to 1970's levels, it would have only a trivial effect on total CO2 emissions. See my post here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/06/why-copenhagen-will-achieve-nothing/#comment-221534) for why.

LonesomePolecat
11-17-2009, 04:57 PM
Yes. Except the Catholic church was selling intercession with a God that didn't exist for a problem that was imaginary.

Whereas carbon offsets are putting money towards green endeavors (like wind turbines) to actually combat a real problem, like AGW.

Other than that exactly the same. :D

.
It is not at all certain that global warming is actually happening.

If it is, it has not been demonstrated that global warming will actually result in global catastrophe for the human race.

It is not certain that global warming, if it is happening, is the result of human economic activity.

It is not certain that we can reverse or stop the trend.

It is not certain that the tremendous cost of appreciably reducing carbon emissions will produce a benefit which will outweigh the catastrophic global economic disruption such measures will necessarily cause. The burden will necessarily fall much harder on the poor and the lower classes throughout the world. It will, however, deliver a great deal of power into the hands of anonymous bureaucrats. People like Al Gore will not suffer. People like me will. What I see is a group of people asking for an awful lot of power to prevent something which may not even be happening in the first place and may be beyond our ability to contain or control if it is.

There is an old joke about a man in Trafalgar Square spinning around like a top and waving his umbrella in the air on a perfectly sunny day. A bobby watches him for a few minutes, and then strolls over to him.

"What do you think you're doing?" asks the bobby.

The man stops and gives the bobby a puzzled look as if the question made no sense. "I'm keeping the elephants away," says the man.

"There aren't any elephants in Trafalgar Square," the bobby says.

"See? It works!" replies the man, and goes back to spinning and swinging his umbrella.

That's global warming.

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 05:10 PM
It is not at all certain that global warming is actually happening.The vast majority of climate scientists believe the evidence is credible. That you are unconvinced is irrelevant.

If it is, it has not been demonstrated that global warming will actually result in global catastrophe for the human race.Few are suggesting global catastrophe. However it doesn't have to be a catastrophe for word economy to take a tremendous hit.

It is not certain that global warming, if it is happening, is the result of human economic activity.The vast majority of climate scientists believe the evidence is credible.

It is not certain that we can reverse or stop the trend.The Earth sequesters carbon, trapping it in rocks and dissolving it in the ocean. We are overcoming that sequestration by producing more carbon than the Earth can handle. If we reduce our output we will give the Earth time to remove the carbon from the atmosphere.

It is not certain that the tremendous cost of appreciably reducing carbon emissions will produce a benefit which will outweigh the catastrophic global economic disruption such measures will necessarily cause. The burden will necessarily fall much harder on the poor and the lower classes throughout the world. It will, however, deliver a great deal of power into the hands of anonymous bureaucrats. People like Al Gore will not suffer. People like me will. What I see is a group of people asking for an awful lot of power to prevent something which may not even be happening in the first place and may be beyond our ability to contain or control if it is.That is a fair question. However the current cap-and-trade proposals are hardly draconian.

There is an old joke about a man in Trafalgar Square spinning around like a top and waving his umbrella in the air on a perfectly sunny day. A bobby watches him for a few minutes, and then strolls over to him.

"What do you think you're doing?" asks the bobby.

The man stops and gives the bobby a puzzled look as if the question made no sense. "I'm keeping the elephants away," says the man.

"There aren't any elephants in Trafalgar Square," the bobby says.

"See? It works!" replies the man, and goes back to spinning and swinging his umbrella.

That's global warming.Why do you place your ignorant and uninformed opinion against thousands of climate scientists from across the globe? Do you think they are in a conspiracy to steal money from you?

Chief Pedant
11-17-2009, 05:26 PM
There's an interesting study on this question here (http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid/398). One thing it says is that the passenger average load factor in 2005 (last year of the study) was 75%. Since there are empty seats on average, whether there is a first class or not, and whether you fly first class or not, is immaterial.

Doesn't really answer the core of your question, however, which is whether personal actions make a difference. In fact, even if the US and all of Western Europe could magically roll back their emissions to 1970's levels, it would have only a trivial effect on total CO2 emissions. See my post here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/06/why-copenhagen-will-achieve-nothing/#comment-221534) for why.


Lordy; this should not be that difficult. My question is not whether personal actions make a difference. That's like asking if my actual individual vote makes a difference for the Presidency. It does not.

If I don't fly first class on a given flight, it makes no difference. The plane will simply fly with someone else in the seat or fly the seat empty.

OTOH everyone doesn't fly first class on any flights, there will be no first class and flying will become more efficient.

Do the AGW realists hold that flying first class is wrong? Does holding a position of AGW realism invalidate the appropriateness of any behaviour at all?

intention
11-17-2009, 05:27 PM
It is not certain that we can reverse or stop the trend.
The Earth sequesters carbon, trapping it in rocks and dissolving it in the ocean. We are overcoming that sequestration by producing more carbon than the Earth can handle. If we reduce our output we will give the Earth time to remove the carbon from the atmosphere.

You misunderstand entirely. The Polecat is not saying that if we emit less, that atmospheric CO2 won't rise more slowly. He is saying that we can't stop or reverse the rise in CO2. Re-read his statement. Given the abysmal failure of Kyoto, there is evidence that he is correct. See my post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/06/why-copenhagen-will-achieve-nothing/#comment-221534) for the huge difference that Kyoto has made in European emissions, and why Polecat is right about reversing or stopping the trend ...

Why do you place your ignorant and uninformed opinion against thousands of climate scientists from across the globe? Do you think they are in a conspiracy to steal money from you?

You seem to be stuck on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I'm still waiting for your citation to anything I've said that indicates I am a conspiracy theorist as you have claimed. Put up or shut up, you've been called.

You misunderstand how science works. The reality is that the majority of scientists have been wrong, wrong, wrong many times in the past. That is the nature of science, something is believed by "thousands of scientists" until it is shown to be wrong. No conspiracy theory needed, it's just science at work. We're not claiming that your un-named "thousands of scientists" are conspiring ... just that they are wrong.

Widespread "scientific" backing for an idea is particularly prevalent when science and politics get mixed together, as they have in climate science. Google "eugenics" for an example.

intention
11-17-2009, 05:31 PM
Lordy; this should not be that difficult. My question is not whether personal actions make a difference. That's like asking if my actual individual vote makes a difference for the Presidency. It does not.

If I don't fly first class on a given flight, it makes no difference. The plane will simply fly with someone else in the seat or fly the seat empty.

OTOH everyone doesn't fly first class on any flights, there will be no first class and flying will become more efficient.

Do the AGW realists hold that flying first class is wrong? Does holding a position of AGW realism invalidate the appropriateness of any behaviour at all?

The efficiency of flying depends on how many seats are filled. Given that passenger average loading is only 75%, in general the limiting factor is not first class vs. no first class. Without first class, they will still average right around 75% full.

However, I find it interesting that you have so much trouble getting your questions answered.

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 05:36 PM
You misunderstand entirely. The Polecat is not saying that if we emit less, that atmospheric CO2 won't rise more slowly. He is saying that we can't stop or reverse the rise in CO2. Re-read his statement. Given the abysmal failure of Kyoto, there is evidence that he is correct. See my post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/06/why-copenhagen-will-achieve-nothing/#comment-221534) for the huge difference that Kyoto has made in European emissions, and why Polecat is right about reversing or stopping the trend ...Well certainly if we haven't done it, it must be impossible. :rolleyes:

You seem to be stuck on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I'm still waiting for your citation to anything I've said that indicates I am a conspiracy theorist as you have claimed. Put up or shut up, you've been called.Haven't we already danced this dance?

You misunderstand how science works. The reality is that the majority of scientists have been wrong, wrong, wrong many times in the past. That is the nature of science, something is believed by "thousands of scientists" until it is shown to be wrong. No conspiracy theory needed, it's just science at work. We're not claiming that your un-named "thousands of scientists" are conspiring ... just that they are wrong.Of course. However we have huge amounts of data supporting AGW and a few nits and statistical anomalies against. The vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence compelling and a very few on the fringe are unconvinced. Oddly, an awful lot of the unconvinced are ideological, working for carbon producing industries, or completely unqualified in the field.

Widespread "scientific" backing for an idea is particularly prevalent when science and politics get mixed together, as they have in climate science. Google "eugenics" for an example.Eugenics is an engineering project, how is that at all like climate science?

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 06:44 PM
What is it that the top Meteorologists are missing? You'll have to be more specific here.

The citation made a variety of claims about the accuracy of the models. Unfortunately, he stopped comparing them at around the year 2000. Most people have noticed that, and admit that since 2000 the models are doing very poorly. His claims are "easily disproven" because he is ignoring recent history, which the top Meteorologists are not foolish enough to do.

You need a big fat cite for that.

It is my educated guess that when an organization like the Meteorological society gives an a ward to Jensen it means that most meteorologists do dismiss your points.

Chief Pedant
11-17-2009, 07:02 PM
The efficiency of flying depends on how many seats are filled. Given that passenger average loading is only 75%, in general the limiting factor is not first class vs. no first class. Without first class, they will still average right around 75% full.

However, I find it interesting that you have so much trouble getting your questions answered.

I fly a little over a hundred segments a year. I must be choosing the wrong flights b/c mine are typically pretty close to full; I think AA runs a load factor of a little over 80%. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2009_Nov_5/ai_n42026748/ But in any case, I'm looking for the principle of the thing: where I have a choice to do something which increases the CO2 cost to the environment and adds no benefit to me other than my personal creature comfort, do AGW realists hold that to be wrong? Perhaps I can refine the OP question by positing a full flight. If the only counter arguments are via wiggle room based on fine points about the example rather than the underlying principle, I am suspicious that there is no actual principle derived from AGW realism which should result in behavioural changes.

if you want a more egregious example: Is it wrong for me to get my own personal Gulfstream 5 to get around in?

intention
11-17-2009, 09:42 PM
No, it's your argument that is bullshit. Inhofe's list has been soundly discredited and you're only looking a fool by trying to shore it up. A physicist who isn't working in climate science isn't qualified to assess the state of the art in climate science.

I suggest you take a look here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf [<-- PDF warning] so you can stop blindly parroting the 700 list.

I started to look at your list. The first person on it is Dr. Philip Lloyd. He was a not just an author, but a coordinating lead author, for the UN IPCC section on carbon capture. He has written 189 peer reviewed articles including "Coal Mining and the Environment", "Energy for the poor? The Clean Development Mechanism", "The greening of world trade issues", "Environmental protection in South Africa", "Particulate Monitoring". He is a co-author of the IPCC book "IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage".

But your citation throws him out the window, because he's not a "climate scientist" ... someone should notify the IPCC.

So let's move on to Dr. William Gray. Dr. Gray is perhaps the best known hurricane specialist on the planet. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is author or co-author of Global climate change and tropical cyclones, - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Downward trends in the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five years, - Geophysical Research Letters, Strong association between West African rainfall and US landfall of intense hurricanes - Science Magazine, and a host of others. A quick search finds 33 other papers.

But your reference says that Dr. Gray is not a climate scientist ... say what? Bill Gray is one of the pre-eminent climate scientists on the planet, he has published a host of papers on the topic, but ... oh, yeah, he's not wild about CO2 being the global thermostat, so your citation says he's out.

Moving on to Henk Tennekes. Wikipedia says "Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI), and was a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.[1] He is known for his work in the fields of turbulence and multi-modal forecasting. He authored the textbooks The Simple Science of Flight and A First Course in Turbulence with John L. Lumley.[2] The book "A First Course in Turbulence", is a classic that logs more than 2,000 citations on Google Scholar.[3]

Tennekes was a strong proponent of scientific modeling, and he challenged the use of incomplete or unproven scientific models trying to explain complex phenomena such as global warming.[4]

So he is an expert in atmospheric turbulence, and has written peer reviewed articles and books on atmospheric turbulence and how it applies to climate models ... but he's not a climate scientist either, according to your bogus list.

Moving on, we come to Dr. William Cotton. Wikipedia says:

Professor Cotton is a highly cited author. He has published more than 120 papers in peer-reviewed journals, seven chapters in books, co-authored three books, and authored one book.

Your citation says that they decide whether someone is a climate scientist based on, among other things, a search on Google Scholar. Here's just the first few results for Dr. Cotton ...

[BOOK] Storm and cloud dynamics, [PDF] ►New primary ice-nucleation parameterizations in an explicit cloud model, MP Meyers, PJ DeMott, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1992 - [PDF] C Chen, WR Cotton - Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 1983 - Springer
The formulation and testing of the turbulence model and the sensitivity
experiments with the model using Wangara Day, [BOOK] Human impacts on weather and climate, The physics of the marine stratocumulus-capped mixed layer - Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1987, A numerical investigation of several factors contributing to the observed variable intensity … GJ Tripoli, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology

So I call bullshit on your list. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are a couple of the most eminent climate scientists in the country. Under what possible rubric are they not climate scientists? The idea that your citation somehow "soundly discredits" the list of over 700 scientists is a joke. Defend your citation as being valid, or give it up. If you think it is correct to say that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists, let us know why.

intention
11-17-2009, 09:47 PM
You seem to be stuck on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I'm still waiting for your citation to anything I've said that indicates I am a conspiracy theorist as you have claimed. Put up or shut up, you've been called.
Haven't we already danced this dance?Nope. I asked for a citation where I claimed there was a conspiracy. AFAIK, you haven't provided one, so I'm still waiting. If you have provided one, please point it out.

intention
11-17-2009, 09:53 PM
What is it that the top Meteorologists are missing? You'll have to be more specific here.

The citation made a variety of claims about the accuracy of the models. Unfortunately, he stopped comparing them at around the year 2000. Most people have noticed that, and admit that since 2000 the models are doing very poorly. His claims are "easily disproven" because he is ignoring recent history, which the top Meteorologists are not foolish enough to do.

You need a big fat cite for that.

It is my educated guess that when an organization like the Meteorological society gives an a ward to Jensen it means that most meteorologists do dismiss your points.


A fat cite for what? I still don't have an answer about what the Meteorologists are missing. And who is "Jensen"? Your citation we were discussing (http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/) is by somebody named Coby Beck. What am I missing here?

intention
11-17-2009, 10:06 PM
You misunderstand how science works. The reality is that the majority of scientists have been wrong, wrong, wrong many times in the past. That is the nature of science, something is believed by "thousands of scientists" until it is shown to be wrong. No conspiracy theory needed, it's just science at work. We're not claiming that your un-named "thousands of scientists" are conspiring ... just that they are wrong.

Of course. However we have huge amounts of data supporting AGW and a few nits and statistical anomalies against. The vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence compelling and a very few on the fringe are unconvinced. Oddly, an awful lot of the unconvinced are ideological, working for carbon producing industries, or completely unqualified in the field.

Again, other than your nasty fantasies about the motives of people who don't believe as you do, that's the nature of science. Until Einstein came along there were "huge amounts of data supporting [Newtonian physics] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against." Until Wegener came along, there were "huge amounts of data supporting [stable continents] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against." You really don't understand science at all, do you? Science progresses by overthrowing the consensus.

Widespread "scientific" backing for an idea is particularly prevalent when science and politics get mixed together, as they have in climate science. Google "eugenics" for an example.
Eugenics is an engineering project, how is that at all like climate science?

Let me make it painfully clear for you, since you seem to be having trouble connecting the dots. Eugenics is an example of what happens "when science and politics get mixed together". Clear now?

Lobohan
11-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Again, other than your nasty fantasies about the motives of people who don't believe as you do, that's the nature of science. Until Einstein came along there were "huge amounts of data supporting [Newtonian physics] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against." Until Wegener came along, there were "huge amounts of data supporting [stable continents] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against." You really don't understand science at all, do you? Science progresses by overthrowing the consensus.And you are not advocating science. You are nitpicking minor statistical anomalies and distorting other people's work. You are not a scientist and very, very few actual peer-reviewed scientists produce work that goes against the orthodoxy. If you wanna prove your case, do some science, not whiny complaints and letters to the editor.

Let me make it painfully clear for you, since you seem to be having trouble connecting the dots. Eugenics is an example of what happens "when science and politics get mixed together". Clear now?Eugenics has nothing to do with climate change. Do you understand how to form analogies?

Nope. I asked for a citation where I claimed there was a conspiracy. AFAIK, you haven't provided one, so I'm still waiting. If you have provided one, please point it out.You are citing Inhofe's work as evidence. Inhofe thinks there is a conspiracy. Also, are you suggesting that the vast majority of climate scientists on Earth, are wrong, and you, and a minuscule handful of fringes who can't manage to get anything published on the topic are correct?

Are the vast majority of climate scientists misleading people or are you just a better climate scientist than the majority of climate scientists on Earth?

I started to look at your list. The first person on it is Dr. Philip Lloyd. He was a not just an author, but a coordinating lead author, for the UN IPCC section on carbon capture. He has written 189 peer reviewed articles including "Coal Mining and the Environment", "Energy for the poor? The Clean Development Mechanism", "The greening of world trade issues", "Environmental protection in South Africa", "Particulate Monitoring". He is a co-author of the IPCC book "IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage".

But your citation throws him out the window, because he's not a "climate scientist" ... someone should notify the IPCC.

So let's move on to Dr. William Gray. Dr. Gray is perhaps the best known hurricane specialist on the planet. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is author or co-author of Global climate change and tropical cyclones, - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Downward trends in the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five years, - Geophysical Research Letters, Strong association between West African rainfall and US landfall of intense hurricanes - Science Magazine, and a host of others. A quick search finds 33 other papers.

But your reference says that Dr. Gray is not a climate scientist ... say what? Bill Gray is one of the pre-eminent climate scientists on the planet, he has published a host of papers on the topic, but ... oh, yeah, he's not wild about CO2 being the global thermostat, so your citation says he's out.

Moving on to Henk Tennekes. Wikipedia says "Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI), and was a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.[1] He is known for his work in the fields of turbulence and multi-modal forecasting. He authored the textbooks The Simple Science of Flight and A First Course in Turbulence with John L. Lumley.[2] The book "A First Course in Turbulence", is a classic that logs more than 2,000 citations on Google Scholar.[3]

Tennekes was a strong proponent of scientific modeling, and he challenged the use of incomplete or unproven scientific models trying to explain complex phenomena such as global warming.[4]

So he is an expert in atmospheric turbulence, and has written peer reviewed articles and books on atmospheric turbulence and how it applies to climate models ... but he's not a climate scientist either, according to your bogus list.

Moving on, we come to Dr. William Cotton. Wikipedia says:



Your citation says that they decide whether someone is a climate scientist based on, among other things, a search on Google Scholar. Here's just the first few results for Dr. Cotton ...

[BOOK] Storm and cloud dynamics, [PDF] ►New primary ice-nucleation parameterizations in an explicit cloud model, MP Meyers, PJ DeMott, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1992 - [PDF] C Chen, WR Cotton - Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 1983 - Springer
The formulation and testing of the turbulence model and the sensitivity
experiments with the model using Wangara Day, [BOOK] Human impacts on weather and climate, The physics of the marine stratocumulus-capped mixed layer - Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1987, A numerical investigation of several factors contributing to the observed variable intensity … GJ Tripoli, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology

So I call bullshit on your list. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are a couple of the most eminent climate scientists in the country. Under what possible rubric are they not climate scientists? The idea that your citation somehow "soundly discredits" the list of over 700 scientists is a joke. Defend your citation as being valid, or give it up. If you think it is correct to say that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists, let us know why.I'm wiling to stipulate that there may be a climate scientist or two on the list. I asked you to provide me a list of the seven hundred and tell me who is an actual climate scientist on it. The vast majority of them appear not to be. You're the one providing the list of random personages that has people misquoted and outright lies in it. So get your list in order and post exactly how many people you are suggesting of the 700 are real climate scientists.

GIGObuster
11-17-2009, 10:38 PM
So I call bullshit on your list. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are a couple of the most eminent climate scientists in the country. Under what possible rubric are they not climate scientists? The idea that your citation somehow "soundly discredits" the list of over 700 scientists is a joke. Defend your citation as being valid, or give it up. If you think it is correct to say that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists, let us know why.
Nice way to ignore the misrepresentations on the list, but even the researchers mentioned that are close to the subject at hand continue to show how wrong they are.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray’s thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray’s claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work’s shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray’s pronouncements on climate change and its causes.

Gray’s paper begins with a quote from Senator Inhofe calling global warming a hoax perpetrated on the American people, and ends with a quote by a representive of the Society of Petroleum Geologists stating that Crichton’s State of Fear has "the absolute ring of truth." It is the gaping flaws in the scientific argument sandwiched between these two statements that are our major concern.

...

By the way, Gray discounts water vapor feedback, based on what seems to be a gut feeling on weather systems, plus some unspecified analysis of the NCEP reanalysis dataset (which is completely unsuitable for studying trends in mid tropospheric water vapor); more reliable satellite based studies (e.g. Soden’s study described in A busy week for water vapor ) support a positive water vapor feedback, and even Lindzen seems to be no longer arguing against this feedback.


AFAIK, Henk Tennekes is retired, whats more he retired back in 1995 long before there was much public debate or even interest in GW and it makes suspect the Richard Lindzen affirmation in 2006 that Tennekes was dismissed from his position for opposing AGW.

William R. Cotton is indeed a Meteorologist, but the Wikipedia site does say that "He has indicated some skepticism of anthropogenic global warming" So until I see another citation for him I will put him on the "doubtful to be a good representative of the deniers" column.

intention
11-18-2009, 03:42 AM
Nice way to ignore the misrepresentations on the list, but even the researchers mentioned that are close to the subject at hand continue to show how wrong they are.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/


AFAIK, Henk Tennekes is retired, whats more he retired back in 1995 long before there was much public debate or even interest in GW and it makes suspect the Richard Lindzen affirmation in 2006 that Tennekes was dismissed from his position for opposing AGW.

William R. Cotton is indeed a Meteorologist, but the Wikipedia site does say that "He has indicated some skepticism of anthropogenic global warming" So until I see another citation for him I will put him on the "doubtful to be a good representative of the deniers" column.

William Gray has a number of theories that I don't agree with one bit ... but he also has the world's best record at predicting hurricanes. Go figure, he must be getting something right. You sound like the guys that came to Abraham Lincoln to complain about General Grant's drinking. Lincoln replied to them "If it [drink] makes fighting men like Grant, then find out what he drinks, and send my other commanders a case!" Whatever Gray's theories are, they are borne out by his results, and that's more than you can say for the models' records of forecasting hurricanes.

Next, here's the quote from Tennekes in the list of 700:

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Yes, Tennekes is retired ... but that doesn't mean his brain fell out. So do you disagree or agree with that, and if so, what do you disagree with and why? Do you truly think that the vastly complex climate system is ruled by CO2, and we can dial the temperature up and down?

Since you agree that Cotton is a Meteorologist even though Lobohan's citation says he is not a climate scientist, here's the statements from him:

Cotton, who has been extensively cited in the peer reviewed literature, rejected global warming alarmism on October 17, 2006 in Climate Science. "Climate variability has been with Earth for eons. Greenhouse warming is only one factor affecting climate change. There are many other factors some associated with human activity, many not, and not all processes associated with climate variability have been quantitatively identified," Cotton said. "Therefore I am skeptical about claims of forecasts of what the climate will be like in say, 5, 10 years or more. I also view claims that a few years of abnormal weather (like intense hurricane landfalls, severe storms and floods, and droughts) to be caused by human activity as abuse of limited scientific knowledge."

Gosh, that sounds a whole lot like what I have said over and over on SDMB. Now, do you disagree with that, and if so what and why? And why is Dr. Cotton not a climate scientist? That's crazy.

Finally, what about those people identified in Lobohan's citation as actually being climate scientists? Since you diss most people on the list because they are not identified in Lobohan's citation as being climate scientists, should we put more weight on what the ones that are listed in his citation as "climate scientists" have to say?

intention
11-18-2009, 03:55 AM
You are citing Inhofe's work as evidence. Inhofe thinks there is a conspiracy.

Oh, I see. So if I quote the work of a scientist who thinks that there is a God with a white beard looking over us, that means that I'm a religious man?

Please learn to distinguish between "the work of" and "the beliefs of". Agreeing with one doesn't mean you agree with the other. It's subtle, I know, but with practice it will come to you.

intention
11-18-2009, 04:08 AM
So I call bullshit on your list. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are a couple of the most eminent climate scientists in the country. Under what possible rubric are they not climate scientists? The idea that your citation somehow "soundly discredits" the list of over 700 scientists is a joke. Defend your citation as being valid, or give it up. If you think it is correct to say that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists, let us know why.
I'm wiling to stipulate that there may be a climate scientist or two on the list. I asked you to provide me a list of the seven hundred and tell me who is an actual climate scientist on it. The vast majority of them appear not to be. You're the one providing the list of random personages that has people misquoted and outright lies in it. So get your list in order and post exactly how many people you are suggesting of the 700 are real climate scientists.

First, you say:

I asked you to provide me a list of the seven hundred and tell me who is an actual climate scientist on it.

Cite? I don't recall you asking anything of the sort. You already had a list of the seven hundred, why would I need to "provide [you] a list of the seven hundred".

Lobohan, you provided the citation that you said "soundly discredited" the list of 700. That citation, that you provided, claims that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists. Are you now withdrawing that citation?

If not, please explain why you agree with the citation you provided as regards Dr. Gray and Dr. Cotton not being climate scientists. Surely if you believe your list "soundly discredits" the list of 700 because it shows than many are not climate scientists, you should be able to explain it.

So is your citation any good? Will you stand behind it and let us know why it is valid and true, why you believe it "soundly discredits" anything at all, or will you withdraw it?

Your choice ...

GIGObuster
11-18-2009, 07:22 AM
Next, here's the quote from Tennekes in the list of 700:

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Yes, Tennekes is retired ... but that doesn't mean his brain fell out. So do you disagree or agree with that, and if so, what do you disagree with and why? Do you truly think that the vastly complex climate system is ruled by CO2, and we can dial the temperature up and down?

:rolleyes:

When people like Tennekes resort to lies I don't care what he was, he is no longer a valid source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today – and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously.

In any case, he is not disagreeing with the IPCC.

GIGObuster
11-18-2009, 07:58 AM
Gosh, that sounds a whole lot like what I have said over and over on SDMB. Now, do you disagree with that, and if so what and why? And why is Dr. Cotton not a climate scientist? That's crazy.
Again, Cotton does remain part of the minority report. And everybody can see that you are avoiding dealing with the fact that the Meteorological society approves of the efforts of Hansen. (I typed Jensen on the last quote by error) The cite I'm asking is the one that shows that the majority of Meteorologists is against AGW, the award and other contexts show me that it was inaccurate for you to claim that "His claims are "easily disproven" because he is ignoring recent history, which the top Meteorologists are not foolish enough to do."

Nope, the majority of top Meteorologists do not see his claims "easily disproven" You still need to provide a cite showing what the consensus among Meteorologists is against Hansen and AGW.

Finally, what about those people identified in Lobohan's citation as actually being climate scientists? Since you diss most people on the list because they are not identified in Lobohan's citation as being climate scientists, should we put more weight on what the ones that are listed in his citation as "climate scientists" have to say?
Again, you avoid the issue that it remains a minority "report"; and as noticed, disjointed, all over the map, misleading, out of date, with many researchers wanting to be removed from the list. In essence there is a demonstrated lack of agreement on what is the point of the "report" is. It remains only a cherry picked survey, a hit parade of denial that has been rebuked many times before, both on the list level and even on the "science" points the researchers on the list mention.

Really, the Tennekes quote sounds even more ridiculous because he is dealing with Gore (not a scientist) and supporting the IPCC, when the minority "report" main reason to be is to refute the IPCC!

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/07/17/scientific-inquiry-concludes-inhofe-list-not-credible/
One of the most infamous examples of this are the various incarnations of a “report” cobbling together statements from scientists that supposedly dissent from the scientific consensus on humanity’s role in driving accelerating global warming. This is a quite favorite ‘denier’ citation, the supposed 400 or 600 or 700 (depending on which version) number of scientists who have, supposedly, gone on record against the Theory of Global Warming. And, they like to cite this as from the “Senate Environment and Public Works Committee”, without mentioning that this is a Minority Report from global-warming denier, fossil fool James Inhofe’s staff.

Well, today the Center for Inquiry (CFI), “an organization committed to defending scientific integrity,

has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming

CFI’s Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the ‘Inhofe list’. Their conclusions:

* Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
* Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
* Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
* Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

LonesomePolecat
11-18-2009, 08:35 AM
Why do you place your ignorant and uninformed opinion against thousands of climate scientists from across the globe? Do you think they are in a conspiracy to steal money from you? There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

Ludovic
11-18-2009, 08:43 AM
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.
Nope, still don't believe it.

LonesomePolecat
11-18-2009, 09:10 AM
Nope, still don't believe it.Ah, I see. For you, it's a question of religious faith, not science.

Ludovic
11-18-2009, 09:15 AM
I dunno, maybe repeat it a few thousand more times and I moght drink your kool aid.

Lobohan
11-18-2009, 01:03 PM
Ah, I see. For you, it's a question of religious faith, not science.If you care that there are many reputable scientists that don't hold the view that AGW is real, why don't you care that thousands of times as many of reputable scientists hold the view that AGW is real?

Why do you side with the marginal fringe? Because you want to, and reality is subordinate to your ideological underpinnings?

Your argument is an argument against your stance. If the fact that there are some number (and there aren't actually many, only a pathetic handful) who stand against AGW, while thousands upon thousands of actual scientists in the field find the evidence compelling means you should believe the majority view.

At what ratio of credible scientists who find AGW to be likely to credible scientists who find AGW to be rubbish will you believe? Ten thousand to one?

Lobohan
11-18-2009, 01:19 PM
Oh, I see. So if I quote the work of a scientist who thinks that there is a God with a white beard looking over us, that means that I'm a religious man?

Please learn to distinguish between "the work of" and "the beliefs of". Agreeing with one doesn't mean you agree with the other. It's subtle, I know, but with practice it will come to you.No, Inhofe's thesis is that climate change is a hoax, he is willing to lie to stop it. He has compiled a list of 700 people who he says that are scientists who find AGW to be a lie.

Got it so far?

He has taken clippings from interviews, omitted sections and put people who believe in AGW and presented them as against AGW. He has also accepted high school science teachers, engineers, and random unrelated disciplines onto his list. He has accepted T.V. weathermen and scientists who've retired decades ago (and presumably aren't up to date on the current science).

Got it so far?

You are providing this list from a liar, that uses dishonest quoting, and irrelevant experts as evidence for 700 scientists against climate change. You want us to believe that all seven hundred are:

1. Quoted correctly.
2. Qualified to comment.

It has not been shown what amount of the 700 are actually quoted correctly and qualified to comment. Since Inhofe is a liar, it is up to you, the person offering this list compiled by a liar, to tell us how many of the 700 are actually climate scientists who disbelieve AGW.

Got it so far?

I checked the first fifteen pages of the list and found 3 of the 37 that appeared qualified, although two worked for carbon producing energy companies (which, you must admit makes them a little suspicious) and the third produced an anti-global warming slideshow that to me, looked like a stupid child had constructed it. This doesn't mean he actually is sloppy and inattentive to details, but it made me pause.

But even then 3 of 37. If you claim that there are others, it is up to you to show it to me. And prove that they are:

1. Quoted correctly.
2. Qualified to comment.

None of this would be necessary if you weren't using as evidence a document compiled by a liar. But you are. And if you're presenting rubbish by someone willing to fake evidence, you need to authenticate it before people will accept it.

Got it?

LonesomePolecat
11-18-2009, 01:32 PM
If you care that there are many reputable scientists that don't hold the view that AGW is real, why don't you care that thousands of times as many of reputable scientists hold the view that AGW is real?

Why do you side with the marginal fringe? Because you want to, and reality is subordinate to your ideological underpinnings?

Your argument is an argument against your stance. If the fact that there are some number (and there aren't actually many, only a pathetic handful) who stand against AGW, while thousands upon thousands of actual scientists in the field find the evidence compelling means you should believe the majority view.

At what ratio of credible scientists who find AGW to be likely to credible scientists who find AGW to be rubbish will you believe? Ten thousand to one?

Well, here (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php) is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn't look like a "marginal fringe" to me.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)


2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)


3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)


Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)


Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)


2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)


3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)


Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)


2. General Science (269)

Hentor the Barbarian
11-18-2009, 01:50 PM
Well, here (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php) is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn't look like a "marginal fringe" to me.Just for grins, I thought I'd go grab one unique sounding name from your list and google it. Haphazardly, I chose Roger C. Burggraf. Googling that, I found this description of Roger C. Burggraf:

"A 30-year veteran of the environmental and mine safety industry, Roger C. Burggraf directs Silverado’s external relations with state agencies, ensuring the company meets all environmental and safety standards.

Mr. Burggraf is responsible for obtaining permits, managing claim maintenance, and implementing safety operations for Silverado’s Alaska operations.

He holds a B.S. in Wildlife Management and Conservation with a minor in Geology from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, located in Ithaca, NY.

Mr. Burggraf is a member of the Alaska Miners Association and was formerly appointed by the Governor of Alaska to the Alaska Minerals Commission."

Is it his BS minor in Geology that makes his opinion more qualified on the topic than my 8 year old son.?

In my googling, I found this on another message board:

Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD-member, American Chemical Society
Louis A. Auerbach-psychotherapist
Keith H. Aufderheide-PhD in chemistry
William R. Aufricht-either an agribusiness marketing manager or a college graduate in 1948
Dale A. Augenstein-lobbyist
Owen H. Auger-Australian engineer
Dustin M. Aughenbaugh-90 yo vet WWII or guitarist
Joe Augspurger, PhD-Chemical engineer
Mike August-no PhD found
James K. August-President of Metal Recycling Corp
Brian Augustine, PhD in Chemistry
W. David Augustine-Engineering consultant
Frederick N. Aukeman-employed by Lone Star Industries,, formerly United Cement
J. Todd Aukerman- employee of Bayer Corporation
C. Mark. Aulick-employee Skywire Software

I got this far and then found the Daily Kos was doing the same thing

Ronald G. Alderfer: published a scientific paper in 1971. Nothing since.
Donald F. Amend: a fisheries scientist.
David Anderson: a Bush political appointee Asst Secretary for Indian Affairs.
Donald N. Anderson: nothing found
Roger Baer: mineralogist
Alex Baskous: medical doctor
Don Bassler: petroleum engineer
Don Beitia: executive at Unocal and president of the oil industry’s response cooperative.
William M. Bohon: nothing found
James Boltz: Petro Star, Inc, running a refinery in Alaska
John K. Bowman: author of "The Use of Woodwaste for Road Construction in SE Alaska"
Mike Briscoe: Director of GTP Technologies, BP America (British Petroleum)
Carrel Bryant: nothing found
William Burgess: geotechnical and environmental consultant/lobbyist
Roger C. Burggraf: Nothing found
Bonnie Carrington: BA in Architecture, works with computers
Glen D. Chambers: BS Mechanical Engineering, retired businessman
Lowell Crane: BP Exploration, Alaska
Michael Croft: Nothing found
Thomas Delahunt: Nothing found
Edward M. Dokoozian PhD: Nothing foundDidn't the debunking of previous lists give you even a moment's pause before believing the claims that your list of over 30,000 names would stand up to the merest scintilla of scrutiny? Or was your intention merely to start a snipe hunt?

Lobohan
11-18-2009, 01:52 PM
Well, here (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php) is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn't look like a "marginal fringe" to me.LonesomePolecat, I do not mean this as a dig. I don't agree with you politically, but I don't think you're a stupid or evil person. But you really have to question things before you believe them.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda."

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs."[15]

The petition is run by these guys: http://oism.org/

They are a group run out of the backwoods of Oregon and the so-called petition accepted names over the internet and had no attempt to verify the credentials of the people who were submitted to it. For instance, I could sign the name Al Gore, Ph.D and they would add it to the list. You are believing in a publicity stunt run by a liar. But the right-wing side of the internet is abuzz with this and no one questions it. It's very frustrating.