# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/121 "2011-08-27T00:57:54Z")
> [@AT116](#): > > Anyone perusing this circle jerk with questions about the global warming issue who would care for a dose of calm reason should watch the following short video in which a leading scientist explains the whole thing quite nicely. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU) > > Now watch the jackals attack! And that’s it in a nutshell. The world isn’t going to end in a couple of years and many of the proposals are a literal waste of financial resources. My state mandated a number of tasks of our power generating companies. One of them was a task to reduce power consumption by consumers which was handled by promoting CFL bulbs. That was handled well and was a good use of financial resources. Another was a mandate to produce a certain percentage of electricity via alternate technology. The end result was a solar cell farm in my area that serves few people and was quite expensive. We have an aging electrical infrastructure that will require the replacement of major power plants and that money could have been used toward that goal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/122 "2011-08-27T01:16:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, that’s not what I said at all. Not even close. I said technology advances exponentially and that we should plan accordingly. Use the technology that is currently viable to accomplish a task and move on. That is the most cost effective way of getting things done. > > Take any advance in technology and project the cost backwards. As an example, a standard home computer today would cost as much as a house if it was purchased 20 years ago. The cost/performance benefit difference is exponential. The natural advancements in computer technology should be applied as they occur. > > Solar cells are not currently viable for mass use. They will be but they aren’t right now. Maybe in 5 years or maybe 20 years. Solar thermal power is now getting to the point where it is viable today and should be invested in today. That makes sense today as does clean burning coal with co2 scrubbers. If we attempt to use technology ahead of it’s financial viability then we draw down wealth that could be used for other purposes. Not a single way on how to implement all that was mentioned. Again, if it is private industry I can see many examples that give me hope, but there are many private organizations that are financing politicians that will do nothing to help that currently available technology be implemented. And this is a planetary problem that is getting worse with time, not taxing emissions or doing other ways to assign the real cost of the needed adaptations that we will need in the future is really foolish. > **[CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm)** > > \Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries. The difference of not acting early and acting later is the very old “Penny-Wise, Pound-Foolish” the reality is that there is already enough CO2 released that will increase the warming for decades. > **[RealClimate: Climate change commitments](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/)** > > RealClimate: Climate change commitment, Matthews and Weaver, adaptation and mitigation. CO2 emissions and concentrations. > [@](#): > > There is an interesting letter in Nature Geoscience this month on what climate changes we have actually already committed ourselves to. The letter, by Mathews and Weaver (sub. reqd.), makes the valid point that there are both climatic and societal inertias to consider. > > Their figure neatly demonstrates the different issues: > > The upper line is often what is referred to as the ‘climate change commitment’ (for instance Wigley, 2005). This is the warming you get if we keep CO2 (and other GHG and pollutant levels) constant at today’s values. (Technically, the figure shows the case staying at year 2000 values). In such a scenario, the planet still has a radiative imbalance, and the warming will continue until the oceans have warmed sufficiently to equalise the situation – giving an additional 0.3 to 0.8ºC warming over the 21st Century. Thus the conclusion has been that because of climate inertia, further warming is inevitable. > [@](#): > > Thus as a practical matter, it doesn’t really matter whether the inertia is climatic or societal or technological or economic because the globe will continue to warm under all realistic scenarios (what we do have a possible control over is the magnitude of that warming). Thus further adaptation measures will still be needed. It is that magnitude that will get worse the longer we wait to make changes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/123 "2011-08-27T01:19:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And that’s it in a nutshell. And there you go supporting a denier that it is wrong. Usually you do sound more sensible the longer you get in discussions, but no such luck here. In any case, the issue is Mann and the reality that people that attempted to discredit him in the past are nowadays discredited now. (Wegman and his report) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/124 "2011-08-27T01:25:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And this is a planetary problem that is getting worse with time, not taxing emissions or doing other ways to assign the real cost of the needed adaptations that we will need in the future is really foolish. Really? It’s getting worse? We’re using less energy with each passing day with cars that get better fuel economy and a transition to CFL bulbs. We progressing steadily toward a reduction in the cost of bio-fuels and we’ve already certified it for aircraft. It’s happening now without Al Gore’s hand in my pocket. Name one technology that hasn’t radically changed in 20 years? How do you not see the massive changes taking place in front of us? We’re rapidly approaching battery technology that will change the way we drive cars. It’s not here today but it’s on the near horizon. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/125 "2011-08-27T01:27:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And there you go supporting a denier that it is wrong. Usually you do sound more sensible the longer you get in discussions, but no such luck here. In any case, the issue is Mann and the reality that people that attempted to discredit him in the past are nowadays discredited now. (Wegman and his report) He’s not a denier. He stated quite succinctly there was a problem. You’re not even in the ballpark on that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/126 "2011-08-27T01:47:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Really? It’s getting worse? We’re using less energy with each passing day with cars that get better fuel economy and a transition to CFL bulbs. We progressing steadily toward a reduction in the cost of bio-fuels and we’ve already certified it for aircraft. It’s happening now without Al Gore’s hand in my pocket. As the cite shows, we need to do better than that. Of course your insistence on this point is still contradictory when at the same time you support deniers like Bob Carter. If there is no AGW isn’t that effort by private industry stupid? And once gain, you have not offered a cite that emissions are less. > [@Magiver](#): > > Name one technology that hasn’t radically changed in 20 years? How do you not see the massive changes taking place in front of us? We’re rapidly approaching battery technology that will change the way we drive cars. It’s not here today but it’s on the near horizon. And most of that research is being made possible also thanks to government incentives, whatever failure you want to assign to the VOLT it is clear that progress is made in part thanks to what you are condemning now, government intervention. Regulations and other incentives go a long way to make change possible with the help of private industry. This is in reality more related to what global warming proponents are suggesting as a solution, the sad reality is that no solution is the line offered nowadays by the republican party, after all, there is no problem and a big sector of private industry is paying a lot to make any concerted efforts impossible. > **[Merchants of Doubt](https://theecologist.org/2010/sep/10/merchants-doubt)** > > In a hard-hitting new investigation, Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway report on the scientists prepared to distort the truth on the key issues of our time - from tobacco to climate change to coal fired power stations > [@](#): > > While ‘Merchants’ focuses on a few key individuals that recur in each story – scientists and economists such as Fred Seitz, Fred Singer and Bill Nierenberg - ultimately these people are mere accomplices, hired hands ‘willing’, as the authors put it, ‘to hold the rifle and pull the trigger’ on the science for the corporate boards and their shareholders. > > The strength of the book is the rigour of the research and the in-depth focus on key incidents. However, the climate change chapter is a mere 50 pages, so if you want to get a broader picture of this aspect, you might want to refer to other books such as James Hogan’s ‘Climate Cover-Up’, George Monbiot’s ‘Heat’ and Ross Gelbspan’s ‘The Heat is On’ and ‘Boiling Point’. There’s not much here about the millions of dollars Exxon Mobil has put into funding the web of groups involved in actively promoting climate doubt and denial, for example. > > Like the tobacco industry story, we may not get the full picture of corporate-manufactured climate change doubt until many years after the fact. Indeed revelations continue to emerge. In March this year, for example, a Greenpeace US investigation showed how the billionaire owners of little-known oil company Koch Industries have pumped nearly $50m into climate change denial. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/127 "2011-08-27T01:53:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He’s not a denier. He stated quite succinctly there was a problem. You’re not even in the ballpark on that. You then missed this link: > **[Climate misinformation by source: Bob Carter](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Bob_Carter.htm)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > [QUOTE=Bob Carter] > “Between 2001 and 2010 global average temperature decreased by 0.05 degrees, over the same time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 5 per cent. Ergo, carbon dioxide emissions are not driving dangerous warming.” > 27 June 2011 (Source) ``` There is long-term correlation between CO2 and global temperature; other effects are short-term. ``` [QUOTE=Bob Carter] “A mild warming of about 0.5 degrees Celsius (well within previous natural temperature variations) occurred between 1979 and 1998, and has been followed by slight global cooling over the past 10 years. Ergo, dangerous global warming is not occurring.” 27 June 2011 (Source) [/QUOTE] ``` The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. ``` [QUOTE=Bob Carter] “there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming” 9 May 2011 (Source) [/QUOTE] ``` Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives. ``` [/QUOTE] So why do you want to rely on an expert in Stratigraphy anyhow? He is already contradicting himself and his point is really that it is not much our problem and that we should do next to nothing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/128 "2011-08-27T02:08:02Z")
Getting back to Mann and the efforts of the climate change deniers: Get ready for “Climate Gate 2”: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/the-neverending-mann-witch-hunt/2011/03/10/gIQAEceqgJ\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/the-neverending-mann-witch-hunt/2011/03/10/gIQAEceqgJ_blog.html) > [@](#): > > My esteemed colleague Norm Leahy has blogged that there really may be some dirt, albeit not all that much, involving Michael Mann, the former University of Virginia climatologist who has been hounded for months by hard-charging Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli. > [@](#): > > But even the right-wing editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch says the most recent exoneration of Mann should be enough to make Cuccinelli quit his expensive and wrong-headed quest and apologize. Mann has the support of hundreds of scientists and academic organizations who believe that Cuccinelli’s witch hunt is a serious attack on cherished academic freedom. > [@](#): > > As far as hailing the two-year-old American Tradition Institute, let’s look at whom we are dealing with. One of its top executives used to be with The Heartland Institute, which has been funded by right-wing outfits such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, according to Media Transparency. The Heartland Institute’s dabbling with scientific issues had had a clear political edge and hardly involves pure science. These guys have no shame. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/129 "2011-08-27T02:08:10Z")
Well, the CLOUD results from CERN are going to have warmists trying to blame sun activity on skeptics’ getting money from big oil. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/130 "2011-08-27T02:12:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Well, the CLOUD results from CERN are going to have warmists trying to blame sun activity on skeptics’ getting money from big oil. Not sure who is getting paid then. > **[RealClimate: The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/)** > > RealClimate: The long-awaited first paper from the CERN/CLOUD project has just been published in Nature. The paper, by Kirkby et al, describes changes in aerosol nucleation as a function of increasing sulphates, ammonia and ionisation in the... > [@](#): > > Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure). > > Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. > > There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little. > > The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al). This commenter said what I think is going on now: > [@](#): > > By the way, this CERN/CLOUD paper is already being touted by deniers in blog comments everywhere as the latest “bombshell” that “blows a hole” in the AGW “hoax”. > > Oddly, not one of those comments that I have seen bothers to explain exactly what the supposed “bombshell” is. > > Perhaps content-free “bombshells” are the latest weapon in the denier arsenal. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/131 "2011-08-27T02:24:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And most of that research is being made possible also thanks to government incentives, whatever failure you want to assign to the VOLT it is clear that progress is made in part thanks to what you are condemning now, government intervention. There was no progress made with the Volt. It’s a Prius with more batteries. It’s a fail because the batteries aren’t quite there for general use. It’s pointless to encourage money losing ventures that don’t sell. If this car fails mechanically (as is GM’s track record) it will set back the perception of the technology for years. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Regulations and other incentives go a long way to make change possible with the help of private industry. I pointed out that they can make both good changes and bad changes with regulation. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is in reality more related to what global warming proponents are suggesting as a solution, the sad reality is that no solution is the line offered nowadays by the republican party, after all, there is no problem and a big sector of private industry is paying a lot to make any concerted efforts impossible. > > [Merchants of Doubt](http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/books/592288/merchants_of_doubt_new_book_reveals_the_great_scientific_deceptions_of_our_age.html) Again, we are already progressing technologically toward a greener world. You act like nothing is getting done when it’s happening right in front of your nose. We don’t need to fix it all today yet the technology to do so is literally around the corner. I think it would make more sense to apply tax dollars directly toward stuff like solar sell research then to pay consumers to buy stuff that isn’t currently viable. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/132 "2011-08-27T02:50:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There was no progress made with the Volt. It’s a Prius with more batteries. It’s a fail because the batteries aren’t quite there for general use. It’s pointless to encourage money losing ventures that don’t sell. If this car fails mechanically (as is GM’s track record) it will set back the perception of the technology for years. A toss from the wiffle ball points team! There was progress made in the making of the VOLT batteries. > **[Trellis Group (formerly GreenBiz)](https://trellis.net/)** > > Trellis Group empowers sustainability professionals to tackle the climate crisis through our industry-leading events, media and peer network. > [@](#): > > The lithium-ion batteries that are used in the Volt are the type used in electronics such as cell phones. The innovation made by Volt was in the “secret sauce” – the chemical formulation of the battery to achieve more power over a longer life. The next step was to invent a battery pack that integrates nearly 300 individual battery cells. Volt took its battery pack a step further by developing sophisticated power and environmental management systems to maintain optimal battery conditions to extend battery life and provide dependable performance. > > • The heart of car – the propulsion system – was reinvented to blend power from the battery and gas engines depending on power sources available and driving conditions. The new Volt propulsion system consists of two electric motors, one gas engine, three clutches and a planetary gearshift (used for blending). Whether the Volt is traversing a steep grade with a low battery or cruising down the highway with a fully charged battery, the driver will experience consistent performance. > [@Magiver](#): > > I pointed out that they can make both good changes and bad changes with regulation. Me too, but of curse, that has to be missed by you to make a tiresome point. > [@Magiver](#): > > Again, we are already progressing technologically toward a greener world. You act like nothing is getting done when it’s happening right in front of your nose. Look up, who is doing that really in this discussion? > [@Magiver](#): > > We don’t need to fix it all today yet the technology to do so is literally around the corner. I think it would make more sense to apply tax dollars directly toward stuff like solar sell research then to pay consumers to buy stuff that isn’t currently viable. I have a hard time thinking that the subsidies and support going to solar are not used for research. Or that there no progress made already that justifies the application of the technology and that leads to even more research and improvements. [http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/obama-signs-stimulus-packed-with-clean-energy-provisions/](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/obama-signs-stimulus-packed-with-clean-energy-provisions/) > **[New Toolkit Offers Insights into Best Practices for Large-Scale Solar and...](https://irecusa.org/)** > > Stay Connected Get Updates Subscribe now to receive the latest news and research from IREC in your inbox. Regulatory Connecting to the Grid IREC works in ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/133 "2011-08-27T06:48:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, that’s not what I said at all. Not even close. I said technology advances exponentially and that we should plan accordingly. Use the technology that is currently viable to accomplish a task and move on. That is the most cost effective way of getting things done. > > Take any advance in technology and project the cost backwards. As an example, a standard home computer today would cost as much as a house if it was purchased 20 years ago. The cost/performance benefit difference is exponential. The natural advancements in computer technology should be applied as they occur. You are restating the previous argument, which as shown makes no sense. An existing and worsening problem (particularly one that bears serious danger of cascading complications) should not be deferred, it should be addressed right away. I already addressed the “bright future” scenario, but I would like to add that (just like investment funds) past performance in any discipline or field of inquiry is no guarantee of future performance. And, very importantly, without market applications there is always substantially less impetus to improve technologies, which means the deferring strategy only slows down the development of solutions. Computing power \*today \*is cheap because decades ago personal computers were introduced to the mass market as substantially high costs, after all. The only way costs will come down is when the technology is sufficiently widespread that economies of scale and the effects of competition can take place (supported by savvy tools like subsidies). > [@](#): > > Solar cells are not currently viable for mass use. They will be but they aren’t right now. Maybe in 5 years or maybe 20 years. Solar thermal power is now getting to the point where it is viable today and should be invested in today. That makes sense today as does clean burning coal with co2 scrubbers. If we attempt to use technology ahead of it’s financial viability then we draw down wealth that could be used for other purposes. Specific examples can be misleading. Smarter use of \*\*existing \*\*technologies like wind, solar, nuclear, and thermal energy have been shown to work well. Energy conservation (fuel efficiency, smarter buildings, etc.) can take a chunk out of the carbon footprint too. But there is little political will, especially among Republicans, to spearhead these initiatives. It is instead much easier to throw money at “solutions” like corn for ethanol and oil exploration in fragile ecosystems. Leaving aside specific examples, in your opinion then we are doing everything reasonable and possible at the moment to address the problem? Of course not. We are lazily and dishonestly deferring it to a future time yet again. And by “we” here I mean most of the world, not one specific country or political party. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/134 "2011-08-27T12:04:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, is there a problem or not? Why reach for debunked denialist baloney then before making this point? And that insult of yours is duly noted BTW. > This has been explained many times, Gore’s point is that we should be carbon neutral, whatever the levels they emit they are working to remove the same quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere. There are environmentalists that do think it is not a very efficient way to deal with the problem, but it has merit. > > So, nice strawman you have there. So, exactly how does Al Gore propose to remove HIS “carbon footprint”? Nice strawman you have set up. Al’s last outburst was pretty funny too..I guess he’s upset over the collapse of his carbon trading scam “businesss”.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/135 "2011-08-27T14:06:02Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > So, exactly how does Al Gore propose to remove HIS “carbon footprint”? > Nice strawman you have set up. As this point is a part of the wiffle ball team, this one is really silly, you said that they act as if they “carry on as if their own enormous energy use is unimportant” that is the strawman, they have not said that it is not. [http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/02/26/10650/gore-responds-to-drudge/](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/02/26/10650/gore-responds-to-drudge/) > [@](#): > > 1. Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. > > 2. Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains: > [@ralph124c](#): > > Al’s last outburst was pretty funny too..I guess he’s upset over the collapse of his carbon trading scam “businesss”.:smack: Pretty funny, but not as you think, it was the truth and in any case and **he was not talking about the carbon trading business,** but about the denial business. [http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/08/08/290822/pissed-off-al-gore-calls-bullshit-on-crap-peddled-by-climate-denial-machine/](http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/08/08/290822/pissed-off-al-gore-calls-bullshit-on-crap-peddled-by-climate-denial-machine/) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it. > > Millions of dollars every year go into the climate bullshit machine across the world, from companies as diverse as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil to UPS and Johnson & Johnson. (HT Michael Tobis) And as anyone can notice, what Gore proposes on this carbon neutral point does not depend on business carbon trading. As for calling it a scam, you are forgetting that before they where taken over by denier tea partiers Republicans understood cap and trade was a way to get the market involved in the solutions, now we are left with only regulation and mostly the ill will of corporations and their politicians to prevent even those regulations from being applied, forgetting that the market is a tool that needs to be used also. [http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/solutions/big\_picture\_solutions/cap-and-trade.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/cap-and-trade.html) > [@](#): > > But advocates argue that cap-and-trade still beats command-and-control regulation. “There’s not a person in a business anywhere,” says Dan Esty, an environmental policy professor at Yale University, “who gets up in the morning and says, ‘Gee, I want to race into the office to follow some regulation.’ On the other hand, if you say, ‘There’s an upside potential here, you’re going to make money,’ people do get up early and do drive hard around the possibility of finding themselves winners on this.” The union of concerned scientists has pointed out that an overall solution should look not only to a carbon tax but also to cap-and-trade. [http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/solutions/big\_picture\_solutions/cap-and-trade.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/cap-and-trade.html) In the end, learn what a straw man is before accusing others of doing what your side does so well. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/hWJeqgG3Tl8/hqdefault.jpg "Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Temp leads Carbon Crock") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/136 "2011-08-27T16:06:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure who is getting paid then. > > [RealClimate: The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/) > This commenter said what I think is going on now: Nice, so the story now changes from “cosmic rays are basically nothing in the AGW picture” to “of course they are important, we don’t know how much”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/137 "2011-08-27T16:23:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Nice, so the story now changes from “cosmic rays are basically nothing in the AGW picture” to “of course they are important, we don’t know how much”. Not sure where you are getting that from. > [@](#): > > Thus the nucleation change as a result of real world GCR modulation is going to be much smaller than seen in these experiments, and much less important than the amount of pollutants. Again, one of the comments was right: "By the way, this CERN/CLOUD paper is already being touted by deniers in blog comments everywhere as the latest “bombshell” that “blows a hole” in the AGW “hoax”. Oddly, not one of those comments that I have seen bothers to explain exactly what the supposed “bombshell” is. Perhaps content-free “bombshells” are the latest weapon in the denier arsenal." The point here is: Why it doesn’t give you any pause seeing so many absolutist points claiming to show that AGW is a hoax and all of them have been debunked or found to have no merit? Think a little about that, if the latest item demonstrates that AGW is not happening then there should be no need to make new half baked points that are many times contradictory to the past ones. If the point definitely demonstrated before (and there are hundreds from the deniers) that AGW was not there or not a problem, then the super majority of experts in the matter would had changed their tune already. Unless you do think that indeed scientists are just lying to us. What do you think? Are the bloggessors more accurate than the scientists in your world? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/138 "2011-08-27T16:29:43Z")
I’ll post a couple of meaningless, content-free, arch-denier, anti-science cites before I go to cash my checks from Big Oil, the GOP and Hitler. My personal favourite is where the head of CERN asks people not to interpret results. [Cite 1](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/) [Cite 2](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46953) [Cite 3](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm) [Cite 4](http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3702-cern-finds-qsignificantq-cosmic-ray-cloud-effect.html) [Cite 5](http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/) [Cite 6](http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/) [Cite 7](http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684) Don’t read them, they are CO2 cheerleaders in the pocket of “emmissionists”, you can simply criticise them by looking at the domain and sayng “they aren’t climatologists”, “they’re paid”, “anti-science”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/139 "2011-08-27T16:40:12Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll post a couple of meaningless, content-free, arch-denier, anti-science cites before I go to cash my checks from Big Oil, the GOP and Hitler. > My personal favourite is where the head of CERN asks people not to interpret results. > > [Cite 1](http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/) > [Cite 2](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46953) > [Cite 3](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm) > [Cite 4](http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3702-cern-finds-qsignificantq-cosmic-ray-cloud-effect.html) > [Cite 5](http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/) > [Cite 6](http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/) > [Cite 7](http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684) > Don’t read them, they are CO2 cheerleaders in the pocket of “emmissionists”, you can simply criticise them by looking at the domain and sayng “they aren’t climatologists”, “they’re paid”, “anti-science”. Too funny, Gavin Smith (the scientist at RealClimate pointed already at one of them to make the point I already made here. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > [Response: You should probably learn the difference between context and spin. Here’s a link to help you distinguish. I count 3 lies in the title and first paragraph alone. - gavin] And that was for your cite #4. Face it, it is not only a soft ball of a point, but it has already been shown how inadequate your blogessors are at interpreting science, they have to rely on lies to make their points. When the source is telling you to not interpret the results to favor denialists he has already mentioned why, as the past has painfully show so many, many times before, deniers just cut and paste a sorry point and run away with it, they will confuse most people but the scientists look at that behavior and sigh. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/140 "2011-08-27T16:51:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Too funny, Gavin Smith (the scientist at RealClimate pointed already at one of them to make the point I already made here. > > And that was for your cite #4. > > Face it, it is not only a soft ball of a point, but it has already been shown how inadequate your blogessors are at interpreting science, they have to rely on lies to make their points. > > When the source is telling you to not interpret the results to favor denialists he has already mentioned why, as the past has painfully show so many, many times before, deniers just cut and paste a sorry point and run away with it, they will confuse most people but the scientists look at that behavior and sigh. I always thought, and taught, that science is about facts and that we should discuss the facts so that we can use them to help us. I cannot imagine, in fact I called absolute brachiosaurusshit the possibiliy, that CERN guy saying “don’t politiceze the results” if the results had favoured AGWers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=8)