Sunday, February 20, 2011

Mad As Hell and Not Gonna Take This No More

Since like forever Eli has been telling scientists that it is time to get angry and not take anymore crap. As the bunny pointed out, the CRU Email theft was a real wakeup call, among others for Kevin Trenberth, who laid it on the line at this year's AMS

The climate change deniers have very successfully caused major diversions from the much needed debate about what to do about climate change and how to implement it. It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.
Of course, the climate change deniers did not take this well and tried a ferocious pushback. Give Trenberth credit, he was mad as hell and he was not going to take it. Now (thanks for the pointers) comes John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government, who called all the denialists out in plain spoken language.

"We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality... We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method."

"One way is to be completely intolerant of this nonsense," he said. "That we don't kind of shrug it off. We don't say: ‘oh, it's the media’ or ‘oh they would say that wouldn’t they?’ I think we really need, as a scientific community—and this is a very important scientific community—to think about how we do it."

closing with
“I’d urge you, and this is a kind of strange message to go out, but go out and be much more intolerant.” He asked his audience to forgive him for what appear to have been unscripted remarks, adding: “But it is a thing that has been very much at the forefront of my mind over the last few months and I think we need to do it.”
And, oh yes, go read Joe Romm on how industry is funding and creating sock puppets to spam comments and worse. The bunnies may not have noticed but one of the sock puppet factories got hacked (follow the link) by a computer nihilist collective called (what else) Anonymous, after the company HBGary threatened to unmask the members. It has not been pretty. Google HBGary for details. Turns out that HBGary and friends had proposals out there to attack bloggers and think tanks, and that these proposals were for the Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce among others. HBGary had clearly been up to this sort of stuff for a while, which sheds, perhaps, new light on the UEA CRU Email theft. Might not have been a bunch of crazy Russians after all.

The time has come the Rabett said. . . .

102 comments:

Hank Roberts said...

I recommend climate bloggers adopt the straightforward approach Kate has been using to moderation, e.g. replacing posts with

[inflammatory]
[inflammatory remarks directed at another commenter]
[citations needed - dinosaurs lived in biblical times, most geological formations were caused by the flood in Genesis]
[citations needed - dinosaur existence overlapped with ancient civilizations]
[citations needed - stratosphere is not cooling]

It may be the most effective bot-suppressant going these days.
I'd recommend it generally be tried.

Sou said...

It's very encouraging to see scientists coming out with strong statements. I've noticed it more and more over recent months, both here in Australia and abroad.

Hope more journalists take note and act accordingly.

EliRabett said...

Hank, a) blogger don't let Eli and b) up till now esp with the Rabett Hole it has not been much of a problem. For some reason youse ain't a very chatty bunch either.

EliRabett said...

And besides, Beddington hurt Richard Tol's feefees, what's not to like

David B. Benson said...

No Rabett-speak. What's a "feefee"?

Hank Roberts said...

Oh.
http://rechargelife.org/blog/uploaded/spambots.jpg

Martin Vermeer said...

Beddington is more right than he knows. Scientists are the Jews of our age. Anti-scientism taps the same dark sentiments that anti-semitism used to do. Even the conspiracy theories look the same.

Jews are respected now: they learned the hard way to hit back, and acquired mastery in the art of propaganda. There must be some lesson there.

Anonymous said...

I read the story, but I don't think it's right. You would not need any sort of sophistication to create the average WUWT follower.

DeadFrog said...

Anonymous
LOL

Anonymous said...

Hilarious...

The majority are mad as hell and not going to take the climate "scientist" unsupported apocalyptic BS anymore

Nobody except yourself, your "bunnies," and perhaps Trenberth listens to the raving lunatic Joe Romm and his unsupported delusional claim that the skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry or that this is all about "stolen emails." Got news for you: email communications from government employees are property of the employer i.e. the taxpayers. Nice try, but a pathetic strawman argument.

Anonymous said...

The management: I think you are missing the point here.
Holding a debate is useful in deciding what to do, because what we do is not under our control.
Holding a debate is useless in determining how the geosphere works, because that is not under control. Making observations and assembling them into a coherent picture is.

Dan Olner said...

"Got news for you: email communications from government employees are property of the employer i.e. the taxpayers."

I look forward to an entirely privatised world, where all information is commercially confidential and no-one can find anything out whatsoever without paying for it. That'll be awesome.

Sou said...

"Got news for you: email communications from government employees are property of the employer i.e. the taxpayers."

As their employer, I want to read all the emails between our PM and the US President and diplomats everywhere. (So, I'm not a US taxpayer, no need for logic here as the FOI requests to the CRU shows!) What do you reckon my my chances are?

I guess as taxpayers, we should pay Wikileaks for this service if we haven't already done so :)

J Bowers said...

"Got news for you: email communications from government employees are property of the employer i.e. the taxpayers."

Not the private bits, and not the candid discussions which lead to conclusions that affect policy or public information. According to the US Army anyway, if you bother to go find their policy on FOI, and they don't come much more "taxpayer employee" than the military.

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/foia/docs/Citizensguide_2006.pdf

Exemptions include...

• (b) (5) -- internal records that are deliberative in nature and are part of the decision making process that contain opinions and recommendations;
• (b) (6) -- records which, if released, would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;"


Not so black and white after all, eh?

Horatio Algeranon said...

"The Scientist and the Journalist"
-- by Horatio Algeranon

The time has come," the Scientist said,
"To talk of many things:
Of denial--and lies--and pseudo-science--
Of Koches--and Heartland flings--
And why the sea is getting hot...
And the climate canary sings."

EliRabett said...

Fee-fee as in Richard, so now your little fee-fees are hurt because scientists haven’t sufficiently sung your praises about climate change all these months later? And we chased you away when you spouted crap about us? Aww. So sad! Sounds to me like you never really understood our position to begin with, what we wanted or why we wanted it.

EliRabett said...

Does that mean Eli gets to read all of Roger Pielke and Ross McKitrick's email? Goody.

Anonymous said...

I am considering getting and carrying a sock puppet just to talk to deniers. It may seem silly, but I suddenly realized a week ago that deniers don't really think about the implications of what is said to them. I figure that using a sock puppet will get them to at least wonder "Why is he using a sock puppet?" and look for the reason.

Berbalang

Ron Broberg said...

Jews are respected now: they learned the hard way to hit back, and acquired mastery in the art of propaganda. There must be some lesson there.
.
Who is John Galt? (An irony: Randian libertarians rarely listen to the guys with dual physics and philosophy degrees)
.
some reason youse ain't a very chatty bunch either.
.
Awaiting words of wisdom, Master. Silently proud of scientists finding their voices yet dubious that they can turn aside a public propaganda machine. Or conserving our strength for the long game. Or quietly upset at your poor editing of the Tol thread. Or waiting to do some analysis on the Weber paper before speaking. Or just not into tiresome repetition of talking points. Or exhausted reading Fuller on other blogs. Wondering if there is a better way to be amazed and educated and entertained than blog-hopping.

EliRabett said...

Sorry Ron, but Eli looks at 100+ comment threads over at Bart's or Tim's place, let alone Judy, featuring the sock puppet all stars and yeah, over here no one is very talkative. 20 is a long thread. Whatever

Pinko Punko said...

I will add that I discovered why I could not comment here- Firefox just eats comments. If you hit post in my copy of Firefox, comment disappears- you assume it went to spam filter, but actually it just goes nowhere. If you hit preview the same thing happens. In Safari, however, when I hit preview I see a Captcha and I contribute like a good bunny.

Jim Bouldin said...

"Wondering if there is a better way to be amazed and educated and entertained than blog-hopping."

There is Ron: the literature. This is the BIG mistake of many blogs. Nobody who is into the science really wants to read about food fights and other stupidities. Granted that the literature is vast and some of it's obtuse and/or difficult, but it's worth the rasslin' with.

The second thing that will do it is some kind of personal scientific involvement--at almost any level of involvement. Makes a world of difference. Email me if you want some ideas.

Eli, just my opinion: Fewer posts that are more in-depth, more straight-forward language, less attention to deniers.

Lazar said...

"The majority are mad as hell"

Actually, the majority are pretty sane, are onboard with the science and doing something about it, and have been for well over a decade now.
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

From my experiences talking with 'the public', most believe AGW and are concerned, a minority think it's overblown, and no one has heard of Steven McIntyre.

But then, if you're a spam bot listening to spam bots on politiko blogs, your idea of what 'the public' believes may vary.

DeadFrog said...

Eli @ 8.07

Concise and succinct, Eli.

Anonymous said...

Ah I see, those that disagree are not in the same category of racists, bigots, and anti-semites.

Gee why does the public have such a hard time believing the scientists anymore?


Y'all are not very bright when it comes to communication!


Pretty Sad...



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Scratch the "not" from my first line in previous comment. I was still in shock and awe on the ridiculous hateful post.


Celery Eater

Ron Broberg said...

My comments were just my reasons for surfing more than I comment, Eli. If you want a sort-of-serious answer about traffic, it has to do with controversy. You aren't controversial enough and you don't encourage it much in your threads. Tol thread was popular because we got to criticize the policy side of the consensus. Controversy sells; consensus is boring. Real Climate gets half the traffic it does simply because The Tribe has made their very existence controversial. WUWT benefits from a double-down - not only do their posts consistently attack consensus, but the sheer popularity of their brand of idiocy has made their existance controversial. I don't think you have it in you to out bluster Romm, so I'm not sure how you'll build controversy.

As you browse the climate blogs of middling popularity, Kloor and Verheggen, Lambert and Id, you see each has gathered a relatively small bevy of frequent commentators - a "me too" group that is comfortable with the host and the message of the blog. To be honest, I'm still not sure of the role of this blog. As a whole, your threads cover a lot of ground, although thinly. I might have said the same for Verheggen a year ago, but he seems to have filled a role as a "bridge" blog.

Any way, just a few observations and my 2c.

J Bowers said...

Celery Eater -- "Gee why does the public have such a hard time believing the scientists anymore?"

You surely mean...

"Gee why does only a quarter to less than a third of the public have such a hard time believing the scientists, despite climategate and snow in a couple of winters?"

Anonymous said...

Yes-- people who embark on witch hunts of climate scientists, and those who incite violence against scientists and who repeatedly slander and libel scientists in public are really no better than bigots and racists. Clearly, contrary to popular belief, eating celery is clearly not a cure for bigotry or ideology.

ML

Anonymous said...


Gee why does the public have such a hard time believing the scientists anymore?


Y'all are not very bright when it comes to communication!


Pretty Sad...



Celery Eater


Blame for climate scientists' inability to communicate their science to tree stumps, bags of hammers and sacks of doorknobs should not be pinned on the climate scientists!

EliRabett said...

You know it ain't just climate folks, it's a whole bag of hammers, vaccination, "young earth" foolishness, tobacco and more.

Dallas said...

Pinko said,

"I will add that I discovered why I could not comment here- Firefox just eats comments."

Yeap! I had to endure two hours registry error corrections to fix that problem. Now Firefox works like it oughta.

Holly Stick said...

Chatbots can be used for good, as in this article from last November about automated twitters responding to common denier arguments:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25964/?p1=A3

http://twitter.com/ai_agw

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Rebutting-skeptic-arguments-in-a-single-tweet.html

Holly Stick said...

Oh yes, and Eli's "fee-fees" = "Feelings, wo wo wo Feeeelinggggs...."

Holly Stick said...

If Tol pokes his nose in here agian, hit him with this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/top-eia-energy-trends-watcher-agrees-we-do-not-count-damage-public-property-price-fossil-fuels

Anonymous said...

Add hammers, tree stumps, doorknobs to your list which includes racists, bigots, and anti-semite deniers.


Any names and labels that I have missed?


I think I need to buy you a shovel for two reasons; you must be wearing them out pretty fast with all the BS you are talking and the hole you are digging. Oh and before you make snother invalid assumption, the BS I refer to is not any science, rather your elevated opinions of yourselves and the daily derision you have for a large percentage of the population. And through all that you still do not understand why it is getting more difficult to communicate the science. Hint: it is not the science nor this big conspiracy, it is you.

But please go ahead with your plans to get mad let me know how that works for ya.

Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

ML,

And for directly calling me a bigot, well the Marine in me wants to say GFY, but I do not think that would be very nice, so I won't say it.


Celery Eater

David B. Benson said...

Real Marines don't eat celery.

Anonymous said...

This one does.



Celery Eater

Majorajam said...

Eli- great blog. No flies, save one. Maybe one point five. Blogger being the one and the host's venerable modesty being the point five. IMIHO. Blogger's drawbacks include its look and feel, a spam filter that despises naturally flowing conversation and most important for me at least, that corporate firewalls hate it. I cannot post comments from work here.

Speaking of which, would love to comment and have much to say, but no time to do it now. Keep up the great work here.

Marco said...

Celery Eater, PZ Myers has a post up that talks about people like you:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/in_defense_of_mockery.php

J Bowers said...

Celery Eater -- "the daily derision you have for a large percentage of the population"

Nope, "small percentage". Ignore the over-65s and that becomes, "Tiny percentage".

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Isn't it interesting that the climate scientists are the ones who have had their private correspondence stolen, have been threatened with prosecution--and worse--for doing their job, have been villified in the press and other media--again for doing their job...

and yet, Celery eater and his ilk claim it is the scientists being "hateful". Pretty astounding.

Anonymous said...

Good post Eli. The bunnies are on the march.

I thought real sailors ate spinach....

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space,

I think it was luminous beauty who bought this to people's attention at Bart's place. What the sock puppets here and elsewhere are doing when called on their game is called DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

ML

Anonymous said...

People like me? Hmm interesting except I do not listed to Glen Beck, I believe the Earth is 4.5+ billion years old, not religious, I'll take "Theory of Evolution" for $500 Alex, Sarah Palin is an idiot, all Cable News Pundits are in it for the audience and $$. Hmm let me see, the climate IS warming that is a fact, I just have my doubts about CO2 being the main driver. I never said scientists were spouting derision that was directed at the posters here, oh except Trenberth who says I must be a racist, bigot, anti-semite.


Funny how not a single one of you has a problem with what he said.

It is all "rah rah rah go our team".


Ridiculous


Sorry I do not fit into one of your boxes.


And through it all I have yet to call any single person a name.


Oh I forgot one, anyone who thought cigarette smoking was safe or had no potential health issues after say 1965 was pretty lazy with their judgement, no matter what the tobacco companies did or said ( and it was bad and malacious).


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Apparently, celery is not good for one's comprehension skills:

Beddington said "We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality... We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method."

That is not the same as saying that everyone who is "skeptical" of AGW is a bigot. And I agree with Beddington that people have been way too tolerant of the pseudo-science and BS spouted by the likes of Morano, Beck, Monckton, Inhofe, McIntyre, Watts, Lindzen, and others skeptical of AGW or in denial about AGW. So Celery do you not agree that we should no longer tolerate pseudo-science and the perversion of the scientific process by "skeptics" and those in denial of AGW as we have been doing up until now? Why is it ok for certain "skeptics" to lie, deceive and incite violence agains climate scientists? We do not tolerate hate speech, so why should we tolerate the rhetoric and hate speak of the likes of Limbaugh et al., or the pseudo science of Watts, Mcintyre and Monckton?

Trenberth never suggested or said this (nor did Beddington:)

"oh except Trenberth who says I must be a racist, bigot, anti-semite."

Please take that back.

And celery, if it helps, I apologize for suggesting that you are a "bigot", that was uncalled for and said in the heat of the moment.

ML

Marco said...

Celery Eater still doesn't get it. "People like you", as in people who you can show facts, but simply are not capable of taking in, let alone accept, those facts, because it contradicts their ideological position.

Anonymous said...

Celery,

"Oh I forgot one, anyone who thought cigarette smoking was safe or had no potential health issues after say 1965 was pretty lazy with their judgement, no matter what the tobacco companies did or said ( and it was bad and malacious)."

So we agree then that Lindzen's position on smoking is pretty darn lazy, at best. That does not bode well for his impartiality or objectiveness on the AGW file, because accepting that smoking is bad for your health and reducing GHG emissions both require a change in lifestyle. That is the crux of the matter and that fact explains Lindzen's attempt to obfuscate and politicize climate science...sad that some people tolerate.

But it seems that you would rather take Lindzen's attempts to demonstrate that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (EQS) is < 1 K, over the overwhelming body of science and evidence amassed over the decades that suggests the contrary. What is more convenient and comforting, high EQS or low EQS? Low EQS or course, except the data and reality unfortunately suggests that low EQS is highly unlikely.

ML

Hank Roberts said...

Still in denial about how the tobacco companies hid their work, eh?
Sad.

Try this: http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071008/NEWS/110080073

Brief excerpt:
---------------

In 1983, DeNoble took the results of his experiment to his bosses at Philip Morris. According to DeNoble, they were outraged that he had been performing experiments on the brain and not working on a safer cigarette like they had hired him to do. But DeNoble told them he had also invented a safer cigarette, one with special filters and a substitute for nicotine that could reduce tar by 80 percent.

DeNoble said at first the tobacco company seemed optimistic about the new cigarette but later changed its mind.

In April 1984, DeNoble was called to the executive offices of Philip Morris.

"Our decision is final: We're not going to lose money, and if people have to die, that's the way it is," DeNoble said executives told him.

Philip Morris subsequently fired DeNoble ....
...
... DeNoble said he talked to his lab partner, and they both decided to take what they knew to Congress. They found a lawyer interested in the case, and DeNoble gave him all the boxes of evidence .... his lawyer called a few weeks later and said someone had broken into his office and stolen all the evidence.

"Years later, I actually found out that our lawyer sold all the boxes back to Phillip Morris," said DeNoble.

... nothing happened for 10 years. But then, in 1994, DeNoble found out that CEOs of the seven major tobacco companies were going to testify before Congress about whether nicotine was addictive.

"My wife, who was also a scientist ... had found ... evidence of the experiments he had performed at Phillip Morris.

... In front of a judge, DeNoble was sworn under oath to divulge what he knew.

"What does the oath mean?" DeNoble said he asked the judge.

"It means you have to tell the truth," DeNoble said the judge said.
...
After testifying under oath, DeNoble said he raced home and told his wife to pack up because they were going to move.

"They're going to kill us," he said he told his wife.

Before they could leave, DeNoble said the phone rang. The person on the phone: President Bill Clinton, DeNoble said.

He said he told the president what he knew, and told him that he was scared for his life and his family. DeNoble said President Clinton told him an executive order was being issued that would nullify his contract with Philip Morris and that the Secret Service would provide protection for his family. In fact, DeNoble said, two agents were already outside his house.

... the tobacco executives testifying before Congress had no idea that President Clinton knew everything he did. DeNoble said the companies were subsequently sued for $700 billion for lying to Congress and the American people.
__________________________________

Anonymous said...

ML,

You are right it was not Trenberth it was Beddington and I will not take back as to what he infers, sorry that is the way I take it. We will have to disagree on that one. My apologies to Mr. Trenberth.

Go ahead with your plan to get mad and be intolerant to anyone that you think of as talking BS, it will not work it will only "feel good" to those of you already in agreement.

Marco,

And what ideological positions do I have? I do not think we have discussed my political/ideological positions on anything. What don't I get? What box are you trying to put me in? Have you inquired about any thoughts I may have? Or do you always prefer to apply a standard set of beliefs upon someone so you can dismiss them, pound your chest and get approval from your peers?



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

ML,

Yes if those are Lindzen's positions on smoking than they are wrong. However, just because somone is wrong on one topic does not equate to an automatic dismissal on all other subjects.

When did I ever state I accept Lindzen's views. I currently do not accept any views (that make very specific claims) as to what happens when CO2 increases in concentration. Doubling leads to 1.2C add feedback you get to 2-4C, that is the current theory, correct? If CO2 such a dominant driver than we are about to be on a runaway path of temperature rise, which has never happened before, even with CO2 concentrations 10x what they are now? These are questions and please do not reply why I should not have these questions, or links to this or that, I have read it all, I am not convinced.


Hank,

I said that the actions of Tobacco companies were bad and malicious. So I appreciate your scripted response to a denier of Tobacco companies evils, too bad I am not in that box.



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Celery,

Now you volunteers that you are inferring your understanding of what Beddington said. well, your inference or interpretation of what he said is plain wrong. Why you would choose to torture some hidden inference or meaning in his words rather than accepting them at face value is beyond me. And it is Dr. Trenberth.

I joined the dots for you concerning Lindzen's stance on smoking and AGW. Accepting that smoking is bad for your health and that doubling (or more) CO2 will have negative impacts both require a lifestyle change and accepting that irresponsible actions have negative consequences.

"If CO2 such a dominant driver than we are about to be on a runaway path of temperature rise, which has never happened before, even with CO2 concentrations 10x what they are now?

I'm not sure how a climate sensitivity of near +3 K for doubling CO2 is meant to imply runaway warming-- that number and range of uncertainty are quite constrained. I'm surprised that this misconception is still out there, and even more surprised that someone who claims to have read the literature is that confused. I would suggest reading this post at SkepticalScience:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-advanced.htm

And yes, it is the theory of AGW, unlike the hypotheses of the alleged impact of GCRs on clouds and the alleged "iris effect".

ML

Anonymous said...

Well in order to argue with the KKK you needed to stand up to them and hold you ground. In dealing with AGW zealots who will never crticize anything or anyone from their side you must do the same thing. So ML in my standing up to you, what happens when the temperature increases +3C more than today due to a doubling of CO2? Are the oceans able to hold more or less CO2? Will the albedo of the Earth be significantly reduced? Will there be more or less water vapor in the atmosphere? will any of this lead to more warming? How quickly will CO2 have to be removed from the atmosphere to reduce the warming?

The theory is not confined nor well defined. all you have is more CO2 = some amount of warming and our models tell us the feedbacks to this will ADD warming. As it warms those feedbacks will add even more warming. What stops it?



Celery Eater

EliRabett said...

CE, why don't you wander over to the Curry shop and drop a few bomb on "Iron Sun" Manuel.

Hank Roberts said...

> anyone who thought cigarette smoking was safe or had no
> potential health issues after say 1965 was pretty lazy ...
> Celery Eater

Praising with faint damn, eh?

Dear heart, you've described the tobacco marketing plan: target the teenagers who are most susceptible to addiction. They knew that. The teenagers didn't. Lazy? These were _teenagers_. Known susceptible.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/2081

Hank Roberts said...

Oh, don't miss the related articles link:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/search?qbe=ajph;94/12/2081&journalcode=ajph&minscore=5000

I'm sure that "anyone who thought fossil fuel use was safe or had no potential health issues after say 1975 was pretty lazy" as well.

Anonymous said...

Eli,

I do not read Curry's blog.


Hank,

Again tobacco companies were malicious what else would you like me to say?


Nice Straw Man at the end, I know of no one who would asay the use of anything including fossil fuels is free of consequences. You usually are better with your arguements, must be an off day for ya.



Celery Eater

guthrie said...

Celery Eater - you must have mistaken this place for Real climate. Have you tried actually educating yourself about the science, or do you want us to come over and spoon feed it to you?

Anonymous said...

guthrie,

RC is an echo chamber, yes I have, and try that anytime you like, though you will not walk away unscathed.


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

CE,

Read Knutti and Hegerl (2008), Annan and Hargreaves and other literature. Multiple studies, using independent data have been used to constrain the range of EQS expected for doubling CO2. One also does not necessarily require a model to estimate EQS, again read Knutti and Hegerl (2008).

I am also perplexed that some skeptics argue that EQS is very low, then others claim that if EQS is near +3 K (which includes the WV feedback etc.), that somehow implies a runaway greenhouse effect. Please do make up your minds.

"What stops it?"

The fact that you are asking that makes it obvious that you have not read the article and supporting literature in the SkepticalScience post that I provided a link to. Why the reticence to learn?

"In dealing with AGW zealots who will never crticize anything or anyone from their side you must do the same thing."

Now you are making gross and untrue generalizations and arguing from emotion. In fact, the reality is that what you say is true when you replace "AGW zealot", with "skeptic" or contrarian zealot.

ML

Anonymous said...

Now you are making gross and untrue generalizations and arguing from emotion. In fact, the reality is that what you say is true when you replace "AGW zealot", with "skeptic" or contrarian zealot.

ML



Ah you are starting to get it.


Your skeptical science link was a bunch of hand waving, even the comments that followed said the whole piece was muddled and did not really say anything. It pretty much says that after 3-10 doublings, the added effect is negligible. So after 9 - 30C increase not much more will be on the way. Oh I know each iteration leads to less warming than before. So maybe we get 3C the first doubling, then another 2c, then another 1.5, there let us stop at three doublings. So an increase of 7.5C would not generate other feedbacks to act with even greater power?

Btw I read the first paper you referenced. Perhaps you should re-read it and not how much uncertainty is described. IOW, they do not know what is going to happen after the first doubling! It could just as likely start to gain speed (just like scientists today cllaim the warming is accelerating, do you call them out on that claim?) as it could eventual taper out as the effects of increased CO2 decline.

It is not as certain as you claim.

Without accurate observations than all you have is models to predict what happens once the current doubling (280 - 560) occurs.


Maybe runaway is not the best choice of word, of course there are those AGW advocates that use it more than me, I do not see a post here or anywhere else focused on how wrong that is when someone whom you support says it. Funny that.



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Now you are making gross and untrue generalizations and arguing from emotion. In fact, the reality is that what you say is true when you replace "AGW zealot", with "skeptic" or contrarian zealot.

ML



Ah you are starting to get it.


lol I did the very same thing as Beddington, I am wrong and emotional and he is right! You cannot make this stuff up. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

CE,

"I am wrong and emotional and he [Beddington] is right"

Yes, that pretty much nails it :)

Good you read the Knutti and Hegerl, yes there is uncertainty as shown in their Fig. 3, I and others never denied that there is uncertainty. Now read Annan and Hargreaves. And it seems that you read, but completely misunderstood the SkS post.

The bizarre logic of the "skeptics" goes something like this--if scientists quantify the uncertainty, we don't have to do anything because we are unsure. If they are too specific, then they are overstating their case, so once again, we don't have to take action until the uncertainty can be adequately quantified. How convenient.


"there are those AGW advocates that use it [runaway warming] more than me"

Examples please. And before you misquote Hansen, he was talking about burning all of the FFs.

ML

Anonymous said...

ML,

This is pointless you keep inventing things I supposdly said or believe out of thin air. Where did I ever say we should do nothing, because of uncertainty?

I already said that runaway was not the best choice of words.


And no you are wrong. Hansen said:

"In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty."


That is a far different than "all fossil fuels".

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

"(T)he science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030 (1). Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands."
George Monbiot

Here is yet another study report confirming that Natasha Shakova was right three years ago when she said her research off Siberia showed that methane hydrates had destabilized and were emitting to the atmosphere.

She says runaway global warming can happen "any time." The Russian scientists have been much more responsible in pointing out the catastrophic danger of methane carbon feedback.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

32 seconds in Bing wow that was hard.


Are you in denial that "runaway warming" or "runaway greenhouse" never gets spokedn by advocates of CAGW? Really?

I did not want to mention Al Gore as you would project onto me that I was calling him fat or something.



Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Celery Eater, you give no indication of having even looked at the science. There are about a dozen independent lines of evidence that have been used to constrain sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2. All of them favor a value of about 3 degrees per doubling. Not most. All. What is more, they preclude a sensitivity below 2 degrees per doubling with 90% confidence. Moreover, if the 90% confidence interval is incorrect, it is much more likely that the sensitivity is 6 degrees per doubling rather than 1 degree per doubling. That is what the evidence says.

You hide behind uncertainty as if it actually helps you. It doesn't. We know the planet is warming. We know that it is anthropogenic CO2 that is doing it. The consensus theory explains the fact that it is warming and how much it is warming. It explains the fact that the troposphere is warming even as the stratosphere cools. It explains Polar Amplification. It explains why we see more effect in fall, winter and spring than summer. It explains the Glacial/Interglacial characteristics. Without that theory, you can explain none of these things. Unfortunately, the theory also tells us that we are changing the climate.

But we already know from the evidence that we are doing so. And if you reject the theory, all you do is resign yourself to flying blind. Uncertainty is not your friend here.

Anonymous said...

CE,

Sigh, I never claimed that non-one who is concerned about AGW has made reference to "runaway warming". I simply asked for you to provide some examples.

What is you position on reducing our GHG emissions? Are you climaining that because the climate sensitivity is, in your mind, not sufficiently constrained that we should do nothing about our GHG emissions?

And CAGW is not a real term, it was fabricated by 'skeptics'. I and others do not "advocate" AGW or are not "pro" AGW either. Beddington is clearly pro science. Jeez, how much more from the 'skeptic' speaking points are you going to parrot here?

I stand corrected regarding all the burning "all the FFs". Regardless, Hansen is probably right--if we burn all the coal, then things do not look good. Coal is a major player in this problem.

ML

Anonymous said...

Apropos of Sir John Beddinton's exhortations, Gavin Schmidt has had enough already.

Judith Curry wades straight into the mire with a post on Hiding the Decline (yes, that decline) and promptly shoots herself in the foot by flinging accusations of dishonesty at Mann, Briffa, Jones "et al" (the 'et al' implying, presumably, other members of the RC crew).

Gavin Schmidt calls Curry on this, saying:

"to ascribe a difference of opinion to dishonesty is to remove yourself from any sensible discussion on the topic. Perhaps if I was to find a graph in one of your papers which I thought didn’t show some aspect of the data I was interested in, and then accuse you of dishonesty? Would you react well to that? This is exactly the same. How can you claim to be building bridges, when you are so busy burning them?

Seems Prof Schmidt has taken Sir John Beddington's advice to heart. Watch this space...

The Anonybilby

Anonymous said...

A_ray please read my prior post where I understand the current theory to be an increase of 1.2C for a doubling and 2-4C with positive feedbacks, or about 3C. I already stated this. You guys are really well trained to argue against stereotype rather than a person. You seem to be certain of everything, so why are you emmitting carbon at all? You should have a zero footprint if you know everything, you are contributing to make it worse.



So if there is no "C" then what is the emergency? All I hear that we are heading towards a catastrophy, is that no longer the case.

Again I ask the question, if we reach 560ppm and increase no more CO2, will the temperature also stabalize at 2-4C above what it was at 280ppm?

So if we burn all the coal OR add that amount of CO2 to the atmosphere we initiate runaway warming? Back to my thought on all this: "If CO2 such a dominant driver than we are about to be on a runaway path of temperature rise, which has never happened before, even with CO2 concentrations 10x what they are now?"

So which is it, runaway possible or not?

Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Celery Eater, you speak as if runaway warming is the only threat posed by climate change. It is not. Look at Knutti and Hegerl figure 5. Anything above 3 degrees and we start facing severe consequences. That could easily happen this century, even for the favored values of S.

It is also very likely that we will start feeling severe effects of climate change just as:
1)Global human population crests at ~10 billion
2)Fossil fuels become largely depleted.

We are already seeing food insecurity returning in part due to severe weather (probably at least partially caused by climate change). We are seeing strains on the oceans due to warming and acidification. We are already depleting aquifers (and once they're gone, they're gone for good. Now imagine half again as many people placing even more strain, burning more fossil fuel, changing the climate even more. We don't have to kill all life on Earth to make the planet a living hell for those that survive.

Anonymous said...

So what are your solutions a_ray?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Gavin is overreacting to a letter he received from E&E. The title of his post does not match with any of the words in the received letter.

More evidence of the point I was trying to make earlier, you guys do not understand communication, at all.


Here come the cheers and hoots for Gavin, not a single arguemnt shall be put forth against his overreaction, nay just complete support. Go Gavin get mad and get in their face!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/ee-threatens-a-libel-suit/


Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anon,
Well, first we have to admit what is going on.
1)We have to resolve some of the major uncertainties wrt the planet's energy balance.

2)We have to develop an entirely new, clean and carbon-free anergy infrastructure. W

3)We have to fund development efforts in Africa, Asia and Latin America, especially education of women. This is absolutely key to stabilizing population below 10 billion.

4)We have to develop a sustainable economy.

5)We have to learn to keep the economy working even as populatin starts to decrease and we are faced with an inverted age pyramid.

6)We have to cut way back on carbon emissions now to buy time for the above actions. The longer we wait, the more draconian the cuts will need to be.

7)Even if we start now, we'll wind up spending a bundle on mitigation and remediation efforts.

That is at least a start. Carbon sequestration ideas, (planting trees, terra preta...) can help. Small actions can help, but we are going to have to realize that this is a global problem and we are all going to be adversely affected if we don't address it.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

C E, do you have a reading comprehension problem? The subject line says E&E libel.

Anonymous said...

A_ray,

Libel does not necessarily mean lawsuit. Please point in the letter where there is a threat of a lawsuit without inferring it.


Good Luck.


Gavin overreacted he should have responded to Bill in a different manner. Again we will just disagree.


We shall see in a year or two the effects of the "get mad as hell" and be "intolerent" to all the BS coming from the sceptics. I think you are going to be disappointed, though you might feel good along the way.


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space,

Feel free to continue, but it seems that science and ideology (CE) are at an impasse.

We do not know what else Sonja may have sent Gavin.

CE really, really needs to read all of WGI in AR4. The answers to his questions are all in there.

Here, I'll even help with some links:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-10-warming-in-the-pipeline.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html

And the 'skeptics' can feel free to continue to engage in sub-par science and lack the credibility and attention from policy makes they so crave...no skin off my nose.

ML

Anonymous said...

Hughes,

"At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate."

Hmm, do as I say or else....

Anonymous said...

The anti- and pseudo- science crowd are a disease that needs to be removed else the patient cannot be saved.

Anonymous said...

"We do not know what else Sonja may have sent Gavin. "

Oh my, speculation is now valid! lol

what is my ideology, you seem to know it better than I? Oh nevermind I already forgot that speculation is valid.

Read it all, I just do not interpret it the same way you do.


I see that the call is now out for any that are deemed to be "anti and pseudo science" are to be removed, like a disease.





And the circle is complete.



Celery Eater

Marco said...

Celery Eater, how are we to take "At the moment, I’m prepared to settle merely for a retraction posted on RealClimate." ?

"At the moment" in combination with "settle merely" makes it clear he is making an offer: "retract, or face further consequences, and be glad I didn't take it further already."

Former Skeptic said...

I call Poe on CE.

J Bowers said...

Celery Eater -- "I see that the call is now out for any that are deemed to be "anti and pseudo science" are to be removed, like a disease."

No, it's for them to be given short shrift, especially given the level of influence on policies such pseudoscience has gained (just look at the US Congress). Perhaps if Thabo Mbeki had been intolerant of the HIV/AIDS deniers, then a third of a million South Africans would be alive today, or at least HIV-positive South African pregnant women could have been treated with antiretroviral medication which they were denied.

Sou said...

Speaking of blog hopping, and getting mad as hell, Gavin Schmidt has posted on Curry's blog so Curry tripped over to WUWT to call for reinforcements to do some more Gavin-bashing.

(H/t to Sharper00 commenting on The Policy Lass).

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous says, "The anti- and pseudo- science crowd are a disease that needs to be removed else the patient cannot be saved."

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you did no realize how extreme this comment sounded when you wrote it. I would urge you to express yourself with greater attention and temperance in the future.

What is needed is to educate people so that they are capable of recognizing and accepting physical reality when it confronts them.

J Bowers said...

BigCityLib -- Peer Review At E&E: A Case Study

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/02/peer-review-at-e.html

Anonymous said...

JBowers,

You make a good point about Mbeki. I thought that the number was closer to half a million? anyhow, a staggering number of people who needlessly suffered and then died.

CE needs to read the subject title of the email sent by hughes-- "E&E libel". Hardly speculation, rather blunt in fact-- they are simply trying to manufacture another controversy. Desperate much Sonja and Hughes?

ML

Anonymous said...

Celery Eater -- "I see that the call is now out for any that are deemed to be "anti and pseudo science" are to be removed, like a disease."

We do not even know who posted that. For all we know you could have posted that. So quit making generalizations.

ML

Hank Roberts said...

> speaking of blog-hopping

Good example indeed. The pointer is at
http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/when-science-becomes-politics-by-other-means/#comment-4535

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

good post on calling that person out for the "disease" comment.


Again ML "Libel" does not equal lawsuit. Please continue to support the "mad as hell" and overreactions to every little thing that comes along.

Marco,

Maybe he meant he would go public, hash it out in the press. Or he could have meant he would contact and complain to Gavin's employer or maybe write an article about it in the journal. Did you crawl in the guy's head and figure out exactly what he meant? Did you care to write and ask him? Maybe Gavin could have responded with a simple What do you mean "at the moment"?

I just find it extremely interesting how everyone always seems to be in 100% agreement with someone who agrees with them on climate topics. It is like you are little clones.


ML,

Yeah I posted that.. Get real.

As to generlaizations, you should know that is all you have done with me, commenting on my ideology, which you did not inquire as to what it might be. All the pre-conceived "skeptic" and or "denier" boxes you have tried to fit me in. Your projection of emotion.


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

CE,

"Yeah I posted that.. Get real"

This post (by you) was not signed.

"Anonymous said...
The anti- and pseudo- science crowd are a disease that needs to be removed else the patient cannot be saved.

22/2/11 8:09 PM"

So it was you then fabricating nonsensical rhetoric and hate speak and trying to attribute it to "warmers", because about 17 minutes later you opine with:

"I see that the call is now out for any that are deemed to be "anti and pseudo science" are to be removed, like a disease."

And that message was signed by CE. That was slimy and disingenuous CE-- you need to "get real" mate.


OK, what do you classify yourself as , a "lukewarmer"? Please do tell, we are so very curious ;)

ML

Anonymous said...

ML,

I did not make that disease post, ask Eli. I have been 100% sincere and honest with everything I have posted and all you have done is try to fit me into a box, call me this or that and question my integrity and honesty. Have I returned the favor, no.


I refuse to be labeled in one of your boxes, such as "lukewarmer".


Good Day!

Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

OK, CE, against my better judgement I'll take your word for it.

Whoever posted that, it was in very poor taste, on that I think we can agree.

You still have not told us your position on AGW. So instead of playing this juvenile game and accusing others of pigeon holing you or trying to fit you in boxes, just unambiguously and clearly state your position.

ML

Anonymous said...

ML,

From earlier in this thread I said:

"People like me? Hmm interesting except I do not listen to Glen Beck, I believe the Earth is 4.5+ billion years old, not religious, I'll take "Theory of Evolution" for $500 Alex, Sarah Palin is an idiot, all Cable News Pundits are in it for the audience and $$. Hmm let me see, the climate IS warming that is a fact, I just have my doubts about CO2 being the main driver."


Am I not allowed any doubt?

Btw, it should not be against your better judgement to accept what I said about the "Disease" post.

Celery Eater

EliRabett said...

Eli has often (well at least three times, you can google the other two) pointed to the wages of AIDS denial. The bunny would not mind eliminating the anti-VAXers, esp the Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefields.

Majorajam said...

" I have been 100% sincere and honest with everything I have posted"

He certainly does protest a lot. Also 'celery eater'...? The 'Marine' ostensibly calls himself celery eater because he likes celery? Nothing to do with the familial monikers of other well known Internet personalities whose climate comments have provoked his profound rage? Also ostentatious claims of military experience are the calling card of the liar, especially the conservative kind. I'd be willing to wager the family silver your man's time on playstation's 'call of duty' is the extent of his military xp.

it's a troll peeps. a troll plying deceit to get after people he hates without understanding why. Trolls have some pretty significant issues when u think about it.

There are dome pretty deranged types on the interrubes so I'm told.

Anonymous said...

CE,

Err, that is not helpful.

"Am I not allowed any doubt?"

Duh, of course you are, no one her said that you couldn't-- but one's doubts have to be based upon sound scientific data and analysis and reasoning. You have not provided any scientific basis for your "doubts". Otherwise those 'doubts' are very likely ideologically motivated.

You should watch Richard Alley's talk that he gave at the AGU. And Lacis et al. (2010) is also worth a read.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

Now I'm done.

ML

Anonymous said...

Majorajam,

Not protesting just answering the slew of accusations one gets when one provides a different view of things.

You can question my military service, I could careless, I swore the oath, I served, that is what is important. My daughter makes for the 6th generation to serve in my family.(btw I do not own a Playstation nor an xBox). Bottom-line you would lose your family's silver if you were to make the bet. Good rant of insults an insinuation. I bet all your buddies are so proud of you. What a wonderful human being you are.

Yes I came up with the name thanks to "Carrot Eater", good call.



ML,

I am not trying to prove a scientific theory, the current science is not sufficient in attributing the current warmth to CO2.


Anymore insults coming from the masses based on speculation and the darkness of some people's souls?


Celery Eater

Majorajam said...

The troll who admits to lying earlier in the thread about the provenance of his pseudonym and who, notwithstanding his righteous indignation at the impugning of his honor, steadfastly clings to anonymity, would now have us believing tales of five generations of military service. I admit that a single tear rolled down my cheek as I raced to fund a flag to salute... before I burst out laughing. Good one troll. Really though, that wasn't a challenge to see whether you could top the prior lie. I do not underestimate that of your experience.

Oh the tangled web we weave.

Anonymous said...

Majorajam,

What are you talking about? I admitted I lied about where I came up with Celery Eater? Is this a joke?

You assume too much of your abilities. There is no one on this board that could impugn my honor, something you know nothing about.

Rememeber when I was called a bigot and I replied: "And for directly calling me a bigot, well the Marine in me wants to say GFY, but I do not think that would be very nice, so I won't say it."

I would not hold the same reservation for you and since you must be well practiced in the endeavor I am sure you are looking forward to it.



Celery Eater

Majorajam said...

The joke troll is how quickly you made the trite sentiments you shared here a function of 'your identity' yet you can't even get it together to post under a Blogger account. Meanwhile, the only other point of clarity was the pretense by which you were an open minded guy looking to get a fair shake from the meanie alarmists. This notwithstanding that you've spent enough time as party to the climate blog wars to have not only absorbed untold skeptic silliness verbatim (how do I get on the mailing list, btw?) but to have borrowed your moniker from a frequent commenter on more obscure climate blogs. And now you want to impress us with your adolescent zingers and a trumped up sense of decency, which undoubtedly is the only authentic piece of that faux-identity that you wear so ostentatiously. SOP for folks like you. Reasonably humorous as such things go but not so much to keep me interested for much longer.

Anonymous said...

Carrot Eater was a frequent poster here a few years back, that is when I posted and have always posted here as "Celery Eater". Since your "required" blogger id (still laughing at that) was just recently created I'll chalk that up to you still having the new fascination with a blogger id..lol


I am not trying to impress anyone. Why did you bother to jump in at the end of this anyway? It seems your life must be rather empty and to improve your own self worth, so you can drudge on another day, you attempt to "put down" and "out" another stereotypical denier. I am not impressed, rather sad the I have met someone who lives such a miserable existence and needs to fill their empty soul with such nonesense.

Your empty accusations, are just that, empty. I hope you have improved your self worth so you can make it another day, no thanks are necessary.



Celery Eater

EliRabett said...

Eli misses him, but the blog is probably not science centered enough right now for CE. We will return after this message