All this has happened before
So Microsoft has decided to ditch the lobbying group ALEC because of ALEC's opposition to renewable energy. As the link says, the lobbying group is facing increasing problems with its corporate members. This is obviously good news and it parallels something that happened years earlier, where a conservative corporate coalition (the Global Climate Coalition) mobilized against climate change was gradually picked apart. In the earlier case, the demise of the conservative coalition received a helping hand from a moderate alternative established by the Pew Foundation. I am not aware of any behind-the-scenes nudging of Microsoft, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Despite this, I stand behind my original admiration for ALEC and think it should be imitated on the progressive side of politics. Maybe we can skip the unsavory stuff though, especially the secrecy that is getting it into trouble.
Posts
146 comments:
Coalitions keep dissolving, but no progress is ever made on reducing emissions. Is their money just traveling more silently now? If fossil fuels were your business, wouldn't you do that [if you thought like a corporation], with trillions at stake for every year delayed?
DavidA
Hello David your are right in your suspicions, the funding is now done in secret - before it was more open - read an article about it some time ago - now the donators of anti climate funding are more secret than some years ago ;)
The gushing torrent of money has been dashed against a rock of visibility, creating more rivulets than a bunny should count, especially since they all disappear under ground and magically reappear in the same old place.
The Crooks and Liars have uncovered more crooks and liars here:
http://crooksandliars.com/2013/12/its-not-just-koch-brothers-funding-climate
David, it´s more practical to avoid getting into conspiracy theories about "fossil fuel company financing" of contrarian propaganda.
To get things right, the individual components of the fossil fuel industry have to be considered separately. Privately held oil companies are slowly moving towards becoming gas companies. This means a move to decarbonize doesn´t sound to them like such a bad idea (they will market natural gas as a natural companion to renewables).
Coal companies are a different matter. I suppose they may be worried because they have large coal reserves and the market only grows in countries such as China, India, Germany, and so on. The growth potential is limited, and they do face increasing costs. So I can see why they would finance some propaganda to get themselves out of the hole.
State owned concerns such as Aramco, PDVSA, and Rosneft have separate agendas. I think they focus more on specific markets. Thus I wouldn´t be surprised if Russia´s Gazprom is financing anti fracking greens in Europe, or if Venezuela´s PDVSA finances anti Keystone XL construction from Canada to the USA.
You see what I mean? It´s much better to use a finer focus.
Fernando: "Privately held oil companies are slowly moving towards becoming gas companies. "This means a move to decarbonize doesn´t sound to them like such a bad idea (they will market natural gas as a natural companion to renewables)."
Er, Koch Industries? Do you even think about these claims before you post them? Or maybe "slowly moving" was intended as a synonym for "fighting tooth and nail."
Steve, the conspiracy theories don´t work. "Err, Koch Industries?" doesn´t answer my point.
Do I think about my claims before I post them? Yes. I´m also extremely patient, if you want to debate the topic affectively, come up with something a bit more sophisticated.
And to make sure you do understand what you are debating:
There´s no such thing as a collective oil company conspiracy, policy, or movement, to oppose anthropogenic global warming projections.
When you engage in diseeminating those conpiracy theories you lose credibility.
On the other hand, you COULD get better results if you pointed out specific items or points. For example, I brought up PDVSA´s interest in keeping Canadian oil from entering the Gulf Coast market by blocking the Keystone XL pipeline. If you care to discuss a subject without getting into homilies and propaganda lines, debate that.
Unfortunately, whether or not you call it a conspiracy, the facts presented by Robert Brulle in that excellent link are as stated. Power and influence are being exerted, and disregard for the future and the common weal are practiced by microfocus on short-term profits. It's not a pretty picture.
Here's the link again:
http://crooksandliars.com/2013/12/its-not-just-koch-brothers-funding-climate
This is not a fantasy, it's hard cold fact. It's a longer extract than usual, but it's annoying to get the same false accusations again and again.
"funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
"Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
"Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
"Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources."
By the way, this is very old news to those of us who are paying attention, which is pretty much anyone who has expertise and is tired of seeing falsehood pose as truth, while we pour gas on the fire.
Fernando, try making a claim that doesn't show you to be a willing tool of the fossil fuel industry, then perhaps we could interact constructively. Until then, my response to you will be some combination of mockery and shunning.
Susan, there's another (now preferred, I think) mode they're using (maybe discussed in those links), which is by way of supporting outfits like NFIB that in turn weigh in on climate legislation. This works great with legislators and the media.
The robots that are replacing us probably don't care too much as long as you keep the lights on.
Collective oil conspiracy:
GCSCT1998, for analysis search for that in PDF @ Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony.
I assume people know that API = American Petroleum Institute.
The coal guys in US are a bit more fragmented, but the biggest group is the Western Fuels Association, i.e., Powder River coal. They've been at it a while. See REpor from 2000, with a few names we know.
re Bob Brulle's fine study:
See Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial, which has the graph of the rise of the Donors Trust anonymizer, supplematary material, and full-size versions of some of the graphs.
Susan, the Brulle study was no good. It included all "right wing" organization funding as if it were focused on climate change. Hell, as far as I´m concerned right wing organizations are focused on tax cuts, pandering to racists, and getting the US to fight more wars.
Brulle wrote a paper used to fuel conspiracy theories, feel free to reference it, and then get ignored. What needs to be done is to identify funding speficically targeted at what some like to call "climate denial", a term I find very inexact (a better term would be "skepticism about anthropogenic climate change").
Steve, your claim about me remains an empty gesture if you avoid discussing the points being debated.
Returning to the subject at hand, thus far the only specific claim I read was the one about the Koch influences on politics. Koch is privately held. As such it´s very difficult to verify its positions and property values. As far as I can see the Kochs do put their money into all sorts of libertarian and right wing causes. However, I find Murdoch´s empire to be a much more troublesome entity.
On the other hand, my original comment stands: Major private oil companies are gradually turning into gas producers, therefore they have no reason to fuel your conspiracy theories. Coal producers are an open question, and PUBLIC corporations such as PDVSA, Gazprom and Saudi Aramco may indeed be playing that game under the tables, but aiming at specific targets.
And what do you base your theories on? The Brulle paper and a report by Mashey filled with ziggurats? Reading through Mashey is like reading Genesis (and Koch begat Imhof who begat McKittrick who begat McIntyre who begat Lord Monckton...).
Do you know what is really going on? You are frustrated because nobody cares about what you care so deeply about. So rather than studying what leads you to be ineffective, you imagine a group of conspirators who oppose your righteousness. A better option may be to understand what REALLY inspires opposition and disinterest, and fix that.
Fernando,
I have asked you this before and elsewhere. Do you have any suggestions of any kind to move things forward rather than what seems to be your persistent negativity? For example, what do you think inspires opposition and disinterest, and how would you fix it?
BTW; Ignorant as I am of the depth of the Koch issue, I very much agree that the Murdoch Empire is a deeply worrying entity in this arena.
Fergus, opposition and dissent have several causes. I also sense there´s a significant difference amongst countries (the EU sure isn´t USA), so it´s important to focus on a particular setting.
My perception is that US based opposition is ideological, meaning that anything a Democrat proposes will be opposed by the Murdoch machine.
To overcome such a giant it´s important to have very high credibility. And this means the work you present has to be boiler plate, subdued, understated, and solid. Michael Mann didn´t help things with the hockey stick, nor was "False Hope" worth much to give him credibility. Hell, I myself wrote a strong critique of that article.
The IPCC has a lot of weaknesses, and the opposition is constantly shooting holes in their work.
Also, the proposals you make to decarbonize fail to acknowledge feasibility. I see too many people writing about using wind power 100 %, attacking natural gas when it´s the best option to provide counterpoint to wind and solar, and all the time they ignore intermittency and other real problems.
So in conclusion, get solid, get real, learn to debate objections, stop the conspiracy theories which only work in echo chambers, and also realize you have a huge ally because we ARE running out of oil, and the climate IS changing. So the issue is much more powerful than many understand. Whether we like it or not, the climate will change, so we do need to understand how to adapt and tweak it. And whether we like it or not we ARE running out of oil, and that´s going to cause a lot of hassles.
Fernando, thank you for your detailed response. I have opened a thread with your name on it on my own blog - do you mind if I rip this comment and respond there, to save Eli the aggravation of moderating our nonsense? Is this okay with you, Rabett?
Fernando: "Mann didn't help things with the hockey stick". He presented the results of honest scientific investigation, and it's been replicated many times. You give the impression that inconvenient truths should be buried if they're divisive.
PL
Fernando: "Mann didn't help things with the hockey stick"
And I suppose all those researchers who've replicated essentially the same result are also not helping?
While McIntyre's dishonest supposed debunking is helpful?
Fernando,
Wow, that was fun! I started out a few days ago respecting you for an interesting and deep comment. Your characterization of me is so weird as to be funny.
I am the daughter of a well known physicist (PW) who agrees with me and uses me as a source of information, and briefly got top marks at MIT (biochemistry), but am now an artist and as a sideline have thoroughly followed climate change and climate change denial and its funding for the last decade (though my interest in ecology dates from the my childhood and the Rachel Carson era). I like to write, and have a point of view that is valued in a variety of quarters. In general, I like to get my expertise from experts, because I know what goes into qualifying in specialist work, which does not pay as well as most other fields.
John Mashey has devoted considerable skill and expertise to exposing fraud and corruption, and has earned the respect given him here and elsewhere.
Your presumption about my motivations thoroughly condemns your ability to perceive what is in front of you.
Now in general I prefer not to get into this kind of muck, and hadn't know about your response until just now, but I'm not at all who you think I am, nor are my research and thought processes accurately described by you.
You may have the last word if you wish, as I will ignore anything further from you on this topic after receiving this mean-spirited attack.
So all those that replicated Mann's work eliminated the MWP?
Mann is a fraud, crook and a liar, trifecta.
Mann is a fraud, crook and a liar, trifecta.
You need to get yourself a corporate sponsor blog and website and make that statement under your real name for better credibility!
Since you don't have McIntyre or Wegman anymore, you are reduced to but but but ... THE MWP and LIA!
As Al Gore before him, Mann's only goal is to enrich himself.
How people refuse to see that POS for what he is, amazes.
You're right, everybody should see the world as you see it. It's amazing that they can't see what you see. How could that be? lol.
Especially amazing since you are an esteemed anonymous blog commenter.
And you are an esteemed responder to an anonymous blogger. lol
Fergus, the Big Bunny don't need no stinking moderation.
I got esteemed just reading that exchange. :)
My excuse is that it's 97 degrees Fahrenheit outside with humidity in the high 80's on a friday afternoon and I'm laughing my ass off at one of your brethren who earlier claimed that CO2 concentration was 4000 ppm just 22 thousand years ago. What is your excuse?
Oh, I get it, say something often enough anonymously on the internet comment forums and low IQ readers might actually believe your crap.
That makes sense. I can't wait for Steyn's discovery and epiphany. I've invested heavily in carrots and popcorn futures.
My brethren? You can deduce such things from an anonymous blogger. Wow you are a legend in your own mind.
Do you kiss yourself while looking in the mirror?
Yes, your 'brethren' of the clique of 'The Hockey Stick Fraud'. At the very least you are smart enough not to actually open your mouth about the evidence, thus removing all doubt that you are indeed a fool. Anonymous shields you in a way that it does not for 'Radical Rodent' and 'Mack', since they are eager to flaunt their ignorance for all to see. You are just content to use the word 'fraud' without attribution or supporting evidence. So let's hear more about McIntyre and Wegman.
We could use a criminal libel statute.
Mann will lose his case. Mann claimed to have received the Nobel Prize which he of course did not, shows that he is a liar and a fraud . Pretty simple really.
Not winning a Nobel Prize does not automatically make any scientist a fraud. I believe the suit is over the claim that Mann falsified the data and his procedures, which is of course a false accusation.
I believe that the hypothesis that tree ring data can be converted to a rough approximation of temperature was not falsified either.
You really have a dim and naive view of science and scientists. One can only assume that you are anti-science, but then again, I can't distinguish one anti-science blog commenter from another. They're indistinquishable, like certain quanta. You must be macroscopic though because you are predictable.
So incompetent ideologues are *still* attacking Mann and his hockey stick.
The "hockey stick is a fraud" folks are just embarrassingly incompetent. The entire foundation of the case that "skeptics" have made against Mann is built on rookie screwups.
The "Mann's method creates hockey sticks from noise" claim is based on dishonest cherry picking, a badly screwed-up noise model that was contaminated with hockey-stick signal statistics, and a complete failure to recognize that singular-value magnitudes contain vital information about the data.
The claim that Mann's "short centering" SVD implementation generates hockey-sticks while the standard "full centering" convention doesn't is based on yet another rookie screwup, namely the failure to recognize that when you change the way you normalize data, you need to recalculate the number of singular-vectors aka principal components that you retain.
The above screwups are the sorts of things that Mann would ding his students for.
Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann did a nice job of dismantling skeptic claims about Mann's hockey-stick results back in 2007. And they released all of the code they wrote to analyze the skeptic claims about Mann's work.
I have the Wahl/Ammann code that specifically debunks the skeptics' "short centered" vs. "full-centered" claims. You can find it, along with Mann's NOAMER tree-ring data here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6VUstM05RSE9acTg/edit?usp=sharing
I made one small change to the code to get it to run with the current version of R.
The code in the package runs "out of the box" for me on Linux or Mac systems with the requisite R packages installed.
Those who have a sufficient background in linear algebra to understand what a singular value decomposition is and how to interpret its outputs (and either know some R or are willing to RTFM enough to learn a bit about R) should, after studying and working through the code, be able to understand exactly why the skeptics' claims about the effects of "short centering" are complete nonsense.
The RStudio R development environment (http://rstudio.com) makes it much easier to dig into R-code and figure out what it does. I strongly recommend installing RStudio before digging into the Wahl/Ammann code.
But good luck trying to explain any of this to your garden-variety climate "skeptics"
Reading through Mashey is like reading Genesis . . .
Damned well ought to be for deniers and self-proclaimed "skeptics." God speaks, you should listen, even when filtered through prophets with beards.
"Not winning a Nobel Prize does not automatically make any scientist a fraud."
No but claiming you did when you didn't provides insight into one's integrity and character.
What you believe is not relevant and the case has nothing to do with what you state above. Not even close.
Mann builds his own case against himself.
Mashey is a moron. If he truly was consistent with his application of "researching" people, he would be all over Mann for using a big tobacco lawyer. But know, not Saint Mann, you guys get in each others way to polish that bishop.
Fergus, feel free to post whatever I write.
Susan, I didn´t describe you at all. I wrote a post answering two persons. Maybe you got confused.
Caerbannog: My primary source for Mann´s hockey stick problems is a lecture at Berkeley by Dr M.
However, Mann exposed his nature quite clearly when he got "False Hope" published by Scientific American. As far as I´m concerned nailed the coffin, which means I don´t trust any work he does.
Dhogaza, this isn´t the right place to debate paleoclimatology. The key is to have an open mind, and understand Mann´ hockey stick has serious weaknesses.
And I as I keep mentioning, Mann´s tendency to go over the top seems to continue, as shown by his "False Hope" article in Scientific American. You know, I read Sci Am´s English version, and I also read a similar publication in Spanish (Investigacion y Ciencia). THe editorial control is quite different. The Spanish version is much more professional. The English version is starting to sound like a propaganda rag aimed at 17 year olds, because it includes low quality articles like False Hope.
"But know [sic], not Saint Mann, you guys get in each others way to polish that bishop."
But Mann shows considerable polish in both climate science and writing about it which is more than can be said for another 'bishop' who has gained a reputation for attracting dirt and a 'handle' to show how that is.
Now you no why you have know valid arguments.
Fernando, please do not lecture people on open minds when you yourself clearly blindly accepted the criticism of Richard Mueller, and then ignore the many points he got wrong, as listed by caerbannog (I'm not sure he got all of those wrong, but many).
Perhaps you should lecture yourself to open your mind to criticism of the criticism of Mann's hockeystick. You might learn something.
"Dhogaza, this isn´t the right place to debate paleoclimatology. "
Mai non, it's a great place to debate paleoclimatology. Shy about debating it for some reason? Maybe you should stick to the Guardian and WUWT.
(Previous comment deleted due to editing goof-ups)
Caerbannog: My primary source for Mann´s hockey stick problems is a lecture at Berkeley by Dr M.
My primary source is data/code that very clearly demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the attacks on Mann's work.
The Mueller lecture that you listened to demonstrated nothing other than the fact that ideological blinders can cause even PhD's to step in it, big time.
The data/code package I linked to shows very clearly how McIntyre & Wegman totally screwed up in their attacks on Mann's hockey-stick. They basically got themselves tripped up over some very fundamental linear algebra concepts.
You can be sure that Mann has explained very clearly to his legal team how the "experts" who supposedly debunked his work committed some very amateurish blunders in their attacks on him.
Any "expert witness" foolish enough to go to bat for the defendants in court is going to get a Kitzmiller v. Dover sized can of whupass opened on him/her.
The key is to have an open mind, and understand Mann´ hockey stick has serious weaknesses.
Here's a basic SVD question (of the sort that professors might use to get the grading-curve started above 0).
Imagine that you are given the full output of two SVD runs, one on Mann's tree-ring data and the other on completely random noise. You do not get to look at the original data sets. How would you tell the two cases apart? Explain your work.
What you believe is not relevant and the case has nothing to do with what you state above.
You're right, it's what the judge and the jury (if there is one) believes that will be relevant.
The key is to have an open mind, and understand Mann´ hockey stick has serious weaknesses.
The evidence, of which I am intimately familiar with, give me the insight to say definitively that you are full of SHIT.
That explains why you are spewing it out your mouth.
Fergus - I wrote the OP, so standing in for Rabett, I say let a thousand blog posts bloom. And as the other Bloom says, we don't need no stinking moderation. We are in fact lazy moderating rabbits.
Re Sr. Fernando, my opinion: skewed perspective, worth debating. For perspective, contrast him to some anon comments we've seen.
Dhogaza, this isn´t the right place to debate paleoclimatology. The key is to have an open mind, and understand Mann´ hockey stick has serious weaknesses.
Just following up to highlight this glaring inconsistency in Fernando's logic.
First, it's "this isn't the right place to debate paleoclimatology".
Then in the very next sentence, it's "Mann's hockey stick has serious weaknesses".
Fernando, if you don't want to debate paleoclimatology here, then why did you make that claim about Mann's paleoclimate work?
Fernando, Dr. M's work came to the same conclusion as everyone else. Hockeystick. Old news.
Anonymous,the IPCC itself sent Mann that famous certificate. What have you done? NOTHING. Face it.
Fernando isn't it about time that you actually posted something substantive. All we've seen so far from you is that you don't like this and you don't like that. Where's the meat?
The greatest repudiation of Mann came from the IPCC removal of the stick from subsequent reports.
So not mentioning a well confirmed recent warming equates to a repudiation? Who knew!
Did they forget to mention the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and general relativity as well?
I think they forgot to mention Isaac Newton too, that's bad.
Clearly all science is wrong because the IPCC didn't say it was right.
Dear Anon.
The greatest repudiation of Mann came from the IPCC removal of the stick from subsequent reports.
You are mistaken. The reconstruction from MBH99 was used in AR4.
AR5 has evolved and focuses on more recent reconstructions, eg. that of Mann et al. (2008). Hardly a 'repudiation'. More an example of scientific progress in understanding millennial climate variability.
Let's see...
When the IPCC stopped publishing the Lamb figure, it was a nefarious plot to hide the MWP.
But when the IPCC replaced Mann's original (now 15+ years old) paleoreconstruction with four of Mann's more recent paleoconstructions (Ma08cpsl, Ma08eivl, Ma08min7eivf, Ma09regm in http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg), it was a repudiation of Mann's work.
Got it.
So according to your logic, the fact that it was in the Fourth assessment validates it? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
and Mann et al 2008 was in the fifth as well. See page 411 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
Sensible folks:
I suggest:
1) While it is theoretically possible to recover from intense Dunning-Kruger, it is rarely observed in practice, especially in online environments where there is no downside to the behavior. (In some environments, it can be reputation-destructive).
2) in general, once there is strong evidence of DK affliction, a good rule of thumb is: don't bother reading and especially responding ... Ever again.
Sadly, we don't really have the equivalent of the USENET KILLFILE, do one has to simulate it :-)
Brian,(and anyone else curious), F has accepted my invitation and the process of discussion has just begun over at my place.
I believe, though it can be difficult given the evidence to date, that the effort in this case is worthwhile, in that I have some faith the F is, at bottom, a rational person.
Fernando Leanme: "Brulle wrote a paper used to fuel conspiracy theories, feel free to reference it, and then get ignored. What needs to be done is to identify funding speficically targeted at what some like to call "climate denial", a term I find very inexact (a better term would be "skepticism about anthropogenic climate change"). "
Well, Fernando has just conclusively demonstrated he's no skeptic. He doesn't want to hear about any efforts by fossil-fuel billionaires to keep the cost of ACC external to their revenue streams, until he sees evidence that requires a court order to produce. But no such court orders are in the offing, because it isn't illegal to spend millions of dollars to influence elections or to disinform the public about ACC, so he'll never see any evidence that will satisfy him.
He is free to ignore the Brulle paper, but I encourage everyone else to reference it at every opportunity. It's exactly the kind of carefully documented report that will get the attention of genuine skeptics.
Took time off from surfing to inspect the latest blue ribbon Funny Looking Rabbit winners at the Duke's County Ag Fair.
The horror, the horror.
Mal: I know this will not satisfy F, but Fakery 2 dug around into some of the more specific money flows:
SEPP, CSCDGC (and its SPPI front), and almost all of that is for climate anti-science, although Singer had some tobacco money early.
Heartland was more complex, but Appendix H was able to identify many expenditures for climate issues.
Their Environment and Climate News had many articles.
See p.61 Table 5m which lists amoiutns by the "Anonymous donor" (i.e., barre Seid), whose main funding area was climate.
on p.62, one can assume climate for Murray Energy and Marathon Petroleum, at least, and likely some of the others.
H.4 examined the funny foreign grants to NSRP, FCPP, NZSC, ICSC.
Sometimes you can find definite obvious gifts, and sometimes clear expenses,but it is nontrivial to hook them together.
This sort of thing takes a lot of work to dig out and assemble, and dismissive pseudoskeptics simply reject it as conspiracy theory ... but that doesn't matter, because such things are not written to convince them, but are for other other people.
FYI, I put up a fairly detailed post about what is wrong with the "short centering" vs "full centering" attack on Dr. Mann's hockey-stick over at Fergus' place.
I then tweeted a link to it. That tweet was promptly retweeted *and* favorited by Dr. Mann himself (https://twitter.com/caerbannog666/status/503669406845530113)
Now excuse me while I go dig around in my closet for a bigger hat.
Does anyone know if Tamino is OK? He's been quiet a while now... not like him.
Thanks
BJ
Fernando Leanme, you're right, I took your strictures on Steve Bloom to myself, which was incorrect. Your characterization of his attitude was, by chance, more applicable to me than to him, and as such recognizable, but I am ashamed to have reacted so quickly to something I read so poorly and inaccurately. Steve Bloom doesn't appear to me to have a romantic streak and in general weighs in on matters of fact in an objective fashion, which has earned considerable respect.
I think anything further I might have to say should go over to Fergus's blog, but note that you appear to apply a different standard to others than to yourself when it comes to climate science, and have acquired some secondhand prejudices there, which is easy to do given the aforesaid well funded and cleverly designed PR materials which look quite plausible until you go to the source.
http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-invitation.html
Your best best would be to go to primary sources and think for yourself.
--
Caerbannog, good work!
Fernando appears to have adopted a religion and projects that religiosity onto others. Hence he uses terms like 'heresy' and 'Jesus'. I find it rather odd since most trying to talk with Fernando simply want him to look at facts - not accept anything on faith.
Of course for Fernando everything actually resolves around his faith. For instance his tirade on 'Mike's trick' -- he's not even able to quote it properly, note how he uses the denialsphere term when it is properly 'Mike's Nature trick'. This is just an indication of his non-neutral attitude and disregard for facts.
Again, his tirade against Mann is fact-free. No discussion of the divergence problem, no discussion of whether the published data was correct, no discussion of what the results would have been otherwise or what the alternatives open to Mann, et al were. Without ever stating as much Fernando is implicitly saying known bad proxy data is better than known good measurements. But if, like Fernando, you avoid discussing the facts you can avoid making that claim explicit.
Of course he can't explain how or why then Mann's totally incredible methods yield results that have subsequently been corroborated numerous times. I doubt he even knows what time period the 'trick' applies to. It's simply an article of faith with Fernando that it must be wrong cuz other deniers say it's wrong.
It's nothing new of course, we've all seen it a hundred times and it does get boring/annoying when someone with no appreciation of the actual facts slanders/libels a scientist. I don't have the tact or patience to sit idly while another know-nothing libels Dr. Mann. So I'll absent myself from Fergus' and the discussion with Fernando - especially since we've all seen the same flavor of denial many times over and know it never ends with any admission of error.
What Kevin says. Fernando is just another one of the 8% dismissives. He won't read anything relevant to the science, not for comprehension anyway. When pushed for definitive reasons why he doesn't trust the scientists, he seems to do nothing more than regurgitate all the old tropes from the usual suspects.
It got ugly over at Fergus' place real fast.
Reading these kinds of comments from deniers, I find myself remembering a very old cartoon (maybe from the Pythons). It was about a strange man babbling about the hamster conspiracy. He gets wilder and more intense until he suddenly cries, 'oh my God, I've burst me brain' and collapses. Deniers' continuing obsession with Mann and the Hockey stick (while reviews and new work continue to support and refine the results) has degenerated in much the same way. It's beyond pointless to discuss it with them.
Thank you to everyone who is paying attention. I'm still working hard to get to a position of reason, even throwing out opportunities to question some aspects of commonly believed but inaccurate AGW 'theory', but it is hard work, I'll be honest.
Nothing there is really unfamiliar or new, but on the positive side, the hit rate is up!
Bryson, could you define "denier"?
Fergus, did you notice the "incompetent ideologues" remark? What did I tell you about the human reaction when they see a challenge to the nature of Jesus?
Susan, your outburst was just human. You know, I used to work with incredibly smart super geniuses. I remember one model developer we hired out of the model shop at Los Alamos who insulted me and walked out of a conference when I made a casual remark during a coffee break (I said I thought Collin Powell was full of it during his white powder speech).
The guy came back in the room later, gave a speech regarding my merits and intelligence being insufficient to judge anybody's work, then sat down...and we continued discussing next years' R&D budget.
Imagine his surprise when in spite of his uncivil behavior I fully supported his quite innovative model development proposal....which I felt wouldn't work.
Fernando
Bryson, could you define "denier"?
Of course I cannot speak for Bryson, but for me, a denier is someone who rejects evidence that they do not wish to hear.
For example, when faced with the scientific evidence for AGW, they retreat into a conspiracy theory rather than face the implications of the science.
You posted this at Fergus' blog:
These climate wars are similar, a lot of it is propaganda. Intended to "lead" you. And some of it is craftily disguised as "science".
I asked you there who exactly is intentionally "leading" the electorate with propaganda "craftily disguised as "science" "? Who is behind this conspiracy to mislead?
What do you believe their motives to be?
I would be interested in your response.
* * *
There's been some very good commentary at Fergus' blog about the flaws and confections in the critique of MBH98/99. You have not engaged at all with the specifics. Instead, you retreated into repeating these same, debunked second-hand claims. This is denial.
Etc.
Thank you, Susan, I do aspire to that, and of course thanks for your continuing efforts too.
"commonly believed but inaccurate AGW 'theory'"
What exactly? And is there anything more important you might be missing while your attention is diverted by this stuff?
My sentiments exactly, Kevin, with this proviso: I am very interested in what drives people like Fergus to think there's utility in interacting as he is with the likes of FL. It's a too-common impulse, I think requiring that one imagine there's not too much of a crisis at hand.
(Redoing to fix a copy/paste goof)
Fergus, did you notice the "incompetent ideologues" remark?
I'll admit that the above was not very diplomatic, but it was right on the money.
What can one say about someone who doesn't realize that when he changes the input data to an SVD data-reduction run, he needs to recalculate the number of singular vectors to retain?
And what can one say about someone who uses tree-ring data as a random-noise "template", but doesn't realize that the tree-ring data contains a strong hockey-stick *signal* as well as noise, and ends up generating "random noise" that is contaminated with hockey-stick signal statistics (rendering his synthetic noise useless for its intended purpose)?
Listen -- if you are going to attack Michael Mann and accuse him of being incompetent/dishonest, you'd better have a solid understanding of the basics at the very least.
The above stuff is "Time Series 101" material -- anyone who fumbles it as badly as Mann's critics did (while accusing Mann of incompetence/dishonesty) deserves to be called incompetent (and possibly worse).
BBD: Fergus and I were discussing "False Hope", Mann's article in Scientific American. I wrote a critique in my blog in which I pointed out Mann was biasing the graphics and discussion. Fergus, defending Mann, was himself confused by the article (which was exactly my point, because I don't argue the climatology, I argue the way it's presented). Eventually Fergus agreed Mann was leading the readership.
This doesn't mean Mann is "evil", it just means that he uses the science to achieve political aims. Which is fine. But I do reserve the right not to be led as if I had just had a lobotomy by a self appointed saviour.
Somebody made a comment about my religiosity. I happen to be an atheist. However I recognize many of you believe in supernatural beings and I like to discuss religion.
A comment was made as to why Fergus bothered to exchange thoughts with me. This reflects a naive and immature position regarding the nature of political discourse and accommodation.
Most of your efforts are ineffective because you sit in echo chambers using conspiracy theories to justify your political failures. The intelligent way to proceed is to try to understand in a non threatening environment what the other side thinks. This effort works better if you don't start out thinking those who disagree with you are mentally retarded and illiterate.
And because I don't take sides in your Mexican wrestling match I can debate with just about anybody, and thus far manage to be uncensored 95 % of the time.
FL
BBD: Fergus and I were discussing "False Hope", Mann's article in Scientific American.
This is an evasive misrepresentation. Let me remind you what you actually wrote:
These climate wars are similar, a lot of it is propaganda. Intended to "lead" you. And some of it is craftily disguised as "science".
1/ You have not answered the questions I asked you both here and at Fergus' blog.
- Who exactly is intentionally 'leading' the electorate with propaganda 'craftily disguised as "science"'?
- What do you believe their motives to be?
2/ You have avoided admitting that you are a conspiracy theorist and profoundly in denial even though this is clearly demonstrated.
3/ This demonstrates the usual intellectual dishonesty exhibited by deniers.
The intelligent way to proceed is to try to understand in a non threatening environment what the other side thinks. This effort works better if you don't start out thinking those who disagree with you are mentally retarded and illiterate.
I am familiar with the majority of denier myths and lies. As for the old whine that we need to understand you better, well, see above. We understand you perfectly well.
Fernando writes:"Somebody made a comment about my religiosity."
No, you have completely misread the comment. What I wrote was:
"Fernando appears to have adopted a religion and projects that religiosity onto others.Hence he uses terms like 'heresy' and 'Jesus'. I find it rather odd since most trying to talk with Fernando simply want him to look at facts - not accept anything on faith. "
The religion you have adopted is denialism. It is shown by your reliance on faith and not facts. It has nothing to do with traditional theology other than *YOU* couch your words in those terms and project them on to others.
Let's discuss 'Mike's trick' FACTUALLY. Not by handwaving. First, use the correct quote, then define what it was, then why you feel this was inadequate or wrong - and sufficiently so that you consider him a fraud.
You can't and you won't. It's against your religion.
I see FL has now gone full troll over at Fergus' blog.
“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post. As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”
“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.”
“In our discussion of possible participants in Bern…the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.”
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
All of the above snippets were taken stupidly out of context, but this one is particularly idiotic:
“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.”
It should be darned obvious to anyone with reasonable reading-comprehension skills that the scientists were talking about the desire to compute longer reconstructions. The first reconstructions (going back 1,000 years or less) weren't long enough to "contain" the MWP.
A reconstruction that's only 1,000 years long can't "contain" the MWP any more than a 1 gallon jug can "contain" two gallons of whiskey.
The first one is even funnier, caerbannog, since the "plausibly deniable accusations" refers to McIntyre's dog whistling.
McIntyre didn't quite say "fraud", but the dog whistle was heard, and others did. Of course, ultimately McIntyre did finally use the word himself, in a court case no less.......and lost.
Steve, let me correct you. I am deeply worried about what is happening now and projections for the future. I firmly support the call to rapid and meaningful action - have never said anything else.
The basis of my impulse is the romantic notion that dialogue requires two people to listen and talk, sort of face-to-face. That means letting someone else be themselves.
I know a lot of you chaps think it's a waste of time and a lost cause, but if I agreed, I wouldn't bother blogging at all.
Maybe Thomas is right, maybe I need more cojones. It's not the hutch over there, but every style has its place and its role to play in the bigger picture of getting the message out there...
Fergus
I know a lot of you chaps think it's a waste of time and a lost cause, but if I agreed, I wouldn't bother blogging at all.
Maybe Thomas is right, maybe I need more cojones.
I thought you did a very good job. The problem was FL, who simply retreated into denial and intellectual dishonesty rather than engaging substantively when his second-hand contrarian talking points were challenged.
Fergus,
If it were just you and FL, it would be a waste of your time. But your forum has attracted others who have worthwhile things to say, and some of your lurkers, at least, will be taking away the right messages.
As for me, I haven't posted there to convince FL (or even "skeptical" lurkers).
My intent has been to give lurkers/participants who already on the same page as I am more "ammo" to fire back at contrarians/denialists with.
Fergus, indeed my comment about you not understanding the problem was unfair, but I remain mystified as to how you can fail to recognize an impervious surface when you see one.
I did take a moment to look at FL's blog, and I see that he's a Cuban born in 1952. From my US political perspective that origin implies rather a lot, although maybe it doesn't from a UK one. Of course it's not evidence of anything in and of itself, but combined with everything else known about FL it's rather the cherry on top (or maybe the banana on the bottom, but whatever).
And how many pseudo-skeptics that have spouted the "hide the decline" meme have ever delved into the divergence problem or have the slightest inkling of what 'decline' refers to?
And as I said regarding FL, the implicit statement made by anyone using the 'hide the decline' meme is that they trust bad proxy data over the instrumental record post 1960.
I'd remain anonymous too if that was my belief.
> McIntyre didn't quite say "fraud", but the dog whistle was heard, and others did. Of course, ultimately McIntyre did finally use the word himself, in a court case no less.......and lost.
Citation needed.
Here's the latest on this:
Since you did not provide any evidence from Climate Audit, I take it that you agree with Mann that both McKitrick and I have not publicly used the term "fraud" in respect to Mann's work, notwithstanding the contrary allegations at blogs that you frequent.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/8/11/krugman-homeopath.html?currentPage=2#comments
Perhaps "public" does not imply "in court case".
Steve;
thank you. Even I'm getting bored with it now. But the dialogues have inspired a new though which I'm going to try out next. Probably not original, but it sort of makes some sense...
Also: A BIG thank you to the scientific and rational types who took the effort to contribute, however grumpy you were.
Attacking Mann's original "hockey stick" work should invoke the equivalent of Godwin's law in any climate discussion. It is prima facie evidence that the commenter is a committed denier, regardless of how faux-reasonable he or she may have appeared earlier in the thread.
Fernando has clearly outed himself and may be dismissed out of hand. I wonder, though, if we might create a new law equivalent to Godwin's, to be invoked in such instances. I nominate "Mann's Law" as the obvious choice of a name.
-
Adam R.
Adam R -- says Wikipedia: The NHL defines a cross check as “the action of using the shaft of a stick between two hands to forcefully check an opponent”.
I think the offender should be whistled for Cross-checking and sent to the penalty box.
"Even I'm getting bored with it now."
Yeah, me too, but we gotta get to 100 comments.
Anyone?
How 'bout those glaciers forming in Scotland?
You folks like that one?
Boring, Oregon and
Dull, Scotland
are sister cities.
100
Thank you sir.
This is a really interesting topic: If I don´t like the way Mann writes science communication and/or prepares his graphs I must be defined a "denier".
Why don´t you take a vote amongst yourselves to see if you agree with that point?
While you are at it, see if you can figure out what a denier is supposed to be.
FL
While you are at it, see if you can figure out what a denier is supposed to be.
This was addressed explicitly earlier (25/08 2:37pm)
Bringing it up again as you have suggests that you are also a troll.
Is thé title a Battlestar Galactica référence?
I agree with Adam R. Another one is saying that it used to be called global warming and now it's called climate change.
BBD, I suggested a poll amongst you and your friends. Your suggested definition was imprecise, and it sounded more like what one could consider a wide spectrum insult (here in Europe it comes uncomfortably close to holocaust denier).
Let me quote you:
"a denier is someone who rejects evidence that they do not wish to hear.For example, when faced with the scientific evidence for AGW, they retreat into a conspiracy theory rather than face the implications of the science."
That definition seems to apply the insult "denier" to anybody who rejects your "AGW" evidence and suposedly retreats into conspiracy theory.
So I take it YOU think the denier insult applies to people who don´t want to listen to you? Given your attitude that´s a reasonable response.
My suggestion would be to refrain from name calling people. If you try it you will see less rejection.
Kevin, I didn´t use the term "hide the decline". I feel the splicing of the temperature record on the proxies was a propaganda move. I don´t find the propaganda used in that case to be particularly bad. It´s what I always bring up, we seem to be bombarded by skewed and distorted information intended to lead us. The use of this technique is quite prevalent, and of course it was quite convenient to use it.
The same applies to the False Hope article, it was quite confusing, the graph was a masterpiece of propaganda. My concern is to see Scientific American gradually losing so much quality. This was confirmed by the most recent issue, it had a really mickey mouse set of articles about Anthropology. It just doesn´t have the same style it used to have 10 years ago.
That definition seems to apply the insult "denier" to anybody who rejects your "AGW" evidence and suposedly retreats into conspiracy theory.
It is not, as you falsely characterise it "my" evidence. It it THE evidence. Your ongoing rejection of any evidence that you do not want to hear is denial.
This term in no way implies Holocaust denial and you have now played another whiny denier card.
In my earlier comment I illustrated both the nature of the denialist mindset and the fact that your behaviour can reasonably be described as denialism. If you dislike this apt description, it is up to you to change your behaviour.
"While you are at it, see if you can figure out what a denier is supposed to be."
That's a good question.
I go to all the meetings and they never cover that. They do tell us the truths that we need to deny.
But if you quote me on that, I'll deny it.
Steve Bloom, I was wondering why you think the fact that I was born in Cuba and ran away from a communist dictatorship when I was a teenager should be considered "the cherry on top"?
BBD, so you think it´s quite evident anybody who disagrees with you is a denier?
Let me try to enter your world a little bit. Let´s say the Transient Climate Response range is 1 to 3 degrees C. At which point do you start insulting others? When they tell you they think it´s below 1? Or say 1.6? Or do you bother to set a boundary at all?
Fernando says he never used the term 'hide the decline.' Fernando, you wrote, ""The best critique of the hockey stick was a lecture by Dr Mueller at Berkeley Earth."" so you are now being intentionally deceitful - or you don't even know what Muller said:
Said Muller: "A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."
As has been noted and pointed out to you, Muller was completely off-base. He took two separate quotes out of context and puts them together as if they were one quote. He conflated two separate issues. Muller also bought hook, line, and sinker the faulty analysis by McIntyre and McKittrick. This is your 'best critique' of the hockey stick! And pretending you haven't used the term 'hide the decline' when you reference as the best source Muller is pretty much letting others do the dirty work so you can pretend your hands are clean.
They aren't. Own up.
Humm, how come the discussion has been hijacked?
BTW in Europe it's only the climate change deniers who make the link with the Holocaust.
BBD, I happen to live in Europe. Denier is seen as an insult in polite company. I think it was selected on purpose as a political smear.
Let´s be clear about something: I am extremely thick skinned when it comes to insults and abuse. I had to learn to live with it when I was abused by the Communist Party aparatchiks, who used to call me and my family "worms" as an official designation. Later I had to learn to put up with Americans who felt being born outside the USA made me their inferior. That´s a common attitude, and I don´t get mad.
However, as you go trying to convince people to back your POLITICAL position the use of insulting language can really hurt your cause. I suppose this will eventually be a lesson you have to learn.
FL continues to dig
BBD, so you think it´s quite evident anybody who disagrees with you is a denier?
No, I said that people - like you - who reject evidence that contradicts their position can reasonably be described as deniers.
You aren't going to address this issue by trolling, Fernando. You can only fix the problem by admitting your errors.
I feel the splicing of the temperature record on the proxies was a propaganda move.
A propaganda move? That "splicing" occurred when Mann was a postdoc fresh out of grad school! Was Mann already scheming with folks like Al Gore back then?
Given that Mann used the instrumental data to calibrate the proxy data, showing the instrumental data along with the proxy data made perfect sense!
If Mann had not done so, deniers would be claiming that he deliberately hid the instrumental data so as to avoid letting people see any differences between his results and the instrumental data where they overlap.
Let's reiterate the obvious here, again!
The alleged "splicing" (which really should be called "overlaying") dates back to Mann's early postdoc days.
Furthermore, the proxy data and instrumental data in the "hockey-stick" graphs were clearly marked as such.
Mann was *very* clear in his papers that the '98/99 proxy reconstructions stopped at 1980.
It should be obvious that everything post-1980 in the MBH98/99 hockey-stick graphs is instrumental data even if one could not see well enough to read the plot legends!
Someone have to be blind/or illiterate not to be able to figure any of this out from the contents of the MBH98/99 papers.
This is getting beyond absurd here -- lurkers please take note!
FL keeps flailing away:
However, as you go trying to convince people to back your POLITICAL position the use of insulting language can really hurt your cause. I suppose this will eventually be a lesson you have to learn.
My position is evidence-based, Fernando. You are making things up rather obviously now. Best stop, it looks awful.
Turboblocke, maybe that´s the case. However it seems you are managing to insult people quite effectively. This of course generates negative vibes, and may be the reason why you are meeting so much resistance. And if you think this isn´t a political war, ask the Australians how they feel about their Prime Minister.
BBD, if you mix what could be a rather objective analysis and position with insulting language then you do hurt your cause. I thought this would be evident.
FL
Rejecting evidence, arbitrarily redefining the language and making shit up about other commenters might just hurt *your* position. Perhaps if you moved your ego a little to one side you might notice this.
BTW you are badly confused about the Azolla event and the PETM.
Fernando
If all you are going to do now is make things up and whine about being accurately characterised for your behaviour, it is time to stop.
This is a well-intentioned suggestion.
Fernando: "I feel the splicing of the temperature record on the proxies was a propaganda move."
No, it wasn't. The proxies were known to be 'bad' post 1960. This is the divergence problem. Is your preference that scientists publish known bad proxy data when good instrumental data is available?
You have a very strange notion of propaganda and what constitutes 'misleading' if you prefer bad data over good data.
So we'd all agree that the three decade temperature trends are around 1.5K per century, right? So there's something objective.
Dear Anon.
So we'd all agree that the three decade temperature trends are around 1.5K per century, right? So there's something objective.
You can't use a trend derived from a short time period to estimate the centennial trend. GHG forcing seems likely to increase substantially over the next 100y which will affect the evolution of the warming trend.
I said it because your views are consistent with the milieu, FL. Yes, it's a stereotype, and of courser there are exceptions, but you're not one of them.
GHG forcing seems likely to increase substantially over the next 100y
The rate of forcing increase has been nearly constant for the last twenty years, a period which coincides with the industrialization of China.
There aren't a lot of China's left in the world.
Dear Anon.
The rate of forcing increase has been nearly constant for the last twenty years, a period which coincides with the industrialization of China.
There aren't a lot of China's left in the world.
There's a lot of India, Indonesia, Brasil and Africa. There's a lot of new people in the pipeline (~2bn more by 2050). Plant built today keeps on emitting.
Consider the bigger picture more carefully. It's a long game.
Are you talking about the GHG forcing? It's an error to ignore the feedbacks.
The industrialisation of China has been ongoing for a lot longer than anonymous thinks; heck, in 1997 the village called Sanyuan was making forgings and castings for Boeing aircraft. (Source - page 143 of "One world ready or not" by William Greider)
"The rate of forcing increase has been nearly constant for the last twenty years"
No it hasn't, it's been accelerating. I believe Eunice was educated on this matter with peer reviewed evidence not so long ago in an earlier thread.
"BBD, if you mix what could be a rather objective analysis and position with insulting language then you do hurt your cause. "
Nando, persistent concern trolling and Dunning-Krugerism in the face of compelling evidence consistently handed to you on a platter is ten times more insulting than any f-bomb, if only because it appears your intent is to waste these peoples' time.
All this has happened before..
...including the discussion in the comments.
Like a washing machine, it goes round and round never actually getting anywhere.
Carry on.
or should I say carry round?
No it hasn't, it's been accelerating.
That is incorrect.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f5_online.jpg
> original admiration for ALEC
We need that Sarcasm tag here.
In re other heard-it-befores, this is good:
http://downwithtime.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/were-reading-the-same-paper-but-were-getting-different-messages/
hat tip to reddit.com/r/climate
---- excerpt follows ----
She is not arguing that skeptics pose acceptable alternative models to anthropogenic climate change. Take this sentence for “Anatomy of dissent” (the same paper cited by Jankó and colleagues):
To promote their agenda, powerful backlash actors have frequently adopted deceptive strategies to create the fictitious appearance of broad grassroots and scientific support.
Does this in any way suggest that we ought to be taking contrarian arguments seriously because they are valid? No, we are being asked to take them seriously because by understanding their backgrounds and motivations we can begin to address the causes of backlash against climate science, and move forward toward solutions.
---- end excerpt ---
italics supplied in lieu of indented block quote
Dear Anon.
Worth noting, but for the thread, here's the context.
@ Anon.
The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years?
Anthropogenic radiative forcing time series from pre-industrial times until 2010. Skeie (2011).
Hank - no, I wasn't being sarcastic. ALEC has an effective model for getting legislation passed, and we should learn from them. They're passing legislation that's bad for the rest of us, but the model is good.
Turboblocke from way back - yes, the post title is a BSG reference.
Hank,
Been trying that, and look where it got me. In my latest comment I acknowledge that it has by and large been a waste of time trying to understand the causes...
"The rate of forcing increase has been nearly constant for the last twenty years"
So?
The rate of increase could be zero and the planet would still be in serious trouble.
Somebody wrote I was wrong about the Azolla event. I can't remember whom....if you raise your hand and care to discuss it....
It was BBD.
And he was right. You may have just found an outlier estimate.
Fernando
Yes, it was me. You said at Fergus' blog that the Azolla event terminated the PETM.
The PETM was a transient hyperthermal at ~55.5Ma that lasted ~100 - 200ka. The Azolla event was ~49Ma (IIRC) and lasted ~1Ma.
The big picture of Cenozoic climate change might more plausibly be ascribed to tectonic forcing and CO2 drawdown by weathering and uplift.
Bbd, strictly speaking you are right. However I tend to see the Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum as a short lived spike within a broader Eocene hothouse. The Azolla is said to have removed a lot of carbon from the atmosphere, and thus to have precluded a return to the really hot Eocene.
I sure wish I had time and access to the data, because I don't think the puzzle regarding what happened has been put together.
For example, don't you find it a bit of a strange coincidence that the Lomonosov ridge split took place just before or as this event was taking place?
The Lomonosov. Is very rich in Devonian, Carboniferous and Permian carbonates (that's my inference from the cores taken in the Barents and the Timan Pechora basin). This tells me the rifting must have driven magma through a carbonate, coal, and rich organic shale section. A good recipe to generate methane and co2.
But returning to Susan's friend's video, I thought it was a bit Mickey Mouse because he started hinting the KT boundary extinction was driven by climate change and the Paleocene Eocene boundary was ignored.
I guess we got too many people making videos. When I made mine and loaded in you tube I made sure everybody realized it was all tongue in cheek.
SciShow is run by the vlog brothers, and they are not my friends. It's a useful scientific resource and quite accurate. The fact that you dislike it says more about your closed mind than about the resource.
For fun and games, for example, they get subatomic particles just right, per PW who was amused by it. (OT alert)
Quark Song
Speaking of wrongheadedness, any activists might like to unpack Revkin's latest wrongheaded response here (he enables Pielke Jr. and Breakthrough, alone with other pro-third-world-fossilists I hadn't previously heard of:
Accounting for the Expanding Carbon Shadow from Coal-Burning Plants
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/09/22/theyre-just-literally-lying-googles-eric-schmidt-on-cutting-ties-with-conservative-group/
They’re just literally lying’: Google’s Eric Schmidt on cutting ties with conservative group
Posted on Monday, September 22 at 6:02pm | By Joe Garofoli
Google’s Eric Schmidt dropped a wonky bombshell Monday when he said the internet company was looking at ending its support of ALEC, the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC is the bane of liberal organizations like Roots Action, which has pressured corporations for years to disassociate with the group because it writes policy for “state legislatures around the country to roll back labor rights, environmental protection, civil rights, public health measures and more.”
Schmidt made the statement Monday while appearing on Diane Rehm’s show.
“Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place,” Schmidt told Rehm. “And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”
EricSchmidt008
Google has been feeling the heat on this issue for a while.
We recently told you about how the enviro group Forecast the Facts Action was calling out corporations — including Google — for talking a good game on climate change, but then contributing $641 million to a list of 160 “climate deniers” in Congress. Specially, it called out Schmidt for talking the right stuff on climate, while his fellow Googlers and those who love them were contributing $699,195 to members of the “climate denier caucus” in Washington.
Google hasn’t officially cut ties with ALEC. But Schmidt said there was a “consensus within the company was that (the investment in ALEC) was some sort of mistake and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
Post a Comment