Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktBecause, of course, stirring bruises the gin. Or the vodka. Or shaking does. Or Sean Connery just sounds great saying the line.
And thus, to attempt to live up to my title as master of pop culture, it is my duty to inform you that Bond 23 now has a name: Skyfall.
Apparently, the evil environmentalist, Dominic Greene, and Quantum won’t be back as a plot element in Daniel Craig’s 3rd outing as Bond.
Speaking of evil environmentalists, Michael Crichton wrote a rip-roaring action-adventure novel about evil environmentalists in State of Fear. It would make a great movie but, alas, is not likely to ever be a movie, because the bad guys aren’t just a few guys posing as environmentalism, but environmentalists, environmental lawyers, Hollywood environmentalists, etc. These environmentalists are willing to destroy the planet (or big chunks of it) in order to save it, in Crichton’s novel, and the famous environmentalist actor (probably a stand in for Martin Sheen) ends up getting eaten by cannibals. There are a few dry bits where characters become mouthpieces for Crichton’s concerns regarding climate science, but for the most part, it’s good versus evil versus nature in techno-thriller set piece after set piece.
It’s unfortunate that the heavies are clearly environmentalists, and not just poseurs, and that the point is made on multiple occasions that Crichton sees the current state of global warming science as incomplete in some place, and flat out wrong or false in others (with footnotes). Because with the credible passes at weather control, and the use of subsonic deep-cavitation devices to carve off part of an island and create a monsoon to destroy the west coast, cell phones that can attract lightning, and a jeep stuck in a flash flood (not to mention some straight-up hand-to-hand fighting), this movie would surpass Jurassic Park in it’s techno-thrilliness. But it’s never going to happen.
Oddly, another very exciting novel he wrote, Prey, also doesn’t seem destined for the big screen, even though the only bad guys in this case are big corporations and short-sighted scientists taking short cuts to achieve results-for-profit.
Next, his last novel published before his death, may actually make it to the big screen. It’s not bad, but is not nearly as exciting as Prey, or State of Fear.
•••
Mitt Romney makes it clear that he will not stand for Winnona Ryder pissing off people with a guitar, and that he wants a cookie:
Not quite the Rick Perry video, but close.
Whatever happened to Autotune The News? Those things were awesome:
Good evening, all. — KW
This is for quarterback:
— Michigoose
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Oakland OWS "leaders" claim unruly utes did it.In Austin, the homeless have figured out they can get good grits in the midst of the well fed OWS as restaurants continue to send free BBQ and texmex. So the cops are trying to weed out the homeless, who in some cases are a physical threat to the continuing rock concert on 2d Street.These are the problems with open ended demonstrations. They go awry and will lose support.WMR is less animated and less animate than BLR guy. Perry is less literate and less coherent than BLR guy.
LikeLike
"carve off part of an island and create a monsoon to destroy the west coast"I'd clean up wall street by using the canary islands. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jlaiJRwU6QThe canary islands segment starts @ 1:30
LikeLike
Lol love, love that bus. Like you read my mind.
LikeLike
qb, maybe you should use the bus as your avatar if you go back to PL. (Good job, michi!)
LikeLike
Yeah I like the bus too. Where can we put it? It would be so fun if some of our avatars were looking out the windows and we were driving toward or off a cliff a cliff. If I were someone else I'd put a few bodies under the wheels.
LikeLike
Kevin:Awesome Romney video. Can't stop laughing. My wife is looking at me like I am a complete loon.
LikeLike
Anybody else here live someplace where the morning traffic report on the radio during your drive to work says, "And at 139th and Triple X Rd there are cows blocking the intersection"? True story.
LikeLike
We're not quite that country here okie, but pretty close for So Cal. Until about three years ago the town had more horses than people, a young boy down the street in 4H used to walk his calf (a different one every year) up to our corner and then turn around and walk her back down and we also have our most famous pet, Mathilda, who's a camel and stops a lot of traffic when she's being walked around the neighborhood.
LikeLike
lms, a camel??? I do believe that would stop traffic here too. OKC is really large geographically. I think for many years it was geographically the largest city in the US (maybe until Miami-Dade County merged in late 60's or early 70's?). But obviously it is not even close to all being developed. Its size engenders some special issues.
LikeLike
Yep, a camel. She got really sick several years ago and it made all the local papers. I forget what it was she ate, I think a can or something, but luckily we have some really great large animal vets locally because of all the horses.
LikeLike
lms, how many local papers do you have?
LikeLike
You mentioned cows okie, is it dairy country close to you? The next town over from us used to be all dairies until about 10 years ago, then the property got too valuable and they sold them all and put in houses. I don't miss the smell, but I do miss the open spaces.
LikeLike
Lol, okie, none anymore, just a local section in the Riverside paper. Our editors of the two local papers both died in the past couple of years and no one wanted to take over. We're so funky here that our CofC split in two because they couldn't get along with each other and kept accusing different people of stealing money, so now we have two country fairs on two different weekends with two different beauty queen winners.
LikeLike
We have a few dairies close by, but the cattle are mostly raised for slaughter or rodeo type activities (team pennings and such are big). That's funny about two county (or do you really mean country) fairs.
LikeLike
That's what they call them, Country Fairs. We have more feed stores than grocery stores. It's an odd little town for CA but you'd be surprised how many people want to raise their kids here. When our rental house is empty and we run an ad we'll get as many as 100 phone calls in a couple of days. One year our mayor was arrested for shooting a pellet gun at his daughter's boyfriend when he caught him sneaking out of her bedroom.
LikeLike
Nice quiet evening here, and I believe I shall retire to some sleep. Nite, lms.
LikeLike
G'nite okie, tomorrow's Friday. 🙂
LikeLike
Scott: Between the Mitt video and the Perry video, I was laughing so hard I was crying.
LikeLike
Michael Crichton became a climate change denying contrarian in his later years.
LikeLike
Are you sure he denied climate change? Or did he take issue with the purported cause of climate change?
LikeLike
I have not read the book, but this is the review from Publisher's Weekly via Amazon:"If Crichton is right–if the scientific evidence for global warming is thin; if the environmental movement, ignoring science, has gone off track; if we live in what he in his Author’s Message calls a "State of Fear," a "near-hysterical preoccupation with safety that’s at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism"–then his extraordinary new thriller may in time be viewed as a landmark publication, both cautionary and prophetic."It seems to be the typical potboiler about a cabal of evil environmentalists manipulating scientific data for their own nefarious goals. Since it's a work of fiction, some of the villainy must be exaggerated for dramatic effect, but he has contempt for environmental cassandras.Here is an audio clip of him discussing the issue.http://youtu.be/ySV_NNKbWnQHe hits several talking points on the Krugman Denial In Defense Spectrum of climate change denial.
LikeLike
McWing/yello:Crichton gave a couple of speeches on this issue which clarify his position. Unfortunately I cannot find either one out on the web. There used to be one at his website, but since his death it appears the administrators have deleted all his speeches from the site. There also used to be one at an AEI-Brookings website, but the link that used to take you there appears to have been hacked and now directs you to some whacky "Farmerama" game or something. Very wierd. It appears that someone doesn't want us to be able to see what Crichton has actually said about the issue.Wikipedia details the position he took in an Intelligence Squared debate as follows:On January 25, 2005 at the National Press Club Washington, D.C., Crichton delivered a detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified in spending vast sums on this speculative issue when people around the world are dying of starvation and disease.As implied above and from what I remember from the speeches he gave, he was not a "denier" of the notion that the earth's climate may be getting warmer, but rather he was skeptical both of the so-called science behind man's influence on the climate and the predicted dire consequences of it.I also think that, much like the charge of racism, acusing someone of being a "denier" is generally an attempt to put an end to, not engage in, discussion.
LikeLike
Yellojkt,It's a great techno-thriller potboiler. The problem is, Hollywood is not going to produce a movie where the modern environmental movement is portrayed as largely evil and potentially genocidal, and the obvious solution of recasting the bad guys as, say, evil foreign nationals simply manipulating some earnest do-gooders would be decried by many.The problem is, unlike Quantum of Solace, the environmentalism isn't a front for an evil organization but a a bunch of environmentalists willing to commit mass murder in order to demonstrate to mankind the potential destructiveness of man-made climate change. I'm convinced that if the evil guys were going to destroy half the west coast as part of a real estate scam, this would already be a movie. The lightning room? Awesome. Weather control? Deep cavitation devices? Poisonous sea anemones? The action is top notch.
LikeLike
ScottC: "Crichton gave a couple of speeches on this issue which clarify his position. Unfortunately I cannot find either one out on the web. There used to be one at his website, but since his death it appears the administrators have deleted all his speeches from the site."I've found them before. I'll find them again (it took a while). Ah, here it is, In PDF form. Save for posterity, it may disappear, too.Crichton clearly objects to how the science is conducted and the popular alarmism and celebrity culture in the Global Warming movement. He does not object to climate change, per se.
LikeLike
Scott: "acusing someone of being a "denier" is generally an attempt to put an end to, not engage in, discussion"Agreed. As are terms like "so-called science". 😉
LikeLike
The environmentalists in State of Fear were, for the most part, really 1-dimensional bad guys. Not sure if that was done to be ironic or not.
LikeLike
Not sure if that was done to be ironic or not.That is a skill beyond Crichton's writing ability. His villains rarely even approach a single dimension.Climate change denialism has many forms and Crichton's faux-agnostic version is (if I can paraphrase and exaggerate): I would believe in climate change if the science could prove it to me but all the scientists are in cahoots to exaggerate the danger. That's a very nice logic-proof cocoon he built for himself.And while he has a point that there are plenty of other issues deserving our attention, it's not an either/or proposition. Global warming will most severely impact the areas of the world which are already the most impoverished.
LikeLike
Kevin:As are terms like "so-called science".I don't know what terms which are "like" that you have in mind, but that one itself is no such thing, at least in the context I used it. When describing Crichton's position on AGW, that is precisely the right term to use, since a major part of his argument is that what is claimed to be science underpinning the idea of AGW is not science at all.Just because I provide a particular critique on one post doesn't mean a tortured equivalence needs to be made of mine.
LikeLike
I tend to side with yellojkt on categorizing Crichton's position (admittedly this is relying on the above discussion). Isn't he largely saying I'd believe it if they had proof that I beleived? On top of that he doesn't think it poses a the threat people claim? So let me ask 2 questions: Do you think it's fair to qualify anyone as a GW denier? If so, how are their positions different from Crichton's? Is it just that Crichton seems to allow for the possibility that GW could exist?
LikeLike
Technically, that's three questions. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency….
LikeLike
ashot:Do you think it's fair to qualify anyone as a GW denier?Sure.If so, how are their positions different from Crichton's?A denier would say that the earth is absolutely not getting warmer. Crichton, as far as I know, never said this.Is it just that Crichton seems to allow for the possibility that GW could exist?Well certainly if person allows for the possibility that something exists, it seems odd to characterize them as a "denier" of that thing. At least to me.
LikeLike
Curses…Fine, yellojkt, I withdraw the third question.
LikeLike
"That's a very nice logic-proof cocoon he built for himself."An apt description of 90% of the climate alarmist material I've read. I used to read Realclimate a lot. There's no question AGW is a religion to those folks, and they've achieved hegemony not through means of science but by political means.A person's use of "climate denier" and now "inequality denier" etc. generally indicates there is no value in discussion with the person. Here I have to disagree with Scott. (Don't faint, lms or anyone.)
LikeLike
Look at Scott, going above and beyond what is asked of him. Thanks.It appears that maybe we can agree on the existence of 3 categories when it comes GW (Fair warning I'll probably create 4 in the next sentence). Heads Buried in the Sand Deniers, Hedging Their Bets Skeptics and Believers Who don't Hate Science. I think those are entirely fair descriptions, agreed?
LikeLike
"When describing Crichton's position on AGW, that is precisely the right term to use, since a major part of his argument is that what is claimed to be science underpinning the idea of AGW is not science at all."Then it's fair to characterize Crichton as a global warming denier. And I don't get the sense that Crichton is arguing that the science as advanced by climate scientists (which, by and large, argues that there is something to athropogenic global warming, to greater or lesser degrees) is not science, but that climate studies and modeling do not adhere to his standard of academic rigor (he makes a good case for that), and that the popular and political movement around global warming are motivated not by the facts on the ground but by group think, tribal thinking, etc. "so-called science" suggest, to me, that the speaker thinks there is no science involved at all, which does not seem to leave open the door to continued conversation. Or at least, it doesn't seem to leave it open any wider than the term "denier". Which, even if accurate in some cases, seems to me to be a manipulatively chosen term that intends to damn by association. It's also used to describe people who believe that the planet may be getting warmer and that mankind may contribute to that process, but don't accept the doomsaying or that Tax-and-Trade is the only solution (or any solution at all). When "denier" grows to cover anybody who isn't 100% in on the we're-doomed-and-it's-all-man train, then it's simply not being used to be descriptive.
LikeLike
"It appears that maybe we can agree on the existence of 3 categories when it comes GW (Fair warning I'll probably create 4 in the next sentence). Heads Buried in the Sand Deniers, Hedging Their Bets Skeptics and Believers Who don't Hate Science. I think those are entirely fair descriptions, agreed?"There are also people who do not subscribe to global warming who also don't hate science. If fact, the "don't hate science" part could be applied to most of the folks in any of those categories. And why can't it be Head Buried in the Sand Non-Subscriber To Anthropogenic Global Warming Doomsday Scenarios? 😉
LikeLike
qb: A person's use of "climate denier" and now "inequality denier" etc. generally indicates there is no value in discussion with the person.I disagree with that, but I believe there is a discussion to be had about the use of the word. Why "denier"? Does the speaker believe that is a neutral term? What about "skeptic"? How are the terms different? Do you ever use "skeptic"? Or "person who has issues with"? What is the different between the terms "denier" and "non-believer"? These seem to be very similar terms, though non-believer then begins to cast AGW as a religion. So that term, though as a practical matter being of an almost identical meaning, isn't used. Which suggest that there is an intent in framing the narrative in the use of the word "denier". Especially to describe people (Crichton, myself, many others who are "deniers") that simply aren't 100% on board for every prediction of doom and every claim that anyone who happens to be (or to know, or to have read) a climate scientist makes in regards to man-made climate change.
LikeLike
"There are also people who do not subscribe to global warming who also don't hate science."Great, so now we are up to what like 7 categories? The aforementioned 3, then the "Heads Buried in the Sand Deniers Who Believe in Science", "Hedging Their Bets Skeptics Who Believe in Science", "Believers Who Hate Science" and "Head Buried in the Sand Non-Subscriber To Anthropogenic Global Warming Doomsday Scenarios". In all seriousness, I don't think we need to be so worried about fairness that we can't occasionally, for the sake of brevity, refer to someone as a denier or use the term "so called science" even if it isn't 100% accurate.
LikeLike
ashot: "refer to someone as a denier or use the term "so called science" even if it isn't 100% accurate"This is true, but I enjoy discussing the framing of the narrative that comes along with our choice of words. It's like discussing the pro-abortion and anti-choice movements all over again. 😉
LikeLike
qb:Here I have to disagree with Scott.Well, we can't let that happen! Let's see if we can forge agreement.I was allowing for the possibility that someone, somewhere might deny outright the possibility that the climate has become warmer than in the recent past. Strictly speaking, such a person might accurately be called a "denier" of warming or climate change.But certainly the phrase "denier" carries connotations beyond what the strict definitions of the words would suggest, which I think is what you object to. I agree with that objection.Beyond that, of course, most of the opposition to the global warming movement is far more complex than simple denial of the possibility of any warming. Which, I think you would agree, makes the use of the phrase to describe such people even more inaccurate and, indeed, pernicious.Agreed?
LikeLike
Here are Krugman's three levels of denierism:"Think about climate change. You have various right-wingers simultaneously (a) denying that global warming is happening (b) denying that anyone denies that global warming is happening, but denying that humans are responsible (c) denying that anyone denies that humans are causing global warming, insisting that the real argument is about the appropriate response."Scott agrees that (a) is a classic denier. I would also put Crichton in that category as well as all people with some variation of "The evidence isn't conclusive and what about [obscure anecdotal weather event]"?Most climate change theory opponents, including I suspect Rick Perry and his ilk have moved on to case (b). This includes all the talk about natural cycles and previous ice ages and stuff. The vast majority of climate scientists concur that there is a strong anthropogenic component to current changes, so anybody asserting the opposite is swimming upstream. Crichton also has one foot in the category (c) "so what? we have bigger fish to fry" camp. I have a tougher time classifying these people as pure deniers. You could argue that climate change is the price of progress. You could plausibly assert that the cure is worse than the disease. You could just stick your head in the sand and not care.I suspect that in the dark corners of their souls (since that is my trademark phrase now) that the puppetmasters like Koch et. al. are in (c) as they don't really care one way or another as long as their ability to continue their business unhindered isn't compromised. They use the folk in groups (a) and (b) as dupes to confuse and obfuscate to further their financial interests.
LikeLike
Kevin- I don't mind that discussion either. I just don't want people tuning out a post or determining someone isn't truly interested in discussing the issue openly because the original poster chose a word rather than a long description. I think most of the time posters here are commenting in good faith and we should read the posts with that in mind. I also think I tend to be pickier on how Scott frames an issue than how lmsinca frames an issue. So these things end up being called out unevenly.
LikeLike
ashot: "Do you think it's fair to qualify anyone as a GW denier?"Probably, but I'm interested in the question Crichton asked in regards to the scientific consensus on global warming. That is, in what other circumstances do we speak of a "scientific consensus"? Even if there are outliers who don't believe energy = mass multiplied by the speed of light times itself, we don't talk about the scientific consensus of E=mc². We don't talk about the consensus around the 3rd law of motion or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are reasons for this, obviously, but the interdisciplinary consensus of scientists is a different thing than a scientifically established fact. So with the exception of the new inequality "denier" meme (which simply isn't accurate; folks dispute the meaning of inequality, not the fact that everybody is not perfectly equal in all ways), where else do you talk about "denial" or "deniers"? If a board member of your company thinks it's a bad idea to build a new warehouse downtown in this economy, would you refer to "You know, Brad, the warehouse denier?" If someone thinks artificial sweeteners are bad for you, so they don't consume them, do we call them Nutrasweet deniers? I mean, assuming we were trying to find a descriptive noun form for them. In the language, we have holocaust deniers and global warming deniers, and now "inequality deniers". But that's pretty much it. Otherwise, we just don't talk that way. So one could be forgiven, I think, for being a little dubious, or suspecting some manipulation, in the choice of words.
LikeLike
First, I don't believe that most vocal AGW believers (like Krugman)likely have much real scientific understanding of climate science to begin with, so when they toss around "denier" or "denialist" they are just name calling from their own position of ignorance and 99.9% of the time not only are not making but cannot make many meaningful distinctions about what they mean, because they don't know what they really mean. They are reciting layman's talking points that have trickled down to them through the info-political complex. Distinctions don't matter, because the point isn't science or reasoned discourse but simply beating down dissent and discussion. People on a blog can define a term any way they want, but of what use is it when it is just a put-down indiscriminately hurled at dissenters or questioners?Second, where is the first time most people probably heard the term "denier"? Ah, yes, the H word. This is about as low-down a propaganda effort as one can find anywhere.
LikeLike
ashot: "I think most of the time posters here are commenting in good faith and we should read the posts with that in mind."Enthusiastically agreed! I suppose I should always make that clear up front when I want to start deconstructing their (or my) word choices. 😉
LikeLike
kevin,You are onto something. The use of the word 'denier' does subtly conflate climate change skepticism with far nuttier and and less tasteful flavors of extremism like holocaust deniers. Birther and Truther are similar constructs on the right and left respectively (vice versa?).The people that use such rhetoric are trying to close off debate by shorthanding the ridiculousness of their opponents (at least in their mind). And at the extremes, deniers are rather hopelessly and willfully ignorant.I also have some problem with the denier/believer paradigm as it does infer some sort of faith structure which is inappropriate in a scientific context. I just don't know what the more 'balanced' construct is and whether the more middle-road (which is still fairly right wing) business-as-usual crowd merits a separate description.
LikeLike
"So one could be forgiven, I think, for being a little dubious, or suspecting some manipulation, in the choice of words."In general I agree. But in the context of a blog where we have all agreed to participate within certain rules and where we generally demonstrated we are debating in good faith, I think additional allowances can be made. Like I said, I am happy having a discussion about the narrative and how certain terms and descriptors frame that narrative. To that end, I agree that the term "denier" is more often used to make people looke unreasonable. In light of your post though I am going to try and incorporate "deniers" into my vernacular more often. My wife refuses to take out the garage, so I will now call her a "garbage denier"
LikeLike
Kevin:Then it's fair to characterize Crichton as a global warming denier.I don't follow your (so-called ;)) logic at all. If someone claims to have scientifically proven the existence of God, and I say "No you haven't, what you claim is science is not science at all," or "Your so-called science is wrong," would you then say it is fair to call me a God denier? Why? What is the connection? I haven't "denied" the existence of God. I have simply denied that you proven it scientifically.
LikeLike
QB is a "denier denier"
LikeLike
qb First, I don't believe that most vocal AGW believers (like Krugman)likely have much real scientific understanding of climate science to begin withThey don't, but there are no shortage of professionals in the field that are part of the consensus. I, too, have read realclimate.org over a long period, and reached a few conclusions: a) these people aren't pulling their ideas about anthropogenic climate change out of their butts. Krugman may not be a climatologist, but people much smarter than me in regards to climate science subscribe to the notion of anthropogenic global warming. While the celebrity culture around the crisis du jour is largely (if not completely) clueless, the climate scientists and other folks are not.(b) The dubiousness of the hockey stick graph aside, the planet is likely getting warmer. This may be anthropogenic, it may be a natural, macro-seasonal process. (c) That, for whatever reason, supporters of the scientific consensus on global warming respond to critics, skeptics, and laypeople like they are idiots, and as if making their case accessible and understandable is a task beneath their dignity. Sometimes (I'm sure this is not true), it almost seems to me like they want to lose the argument amongst the laity, because of their uncompromising principle on the moral nobility of their position. I sense a strong strain of Calvinism among the Global Warming faithful. (No, there is no difference in that last sentence and the use of the word "denier"–hoisted by my own petard!) (d) Cap and trade is not an earnest effort to control CO₂ output. Like many things, it's designed to capitalize on concern over an issue in order to raise taxes, but also let favored, wealthy classed trade in carbon credits, create a bubble, profit handsomely, and then leave the tax payer hanging when the bubble bursts. I have been called a conspiracy theorist and a denier for that last one. 😉 … oh, and (e) I'm not a big fan of the demonization of green jobs. I don't think the government should be investing directly in green companies (and Solyndra proves that I was right, or at least provides me with a scientific consensus that I was right), but I don't object to some investment in pure research, or in research grants. But green tech is a positive. If energy storage and solar/wind/tidal energy production isn't what we need, or isn't where it should be, other things–like a smart grid, like an electric charging infrastructure–could be a net positive, and a step in the right direction. And more things operate on electricity now, the more will already be done ahead of improved storage and transmission. Just my observations. Your mileage may vary.
LikeLike
Crichton denied that the existence of global warming had been adequately proven. If that doesn't pass muster as 'denierism', then the definition being used is far too restrictive.
LikeLike
ashot: "QB is a "denier denier""I deny that.
LikeLike
Wow, interesting discussion. I don't see the word "denier" as an end to conversation at all, I see it as a challenge to come up with more facts or scientific information to convince. I do think it's a bit of a derogatory term when used against someone however, but certainly not one of the worst out there. What ends conversations for me is when some one says, you're wrong period. After that I assume I barking up a non-existent tree so I quit. I generally believe a lot of us sitting at keyboards around the nation while working, watching a football game, or listening to our kids or spouses at the same time, aren't always clear in our meaning of what we're putting up on the screen. I can't tell you how many times I've looked back at a rather long comment and been somewhat shocked at how unclear my meaning was. I like Kevin's idea of seeking clarification first before responding in objection to the words we're reading. Sometimes it takes a few go arounds to be clear.Re, AGW, isn't a lot of the scientific opinion based on computer modeling? Wouldn't that be one reason why there is so much skepticism? Just a thought.
LikeLike
Kevin,I would have to disagree with (c). There is a great deal of popularized discussion of climate change. Trying to explain it to lay people was the whole point of Gore's rather stiff and occasionally condescending documentary. In defense of the type of academic you describe, I imagine they grow wearisome of trying to be rational with people oblivious to reason. It's like trying to discuss science rationally with a hard-core creationist or a Flat Earther and not rolling your eyes at some point.
LikeLike
Yellojkt: I'll just call Crichton a "skeptic". I think it's a fairer description. As I noted before, climate scientists are not just making up anthropogenic climate change out of whole cloth: there are real, substantial reasons why they hold the positions they do. Similarly (although, to be sure, State of Fear may not be the best evidence of it), Crichton's skepticism was thoughtful and considered, neither knee-jerk nor reactionary. He may have been wrong (or maybe not), but his skepticism was thoughtful, with a strong basis, and he did not dismiss the possibilities of global warming, man-made or otherwise, completely. Rather, he expressed a grounded skepticism. As such, skeptic would be a much fairer term than "denier", but, to some, may legitimize his views to too great a degree. Re: birther and truther. These terms seems transparently diminutive, but there are interesting differences. Both take a central aspect of a given groups self-identification or raison d'être and adds an "er" to it. I can't think of previous associations with "birther" or "truther", but now both terms are being broadened to talk about other groups. At this point, any group that questions a politicians biography can be referred to as "birthers" (that was quick), and I've heard truther applied to other conspiracy theorists, used interchangeably with "crackpot". I'm comfortable with calling "deniers" skeptics. It's just as fast, and, if nothing else, is more fair to the skeptic's view of themselves (being a lay-skeptic that confesses my limitations, I am also skeptic, but I think I have to respect the general wisdom of the climate scientists who investigate these issues professionally, with a caveat that humanity has yet to, as far as I can tell, demonstrate an ability to accurately predict the future of massively complex systems).What else would be call birthers and truthers. I can't think of another shorthand where we'd know we were talking about the same people. Obama Birth Certificate skeptics? Those who believe 9-11 was an inside job? That's a mouthful.
LikeLike
yello:If that doesn't pass muster as 'denierism', then the definition being used is far too restrictive. All definitions can be too restrictive if one's goal is to characterize a thing as something it is not.
LikeLike
Yellojkt: "I would have to disagree with (c). There is a great deal of popularized discussion of climate change. Trying to explain it to lay people was the whole point of Gore's rather stiff and occasionally condescending documentary."Well, to be fair, I should have been clear that it "(c) It appears to me in many cases . . . "I don't get a sense Gore is trying to win anybody over through persuasion, with his movie or his talks, but that may just be me.I understand the eye-rolling thing, but I'm neither a creationist or a flat-earther, and it seems to me that, more often than not, eye-rolling is a first resort rather than last. 😉 Of course, I've stated before that I'm probably going to be unpersuadable on Cap and Trade. Whatever does or does not need to be done in regards to CO₂ emissions, I don't think Cap and Trade is it. That intransigence on my part may fairly cause some eye-rolling. 😉
LikeLike
yello:I find it interesting that, although you acknowledge that:"The use of the word 'denier' does subtly conflate climate change skepticism with far nuttier and and less tasteful flavors of extremism like holocaust deniers…The people that use such rhetoric are trying to close off debate by shorthanding the ridiculousness of their opponents (at least in their mind)."…you go on to insist that your characterization of Crichton (and presumably anyone else who thinks AGW has not been adequately proven scientifically) as a "denier" is justified. Consider the implications.
LikeLike
How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic I concur that 'skeptic' is a much broader, more inclusive term. However, many self-described skeptics are similar to teach-the-controversy creationists/Intelligent Design advocates in that they use curiosity as a cover for their advocacy.
LikeLike
Consider the implications.Yes. I find the arguments of most climate change skeptics ridiculous and unworthy of serious debate.What to do about climate change moves the discussion from science to politics and that can be discussed endlessly. There is nothing scientific about cap and trade or carbon taxes or fiat limits. That is all economic and eventually always devolves into whose ox is going to get gored.
LikeLike
kw,a) I didn't say they were. I said it is like a religion to them. Plenty of smart people who know what they are talking about also find a lot of problems in their work. They do not behave like scientists but like fanatics who have something to hide.b) The planet getting warmer does not equal AGW. The hockey stick was supposed to be the holy grail, until it it broke. Then we saw the fanatics fly into action, scramble for wood glue, say it wasn't really important after all, blah blah. It is impossible not to watch this behavior and come to doubt the integrity of these folks.c) Yes, they do not behave like scientists but like fanatical ideologues. Occam's Razor comes to mind.d) Probably.e) Knock yourself out. Create some green jobs. I don't know anyone who is against them, whatever they are. It's just that the promised revolution has not transpired, even with crony Obamaism in the mix.
LikeLike
lmsinca: "Re, AGW, isn't a lot of the scientific opinion based on computer modeling? Wouldn't that be one reason why there is so much skepticism? Just a thought."Well, necessarily, a lot is based on computer modeling, but that's two words that encompasses a broad discipline (or swathe of disciplines) with many strengths and weaknesses. There's a lot of conflation of extreme predicted scenarios with the mainstream of climate science. There's a lot of conflation with what the truth is in regards to anthropogenic climate change and regulatory and tax-levying solutions, which makes many on the right suspect that, independent of what the science is, the whole global warming thing is really about increasing taxes and increasing the size and scope of government. There is of course a possibility that AGW is totally legit, and that politicians are using it an excuse to attempt to expand government more than fix the problem. But that's not as neat a package as "it's all a hoax!"Another reason there is skepticism is climate is very complex, and establishing causation versus correlation is hard even in simple systems. So though many may think the causal case has been made, skeptics can say, "Well, no, it hasn't", and it's not immediately subject to unambiguous testing to verify the causality.Of course, most of the controversy stems around the fact that, if the case for AGW is true, then America, the west, and modernity are to blame, and must be rolled back. It's middle class Americans with their SUVs and vacations to the midwest. It's American agriculture, feeding fat and lazy Americans. The pinnacle of American innovation and industry, the automobile and the light bulbs, are evil-doers, and must be regulated or eliminated. And your hard-earned tax dollars now start going to Solyndra and other green companies! This Global Warming thing is all a sham to steal our money and neuter America! This isn't science, it's just more Blame America For Everything-ism!And so on. There are implications from the scientific consensus on AGW that (1) suggest solutions that are very controversial, or highly undesirable for certain people and (2) blame America, American companies, rugged individualism, and modernity for this sorry state of affairs, and when blame starts being directly assigned or even just implied, conclusions become more controversial. That's my thinking, anyway.
LikeLike
kw,Exactly. The phenomenon of climate change would be very uncontroversial if it didn't directly affect the livelihoods a great many very rich and powerful individuals.All this really is is playing out The Problem Of The Commons on a global scale.
LikeLike
qb,I know a lot of scientists and very few of them act or talk like fanatics. Most are stereotypically the opposite.
LikeLike
Also, I should add, lmsinca, Global Warming "denial" comes in two forms:A. The earth is not warming. B. The earth is warming, so what? It's not my lifestyle that is causing it, and you're not raising my taxes because you say it's my fault. There is a great deal of evidence that the earth is warming. Enough to be unassailable, irrefutable, and undeniable–-all terms found within 5 minutes of perusing Grist.org's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say those aren't words you use with trying to talk to a skeptic about anything, but, otherwise, does a lot to make the case. I think it's reasonable to say we're in the midst of a warming trend. I grant that it's possible that this is a man made trend, but, if so, I remain unconvinced, but probably because my understanding is inadequate. I remain dubious of the sincerity of those advocating for legislation in which tremendous sums of money will exchange hands, in some form or fashion, as solutions to AGW. I don't see that position changing.
LikeLike
yello:The phenomenon of climate change would be very uncontroversial if it didn't directly affect the livelihoods a great many very rich and powerful individuals.The phenomenon of climate change is not at all controversial. The climate of the earth is not and has never been static, and I don't think many people would claim otherwise.
LikeLike
My experience with scientists has been they are, generally, non-fantatical. You will find plenty of climate scientists are something less than fanatical. A few do seem to be arranging the facts to fit the theory, now and again, to the lay person (and, even if it is the case, if you believe something to be true, your first instinct is to suspect the data when it does not confirm it). But, again, scientists of all stripes don't come to their conclusions without a strong basis, and, once convinced of something, are slow to change their position (such capriciousness would not be useful, I don't think, in science). yellojkt: "if it didn't directly affect the livelihoods a great many very rich and powerful individuals"But, more than that, the prescriptions for addressing global warming directly affects the vast majority of voters. When the argument is made that a carbon tax will add 10% or 20% to everybody's utility bill, and how that might happen is illustrated–everybody thinks that effects them. If it looks like CAFE standard means they'll have to trade in their SUV for a Prius, that effects a lot more than just the rich and powerful. In fact, a number of very rich and powerful people would benefit from the creation of markets trading in carbon credits, to the likely eventual detriment of the non-rich and powerful. And, outside of the energy industries (which are, admittedly, huge), the rich and powerful would not likely be as deeply impacted as the regular joes. Of course, if the planet is turned into a desert, that would impact everybody.
LikeLike
Kevin:But, more than that…I don't think you should accept his premise in the first place. The notion that the earth's climate is changing is not what is controversial. Whether unnatural causes are significant, and especially what can and should be done about it (if anything) is what is controversial.
LikeLike
Scott, Since you insist on being stultifyingly literal:"The theory that the current measurable increases in global temperatures and their impact on regional climates, including but not limited to increases in sea level, the loss of arctic habitat, and desertification, as well as the hypothesized predictions that such trends will continue and accelerate, are largely the result of human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels as our primary energy source, would be very uncontroversial if it didn't directly affect the livelihoods of a great many very rich and powerful individuals."Better?
LikeLike
What's fascinating to me is the deliberate change in terms that the AGW advocates have utilized to advance their narrative. It's gone from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." There may be legitimate reasons behind this move, but I suspect it has more to do with a desire to make the concept of Climate Change non-falsifiable. In the scientific community, that's a bad thing, but this word use change is not directed at the scientific community but at us rubes, er, laypeople. Now, any weather event can be laid at the alter, er, feet of Climage Change. Any whether not adhering to an arbitrary "average?". Must be Climate Change. To many hurricanes? Climate Change. To few Hurricanes? Climate Change. It has now become impossible to falsify Climate Change, but it is now possible to link a weather anomaly that varies even by 1/2 degree from "average" to Climate Change. When AGW advocates demonstrate falsifiability to AGW, I'll then take them more seriously. Until then "
LikeLike
Of course, if the planet is turned into a desert, that would impact everybody. i.e. The Problem Of The Commons, also known in economic parlance as 'externalities.'
LikeLike
Scott: "I don't think you should accept his premise in the first place. "Sorry, you are correct. I don't accept the premise that climate change is controversial (I know of no people who believe in a static, unchanging planetary climate). I was just moving on to the idea of the impact of Cap and Trade type solutions being limited to certain rich and powerful people. I think these solutions are controversial because they, in fact, promises to gore the oxen of a whole lot of likely voters.
LikeLike
Until then, "I find the arguments of most [AGW proponents] ridiculous and unworthy of serious debate."
LikeLike
McWing: "It's gone from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." "Apparently slow to realize that since actual global warming would not evenly warm the planet, and would, in fact, end up with some areas being colder or causing more severe winters in some areas, Global Warming would (oops) actually create anecdotal doubt, as having multiple severe winters during "Global Warming" does not, intuitively, make any damn sense. After seeing how little sense it made to laity and legislators, they've attempted to change the narrative, which seems just an intuitively wrong to skeptics, and, indeed, disingenuous. Why weren't you calling it "Climate Change" in the first place? Have you changed your mind?"desire to make the concept of Climate Change non-falsifiable"Specifically, I think, to make all anecdotal evidence support the contention. The reason being, if the assertion is the climate is warming and yet people do not experience direct evidence of this, or in fact experience contradictory evidence based on their little slice of the world, those people are going to begin to doubt the reality of global warming, irrespective of how much money is being spent to fuel the denial movement. I've long argued that the climate change folks, and certainly the Tax and Cap folks, are fighting a losing battle, no matter what. Until people are regularly experiencing severe, indisputable, anecdotal evidence in their own lives, you will not get a public consensus among the laity that climate change is an actual threat that needs to be addressed through regulation and taxation and major lifestyle changes. Politicians going in saying that, while it's not that bad now, it will get really, really bad in the future, unless I raise your taxes, your energy prices, and regulate what you can buy and how much energy you can use . . . those folks may be visionaries, but they will also lose. It's cool and breezy today in my neck of the woods. Damn you, Climate Change! 😉
LikeLike
"I know a lot of scientists and very few of them act or talk like fanatics. Most are stereotypically the opposite"Indeed, you are making my point.
LikeLike
"Politicians going in saying that, while it's not that bad now, it will get really, really bad in the future, unless I raise your taxes, your energy prices, and regulate what you can buy and how much energy you can use . . . those folks may be visionaries, but they will also lose." All of the solutions involve an increase in Central Planning. Luckily for us, the track record for Central Planning is perfect. Dodged a bullet on that one, no?
LikeLike
"It's cool and breezy today in my neck of the woods. Damn you, Climate Change! ;)"Remember, weather does not equal climate except when it's different from the average.
LikeLike
"When AGW advocates demonstrate falsifiability to AGW, I'll then take them more seriously. Until then"This. One thing that becomes very noticeable in watching people like Gavin whathisname and Michael Mann respond to countervailing evidence and criticisms over time is that they always, always move the goal posts and effectively render their morphing theory nonfalsifiable. Sure, they deny this, but the pattern just goes on and on.
LikeLike
"Remember, weather does not equal climate except when it's different from the average"… in the direction of warmer … oh, no, because colder weather proves warming, too, as to more rain or less rain, etc.Guess Troll nailed it.
LikeLike
Crichton appeared on Charlie Rose several times.http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1should link to a Crichton interview where he criticized the role of CO2 emissions in GW.
LikeLike
To skeptics: are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics? One rule is that energy is a zero sum game – we can neither create it nor destroy it; but we can change its form. When we burn petrofuels we're burning energy that was absorbed from the sun millions of years ago & returning it to the atmosphere. We're also still receiving our usual daily dose from our primary energy source ( El sol).Logic dictates that as long as we continue adding energy to the atmosphere faster than we remove it, the system will be out of balance. How that affects the environment is what the scientists are arguing about.
LikeLike
yello:Better?If that is a more accurate expression of what you meant to say, then sure, it is better. But it is still wrong.For one thing, the fact that the earth has experienced large variations in climate throughout its history, even in the absence of the human activity now being labelled as its cause, makes the theory somewhat controversial, regardless of how much money and power are held by those who point it out.But beyond that, the theory that man's activities are altering the climate of the earth (see how stultifyingly easy I made that?) does not, in fact, "affect the livelihoods of a great many very rich and powerful individuals." It is the assertion that the changes are necessarily and on the whole harmful, that something must be done to stop it, and the proposals about what that something is, that affects the livelihoods of not only rich and powerful people, but indeed pretty much everyone.There seems to be a tendency among climate change alarmists (see…I can do it too!) to conflate the science of climate change with the politics of it. They seem to think, or try to get others to think, that their policy prescriptions flow logically and necessarily from their scientific conclusions. Hence the unfailing tendency to dismiss their political opposition as "deniers" of science, unworthy of consideration.You originally said this:The phenomenon of climate change would be very uncontroversial if it didn't directly affect the livelihoods a great many very rich and powerful individuals.A more sensible, and certainly more accurate, claim would have been this:Policy prescriptions aimed at preventing the activities which AGW theory says are causing climate change would be very uncontroversial if they didn't carry with them such a great economic cost.
LikeLike
bsimon:Logic dictates that as long as we continue adding energy to the atmosphere faster than we remove it, the system will be out of balance.At what point in the earth's history was the system last in balance? Was it imbalanced prior to that point, or was it always in balance up until that point?How much energy do we humans have to make sure we add to the atmosphere every year in order to keep the balance? Could the system ever be imbalanced such that we should burn more petrofuels to keep the balance?
LikeLike
"The notion that the earth's climate is changing is not what is controversial."Of course yello pretty clearly wasn't referring to mere climate change in the sense that the earth's climate changing. He was obviously referring to climate change in the sense that it had been used in the many, many comments in the thread. There are often better ways to express a given point (I'm sure the one I'm about to make is no exception) but you have a frustrating (to me at least) habit of instructing poster on how to better make that point rather than responding to the point they are making. I attempted to address this the other day by claiming you called lmsinca and I idiots and you essentialy said that's not what I meant and you should have know that. This situation clearly isn't an exact comparison, but it seems you don't often give people the same benefit of the doubt you expect other to give you. Just my two cents and an effort to improve the dialogue here.
LikeLike
Scott, perhaps balance wad a poor word choice.If we ignore the poor word choice, does the larger point make sense? I.e. we're returning to the atmosphere energy that was absorbed millennia ago?
LikeLike
"Logic dictates that as long as we continue adding energy to the atmosphere faster than we remove it, the system will be out of balance. How that affects the environment is what the scientists are arguing about."I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure this is not the theory of AGW per se, which is, rather, that increasing volumes of co2 (in particular) raise global temperature by trapping more solar energy.Beyond that, I think you've merely stated a conclusion that begs the question (or more like many questions).
LikeLike
"It is the assertion that the changes are necessarily and on the whole harmful, that something must be done to stop it, and the proposals about what that something is, that affects the livelihoods of not only rich and powerful people, but indeed pretty much everyone."Actually, whether something should be done or not can be calculated. The alarmists have predicted various dire outcomes. The economic impact of a, say, 1 meter rise in sea level can be calculated. The cost of mitigating that can also be calculated – conversion to 100% renewable or nuke energy, perhaps with carbon sequestration plans as well. Then you calculate whether those efforts are likely to work. In the Eng you get a formula where you can calculate how much should be spent to mitigate the risk.If the alarmists are annoying for running around with their hair on fire, the denialists are equally so for refusing to admit it makes sense to hedge one's bets.
LikeLike
Do most AGW alarmists support nuclear?It would not appear so.
LikeLike
ashot:Of course yello pretty clearly wasn't referring to mere climate change in the sense that the earth's climate changing. Since that is the only sense in which the notion of climate change could ever be rightly described as "very uncontroversial", it seems to me I interpreted it in the most logical (and generous) way possible. If one assumes that, as he later clarified, he meant the notion that climate change is largely caused by human activity, his statement is flat-out wrong, for the reasons I stated above.Just my two cents and an effort to improve the dialogue here. I am not at all sure that a dialogue in which one side has already announced that the arguments of the other are "ridiculous and unworthy of serious debate" really has much scope for improvement. But if it does, I'd suggest your efforts ought first be aimed at addressing that attitude.
LikeLike
ashot: "There are often better ways to express a given point (I'm sure the one I'm about to make is no exception) but you have a frustrating (to me at least) habit of instructing poster on how to better make that point rather than responding to the point they are making. "Are you sure you aren't thinking of me? : )BTW, bsimon: although CO₂ is released by combustion, we're not really releasing energy into the atmosphere, are we? The energy is being released at the point of combustion; the CO₂ is just what's left over after the energy release. The energy has been released and converted into motion, usually, not re-injected into the CO₂, right? Keeping in mind I'm not a scientist and fully confess I may have that wrong. And the heat retention of CO₂ is a property of the gas, trapping new radiant energy within the atmosphere. It's not happening because of the release of stored energy, is it? An actual greenhouse traps new heat from the sun, the heat inside is not a product of the perpetual stored energy invested in the greenhouse when it was constructed. I'm not arguing about global warming, I'm just having difficulty with the idea of combustion putting energy into the atmosphere and that contributing the global warming. If the product of our energy production was not CO₂, we would still be producing the energy but if the leftovers were non-gaseous . . . or even as gas with little or not properties of heat retention . . . it would not impact the overall global temperature, despite involving the release of latent energy. My head's hurting. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.
LikeLike
qb: "Do most AGW alarmists support nuclear?"A small minority do, with caveats. With not unreasonable concerns about spent fuel. When speaking in broad terms, what's the difference between using the term "alarmist" and the term "denier", if any?
LikeLike
"I am not at all sure that a dialogue in which one side has already announced that the arguments of the other are "ridiculous and unworthy of serious debate" really has much scope for improvement"I would say the same for the side that says "they do not behave like scientists but like fanatics who have something to hide."But I am clearly wasting my time so I guess if it bothers me I either need to get over it, ignore it or comment elsewhere.
LikeLike
QB, correct, I was not describing the theory of AGM, I am describing how our use of petrofuels is messing with the equation. In my opinion the 'deniars' are claiming that we can dramatically change inputs to a system without affecting outputs; which is ridiculous. In my opinion.
LikeLike
bsimon: If the alarmists are annoying for running around with their hair on fire, the denialists are equally so for refusing to admit it makes sense to hedge one's bets.There are clearly advantages to increased efficiencies in energy usage, storage, and transmission, not to mention capturing constant tidal or solar energy that, if they can be done economically, would benefit everybody. I think these are worth goals, and ones that might even deserve government research grants. Even if we do not need to hedge our bets (and even if we do not, with 7 billion people, isn't it likely we might have to with 14 billion people, or 28 billion people?), it seems to me that it would be generally advantageous to innovate in areas of energy efficiencies and green energy production (the caveat being I don't think the government needs to be in the business of venture capital investment). Although when it comes to green energy production, I'd be more than willing to see solar panels carpeting hundreds of square miles of desert, where as some environmentalists have worked to stop much less aggressive solar panel installations. Of course, the problem there is that there is a subset of people in the Paul Erlich mold, who believe cheap, easily accessible energy would be a disaster. They aren't going to like industrial scale wind, tidal or solar any more than they like petrochemical or nuclear.
LikeLike
ashot: "But I am clearly wasting my time so I guess if it bothers me I either need to get over it, ignore it or comment elsewhere."Don't tell me I need to write a Troll Hunter for ATiM. 😉 I could do it, though. Blogger still isn't an AJAX-strangled mess like WaPo is now.
LikeLike
"With not unreasonable concerns about spent fuel."Of course spent fuel is an issue. Yucca Mountain was a perfectly adequate solution, spiked by the Obama Admin in a raw elevation of politics over its claimed commitments to science and energy independence. That almost isn't debatable."When speaking in broad terms, what's the difference between using the term "alarmist" and the term "denier", if any?"I was just using the language in bsimon's comment to which I was responding. ;-)"I would say the same for the side that says "they do not behave like scientists but like fanatics who have something to hide.""That's a rather weak equivalence, I think. But so be it.
LikeLike
"The energy has been released and converted into motion, usually, not re-injected into the CO₂, right?"Heat or work; either way it doesn't go away. You are right to say the co2 is not storing the energy; it has been released from storage. QB is right to say this is not part if AGM theory. I've been curious about just what the impact of all this energy release is.
LikeLike
"I'd be more than willing to see solar panels carpeting hundreds of square miles of desert"Why produce energy in the desert? Nobody lives or works there to consume it. It makes far more sense to convert hundreds of ssquare miles of rooftops with solar panels, as that is already mostly wasted space & puts production near consumption.
LikeLike
"Don't tell me I need to write a Troll Hunter for ATiM. ;)" No, not at all. I'm not planning on going anywhere either.
LikeLike
"was just using the language in bsimon's comment" In which I deliberately used both terms.
LikeLike
ashot:I would say the same for the side that says "they do not behave like scientists but like fanatics who have something to hide."I didn't say that.But I am clearly wasting my time so I guess if it bothers me I either need to get over it, ignore it or comment elsewhere.Well, if it makes a difference, I hope you don't decide to comment elsewhere. I've got enough guilt on my conscience without having driven you away, too.
LikeLike
"I've got enough guilt on my conscience without having driven you away, too."An obvious lie, since all know you have no conscience."But I am clearly wasting my time…"Since you are blogging, yes, by definition.
LikeLike
"That's a rather weak equivalence, I think. But so be it."How about "they do not behave like scientists but like fanatical ideologues" or "I don't believe that most vocal AGW believers (like Krugman)likely have much real scientific understanding of climate science to begin with"You are both describing large swaths of people as "fanatics" or "ridiculous". Maybe one word is worse than the other or one group is larger than the other, but it seems pretty similar to me. Anyway, I'm done playing net nanny. We're all big boys and girls.
LikeLike
qb:An obvious lie, since all know you have no conscience.Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. Now I feel much better!
LikeLike
Speaking of which; I must return to work.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
"You are both describing large swaths of people as "fanatics" or "ridiculous"."I don't think that's accurate or fair. I referred to a specific set of scientists of whom Realclimate is representative when I said they behave like fanatics. I've read them at length and don't shrink from that characterization at all. I referred to laymen like Paul Krugman who go around flinging "denier" rhetoric and proclaiming a "consensus" when in reality they know no more than the rest of us in most cases and probably less in many cases. In neither instance do I think that is some sort of unfair generalization. On the contrary, my remarks were aimed at two sets of people I described by their behavior.
LikeLike
"An obvious lie, since all know you have no conscience."QB, you're usurping kevin's role. Your job is to inflame with rhetoric not diffuse with humor.
LikeLike
"QB, your usurping kevin's role. Your job is to inflame with rhetoric not diffuse with humor."He shouldn't get all the low-hanging fruit.
LikeLike
"I referred to a specific set of scientists of whom Realclimate is representative when I said they behave like fanatics. I've read them at length and don't shrink from that characterization at all."Fair enough, QB. You certainly can't be accused of having no basis for your strong opinions.
LikeLike
ashot:This post has been removed by the author. Just an admin tip. If you click on "Delete" instead of just "Remove Content", the entire post will disappear as if it never was posted. If, however, you want me to spend the rest of the night wondering what horrible thing you said about me before having second thoughts, then you've done the right thing. 😉
LikeLike
"If, however, you want me to spend the rest of the night wondering what horrible thing you said about me before having second thoughts, then you've done the right thing. 😉 Excellent To assuage your evidently guilt ridden conscience, I was merely correcting a "your" to "you're" but QB has preserved my grammatical horror show for all to see.
LikeLike
I am just glad to see that ashot's netnannying has apparently turned on him. 😉
LikeLike
Is a net nanny better of worse than a church lady?
LikeLike
This is an entertaining thread in that I'll be working up a science & politics post shortly.Here's a brief foreshadowing. Scientists go for what's interesting. I know my post-doc supervisor always pushed the envelope for interpreting. He's also got a helluva lot of papers in Physical Review Letters. I'm more careful and don't.It's total bullhockey (thank you Col. Potter) to claim that the climate change debate is any more politicized than any other. Nobody here (besides me) has a clue about the exciton binding energy in semiconducting polymers and you'll have to trust me that debate is every bit as vigorous as the climate change debate. Alan Heeger has a Nobel prize. He's also full of it. I can tell you that the exciton binding energy debate is settled. That doesn't mean that nobody disagrees. We just roll our eyes. If it might cost US industry billions to adapt to the exciton binding energy in organic semiconductors, I'd be getting called out on the Drudge Report too. BB
LikeLike
Technically speaking, I think you meant "horse hockey."To say that other scientific controversies are no less politicized isn't much of a defense imo. And unlike exciton binding energy, of which I've never heard, many of us in the public have been bombarded with claims and have read quite a bit of science advocacy from both sides, enough to be able to reach a reasoned judgment that a good deal of skepticism about the alarmist claims is warranted.Indeed, it's just as "settled" that Al Gore's propaganda film was a scientific fraud. So you'll have to pardon us rubes for doubting the claimed "consensus" based on all we've been told.
LikeLike
Correction noted. At one point, I could tell you the plot of any episode of M*A*S*H after watching the first five seconds.Actually, you really don't have enough information. S'all right. Neither do I. [Atmospheric physics is well outside my expertise.] You do, however, illustrate a point neatly. When scientific conclusions collide with political agendas, people who haven't the background to understand the science suddenly become experts.I'll stop here as it'll be fodder for the upcoming post. You're as good a scientist as I am an attorney. That's not an insult. Just a fact.BB
LikeLike
When scientific conclusions collide with political agendas, people who haven't the background to understand the science suddenly become experts.Boy that's the truth. I've read an awful lot regarding AGW and climate change and I'm pretty sure I still don't know much. Most of us with non-science backgrounds, although I do have a little from many years ago, end up listening to the voices we trust. It's the same way with economics, I've picked a few economists I trust and read their stuff religiously while incorporating as much outside information that seems relevant as well.What we've done here is decide individually to be good stewards, the best we can anyway, of the environment. One of he reasons I love CA, for all it's faults, is that people here really do care about air quality, clean water, alternative energy and are willing to pay a little more to get it. We're not there yet by any means but we're making progress. I don't see any reason to not plan ahead for peak oil, diminishing returns on nuclear unless we figure waste storage out, or even rising sea levels or ice cap degradation. Long story short FB, I will look forward to your post with curiosity and an open mind. I'll be gone this weekend so if I miss it, if your plan is to post soon, I'll catch it when I get back.
LikeLike
I once probably had similar MASH knowledge at hand. I even went to a Last MASH party lol. Hey, we all slip up. I've just always liked Potter's "horse hockey!" Of course, he had a bunch of other versions, too, like "pony pucks!" Actually, you really don't have enough informationPerhaps you could point out where I said I do, rather than the opposite. That's pretty much the whole point, isn't it? We in the public have a bunch of self-proclaimed experts like Paul Krugman and Al Gore purporting to tell us the Truth, and a bunch of actual experts, some of whom say "it's settled, just shut up!" and some of whom have what appear to be pretty good critiques of the former. We have to evaluate as best we can. Don't you find it a bit arrogan and foolish that the public is expected to accept the Gospel of Al Gore and Paul Krugman, especially when we do know Al's film is filled with misinformation?When scientific conclusions collide with political agendas, people who haven't the background to understand the science suddenly become experts.Again, perhaps you are speaking generally, because I've never claimed any such thing. Indeed, I repeatedly disclaimed expertise, as in when I said "I am not a scientist…." This is preciesly why it is the nonexperts like Paul Krugman, going around proclaiming AGW gospel and declaring people "deniers" who have no credibility. "You're as good a scientist as I am an attorney. That's not an insult. Just a fact."I'll remember that the next time you disagree with my legal views.
LikeLike
Fairlington:When scientific conclusions collide with political agendas, people who haven't the background to understand the science suddenly become experts.This is an example of what I mentioned above, conflating science with politics. It is not the science that collides with political agendas, it is the policy prescriptions advocated as a result of a scientific conclusion that does so. Scientifically proving that the earth is warmer today than it was forty years ago does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that incandescent light bulbs need to be banned, electric cars need to be subsidized, and the government generally needs more power to centrally plan things.And I think that when scientists become passionate political advocates for (and perhaps even financially dependent upon) certain policy prescriptions, as many have done in the AGW field, there is a high probability of their science becoming corrupted. As the Climategate scandal demonstrated quite well.
LikeLike
You make some interesting points. I'm going to defer on Climategate, as I have specific thoughts about that. Presentation and analysis of data is not straightforward. Yes, we employ "tricks". There are differences between scientific fraud (a la Henrik Schoen), poor practice (cold fusion), and differences of opinion (sonoluminescence). Controversies are a regular aspect of science. People are still tilting at evolution. Intelligent design is a fancier way of saying God did it.You glossed over one point. The policy prescriptions advocated as a result of scientific conclusions are appropriate for politics. Scientists are being attacked by on the basis of the science by people without a clue.I'm specifically thinking of Ken Cuccinelli's legal assault on UVa. The professor in question is highly respected and his research was peer funded and reviewed. The attempt to subpoena his emails is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate scientists by politicians.BB
LikeLike
Fairlington:Controversies are a regular aspect of science.Yes, they are. Which is yet another reason to look with suspicion upon a movement that attempts to dismisses any challenge to its orthodoxy as anti-science and therefore unworthy of consideration.
LikeLike