The Holocene Deniers

[grmorton]

It appears to me that the right is intellectually moribund if it can't formulate ideas to tackle the greatest problem facing mankind. If its only apparent policy is to attack the science from a position of ignorance then it is beyond useless and becoming dangerous.

I love this from the guy who can't tell if an air conditioner exhaust fan might bias the thermometer temperature??? Right wingers are moribound???

Here is another air conditioner

At least we aren't moribound enought to think this is good science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Didn't I acknowledge that human CO2 emissions can "have an impact" (exert an influence, one among many) on climate change???

You did but you asked if I was troubled by the lead-vs-lag issue. And I was merely answering. My apologies if you failed to understand that I was answering your question.

Didn't I acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and exerts an influence (one among many) on global warming???

Again, I was merely answering your question about the relative impact of CO2.

Yes, that is one of the points I have tried to make -- THANK YOU for seeing at least THAT point!

I sense your attitude here. I have evenly addressed your points without too much vitriol I hope. Clearly I didn't agree with you enough for your likes.

Good -- that probably explains why I have nowhere complained that anyone anywhere has argued that Earth's global climate was never warmer or that climate never varies naturally.

Merely establishing the baseline, here, Frank.

What??? Why do you lay a question like THAT on ME???

It is called a rhetorical device. I know you don't waste anything or burn your home down because you can. That's the whole POINT of the rhetorical device.

My goodness -- clearly this isn't working, instead of a discussion what we're having is a failure to communicate. I'll take the whole blame for that, I had unreasonable expectations and to make matters worse I obviously can't express myself worth a squat. I am sorry to have even tried.

You seem to have rather thin skin. I think I addressed your points in a most reasonable manner. I thought you'd been doing internet discussions for nearly 20 years, was it?

PS to Glenn: How can you STAND it here, Glenn???

Frank, you have been reading Glenn's posts, too, haven't you? He gives as good as he gets, sometimes better.

(Note: I specifically made an overt effort to dial back my snarkiness and nastiness and in the past 20 pages I think I've done a reasonably good job of it. Do you think I have been met with a similar detente?)

 

[Thistlethorn]

Ah well, that settles it -- trash the entire Drallos essay then (f'cryin' inna two-tone bucket)!

-- Frank

Well, when he starts his essay by omitting one of the most thourough studies of climatology - one that has been repeated and verified and constitutes one of the major evidences for AGW - he's not really inviting further study of his essay. I glanced over it, and he's trying very hard to make the case that human sources might not be the cause of the current climate shift. Until he corrects obvious mistakes, such as the omission of the best studies of AGW to date, I don't think our Interactive Fiction writer is going to get many readers outside right wing circles.

 

[AV1611VET]

You guys want global warming?

Here ya go:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Let's see your charts and graphs interpret that.

 

[Baggins]

I love this from the guy who can't tell if an air conditioner exhaust fan might bias the thermometer temperature??? Right wingers are moribound???

Here is another air conditioner

At least we aren't moribound enought to think this is good science.

I love this guy who can't grasp the simple point that individual thermometers next to air conditioning units doesn't mean squat statistically when discussing warming trends.

If all right wingers can do is post pictures of weather stations next to aircon units they are completely moribund.

It isn't good science to site waether stations near aircon units, or, far more likely, site aircon units near weather stations, but you are intellectually unable to grasp why it doesn't matter when we are looking for warming trends.

Or possibly you have grasped it but it is all you have got so you have got to cling to it dishonestly.

If the right cannot formulate politically acceptable ideas to tackle global warming it is intellectually moribund. attacking the science from a position of, often, profound ignorance is not an intellectually honest position and it renders the right redundant.

Most of the right in Europe, at least those who are in power or close to power, have grasped the essential point that the science isn't going to go away and they will have to deal with it. it seems to be only in the US with its long history of right wing anti-intellectualism where this has any purchase on people with a chance of power. But even the Bush administration caved in to reality by the end of its tenure.

 

[Baggins]

The Wegener institute don't seem to think he was a persecuted lone voice judging by their biography:

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) Alfred Wegener

He qualified for his doctorate in 1904 did 2 years post doc at Lindenberg Observatory, then went on an expedition to Greenland till 1908, on returning he got a lectureship in Marburg in 1909. 11 years later he got a professorship at Graz. That doesn't appear to be the CV of someone treated very very badly, it appears to be the CV of someone who climbed the academic ladder swiftly.

 

[Frank Lovell]

[To Frank Lovell] There are people on the left who reject AGW for political reasons as well, but they are more usually rightwingers like you, Morton and Drallos.

It appears to me that the right is intellectually moribund if it can't formulate ideas to tackle the greatest problem facing mankind. If its only apparent policy is to attack the science from a position of ignorance then it is beyond useless and becoming dangerous.

Intellectual hubris, dishonesty and political opportunism; a nasty mixture

Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

-- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

-- Frank

It seems to be a soft spot of yours when Baggins points out the fact that most AGW deniers are right wingers. Why is this?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

-- Frank

Actually, while it may be a bit brusque to make assumptions of one's politics based on their opinion of AGW, apparently at least one study here in California found that:

Nationally and in California, political affiliation, age and income appear to be correlated with individual views about climate change.
...

A May 2008 report from the Pew Center for the People and the Press found that nearly 60 percent of Democrats and half of Independents nationally say global warming is primarily caused by human activity and about 25 percent of Republicans view human activity as the cause. Slightly more than half of people younger than 30 years of age believe that human activity is the cause of global warming, compared with only 37 percent of people older than 65. Similarly, the Pew Center report found that college graduates are more likely to believe global warming is caused by human activity than those who have completed high school or less.
...
The PPIC report indi cates, "Although there is no difference in the extent to which local governments are working on climate issues in general, communities with higher Republican share are less likely to be conducting emissions inventories, developing climate action plans and incorporating measures to reduce GHG emissions in various local planning and regulatory tools (General Plans, California Environmental Quality Act reviews, building codes, Title 24 energy codes and zoning requirements)." The survey asked respondents about their assessment of the extent of local support for climate change programs among residents and businesses. In communities with higher numbers of registered Republicans, perceived support from residents, businesses and elected officials was lower than in those communities with fewer registered Republicans, although there were no significant differences in the perception of support by city and county agency staff.(SOURCE)

(Emphasis added)

So while it is in no way any sort of "indictment" one way or another on politics or global climate change, it is apparently somewhat correlated with politics in terms of opinion. I am not saying that means anything one way or another. Just an interesting FYI

One last interesting point from the article:

If your city or county includes a high number of climate skeptics, can your agency still undertake activities to reduce GHG emissions without stirring up opposition? The answer appears to be yes. Interestingly, qualitative and quantitative research suggests that climate skeptics --- both members of the public and local agency officials --- still support actions or programs that ultimately result in reductions in GHG emissions, even though their primary focus may not be climate change. Indeed, many of the mitigation measures recommended to reduce GHG emissions --- such as investing in energy efficiency and water conservation and embracing infill development and efficient transportation like transit or fuel-efficient agency vehicles --- represent good government, sound planning and cost-effective ways to conserve resources. Thus, they generally are broadly supported by community residents and businesses.(ibid)

So perhaps I was incorrect in stating that conservatives often seem less enthused about conserving!

 

[Frank Lovell]

I'm sorry you've not been met with the most friendly posts, and I'm sure you deserve better responses. The problem is timing. You entered a thread that has become rather emotional, which an aggressive, strawman-ridden OP inevitably leads to.

It annoys people when you make comments like the above, as if you're completely blind to Glenn's contributions to the animosity in this thread. Try not to make this an us-vs.-them issue, only focusing on the wrongs that the other side do.

Perhaps the best strategy is to take a breather and come back in a few days when everyone has calmed down. Thaum is normally very friendly, and I'm sure you two could have an interesting discussion I'd certainly like to lurk.

Btw, what post was that article you mention in? In a 42 page long thread, it's easier for me to ask, rather than go looking for it.

Peter

All I know is what I've read on this sub-forum, and it seems to me that it was not Glenn (the originator of this subforum) who initiated uncharitable rhetoric. I have known Glenn for about 10 years now and I do not think he "slaps" people -- though he is prone to "slap BACK," which I think is a heckuva lot more understandable than "slapping FIRST." The "us-vs.-them" charactor was here before I got here and sure seems to me to have been hear ready-and-waiting before Glenn launched this subforum. But most important, my "...comments like the above..." arise from the character of replies made to me (See for one example Mr. "Baggins" very first reply to a post of mine).

I am not giving up (yet) on the possibility of an actual discussion (rather than emotional pontification) of Earth's (past, present, and most probable future) global climate dynamics, but I am getting mighty close. There are plenty of internet dialogue lists where intellectual contentious battles are fought with mutual-respect among the disputants on grounds of logic and objective evidence that are mostly free of emotional and ad hominem sniping, I don't need to be here and it is becoming clear that the folks here have no need for or genuine interest in my (or for that matter, Glenn either) being here. Possibly I am wrong about that, we'll see.

I am not here to tell ANYone what they must or should think or believe!

I am here to learn where I am going wrong (if I am going wrong) in my skepticism of the present highly politicized claims of AGW (as distinct from natural or plain ol' GW).

Question-begging, point-dodging pontification delivered with rancor will not help me (or anyone else) learn where I am (or they are) going wrong on the present status of scientific knowledge and understanding of global climate dynamics and the implications of Earth's global climate history for its future -- and on THIS sub-forum that is all I am interested in -- NOT political argument or emotional commitments.

OK -- most definitely enough of my ranting.

Me being a Newby on ChristianForum, the system here will not let me post a URL link (I can't even quote in my post a URL link that a senior member previously posted -- heck, I can't even display with my posts a photo avatar, evidently) until I have made 50 acceptable, link- and image-free posts (and I am not sure I will ever reach 50 posts here). So the best I can do right now is suggest you do a google search on...

Drallos+warming

...and the link to where Drallos' essay is available should be at or close to the top of the search results list. Alternatively, send me private email and I will attached a .pdf file of his essay to return email. Or maybe Glenn will kindly post that URL one more time.

-- Frank

 

[Frank Lovell]

You did but you asked if I was troubled by the lead-vs-lag issue. And I was merely answering. My apologies if you failed to understand that I was answering your question.



Again, I was merely answering your question about the relative impact of CO2.

I sense your attitude here. I have evenly addressed your points without too much vitriol I hope. Clearly I didn't agree with you enough for your likes.

Merely establishing the baseline, here, Frank.

It is called a rhetorical device. I know you don't waste anything or burn your home down because you can. That's the whole POINT of the rhetorical device.

You seem to have rather thin skin. I think I addressed your points in a most reasonable manner. I thought you'd been doing internet discussions for nearly 20 years, was it?

Frank, you have been reading Glenn's posts, too, haven't you? He gives as good as he gets, sometimes better.

(Note: I specifically made an overt effort to dial back my snarkiness and nastiness and in the past 20 pages I think I've done a reasonably good job of it. Do you think I have been met with a similar detente?)

<Sigh> Thanks for your thoughts, Thau; I'd say more, but it'd just be a continuation of our failure to communicate (which, again, I take the full blame for).

-- Frank

 

[Frank Lovell]

Well, when he starts his essay by omitting one of the most thourough studies of climatology - one that has been repeated and verified and constitutes one of the major evidences for AGW - he's not really inviting further study of his essay. I glanced over it, and he's trying very hard to make the case that human sources might not be the cause of the current climate shift. Until he corrects obvious mistakes, such as the omission of the best studies of AGW to date, I don't think our Interactive Fiction writer is going to get many readers outside right wing circles.

OK, that's fine with me -- I accept that you find no reasons for being skeptical of the claim that present highly politicized AGW (as distinct from plain 'ol GW) is "settled science" (or to give a thoughtful read to Draloos' essay). Very well.

Me, I remain skeptical (and presume that's OK with you).

-- Frank

 

[Frank Lovell]

You guys want global warming?

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
​

Here ya go:Let's see your charts and graphs interpret that.

As it happens, there is substantial scientific reason to think that what 2 Peter 3:10 plainly says will indeed happen -- in a few billion years.

-- Frank

 

[Frank Lovell]

It seems to be a soft spot of yours when Baggins points out the fact that most AGW deniers are right wingers. Why is this?

You gotta be joking! You can't tell that he uses what is true of most right-wingers to indict the intellectual integrity of ALL (each and every one) right-wingers?

Put yourself in my place and then re-read Mr. "Baggins'" prejudged ad hominem replies as if they were his response to your efforts to discuss the present status of scientific knowledge and understanding of global climate dynamics.

Or better yet and on second thought -- just forget it, simply color me "soft-spotted" and pat Mr. "Baggins" on the back.

-- Frank

 

[AV1611VET]

As it happens, there is substantial scientific reason to think that what 2 Peter 3:10 plainly says will indeed happen -- in a few billion years.

-- Frank

I can't wait that long, Frank --- I'm 55 years old already!

 

[Frank Lovell]

Actually, while it may be a bit brusque to make assumptions of one's politics based on their opinion of AGW, apparently at least one study here in California found that:

[QUOTED ARTICLE CONTAINED A LINK -- NEWBY FORBIDDEN TO POST LINKS EVEN VIA QUOTES OF SENIOR MEMBERS]
(Emphasis added)

So while it is in no way any sort of "indictment" one way or another on politics or global climate change, it is apparently somewhat correlated with politics in terms of opinion. I am not saying that means anything one way or another. Just an interesting FYI

One last interesting point from the article:

[QUOTED ARTICLE CONTAINED A LINK -- NEWBY FORBIDDEN TO POST LINKS EVEN VIA QUOTES OF SENIOR MEMBERS]

So perhaps I was incorrect in stating that conservatives often seem less enthused about conserving!

Very interesting, THANKS for finding and posting that, Thau!

MOST interesting to me is that it surprises anyone that BY NO MEANS are all AGWers political liberals nor all skeptics of AGW all political conservatives.

And I have never understood why anyone (let alone so very many) "skepticism of AGW" with "anti-conservation."

Theses are the sorts of things that aid and abet failures to communicate (though I still happily take FULL BLAME for all the many failures to communicate that I experience -- heck nobody else does, so I might as well take the blame). I can only shake my head in wonder, knowing that nothing I say seems likely to ever make a dent in such ubiquitous misunderstandings.

I'd say more, but I probably failed to communicate effectively above already.

Again, THANKS for posting that! -- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

You gotta be joking! You can't tell that he uses what is true of most right-wingers to indict the intellectual integrity of ALL (each and every one) right-wingers?

Put yourself in my place and then re-read Mr. &quot;Baggins'&quot; prejudged ad hominem replies as if they were his response to your efforts to discuss the present status of scientific knowledge and understanding of global climate dynamics.

Or better yet and on second thought -- just forget it, simply color me &quot;soft-spotted&quot; and pat Mr. &quot;Baggins&quot; on the back.

-- Frank

Well, as I explained earlier, we're a bit bullet-shy after having Glen dodging and weaving all through this thread, bullying people with his impeccable credentials (in the oil industry) and strange obsession with individual surface temperature measurement stations in the US.

After the thread is almost done, Glen's points pretty much debunked by someone more knowledgeable in science than him, you arrive with a seemingly passive-aggressive attitude, an obvious chummy relationship with Glen, and start to claim that we're being mean to him, despite the fact that his OP is so riddled with straw-men and inflammatory language it's a wonder it hasn't burned up. Baggins reacted like a human being, immediately placing you in the same box as Glen, and it would seem he wasn't wrong about this. You gave as good as you got with an outright dismissive reply.

The thing is, neither you nor Glen are really qualified to either question or validate climate science. Neither am I or Baggins. I don't know about Thama, although he does seem to have a lot more education in this field than any of us. What we should do is get a climatologist in here to explain things to us. As so happens, I have contacted one, and I hope he'll join the discussion.

 

[Frank Lovell]

I can't wait that long, Frank --- I'm 55 years old already!

Haha...yes -- I'm not gonna wait that long either! -- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

MOST interesting to me is that it surprises anyone that BY NO MEANS are all AGWers political liberals nor all skeptics of AGW all political conservatives.

No, but apparently most are.

 

[Frank Lovell]

...The thing is, neither you nor Glen are really qualified to either question or validate climate science. Neither am I or Baggins....

You STILL gotta be kidding!

I gotta be "qualified" before I can question/discuss and decide for myself whether to accept unquestioningly or to question what some (but not all) scientific authorities tell me that I gotta accept?

When I studied (as part of my education as a physical organic chemist) the history of science, the one thing the history of science SHOUTED to me louder than anything else is that (1) ALL humans are fallible and any one human can be wrong, (2) Empirical science is fallible and often wrong, (3) and (therefore) even a BUNCH of scientists all in unison are fallible and can be wrong.

You may feel some sort of obligation to unquestioningly accept whatever scientific "authorities" (even a majority of them) tell you, but I feel a strong duty to myself to question before accepting things other scientists tell me I should believe which strike me as not being quite right given what (great OR LITTLE) I do know about physics and how science works.

I do NOT tell you (or anyone) that YOU (or they), TOO, should question current scientific claims that don't seem quite right to me, so who are you to suggest I should not question scientific claims that do not seem quite right to me?

In seeking answers to my questions about AGW (vs. GW) I do not rely just on what I happen to know about science and physical-organic chemistry -- I have read EVERY SINGLE ESSAY/ARTICLE/PAPER on AGW and also every single essay/article/paper that is skeptical of AGW (and that includes the writings of scientists who are qualified professionals in meteorology, atmospheric physics, geophysics, paleogeochemistry) that others have recommended to me (and some I stumbled across on my own, like Drallos' essay).

If you disapprove, fine with me, you go your way, I'll go mine.

I think there is a LOT more published skepticism by even atmospheric and geophysical scientists who are skeptical of the claims that you and others here seem to be aware of -- and it is clearer and clearer to me that nobody here wants to discuss the reasons for skepticism, and thus little I have to learn from this forum. All I (and Glenn, too) seem to serve here is a punching bag for people to tell how wrong I am without telling me WHY I am wrong or that I am not "qualified" to have even just my own misgivings just because my scientific specialty isn't directly climatologically related.

I don't need this, and quite obviously neither do y'all. The hubris of the certainty of this group is stunning, and Glenn's patience amazes me.

-- Frank