Spoken like a true disinformationist. For the hypothetical naive lurker: FWIW, this is from my ten fascinating fingers, not a generative AI.
Scott is misusing "Ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" again. It's as if he didn't read the OP, and is unaware of the larger, historical context of Mr. Hoffman's comment.
The DOE report isn't a scientific document, but a manifestly political one. Arguments "to the man" (i.e. 4 men and 1 woman) are legitimate apriori assumptions. The authors are all notorious contrarians, long known to be among a tiny minority of their putative peers. Their scientific arguments are tediously recycled, having been considered on their merits and repeatedly rejected by a strong, stable peer consensus. That's not the argument "from authority", but from scientific metaliteracy, i.e. distinguishing genuinely skeptical professional scientists from otherwise-motivated denialists.
Regrettably, scientific metaliteracy requires non-experts to put some time into learning what the actual experts know via mutual review. Failing that, anyone who tells you "consensus isn't science" is either fooling themselves or trying to fool you. Two hundred years of climate science has only progressed by consensus!
BTW Mal, next time you're not feeling well, try bleeding yourself. After all, that was the scientific consensus in the 1700's and early 1800's. Yes doctors arguably bled George Washington to death, to treat his likely diphtheria.
I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" means.
Description:
- Mr. Personne is a shithead.
Ad hominem argument:
- Mr. Personne is wrong →because← he is a shithead.
Don't start throwing around Latin terms if you don't know what they mean. Throwing epithets at people is not *ad hominem* if it is not used as the basis of countering their argument.
The comparison between the tobacco industry and the dirty fossil fuel energy is perfect. These two industries kill not only people directly, but they kill anyone who lives or works with them. The oil and coal industries also are killing the planet slowly with global warming, which is moving at an accelerating pace. Russia and Saudi Arabia don’t care because their economies need the sale of dirty oil to survive. They, and Republicans, have created the lie that Global Warming is a myth, even while hurricanes and massive flooding and uncontrollable fires sweep through forests and cities. Gullible people believed the lies of the tobacco industry for decades, and very many still do. Only when someone they love dies from cancer, a fire, or a flood may they start to believe. Unfortunately, it may already be too late to save the Planet.
Thank you for submitting comments. While not as detailed as yours, my colleagues and I also submitted comments and pointed out the difference between the DOE report and the IPCC process, of which I was a part. Our goal in submitting comments was to add to the voices of outrage about the disgraceful politicization of science.
Yeah, the old aphorism "process is product" really applies here. A crappy process leads to a crappy product. I definitely think we all need to talk about this more.
Dr. Dessler - thanks for all you do! Regarding predictions of climate impacts if we don't drive emissions to net zero, I keep coming back to these words. “Here’s a forecast with a high degree of certainty. At some point your kids or grandkids will come to you and ask, ‘What did you know, when, and what did you do?’ Did you sit on your hands, latch on to conspiracy theories, and kick the can down the road? Or were you part of the solution?”
Excerpt from page 70, “Caring for Creation — The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment”, by Mitch Hescox and Paul Douglas
My experience is that most center-right people I talk to, don't want to talk climate change issues. Why? They think that I'll get emotional (as most of my fellow environmentalists do).
And by far, most assume (silently too )@(#$*#@) that the cleaner sky in America (compared to China,India) means we're the solution and they're the problem. As we allow this misconception to dominate, the elected leaders are sure to follow.
I try to explain that the CO2 & Methane gases are transparent and the climate issue is "global" - not local like soot. I add that, YES -thru regulation and time, we in developed countries have cleaned the local air considerably since the mid 60s.
Like most liberal actors, the environmentalists only "preach to the choir." They also ignore human nature when they do this because it's what turns off center-right majorities.
Frustratingly, I'm most often met with "well, if you're right - why don't I hear it on the news?"
Good question indeed!
Why not also explain that there's really no villians per-se except human civilization itself. We've asked fossil fuels to raise our standard of living for centuries. That's a no-brainer. But we've also outgrown it due to our population increases (it's 3 times the #s since I was born) and the accompanying infrastructures. Cars, power plants etc.
Remember the expression "We've met the enemy and he is us!"
"Why not also explain that there's really no villians per-se except human civilization itself. "
Because while the economic driver of the tragedy of the climate commons is a global market's propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with, it's also true that carbon capitalists, among them Charles Koch, Harold Hamm, the Hunt family, etc., have for decades funded proliferating denialist groups and independent disinformation professionals, seeking to forestall collective interference in their profit streams (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/4-169/v2). They may not, strictly speaking, be "villains": since it's legal to deceive the public, they'd be fools not to hire the most expert professional services available. Now that they have control of all three branches of government, they'd be fools not to exploit that too. Culpability aside, America's voters are the fools, for letting them get away with it.
"...the climate issue is "global" - not local like soot."
----
Funny you should mention that. One of the new climate "realities" of some people in North America (and eastern Australia and the more thinly populated Siberia) are days of choking wildfire smoke from over 1,000 km away. High-temperature crown fires are putting a greater mass of smoke (including a lot of PM2.5) into the air, unlike grass fires or short-lived forest fires we had become more familiar with.
Side notes: Watch out of denialists and minimizers comparing past estimate area of grass/brush fires with the area covered by forest fires today: What matters is the mass of burning material, not acreage. Forests are stressed by night-heat and drought, and even sequoias—once thought to be practically fireproof—are under threat.
Meanwhile, situations like the Palisades Fire, where it was a fast-moving dried brush fire, were made unstoppable by the very high winds (meaning that even dutifully clearing brush away from your house didn't help).
Awful - but the bright thing here is that scientists everywhere will see this as a way of continuing to take on the real science and it will only have the result of continuing the isolation of the US - putting even more pressure on the Monster. And in spite of these incompetent crazies - many states and local groups will be continuing with their work - certainly outside of the ever shrinking USA! (Like in my home country - Canada!)
"John Christy and Roy Spencer, both research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick."
----
Judith Curry is my favorite: She testifies to order.
When Christy and Spencer were playing with models to show satellite data supported stable and even →decreasing← temperatures, she dutifully asserted, "The satellite data is the best data we have." (Apparently she never heard of direct temperature measurement by devices on the ground or on weather balloons.)
Christy has anti-scientific religious beliefs where the god in his head would not let humans destroy the planet.
Christy, McKitrick, and Spencer are all closely associated with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a alliance of business with faith. The latter two actually signed the 2009 Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, publicly denying that their deity would allow "dangerous" climate change. I wonder why Christy didn't sign? Did it go too far for him?
I keep getting Heckle and Jeckle (Christy and Spencer) mixed up. It was *Spencer*, as you noted, who signed that no-evidence-can-beat-our-faith testament.
Thanks, Andrew. You quote Kerry Emanuel as saying:
"My reading of the report uncovered numerous errors of commission and omission, all of which slant toward a conclusion that human-caused climate change poses no serious risks."
At the bottom of this comment is a link to a post of mine that examines the claimed "risks" of the gradual warming of the last 300 years since the depths of the LIA around the year 1700. Please not that the first 200 years of this warming cannot be the result of CO2.
Not one climate scientist knows why it didn't continue to cool after 1700, or why it didn't just stay cold, or why it started to warm in fits and starts up to the present … but y'all are more than happy to tell us what the year 2100 will look like.
We've been subjected to your endless dire warnings of impending Thermageddon™ for fifty years now by mainstream climate scientists, none of which have come true. No sinking atolls. No disappearing polar bears. No tens of millions of climate refugees. No ice-free Arctic. No increasing hurricanes.
And in fifty years, despite endless studies and years of computer time, the uncertainty about the value of "climate sensitivity" has increased, not decreased.
In any other field of science, this would get you laughed off the stage … but this is climate science, where wildly incorrect predictions and widening uncertainties are taken as normal.
But I digress. Below is a hard look at the so-called "serious risks" posed by climate change that Kerry Emmanuel mentions above.
I invite you to QUOTE any errors that you think you've identified in my analysis below, and SHOW (not just claim) why they are wrong.
And if you can't identify any errors, I hope that you would have the honesty to return to say so.
Or, you could just shine my analysis on and not read something that disagrees with your point of view … however, if you do that, you lose the right to ever call yourself a scientist again. Scientists have the spine to read the arguments on both sides of an issue.
I think you don't have any sense of time scale. The [geologically] minor variations of temperature over the time scale of human settlement can occur through transient (e.g., caldera or supervolcano) or gradual over tens of thousands of years (e.g., mantle volcanism burning all carbon in the crust).
You keep clinging to a supposedly unexplained shallow shift in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere over a few centuries, but studiously avoid acknowledging the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.
And by the way, one important lesson to learn from the "Little Ice Age" (with its tales of rivers heavily freezing over) is that it doesn't take that much of a temperature shift to affect the lifestyle and prosperity of human settlements.
"You keep clinging to a supposedly unexplained shallow shift in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere over a few centuries, but studiously avoid acknowledging the basic physics of the greenhouse effect."
Two things. First, why we went into, didn't stay in, and warmed out of the LIA is unexplained, not "supposedly", but absolutely. And since climate scientists can't explain why we went into and then came out of the coldest period in modern history, why should we believe that they can tell us what the temperature will be like in 2100?
Second, I absolutely acknowledge the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, and have written a number of posts about that. Links to three of them are below. You really should do your homework before breaking out the accusations.
Next, you're right that cold affects human wellbeing negatively. However, the mild warming since then has been generally beneficial, erasing the problems you list.
Finally, I repeat my invitation which I posed above, viz:
"Below is a hard look at the so-called "serious risks" posed by climate change that Kerry Emmanuel mentions above.
I invite you to QUOTE any errors that you think you've identified in my analysis below, and SHOW (not just claim) why they are wrong.
And if you can't identify any errors, I hope that you would have the honesty to return to say so.
Or, you could just shine my analysis on and not read something that disagrees with your point of view … however, if you do that, you lose the right to ever call yourself a scientist again. Scientists have the spine to read the arguments on both sides of an issue."
I love all this. To the casual reader out there--understand this crystal clear message: What Andrew is saying is that there is no point by point rebuttal forthcoming! That is, unless you interpret appealing to authority as an acceptable rebuttal (e.g. trust us, we are scientists!). That is what AMS did, that is what Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report is doing, that is what Andrew is doing. There is no point by point rebuttal, because, well, there is no point by point rebuttal to be made. Oh, and don't forget ad hominem. "These vile 5 people who'd never make it past peer review" -surprise! They all have, many, many times.
Appeal to authority and ad hominem. That is all the alarmists have. It's really sad, actually.
Andrew, at what point will your colleagues wake up and understand that your "appeal to authority" card has been exhausted? We live in a world where in a matter of moments, a lay person who asks the right questions can have answers at their fingertips via use of Ai?
And your reference to tobacco industry? Are you being serious right now? Carcinogens vs. Co2?! This is twilight zone material.
But there's the Carbon Brief rebuttal! Right? OK! I'll start with rebuttal #1. They say that it is "misleading" that the earth is greening from CO2! Even the quoted expert Dr. Lobell admits this is true! BUT wait! The crops have less zinc, iron, and protein even though crop yields are higher! Certainly, Andrew, if climate change is the "greatest threat to humanity" we will see terrible zinc, iron and protein deficiencies in people. Right? Wrong! Mortality from environmental hazards are at the lowest point in recorded (and likely unrecorded) history!!! This is all so easy to look up, really.
The experts quoted in the Carbon Brief (that I have read anyway) have not explicitly refuted the DOE statements! Read them for yourself. They do say that the statements don't consider other "possibilities" that may occur. How are their statements considered "false" then? For example, Dr. Eyring's response regarding climate model sensitivity in no way refutes the statement regarding over sensitive models and implausible extreme emissions. She actually acknowledges that yeah, there are problems. In no way does she refute the statement outright. And yet, the DOE statement is labeled "false". Carbon Brief has interpreted this expert's response as a "rebuttal" but it is basically an admission, "yeah, they're right, but it has already been known and we are dealing with it". That's a rebuttal?! That makes it false?!
All I can say is that y'all are in enormous, huge trouble. This is going to blow up, and when it does, it will be grim. The really smart guys at the top already knows this...I'm pretty sure Gavin is smart enough to know this which is why realclimate group has been relatively mum on this. Good luck, if you ever want to debate in front of your students, let me know!
it's weird that I can post a 400+ page point-by-point review and this is what you see: "What Andrew is saying is that there is no point by point rebuttal forthcoming!"
Additionally, I live in Texas, like you. I'll drive the 3 hours down from Frisco to A&M. I'd love to do a debate. I figure that moving forward in the future, you're likely not going to have the free pass in the media that you have been used to in the past, so let me be the first person to hand you an easy knock down. Should be easy, right? If you're so certain of yourself about the "bullshit" of the DOE report, then take me on in a debate. At the very least, you can illustrate to the audience what denialists and misinformers do to circumvent facts and knowledge. You know, truth. I guarantee a very fruitful outcome for both you and your audience. Are you game?
Hey Scott. I live in Plano and would be agreeable to have a conversation with you about this topic. Provide a suggested location, date and time and then we can meet up.
Andrew, I'm a little slow on the uptake, all I'm seeing is a link to a press release. That looks like one page and doesn't have any references. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Uhm. Going to go with Andrew on this one. Scott, nothing about your position appears credible.
I don’t make any claims, just an average guy, reading you experts. Following the signs. Counting butterflies and insects on my daily walk is all I need to do. North America is becoming an insect desert.
I kind of hope Scott and MAGA live the 25 short years ahead that will witness “the acceleration.” Sad thing they really only need to witness the next 5 years. It is on like donkey Kong and these mental homunculi aren’t just running around like humperdoo’s, they are willing to push civilization off the cliff.
There is time but the next move on the chess board will be pivotal. Beware of this administration and its Christian backers, who will see intellect in the Milky Way stillborn. Humanity faces an interesting challenge in this generation, move with science and rebalance our relationship with the planet, or to follow the beliefs and imagination of our childhood. The fertile ground of the intellectually juvenile may just see the earths one chance to birth intelligence into this galaxy, aborted.
To Scott, the guy commenting on everyone’s posts. Nothing about your counter positions appears credible.
I don’t make any claims, just an average guy, following the experts. Reading the signs. Counting butterflies and insects on my daily walk is all I need to do. North America is becoming an insect desert.
I kind of hope Scott and MAGA live the 25 short years ahead that will witness “the acceleration.” Sad thing they really only need to witness the next 5 years. It is on like Donkey Kong and these mental homunculi aren’t just running around like humperdoo’s, they are willing to push civilization off the cliff.
There is time but the next move on the chess board will be pivotal. Beware of this administration and its Christian backers, who will see intellect in the Milky Way stillborn. Humanity faces an interesting challenge in this generation, move with science and rebalance our relationship with the planet, or follow the beliefs and imagination of our civilizations childhood. The fertile ground of the intellectually juvenile may just see the earths one chance to birth intelligence into this galaxy, aborted.
One thing is for sure, the generosity of Nature and the milk of her breasts have run dry. Time for Scott and his friends to stand on their own two feet and contribute to the household. Stay on her tit and you will find Nature hasn’t anything left for mankind, the believers … in somethings imaginary.
This is a crucial effort. Thank you for working on refuting this document and making it's faulty conclusions clear to the public.
It is discouraging to see the same tired anti-science and climate-denialist arguments that used to be repeated by a select few now be in government reports.
You say that, but how do you describe those dump trucks full of money backing up to your house! And you're always seen sporting $3000 bespoke suits when you dine at those Michelin star restaurants! You scientists are all alike!
"It would be reasonable to ask yourself how you can have a meaningful discussion of any topic in science if you’re ignoring nearly all of the scientific literature on that topic."
----
Oh, I do it all the time! It helps for me to be unburdened by excessive background in a subject.
As a rational person I agree that the DOE report is complete bullshit. However, I also know that the IPCC-based position is highly deceptive. Most egregiously:
1. The foundational UNFCCC agreement (1992) sought to prevent "additional warming". The global temperature anomaly at the time was about 0.4 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement (2015) nevertheless aimed for 1.5 and 2 degrees, clearly violating the accord. Climate scientists have said nothing about this.
2. The objective of the 1992 agreement (see Article 2) was to control GHG concentrations in order to control the warming. However, the IPCC in its second assessment report (1995) shifted the objective to reduced fossil-fuel emissions. This measure PROLONGS warming because CO2 concentrations continue to increase, and cooling aerosols are depleted. Again, climate scientists have remained silent about this unilateral and perhaps illegal switch.
You're right to condemn the deniers, but mainstream climate science bears much of the guilt for today's climate disasters.
"If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. "
I'm not convinced you're wholly rational on this topic, Mr. Rotering. In fact, phony moralistic attacks on IPCC science contributors are a familiar tactic of the denialist campaign.
They are not "merchants of doubt". Call it like it is- they are "merchants of bullshit", "merchants of lies"
Spoken like a true alarmist.
Ad hominem and appeal to authority. That is all you have. Sad.
Spoken like a true disinformationist. For the hypothetical naive lurker: FWIW, this is from my ten fascinating fingers, not a generative AI.
Scott is misusing "Ad hominem" and "appeal to authority" again. It's as if he didn't read the OP, and is unaware of the larger, historical context of Mr. Hoffman's comment.
The DOE report isn't a scientific document, but a manifestly political one. Arguments "to the man" (i.e. 4 men and 1 woman) are legitimate apriori assumptions. The authors are all notorious contrarians, long known to be among a tiny minority of their putative peers. Their scientific arguments are tediously recycled, having been considered on their merits and repeatedly rejected by a strong, stable peer consensus. That's not the argument "from authority", but from scientific metaliteracy, i.e. distinguishing genuinely skeptical professional scientists from otherwise-motivated denialists.
Regrettably, scientific metaliteracy requires non-experts to put some time into learning what the actual experts know via mutual review. Failing that, anyone who tells you "consensus isn't science" is either fooling themselves or trying to fool you. Two hundred years of climate science has only progressed by consensus!
Hmmm.
1. Appeal to authority.
2. Ad hominem.
Repeat ad nauseaum.
BTW Mal, next time you're not feeling well, try bleeding yourself. After all, that was the scientific consensus in the 1700's and early 1800's. Yes doctors arguably bled George Washington to death, to treat his likely diphtheria.
You don't get out much, do you?
The more you comment, the more you sound like a 'bot: artificial stupidity. Nothing new to say, just the same revenant undead denialist memes.
I don't think you understand what "ad hominem" means.
Description:
- Mr. Personne is a shithead.
Ad hominem argument:
- Mr. Personne is wrong →because← he is a shithead.
Don't start throwing around Latin terms if you don't know what they mean. Throwing epithets at people is not *ad hominem* if it is not used as the basis of countering their argument.
The comparison between the tobacco industry and the dirty fossil fuel energy is perfect. These two industries kill not only people directly, but they kill anyone who lives or works with them. The oil and coal industries also are killing the planet slowly with global warming, which is moving at an accelerating pace. Russia and Saudi Arabia don’t care because their economies need the sale of dirty oil to survive. They, and Republicans, have created the lie that Global Warming is a myth, even while hurricanes and massive flooding and uncontrollable fires sweep through forests and cities. Gullible people believed the lies of the tobacco industry for decades, and very many still do. Only when someone they love dies from cancer, a fire, or a flood may they start to believe. Unfortunately, it may already be too late to save the Planet.
Thank you for submitting comments. While not as detailed as yours, my colleagues and I also submitted comments and pointed out the difference between the DOE report and the IPCC process, of which I was a part. Our goal in submitting comments was to add to the voices of outrage about the disgraceful politicization of science.
Yeah, the old aphorism "process is product" really applies here. A crappy process leads to a crappy product. I definitely think we all need to talk about this more.
Thank you, Prof. Jaramillo!
Dr. Dessler - thanks for all you do! Regarding predictions of climate impacts if we don't drive emissions to net zero, I keep coming back to these words. “Here’s a forecast with a high degree of certainty. At some point your kids or grandkids will come to you and ask, ‘What did you know, when, and what did you do?’ Did you sit on your hands, latch on to conspiracy theories, and kick the can down the road? Or were you part of the solution?”
Excerpt from page 70, “Caring for Creation — The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment”, by Mitch Hescox and Paul Douglas
Thank you Andy et al!
My experience is that most center-right people I talk to, don't want to talk climate change issues. Why? They think that I'll get emotional (as most of my fellow environmentalists do).
And by far, most assume (silently too )@(#$*#@) that the cleaner sky in America (compared to China,India) means we're the solution and they're the problem. As we allow this misconception to dominate, the elected leaders are sure to follow.
I try to explain that the CO2 & Methane gases are transparent and the climate issue is "global" - not local like soot. I add that, YES -thru regulation and time, we in developed countries have cleaned the local air considerably since the mid 60s.
Like most liberal actors, the environmentalists only "preach to the choir." They also ignore human nature when they do this because it's what turns off center-right majorities.
Frustratingly, I'm most often met with "well, if you're right - why don't I hear it on the news?"
Good question indeed!
Why not also explain that there's really no villians per-se except human civilization itself. We've asked fossil fuels to raise our standard of living for centuries. That's a no-brainer. But we've also outgrown it due to our population increases (it's 3 times the #s since I was born) and the accompanying infrastructures. Cars, power plants etc.
Remember the expression "We've met the enemy and he is us!"
1
"Why not also explain that there's really no villians per-se except human civilization itself. "
Because while the economic driver of the tragedy of the climate commons is a global market's propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with, it's also true that carbon capitalists, among them Charles Koch, Harold Hamm, the Hunt family, etc., have for decades funded proliferating denialist groups and independent disinformation professionals, seeking to forestall collective interference in their profit streams (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/articles/4-169/v2). They may not, strictly speaking, be "villains": since it's legal to deceive the public, they'd be fools not to hire the most expert professional services available. Now that they have control of all three branches of government, they'd be fools not to exploit that too. Culpability aside, America's voters are the fools, for letting them get away with it.
"...the climate issue is "global" - not local like soot."
----
Funny you should mention that. One of the new climate "realities" of some people in North America (and eastern Australia and the more thinly populated Siberia) are days of choking wildfire smoke from over 1,000 km away. High-temperature crown fires are putting a greater mass of smoke (including a lot of PM2.5) into the air, unlike grass fires or short-lived forest fires we had become more familiar with.
Side notes: Watch out of denialists and minimizers comparing past estimate area of grass/brush fires with the area covered by forest fires today: What matters is the mass of burning material, not acreage. Forests are stressed by night-heat and drought, and even sequoias—once thought to be practically fireproof—are under threat.
Meanwhile, situations like the Palisades Fire, where it was a fast-moving dried brush fire, were made unstoppable by the very high winds (meaning that even dutifully clearing brush away from your house didn't help).
Awful - but the bright thing here is that scientists everywhere will see this as a way of continuing to take on the real science and it will only have the result of continuing the isolation of the US - putting even more pressure on the Monster. And in spite of these incompetent crazies - many states and local groups will be continuing with their work - certainly outside of the ever shrinking USA! (Like in my home country - Canada!)
There won’t be anything left, if he continues to throw out all of what we’ve done for a better Country! Our children will inherit all of this!!
Evil purpose drives denial of sound science- beware
"John Christy and Roy Spencer, both research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick."
----
Judith Curry is my favorite: She testifies to order.
When Christy and Spencer were playing with models to show satellite data supported stable and even →decreasing← temperatures, she dutifully asserted, "The satellite data is the best data we have." (Apparently she never heard of direct temperature measurement by devices on the ground or on weather balloons.)
Christy has anti-scientific religious beliefs where the god in his head would not let humans destroy the planet.
Christy, McKitrick, and Spencer are all closely associated with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a alliance of business with faith. The latter two actually signed the 2009 Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, publicly denying that their deity would allow "dangerous" climate change. I wonder why Christy didn't sign? Did it go too far for him?
I keep getting Heckle and Jeckle (Christy and Spencer) mixed up. It was *Spencer*, as you noted, who signed that no-evidence-can-beat-our-faith testament.
Thanks, Andrew. You quote Kerry Emanuel as saying:
"My reading of the report uncovered numerous errors of commission and omission, all of which slant toward a conclusion that human-caused climate change poses no serious risks."
At the bottom of this comment is a link to a post of mine that examines the claimed "risks" of the gradual warming of the last 300 years since the depths of the LIA around the year 1700. Please not that the first 200 years of this warming cannot be the result of CO2.
Not one climate scientist knows why it didn't continue to cool after 1700, or why it didn't just stay cold, or why it started to warm in fits and starts up to the present … but y'all are more than happy to tell us what the year 2100 will look like.
We've been subjected to your endless dire warnings of impending Thermageddon™ for fifty years now by mainstream climate scientists, none of which have come true. No sinking atolls. No disappearing polar bears. No tens of millions of climate refugees. No ice-free Arctic. No increasing hurricanes.
And in fifty years, despite endless studies and years of computer time, the uncertainty about the value of "climate sensitivity" has increased, not decreased.
In any other field of science, this would get you laughed off the stage … but this is climate science, where wildly incorrect predictions and widening uncertainties are taken as normal.
But I digress. Below is a hard look at the so-called "serious risks" posed by climate change that Kerry Emmanuel mentions above.
I invite you to QUOTE any errors that you think you've identified in my analysis below, and SHOW (not just claim) why they are wrong.
And if you can't identify any errors, I hope that you would have the honesty to return to say so.
Or, you could just shine my analysis on and not read something that disagrees with your point of view … however, if you do that, you lose the right to ever call yourself a scientist again. Scientists have the spine to read the arguments on both sides of an issue.
My best to everyone,
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
I think you don't have any sense of time scale. The [geologically] minor variations of temperature over the time scale of human settlement can occur through transient (e.g., caldera or supervolcano) or gradual over tens of thousands of years (e.g., mantle volcanism burning all carbon in the crust).
You keep clinging to a supposedly unexplained shallow shift in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere over a few centuries, but studiously avoid acknowledging the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png
And by the way, one important lesson to learn from the "Little Ice Age" (with its tales of rivers heavily freezing over) is that it doesn't take that much of a temperature shift to affect the lifestyle and prosperity of human settlements.
Thanks, NS. You say:
"You keep clinging to a supposedly unexplained shallow shift in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere over a few centuries, but studiously avoid acknowledging the basic physics of the greenhouse effect."
Two things. First, why we went into, didn't stay in, and warmed out of the LIA is unexplained, not "supposedly", but absolutely. And since climate scientists can't explain why we went into and then came out of the coldest period in modern history, why should we believe that they can tell us what the temperature will be like in 2100?
Second, I absolutely acknowledge the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, and have written a number of posts about that. Links to three of them are below. You really should do your homework before breaking out the accusations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/people-living-in-glass-planets/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/06/the-r-w-wood-experiment/
Next, you're right that cold affects human wellbeing negatively. However, the mild warming since then has been generally beneficial, erasing the problems you list.
Finally, I repeat my invitation which I posed above, viz:
"Below is a hard look at the so-called "serious risks" posed by climate change that Kerry Emmanuel mentions above.
I invite you to QUOTE any errors that you think you've identified in my analysis below, and SHOW (not just claim) why they are wrong.
And if you can't identify any errors, I hope that you would have the honesty to return to say so.
Or, you could just shine my analysis on and not read something that disagrees with your point of view … however, if you do that, you lose the right to ever call yourself a scientist again. Scientists have the spine to read the arguments on both sides of an issue."
My best to you and yours,
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Andrew,
I love all this. To the casual reader out there--understand this crystal clear message: What Andrew is saying is that there is no point by point rebuttal forthcoming! That is, unless you interpret appealing to authority as an acceptable rebuttal (e.g. trust us, we are scientists!). That is what AMS did, that is what Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report is doing, that is what Andrew is doing. There is no point by point rebuttal, because, well, there is no point by point rebuttal to be made. Oh, and don't forget ad hominem. "These vile 5 people who'd never make it past peer review" -surprise! They all have, many, many times.
Appeal to authority and ad hominem. That is all the alarmists have. It's really sad, actually.
Andrew, at what point will your colleagues wake up and understand that your "appeal to authority" card has been exhausted? We live in a world where in a matter of moments, a lay person who asks the right questions can have answers at their fingertips via use of Ai?
And your reference to tobacco industry? Are you being serious right now? Carcinogens vs. Co2?! This is twilight zone material.
But there's the Carbon Brief rebuttal! Right? OK! I'll start with rebuttal #1. They say that it is "misleading" that the earth is greening from CO2! Even the quoted expert Dr. Lobell admits this is true! BUT wait! The crops have less zinc, iron, and protein even though crop yields are higher! Certainly, Andrew, if climate change is the "greatest threat to humanity" we will see terrible zinc, iron and protein deficiencies in people. Right? Wrong! Mortality from environmental hazards are at the lowest point in recorded (and likely unrecorded) history!!! This is all so easy to look up, really.
The experts quoted in the Carbon Brief (that I have read anyway) have not explicitly refuted the DOE statements! Read them for yourself. They do say that the statements don't consider other "possibilities" that may occur. How are their statements considered "false" then? For example, Dr. Eyring's response regarding climate model sensitivity in no way refutes the statement regarding over sensitive models and implausible extreme emissions. She actually acknowledges that yeah, there are problems. In no way does she refute the statement outright. And yet, the DOE statement is labeled "false". Carbon Brief has interpreted this expert's response as a "rebuttal" but it is basically an admission, "yeah, they're right, but it has already been known and we are dealing with it". That's a rebuttal?! That makes it false?!
All I can say is that y'all are in enormous, huge trouble. This is going to blow up, and when it does, it will be grim. The really smart guys at the top already knows this...I'm pretty sure Gavin is smart enough to know this which is why realclimate group has been relatively mum on this. Good luck, if you ever want to debate in front of your students, let me know!
it's weird that I can post a 400+ page point-by-point review and this is what you see: "What Andrew is saying is that there is no point by point rebuttal forthcoming!"
Additionally, I live in Texas, like you. I'll drive the 3 hours down from Frisco to A&M. I'd love to do a debate. I figure that moving forward in the future, you're likely not going to have the free pass in the media that you have been used to in the past, so let me be the first person to hand you an easy knock down. Should be easy, right? If you're so certain of yourself about the "bullshit" of the DOE report, then take me on in a debate. At the very least, you can illustrate to the audience what denialists and misinformers do to circumvent facts and knowledge. You know, truth. I guarantee a very fruitful outcome for both you and your audience. Are you game?
"I'd love to do a debate."
----
Note to the readership: Never, ever, agree to an oral debate. They're more about "gotchas" and Gish Gallops* than achieving anything with rigor.
________________
*Or, as Steven Bannon might describe them, flooding the zone with shit.
Hey Scott. I live in Plano and would be agreeable to have a conversation with you about this topic. Provide a suggested location, date and time and then we can meet up.
Straight from the denialist playbook, compiled over decades by merchants of doubt.
Awesome! Where can I get a copy? I'd love to look at it.
did you read the post? I guess my position is this: if you can't read the post and find the link, then you probably won't understand it anyway.
Andrew, I'm a little slow on the uptake, all I'm seeing is a link to a press release. That looks like one page and doesn't have any references. Perhaps I'm missing something?
Uhm. Going to go with Andrew on this one. Scott, nothing about your position appears credible.
I don’t make any claims, just an average guy, reading you experts. Following the signs. Counting butterflies and insects on my daily walk is all I need to do. North America is becoming an insect desert.
I kind of hope Scott and MAGA live the 25 short years ahead that will witness “the acceleration.” Sad thing they really only need to witness the next 5 years. It is on like donkey Kong and these mental homunculi aren’t just running around like humperdoo’s, they are willing to push civilization off the cliff.
There is time but the next move on the chess board will be pivotal. Beware of this administration and its Christian backers, who will see intellect in the Milky Way stillborn. Humanity faces an interesting challenge in this generation, move with science and rebalance our relationship with the planet, or to follow the beliefs and imagination of our childhood. The fertile ground of the intellectually juvenile may just see the earths one chance to birth intelligence into this galaxy, aborted.
Thanks Andrew, good luck.
To Scott, the guy commenting on everyone’s posts. Nothing about your counter positions appears credible.
I don’t make any claims, just an average guy, following the experts. Reading the signs. Counting butterflies and insects on my daily walk is all I need to do. North America is becoming an insect desert.
I kind of hope Scott and MAGA live the 25 short years ahead that will witness “the acceleration.” Sad thing they really only need to witness the next 5 years. It is on like Donkey Kong and these mental homunculi aren’t just running around like humperdoo’s, they are willing to push civilization off the cliff.
There is time but the next move on the chess board will be pivotal. Beware of this administration and its Christian backers, who will see intellect in the Milky Way stillborn. Humanity faces an interesting challenge in this generation, move with science and rebalance our relationship with the planet, or follow the beliefs and imagination of our civilizations childhood. The fertile ground of the intellectually juvenile may just see the earths one chance to birth intelligence into this galaxy, aborted.
One thing is for sure, the generosity of Nature and the milk of her breasts have run dry. Time for Scott and his friends to stand on their own two feet and contribute to the household. Stay on her tit and you will find Nature hasn’t anything left for mankind, the believers … in somethings imaginary.
This is a crucial effort. Thank you for working on refuting this document and making it's faulty conclusions clear to the public.
It is discouraging to see the same tired anti-science and climate-denialist arguments that used to be repeated by a select few now be in government reports.
"I did not go into science to make money...."
----
You say that, but how do you describe those dump trucks full of money backing up to your house! And you're always seen sporting $3000 bespoke suits when you dine at those Michelin star restaurants! You scientists are all alike!
"It would be reasonable to ask yourself how you can have a meaningful discussion of any topic in science if you’re ignoring nearly all of the scientific literature on that topic."
----
Oh, I do it all the time! It helps for me to be unburdened by excessive background in a subject.
As a rational person I agree that the DOE report is complete bullshit. However, I also know that the IPCC-based position is highly deceptive. Most egregiously:
1. The foundational UNFCCC agreement (1992) sought to prevent "additional warming". The global temperature anomaly at the time was about 0.4 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement (2015) nevertheless aimed for 1.5 and 2 degrees, clearly violating the accord. Climate scientists have said nothing about this.
2. The objective of the 1992 agreement (see Article 2) was to control GHG concentrations in order to control the warming. However, the IPCC in its second assessment report (1995) shifted the objective to reduced fossil-fuel emissions. This measure PROLONGS warming because CO2 concentrations continue to increase, and cooling aerosols are depleted. Again, climate scientists have remained silent about this unilateral and perhaps illegal switch.
You're right to condemn the deniers, but mainstream climate science bears much of the guilt for today's climate disasters.
So, climate scientists are to blame for practicing customary scientific reticence and political neutrality, both vital to science's epistemic authority? Yet disciplined investigative journalist Jane Mayer, author of 2016's "Dark Money", said this in 2019 (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought):
"If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. "
I'm not convinced you're wholly rational on this topic, Mr. Rotering. In fact, phony moralistic attacks on IPCC science contributors are a familiar tactic of the denialist campaign.