Global Warming Denier on The Daily Show tonight

[FaisonMars]

Christopher Horner, who apparently has written a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (they were supposed to take out "Politically") was on the Daily Show tonight, and even though Jon Stewart was trying to be polite, he didn't fair too well, and he got really flustered by Stewart's basic questions about how so many scientisits in the IPCC report could be wrong.

I was looking for more information about him online, and I came across this quote:

"[The planet Pluto, which is warming up despite moving away from the sun], is a reminder that no matter where you are climate happens... There will be inevitably and likely imminent claims [by environmentalists] that mankind is also causing Plutonian global warming"

Exactly which logical fallacy is this? A strawman argument? Overgeneralization? I'm going with false analogy.

ETA: link to article with this quote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200307/CUL20030714c.html

 

[Texastwister]

Just because one person may not be a good debater, dont assume he is wrong.

The IPCC report is a political document, not science.

 

[JayT]

Political Science - Another Oxymoron

If the matter was conclusively proved either way, then there wouldn't be any need for a scientific debate about it on a world scale.

Nobody seriously debates the matter of sea monsters at the edge of the flat earth anymore because the matter is firmly resolved. Today it's common knowledge that those sea monsters don't go anywhere near the edge because they'd fall off too, just like all those ships and planes that disappeared over the years. Sea monsters are not stupid!

One day, the global warming matter may finally be resolved with similar certainty - but apparently not today.

 

[a_unique_person]

Just because one person may not be a good debater, dont assume he is wrong.

The IPCC report is a political document, not science.

That's because the politicians take over the writing of much of it. Eg, the long debates over just how certain, or likely, aspects of it are. The basic science, as practiced by the scientists is sound. The politics is forced on the scientists by the countries such as the US and China, who don't want to be told what the findings are.

 

[Dog Boots]

Global Warming being true or not, what are these people's arguments against treating Earth a little better, just to be on the safe side? A right to be selfish? What?

 

[Schneibster]

Just because one person may not be a good debater, dont assume he is wrong.

The IPCC report is a political document, not science.

Written by scientists, and not just any scientists they could scrape up but specifically climate scientists. The majority of them. They all got to have their say. They even downgraded the >99% level of certainty statement to a >90% level of certainty- about whether it's caused by us- so everyone would agree on the language.

And the level of certainty about whether the global average temperature is increasing? Well, that stayed at >99%. The word used for THAT is "unequivocal." That means that there is NO contrary evidence. All the evidence says WITHOUT A SINGLE UNEXPLAINED ANOMALY that the temperature is INCREASING everywhere on Earth, on average. No questions, no doubts, no horses**t.

Political document my a$$. You just want to deny it so you don't look stupid. Mission aborted. You look stupid. Accept it. Everyone else does.

 

[a_unique_person]

Christopher Horner, who apparently has written a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (they were supposed to take out "Politically") was on the Daily Show tonight, and even though Jon Stewart was trying to be polite, he didn't fair too well, and he got really flustered by Stewart's basic questions about how so many scientisits in the IPCC report could be wrong.

I was looking for more information about him online, and I came across this quote:



Exactly which logical fallacy is this? A strawman argument? Overgeneralization? I'm going with false analogy.

ETA: link to article with this quote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200307/CUL20030714c.html

Part strawman, part irrelvance. What matters is not what environmentalists think, but what the science is saying. I don't recall any scientific claims in the IPCC report that Pluto's climate variabilities are anything to do with what is happening here. If this author believes there is a link, it's up to him to prove it, not to make up a strawman about what people will say because he says it is true.

 

[Schneibster]

If the matter was conclusively proved either way, then there wouldn't be any need for a scientific debate about it on a world scale.

Wrong. If some people didn't stand to make a lot of money from lying, they wouldn't lie, and there wouldn't be anyone saying there was a controversy. There isn't anyone saying there is, except people who stand to make money off it.

Nobody seriously debates the matter of sea monsters at the edge of the flat earth anymore because the matter is firmly resolved.

Do I really need to link the web site of the Flat Earth Society? Looks like I do. It's not a joke, friend. They really believe it. It's right here. So there's the "controversy." Tell us again about what nobody debates. The REAL question is, how much EVIDENCE is there to support the contrary view? And at this point, the statement by over 2,000 climate scientists- the overwhelming majority of them- state that there is NO evidence to refute the statement that the global temperature is rising, on average. The word used is "unequivocal." They've staked their reputations on it. And they are the ones who would know, being as how they're the ones who are studying it. There is no controversy, except for the controversy about the propaganda the people who stand to make money want to push into your mind.

One day, the global warming matter may finally be resolved with similar certainty - but apparently not today.

You're right- not today. Twelve days ago. February 02, 2007.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wrong. If some people didn't stand to make a lot of money from lying, they wouldn't lie, and there wouldn't be anyone saying there was a controversy. There isn't anyone saying there is, except people who stand to make money off it.

My friend who works for the CSIRO says that there are always contrarians. Which is true, if you look at every field of science. Lindzen is a fine scientist in most respects. However, he can't get a paper published when he denies AGW, not because of some conspiracy, I hasten to add, but just because he can't come up with any credible science to back up his notions. AIDS and HIV don't exist, according to some, neither does evolution, according to others. Scientists say this who are apparently in full control of their faculties and possessed of a reasonable intelligence. Contrarians in respect of this issue, as with evolution, attract those who want to hear what they want to hear.

 

[Schneibster]

Contrarians are one thing; contrarians at $10K a head are entirely another.

 

[Schneibster]

Worth noting that I didn't think John did all that great a job, other than getting the guy flustered by asking him why all those scientists say he's wrong.

He was pretty sarcastic several times, but too straight-man. I got it, but I wasn't at all convinced the audience did.

 

[Texastwister]

So these scientists arbitrarily drop the percentage down to 90? And where is the justification of that?

It's not a question of warming, which has been happening since the end of the little ice age(1850), but whether this is caused by man, which is very suspect.

 

[Schneibster]

So these scientists arbitrarily drop the percentage down to 90? And where is the justification of that?

"Arbitrarily?" That is a claim. Do you have any evidence to back that claim up, or are you just lying again?

It's not a question of warming, which has been happening since the end of the little ice age(1850), but whether this is caused by man, which is very suspect.

Yeah, 10% suspect. Or perhaps you prefer $10,000.00 suspect.

Why do they have to pay, if not to get people to lie?

 

[H3LL]

Jumping in with blinding ignorance again.

What I see as a casual observer:

The global climate is getting warmer - Overwhelming evidence that this is so.

What's causing it? - Not really absolutely sure - CO2 a hot contender.

Is human activity alone responsible? - Nobody sure.

Are natural forces alone responsible? - Nobody sure.

Is it a combination of natural cycles and human activity? - Nobody sure.

Can it be stopped? - Nobody is sure.

If it can be stopped can Global Cooling be prevented? - Nobody sure.

Would Global Cooling be worse? - Nobody sure.

Can the climate be stabilised? - No evidence that it can.



BTW, is the thread title false in itself?

Global Warming Denier on The Daily Show tonight

Is Christopher Horner actually denying that the climate is getting warmer?

His bizarre analogy with Pluto would suggest that he doesn't.

.

 

[Schneibster]

Jumping in with blinding ignorance again.

What I see as a casual observer:

The global climate is getting warmer - Overwhelming evidence that this is so.

Correct.

What's causing it? - Not really absolutely sure - CO2 a hot contender.

CO2 the ONLY contender. No other hypothesis combines a measurable increase in step with the temperature, with a well-known mechanism leading to that increase.

Is human activity alone responsible? - Nobody sure.

"Alone?" What is this, you're skirting the very hairy, scary edge of lying just so you can say you posted this and no one could give you the lie? Honestly, this is as close to lying as you can come without actually speaking a direct untruth.

Human activity is the majority contributor to the CO2 increase. And the certainty of that is-
wait for it-
>99%.

Like I said: skirting the edge of a lie.

Are natural forces alone responsible? - Nobody sure.

Is it a combination of natural cycles and human activity? - Nobody sure.

Unbelievable. Do you get paid for this crap?

Can it be stopped? - Nobody is sure.

Apparently it can't. But does that mean we should make it worse? What's your point here?

If it can be stopped can Global Cooling be prevented? - Nobody sure.

No, it can't- eventually, the Milankovitch cycle will come 'round again and there will be another ice age. And global warming can't stop it. But that's not for 10,000 years or more- global warming is immediate. Human lifetime scale. And already doing damage.

Would Global Cooling be worse? - Nobody sure.

Of course they are. An ice age would be a disaster- luckily, they know how the Earth's orbit varies. They figured that out a while back; you might have heard about it. It's called the Theory of Relativity. You know, Einstein and like that? E=mc^2? Atom bombs?

Can the climate be stabilised? - No evidence that it can.

Straw man. No one is trying to stabilize the climate.

If this is the best you can do, a farrago of near-lies, strawmen, and out-and-out lies, you are a waste of time.

 

[H3LL]

CO2 the ONLY contender. No other hypothesis combines a measurable increase in step with the temperature, with a well-known mechanism leading to that increase.

What about these other greenhouse gasses that "combine a measurable increase in step with temperature". As I said, CO2 a hot contender but not the only one...Thus 'Nobody sure'. Not even you.

"Alone?" What is this, you're skirting the very hairy, scary edge of lying just so you can say you posted this and no one could give you the lie? Honestly, this is as close to lying as you can come without actually speaking a direct untruth.

Human activity is the majority contributor to the CO2 increase. And the certainty of that is-
wait for it-
>99%.

Alone is important. Major contributor is not the only contributor. What percentage is natural and what percentage is human. Figures vary. Thus...Nobody is sure.

Unbelievable. Do you get paid for this crap?

No...do you?
Is this your normal method to educate those who right up front expressed ignorance.

Apparently it can't.

So it can't be stopped. Why bother then. Concentrate on local environmental issues and stop pretending it's a global solution.

.... and there will be another ice age.

We're still in an ice age. the interglacial period I was told. The ice age will end when there are no ice caps. A natural occurance.

Of course they are. An ice age would be a disaster.

See above.

Straw man. No one is trying to stabilize the climate.

By implication they are. Global warming...Disaster! Global cooling...Disaster! You have stated the same.

If this is the best you can do, a farrago of near-lies, strawmen, and out-and-out lies, you are a waste of time.

Is this the best you can do.
As I said above: Is this your normal method to educate those who right up front expressed ignorance.

It's not the student that's stupid, just a bad teacher.

.

 

[Brian Pears]

CO2 the ONLY contender. No other hypothesis combines a measurable increase in step with the temperature, with a well-known mechanism leading to that increase.

Methane?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html

 

[RichardR]

Exactly which logical fallacy is this? A strawman argument? Overgeneralization? I'm going with false analogy.

Non sequitur – irrelevant information. It doesn’t matter what is happening on Pluto – the evidence for AGW on Earth is what we should be looking at.

 

[Ziggurat]

CO2 the ONLY contender. No other hypothesis combines a measurable increase in step with the temperature, with a well-known mechanism leading to that increase.

CO2 is the only contender for which we can establish long-term historic records. We have no method, for example, of establishing high-altitude humidity levels one hundred years ago, even though we know that water vapor is a bigger green house gas than carbon dioxide. Methane was also mentioned above. Hell, we don't even have a method of establishing solar output more than a few decades old. Carbon dioxide get the most attention because it's easy to track reliably into the past and because it's man-made. Neither of those qualities, however, suggests that it is the only, let alone the primary, driving force for climate change.

 

[FaisonMars]

Non sequitur – irrelevant information. It doesn’t matter what is happening on Pluto – the evidence for AGW on Earth is what we should be looking at.

OK, I'll go with that, at least in the literal "does not follow" (colloquial use of non-sequitor has come to mean "nonsense"). It's not really a strawman arguement because in fact, no environmentalist has said that the warming on Pluto was caused by humans-- if there were some wacko who had said this, he could have mentioned this and knocked him down as a strawman.

Since Christopher Horner is clearly not a good debator for the Anti Global Warming side (and he seems to be actually denying the warming trend, not just anthropogenic global warming), who is a good debator for this side?

I was a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming for quite a while, even after I was convinced that there was an abnormal warming trend. This was partly because I know astronomers whom I respect who were arguing that the solar driving was much larger than the effect of greenhouse gases. I was also skeptical because of the uncertainty in the climate models, that predicted average global temperature rises of 1 degree to 10 degrees over the next 100 years.

However, I eventually noticed that the vast majority of geologists and climatolists that I talked to disagreed with the solar driving explanation, and even most astronomers disagree with this (and it turns out Baliunas and Soon get funding from Exxon). The latest IPCC report (well, the executive summary I read online) has now convinced me of the significance of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in contributing to the warming trend. Even if it's in the language of politics, it's based on scientific data coming from several independent sources pointing at the same conclusion, supported by an overwhelming majority of professionals trained in science, and it's continually being peer reviewed by every other scientist in the world. There are not equal numbers of scientists on both sides of the debate.

This has now become mainstream science... if you can't present evidence that meets the same scientific standards to refute the conclusions of the report, you start sliding into crackpot territory with the young-earth creationists.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.