Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Piggy]

It's human nature, you only have to read the Bible to get a sense of just how long people have been claiming the World is going to end.

Maybe I'll give that a try some day.

 

[DC]

Don't have time to wade through 115 pages so this may have already been brought up, but the recent Fakegate exposure of warmers faking a doc is quite revealing. The faked document has a line in it about what warmers label as deniers saying they are trying to stop science from being taught in schools.

What's so illustrative is not just the typical fraud and fakery from the warmer crowd but the fact they actually believe skeptics are evil people that are against science and know better; that they know they are denying something real instead of the truth, which is skeptics of man-made global warming have an honest and empirically rigorous skepticism over climate models attributing warming to C02 and man and also a rewewed healthy skepticism over "adjusted" data and following conclusions presented by the AGW crowd.

You got a source for that?

 

[Mikemcc]

Or the more likely scenario is that we'll look back on this as yet another foolish over reaction by dooms day sayers. Do you remember the people that said there's no way Halley's Comet was going to crash into the Earth? Heck no. Do you remember the people such as myself that scoffed at "Y2K"? Heck no. History only remembers the fanatics and their apocalyptic rhetoric. Sad but true. It's human nature, you only have to read the Bible to get a sense of just how long people have been claiming the World is going to end.

Unfortunately the difference between the earth's climate system and that of the salt water aquarium is that climate change is well within the normal variations of the climate, and those inside the aquarium are considerably outside the natural variations. In the past it was extremely hard to keep salt water tanks for the very reasons you mentioned. Today however it's much easier, to the extent I've seen 1 gallon salt water tanks with 20 or 30 different species of marine aquatic life. Why you may ask? Lighting. Artificial lighting didn't come close to emulating that of the sun. The best full spectrum lighting provided only a fraction of what you would find in natural sunlight. Today however the lights are considerably better and it's infinitely easier to keep a salt water tank. But they still vary considerably outside the tolerances you would find in nature. The thing is humans can't see the difference, so they assume there isn't any. Or more often than not, with something like the algae bloom you mentioned, they've introduced and extra 4 hours of light into the environment. That's common for humans probably since man discovered fire, but it's completely unheard of in the natural world. And because the tanks are considerably smaller than the ocean, the effects of additional light and heat are magnified.

Long story short, aquariums aren't "sensitive", humans just don't realize how significant the changes really are. Whether it's the type or duration of light, or the change in temperature, the seemingly insignificant changes as perceived by a human are completely unheard of in the natural marine environment. Climate change however is nothing of the sort. While it may be tempting to make the comparison, it's totally and completely unrelated.

You may have 'scoffed at "Y2K"', but in the meantime there were a lot of people working to mitigate the issue and a lot of money spent on software and hardware upgrades. Even then some systems still failed, and some failed because of the fixes applied - notably German cash dispenser systems and POS systems and some PLC systems in Jan 2010.

 

[Halsu]

Don't have time to wade through 115 pages so this may have already been brought up, but the recent Fakegate exposure of warmers faking a doc is quite revealing. The faked document has a line in it about what warmers label as deniers saying they are trying to stop science from being taught in schools.

There's no proof whether the memo is fake or real. Heartland claims it to be a fake, but that's what they would probably say in any case, even if it was real.

I find it rather unlikely that Gleick wrote the memo, or forwarded it knowing it's fake. It just would not make any sense. His story sounds plausible, and while not proven, i find it likely that it's true: he received the memo from someone, in snail mail, then proceeded to verify it's authenticity by swindling Heartland for the other documents. The authenticity of the other docs is not disputed, and they would have been plenty as-is, without the need for forgery by him. The content of the memo is almost all lifted from the other docs (there's even a sentence that's word for word the same).

Now, assuming Gleick told the truth, that memo must have come from someone who knew quite a bit about Heartland's budget etc., or from within Heartland itself.

My guess is that it's a first draft or working doc that never was meant for anyone's eyes outside a small insider ring, which excludes even some board members. It's probably a hot potato within Heartland too if real, because of that.

Anyway, the fact remains, we do not know whether it's real deal or not. Heartland's claim that it's a forgery isn't enough alone.

What's so illustrative is not just the typical fraud and fakery from the warmer crowd but the fact they actually believe skeptics are evil people that are against science and know better; that they know they are denying something real instead of the truth, which is skeptics of man-made global warming have an honest and empirically rigorous skepticism over climate models attributing warming to C02 and man and also a rewewed healthy skepticism over "adjusted" data and following conclusions presented by the AGW crowd.

To be honest, looking at the balance of evidence, i'm pretty confident that a lot of the "skeptics" at Heartland etc. are not much more than professional liars. Most of the layman "skeptics" that swallowed the bait are honest though.

And no, i didn't come to this conclusion because of "denialgate". It's pretty common knowledge, not news. See i.e. this lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

 

[Dancing David]

Do you remember the people such as myself that scoffed at "Y2K"? Heck no.

Then you are unaware of the number of hours spent to prevent it. It was a real thing, many a COBOL programmer was called out to re-engineer some very old systems.

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't have time to wade through 115 pages so this may have already been brought up, but the recent Fakegate exposure of warmers faking a doc is quite revealing. The faked document has a line in it about what warmers label as deniers saying they are trying to stop science from being taught in schools.

I notice that you don't question the Heatland Institute'c claim that the document is faked, even though it's confirmed by the other documents they were so easily conned out of.

What's so illustrative is not just the typical fraud and fakery from the warmer crowd but the fact they actually believe skeptics are evil people that are against science and know better; that they know they are denying something real instead of the truth, which is skeptics of man-made global warming have an honest and empirically rigorous skepticism over climate models attributing warming to C02 and man and also a rewewed healthy skepticism over "adjusted" data and following conclusions presented by the AGW crowd.

Do you actually think this "honest and empirically rigorous skepticism" of the Heatland Institute is revealed by the documents blagged from them?

I see you're still clinging to the hope that it's only about models of what will happen, and not about what has happened and will continue to happen, but it's new that you think the models were created to attribute warming rather than to predict it. Remember when you used to think the warming wouldn't happen because models were made up to invent it? It wasn't that long ago.

Of course you still have your take on adjusted data which perhaps means that nothing's changed at all anyway, just like you believed it wouldn't, which must be a comfort. Shame about BEST, but who can one depend on these days? It's as if "on-message" is a dirty term these days.

Let's see what the HI school curriculum on climate science turns out to be and then discuss how much it resembles an attack on science in general. The denial machine must be getting pretty weary of attacking particular sciences, such as epidemiology on the tobacco issue, chemistry and physics on the ozone issue, and now glaciology, oceanography and climate science on the AGW issue so a simple assault on science in general, concerted with creationists for extra reach, must be attractive. Which will leave the US in an even sadder state of scientific education in 2020 than it's in now.

 

[CapelDodger]

Or the more likely scenario is that we'll look back on this as yet another foolish over reaction by dooms day sayers.

Let us know when that starts happening. You've been expecting it for a while now, haven't you?

Do you remember the people that said there's no way Halley's Comet was going to crash into the Earth? Heck no.

Does anybody remember who said it would? I don't.

Do you remember the people such as myself that scoffed at "Y2K"? Heck no.

Heck yes. Do you think people got the problem resolved without hacking through such people, in every organisation? Meeting after meeting, department after department, going over the same damn' thing, it was debilitating. By late '98 I was happy to ease back and watch the train-wreck (we had payroll covered; the worst that could happen would be 99 years' salary plus in lieu holiday pay all at once). My butt was covered, and I had documentation to prove it.

Owing to the peculiarities of the business I was working in at the time a problem arose just after New Year '99, when people started to book space in Jan 2000. All heck broke loose at that point.

History only remembers the fanatics and their apocalyptic rhetoric. Sad but true.

History remembers much more than that. History remembers the denial of real, but manageable, problems beyond the point that they become disastrous. Who, apart from specialists, remembers the Millerites?

It's your choice to view any articular prediction as an "end of the world" prediction. Piggy didn't predict the end of the world, just the biggest predictable and widely predicted anthropogenic screw-up (or "tragedy", which is essentially the same thing) yet.

It's human nature, you only have to read the Bible to get a sense of just how long people have been claiming the World is going to end.

Not a good source. You only get this at the very end (and not at all in the Director's Cut).

Unfortunately the difference between the earth's climate system and that of the salt water aquarium is that climate change is well within the normal variations of the climate ...

No, it isn't.

Long story short, aquariums aren't "sensitive", humans just don't realize how significant the changes really are.

You clearly don't have a clue what Piggy is talking about (which is not,
by the way, aquariums), but on this particularr point : are you quite sure you realise how significant the changes due to AGW will be? "Not the end of the world" doesn't mean insignificant, it's just a comfort to some at times of trouble.

Whether it's the type or duration of light, or the change in temperature, the seemingly insignificant changes as perceived by a human are completely unheard of in the natural marine environment. Climate change however is nothing of the sort. While it may be tempting to make the comparison, it's totally and completely unrelated.

I won't even try to make sense out of that.

Climate change in the time of industrialised society is not normal, even in human experience. You may have grown up with it but to us greybeards it's a new phaenomenon, and one which isn't going away. But what the heck, it's not the end of the world for me.

 

[KwamiFabu]

There's no proof whether the memo is fake or real. Heartland claims it to be a fake, but that's what they would probably say in any case, even if it was real.

I find it rather unlikely that Gleick wrote the memo, or forwarded it knowing it's fake. It just would not make any sense. His story sounds plausible, and while not proven, i find it likely that it's true: he received the memo from someone, in snail mail, then proceeded to verify it's authenticity by swindling Heartland for the other documents.

But that's not what he has said: He originally said the "strategy memo" came from the Heartland Institute, but later backed off that claim, saying only that the source was "anonymous." There is nothing "plausible" about his story, which crumbles with each passing day. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic (no hotbed of denierdom) has been on the case from the beginning, and doesn't believe Glieck. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

The authenticity of the other docs is not disputed, and they would have been plenty as-is, without the need for forgery by him. The content of the memo is almost all lifted from the other docs (there's even a sentence that's word for word the same).

Really? What do they say? HI has a budget of what? How does that compare to the budget of the IPCC? The Sierra Club? The World Wildlife Fund?

To be honest, looking at the balance of evidence, i'm pretty confident that a lot of the "skeptics" at Heartland etc. are not much more than professional liars. Most of the layman "skeptics" that swallowed the bait are honest though.

The evidence is pretty clear, actually, and there is only one professional liar here: Peter Glieck. I find it amusing to watch the contortions of his apologists trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Buckaroo]

Or the more likely scenario is that we'll look back on this as yet another foolish over reaction by dooms day sayers. Do you remember the people that said there's no way Halley's Comet was going to crash into the Earth? Heck no. Do you remember the people such as myself that scoffed at "Y2K"? Heck no. History only remembers the fanatics and their apocalyptic rhetoric. Sad but true. It's human nature, you only have to read the Bible to get a sense of just how long people have been claiming the World is going to end.

Or all those people who said CFCs were nothing to worry about! Oh, wait...

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010800/a010824/index.html

 

[Trakar]

...Really? How does that compare to the budget of the IPCC? The Sierra Club? The World Wildlife Fund?

speaking of "contortions."

 

[Halsu]

But that's not what he has said: He originally said the "strategy memo" came from the Heartland Institute, but later backed off that claim, saying only that the source was "anonymous."

Not exactly true. It seems he did indicate that the papers are from Heartland, yes, but i do not see this as contradictory to his story assuming he thought the memo was authentic, which would be rather natural after the docs he got directly from HL confirmed the memo's content. When Gleick came out and admitted he was the one that swindled the papers from HL, he also told the events leading to the release of the documents, in the same post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

There is nothing "plausible" about his story, which crumbles with each passing day. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic (no hotbed of denierdom) has been on the case from the beginning, and doesn't believe Glieck.

So it seems - but again, this is no proof one way or the other. She came to those conclusions, others (myself included) have come to different ones. The data is insufficient to know for certain, so we all have to make our best guesstimates based on available information.

Really? What do they say? HI has a budget of what? How does that compare to the budget of the IPCC? The Sierra Club? The World Wildlife Fund?

I guess that's something you can and should find out by yourself: all the documents can be found online, and you can compare their content directly. That's what i did.

As far as the budget size goes, Heartland's budget is about the same as IPCC's. Both are around 5-8 million bucks a year. Greenpeace's budget in the USA seems to be around 10 million, and around 45 million world wide. Sierra club has a budget of 100 million, it seems. Of course, one striking difference is that i didn't need to use a fake identity to obtain these other numbers, a Google search was enough.

And before you start adding those numbers together, remember the fact that Heartland is not the only think tank supporting climate change denial - there's plenty of those around, and not all of them are in the USA. I would be surprised if their combined budget wasn't in the hundreds of millions worldwide. Add to that the fact that unlike IPCC etc., they have no need to actually stick to scientific facts to promote their message of doubt, they can be considered a very powerful and exceptionally well funded force in forming public opinion.

The evidence is pretty clear, actually, and there is only one professional liar here: Peter Glieck. I find it amusing to watch the contortions of his apologists trying to defend the indefensible.

Only thing that he has been shown to lie about was his identity when e-mailing Heartland for the documents. That single incident, regardless of how objectionable you think it was, hardly makes him a professional liar. And, unlike in the case of the climategate e-mail theft which was a somewhat similar situation, he admitted his guilt pretty soon after releasing the material, which speaks for his honesty.

If i had to weigh Gleick's word against Heartland's, i'd pretty likely choose Gleick.

 

[uke2se]

But that's not what he has said: He originally said the "strategy memo" came from the Heartland Institute, but later backed off that claim, saying only that the source was "anonymous."

Oh? I read Gleick's admission, and it only says that the stategy memo came from an anonymous source and that he then acquired the other documents from HI in order to verify the strategy memo. Where did you get your other information from?

There is nothing "plausible" about his story, which crumbles with each passing day. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic (no hotbed of denierdom) has been on the case from the beginning, and doesn't believe Glieck. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

I think Gleick's story is plausible, as do others. Megan McArdle doesn't represent the entirety of humanity, just FYI.

Really? What do they say? HI has a budget of what? How does that compare to the budget of the IPCC? The Sierra Club? The World Wildlife Fund?

False equivalence. The IPCC funds go to science. The Sierra Club has a different tax status than HI, allowing them to do things HI are not allowed to do (but according to the documents, have done anyway). The WWF is a global foundation that that does not engage in the kind of lobbying activities that HI is.

The evidence is pretty clear, actually, and there is only one professional liar here: Peter Glieck. I find it amusing to watch the contortions of his apologists trying to defend the indefensible.

The evidence isn't clear that Glieck is a liar, even less so a professional one. Being a professional liar means being payed to lie - something which HI is. Glieck is being payed to do science - unless you want to propagate the conspiracy theory that climate science is a massive conspiracy.

 

[CapelDodger]

But that's not what he has said: He originally said the "strategy memo" came from the Heartland Institute, but later backed off that claim, saying only that the source was "anonymous." There is nothing "plausible" about his story, which crumbles with each passing day.

Gleick's story is entirely plausible. It's also entirely plausible that the "strategy memo" is genuine. The Heatland Institute denies it, but then they would, wouldn't they?

Megan McArdle at the Atlantic (no hotbed of denierdom) has been on the case from the beginning, and doesn't believe Glieck. http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/

Ms McArdle's forensic skills are none too impressive, going by this example.

Really? What do they say? HI has a budget of what? How does that compare to the budget of the IPCC? The Sierra Club? The World Wildlife Fund?

The documents reveal much more than the budget, which is a minor issue. It doesn't cost much to coordinate a lie-campaign when the Murdoch media empire provides its services gratis. More to the point is where the money comes from and what it's used for.

John Mashey has provided http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf, with a summary here http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax, and he does have impressive forensic skills. The matter of HI's charity status has been referred to the relevant authorities and I doubt Mashey will let it go at that. If said authorities conclude that no action is required, well, that's where FoI requests might come in handy.

The evidence is pretty clear, actually, and there is only one professional liar here: Peter Glieck.

Dr Peter Gleick is a scientist - which may make him a professional liar to you, but that would just be your own peculiar opinion.

Heatland exists to pay people to lie, along with all the other astroturf "institutes". Ask Joe Bast, he's made a career out of lying.

I find it amusing to watch the contortions of his apologists trying to defend the indefensible.

Do you have any favourite examples of such defense? I've seen people condemning his action and calling him a fool, and I agree with them - he did not handle this well. Hardly surprising, since he's not a professional propagandist.

This unfortunate episode has at least exposed the hypocrisy of the denier world, which has revelled in the stolen CRU emails and the lies they've been paid to tell about them. Another release from that resource is rather less likely now. Not impossible (deniers know no shame, and when this quickly gets old they'll be left with nothing much to say) but less likely, and we'll be left to wonder why they weren't all revealed at once. I wonder, does Ms McArdle have an opinion on that question? Do you?

 

[CapelDodger]

And before you start adding those numbers together, remember the fact that Heartland is not the only think tank supporting climate change denial - there's plenty of those around, and not all of them are in the USA. I would be surprised if their combined budget wasn't in the hundreds of millions worldwide.

Easily, if you factor in what goes to the US Republican Politicians who toe the line and against those who don't. Even more easily if a reasonable monetary value is assigned to the Murdoch media's contribution.

If i had to weigh Gleick's word against Heartland's, i'd pretty likely choose Gleick.

Going by many of Bast's public statements he's either a liar or completely insane. The jury may still be out on which, but it could well be a bit of both.

When you consider how little lasting effect the likes of Bast have had - on such issues as smoking, acid rain, environmental lead, CFC's and the downside of nuclear war - it surely has to have some mental impact. In their hearts they must know they'll fail on AGW, and if they care about their intellectual (as opposed to financial) legacy that has to be a strain on the mind.

 

[CapelDodger]

Breaking away from the preferred subject-matter of deniers ...

Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229190000.htm

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap.

Scientists differentiate multi-year ice from both seasonal ice, which comes and goes each year, and "perennial" ice, defined as all ice that has survived at least one summer. In other words: all multi-year ice is perennial ice, but not all perennial ice is multi-year ice (it can also be second-year ice).

Comiso found that perennial ice extent is shrinking at a rate of -12.2 percent per decade, while its area is declining at a rate of -13.5 percent per decade. These numbers indicate that the thickest ice, multiyear-ice, is declining faster than the other perennial ice that surrounds it.

Caveats apply (this is from NASA, a known haunt of scientists and with an enormous budget) but this does support the idea that when the summer ice goes away completely it will do so quite suddenly - maybe not this summer, maybe not next summer, but some summer soon.

Comiso compared the evolution of the extent and area of multi-year ice over time, and confirmed that its decline has accelerated during the last decade, in part because of the dramatic decreases of 2008 and 2012. He also detected a periodic nine-year cycle, where sea ice extent would first grow for a few years, and then shrink until the cycle started again. This cycle is reminiscent of one occurring on the opposite pole, known as the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave, which has been related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation atmospheric pattern. If the nine-year Arctic cycle were to be confirmed, it might explain the slight recovery of the sea ice cover in the three years after it hit its historical minimum in 2008, Comiso said.

I couldn't resist mentioning that there's an apparent cycle involved, which will make this rather difficult for the denial-machine to cope with (cycles being very much one of their things). My guess is they just won't touch it, or if they do they'll focus on Joey Comiso (senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center). With a name like that, mob-connections are easily implied .

 

[Trakar]

...Megan McArdle at the Atlantic (no hotbed of denierdom) has been on the case from the beginning, and doesn't believe Glieck...

"Megan McArdle?" the Koch brother fan-club cheerleader? the author who used to write under the pen name "Jane Galt" to play off of Ayn Rand's "John Galt" in Atlas Shrugged? The more libertarian than Ron Paul arguing that he doesn't go far enough in wanting to cut taxes, Megan McArdle? The same author who when speaking of same sex marriage said ""All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision... This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I'm asking it from my side, in approaching social ones."? This is your "authority?" The same author who when asked about her take on Global Warming said "... I've basically outsourced my opinion on the science to people like Jonathan Adler, Ron Bailey, and Pat Michaels of Cato..." Seriously?!

 

[Halsu]

Easily, if you factor in what goes to the US Republican Politicians who toe the line and against those who don't. Even more easily if a reasonable monetary value is assigned to the Murdoch media's contribution.

Actually i was thinking about just the think tanks and astroturf groups: George C. Marshall institute, Cato institute, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation and the like... Fox news etc. working as their echo chamber is just a bonus.

Here's one list of them from exxonsecrets.org:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

 

[Buckaroo]

My guess is they just won't touch it, or if they do they'll focus on Joey Comiso (senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center). With a name like that, mob-connections are easily implied .

I actually work down the hall from Joey, and I can promise you that being Filipino, he's about as far from Italian as it's possible to get.

 

[KwamiFabu]

"Megan McArdle?" the Koch brother fan-club cheerleader? the author who used to write under the pen name "Jane Galt" to play off of Ayn Rand's "John Galt" in Atlas Shrugged? The more libertarian than Ron Paul arguing that he doesn't go far enough in wanting to cut taxes, Megan McArdle? The same author who when speaking of same sex marriage said ""All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision... This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I'm asking it from my side, in approaching social ones."? This is your "authority?" The same author who when asked about her take on Global Warming said "... I've basically outsourced my opinion on the science to people like Jonathan Adler, Ron Bailey, and Pat Michaels of Cato..." Seriously?!

Ok, you've got your ad hom chops down. You don't like McArdle's politics. (Not that she was my only "authority" btw.) How exactly does this pertain to Peter Gleick's unethical and, indeed, criminal actions?

Much of what appears in the phony “strategy memo” could have been composed only by someone with prior access to Heartland's board materials that Gleick says he subsequently sought out. Gleick is the only person, so far, who is known to have had access to the Heartland internal board documents.

Also suspicious is that Gleick has not been forthcoming about the details of the phony memo. Was there a postmark? Did he keep the envelope and the original document that he scanned? Why does he think he was singled out to receive this information, rather than a reporter?

Forget McArdle. Answer that if you will.

 

[BridgeOnTheCaptain]

See i.e. this lecture:

Ah! She headed my college at UCSD when I was an undergrad. She even bought me lunch! So proud of her. Thanks for the link.