More Climate Change Posturing
On September 25, I wrote:
I am on the record as believing that global warming is occurring, and that humans at least have some role in it--although that role is less certain than the warming itself.
Today, I came across this from the U.S. Senate Committe on the Environment and Public Works:
A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.
Egads! I need to go underground.
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
So I checked out the original post at Grist. Turns out Roberts reaction (overreaction?) is to an excerpt from George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to stop the planet from burning," in which Monbiot lays out the case that Exxon and Big Tobacco are responsible for a massive media misinformation campaign.
No analysis here, just more disbelief that neither side in this debate can figure out that their extreme posturing alienates the public. Without public support, nothing will be done about climate change. Can't we all just get along?
Some of the Exxon-funded stuff was pretty transparently propaganda posing as scholarship. Didn't I hear recently that the company was dropping its sponsorship of one those "astroturf" organizations?
The frustrating thing for many of us is that these guys have the ear of those clowns in the Cheney-Bush administration too.
Posted by: Duncan Brown | October 12, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Perhaps duncan you would do better to actaully go and deconstruct a skeptic study to show that it is false, Rather then dismiss by funding source.
Science is science regardless who funds it.
Posted by: joshua corning | October 12, 2006 at 12:11 PM
I'm sorry Joshua, I won't be able to do that. But saying that "science is science ..." is not sufficient. You can tell an astroturf organization by how much it tries to obscure the process it uses in awarding research funds. With government agencies and real foundations it should be possible to apply for a grant in a straightforward manner, through a rigorous process of peer revbiew, and the results of previous grants should be publicly available. It also helps if the grantees get published in peer reviewed journals.
Lord knows, I'm not signing on with that maniac from Grist (which I don't ever read)! Bill Moyers and Al Gore both give me the creeps for their pseudo evengelical tones.
Posted by: Duncan Brown | October 12, 2006 at 12:31 PM
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
PlanetSave
EarthNewsWire
sushil_yadav
Posted by: sushil_yadav | October 12, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Perhaps duncan you would do better to actaully go and deconstruct a skeptic study to show that it is false, Rather then dismiss by funding source.
Yeah, Duncan, go deconstruct all zero of them.
Oh, sure there are a few papers here and there by Lindzen, Michaels, etc., but the point poor joshua is trying to make is belied by the fact that there are exactly zero empirical studies that disagree with the consensus position that humans are mostly responsible for GW.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 12, 2006 at 02:11 PM
Dano,
What is the scientific consensus on the percentage of global waming that is man made?
Dano is good at insulting, but not so good at answering a question.
Posted by: Tom | October 12, 2006 at 02:40 PM
We went thru this already, Tom, remember? You hand-waved a bit and then disappeared when your tactics didn't work.
There is not one number, as in 70%. Have you developed a point?
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 12, 2006 at 03:40 PM
"We went thru this already, Tom, remember? You hand-waved a bit and then disappeared when your tactics didn't work."
"There is not one number, as in 70%. Have you developed a point? "
That is how Dano says "I don't know". When you ask a question he can't answer he calls it hand-waving.
Dano don't be embarrassed if you don't know the answer. It's OK.
Posted by: Tom | October 12, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Do try harder Tom.
You didn't do a very good job before with this tactic, yet for some reason you have trotted out the same tactic again.
Reread the previous exchange. I know, here's a suggestion: maybe you should just return to that thread - it'll save you time; for example, you've used the "I don't know" thing a couple of times already, so instead of repeating it you can, say, just reply with a date/time. It'll save us time too, seeing that you have nothing new, and we can move on to substantive comments.
But, in order to not, er...Stifle Debate (TM), you can let us know when you develop an actual argument to the degree that you have a point, preferably without having to misstate what I say, please. I anxiously await your argumentation.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 12, 2006 at 04:33 PM
anyway after that pointless explosion I would like to submit this paper as a paper written by a climate skeptic....it was partially funded by the oil industry and has not been refuted aside from being accused of reciveing oil funds which as far as i know is not a refutation of the science.
Soon, W., and Baliunas, S. (2003): “Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years.” Climate Research, 23: 89-110
Posted by: joshua corning | October 12, 2006 at 07:58 PM
joshua, check the wikipedia page on Baliunas. Search for "In 2003" for a discussion of that paper (I think; there's not an actual citation). I think it's safe to characterize that discussion as beyond saying that paper's tainted by funding.
Posted by: allen claxton | October 12, 2006 at 08:11 PM
Tim:
I'd like to go back to your concluding comment in this morning's post for a minute. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but Bill Moyers' piece on 'Is God Green?' led me to a similar observation--but with this twist. Not only does extreme posturing alienate the public. It also obscures the truth. As in...will the conservative evangelicals featured in the show stop ranting long enough to realize that environmentally nurturing, sustainable business practices will, in the long term be a far better promoter of the strong corporate profits they seem to claim they will kill? At least the prospects would appear better than a continuation of business as usual.
So much for sweeping politics aside long enough to see potential points of agreement with the environmental 'opposition'.
Posted by: Larry Grob | October 12, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Isn't this debate over? The entwined questions of whether GW is real and to what extent human activities are its cause have become moot. Every major corporation has accepted the affrimative of these proposition - witness GE's "Ecomagination" campaign, Chevron's "Please Join Us" website, BP's embrace of windpower, Dow Chemical and Applied Materials chasing after improved photovoltaics, and so forth. Management of these corporations may not accept the science involved, but they are pragmatic enough to recognize that the controversy long ago ceased to be scientific in nature and became theological. Why can't the evangelical environmentalists recognize that they have won? There is no need to burn the corporate heretics at the stake: the pagans have converted. Could it be that the priests of Gaia just need someone to hate?
Posted by: Tom Schofield | October 13, 2006 at 07:20 AM
Baliunas and Soon, enjoying the Heritage Victory Tour after every paper.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 13, 2006 at 10:59 AM
If I am not mistaken ( and I am sure Joshua will gladly point out if I am) did not the Baliunas and Soon 2003 article lead to the resignation of at least 4 editors, because the peer review process was somehow skirted and they found the process to be unethical.
Posted by: Jim Casey | October 13, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Jim:
If I am not mistaken did not the Baliunas and Soon 2003 article lead to the resignation of at least 4 editors,
Yes, that was one of the Heritage Victory Tours (Allen was less Dano-like and this is mentioned in his link above).
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 13, 2006 at 01:15 PM
Every major corporation has accepted the affrimative of these proposition - witness GE's "Ecomagination" campaign, Chevron's "Please Join Us" website, BP's embrace of windpower, Dow Chemical and Applied Materials chasing after improved photovoltaics, and so forth.
These corporations would be pursuing these activities if the enviornmental movement never existed...simply becouse the PR department discovered it might be a good idea to put a smiley face on it to sheild them from the greens does not make them proponants of AGW...the reality is that cutting ones power bill down has always made economic sense weather you are a household consumer or walmart...calling improved eficciancy "green" or a campaign to save the world is a bumper sticker and nothing more.
Posted by: joshua corning | October 13, 2006 at 01:35 PM
If I am not mistaken ( and I am sure Joshua will gladly point out if I am) did not the Baliunas and Soon 2003 article lead to the resignation of at least 4 editors, because the peer review process was somehow skirted and they found the process to be unethical.
And what exactly does that have to do with the understood and well agreed upon observation that solor activity proxies track temperature proxies over the last 1000 years?
Posted by: joshua corning | October 13, 2006 at 01:41 PM
Yes, that was one of the Heritage Victory Tours (Allen was less Dano-like and this is mentioned in his link above).
Hey dano you seem to think you are good at this...tell you what take the melbrot graph then superimpose it over Graph showing proxies of solar activity, including changes in sunspot number and cosmogenic isotope production and then tell me what you see?
Could it be a satistical corrilation between solar activity and gloabal temperature?? yes I do belive it is.
Posted by: joshua corning | October 13, 2006 at 01:46 PM
And what exactly does that have to do with the understood and well agreed upon observation that solor activity proxies track temperature proxies over the last 1000 years
It has to do with the observation that your italicized has nothing to do with the subject of the S&B paper.
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 13, 2006 at 01:47 PM
...yes I do belive it is.
Can you help me out with your misspelled gibberish and maybe, like, give me a reference detailing what you're on about?
Posted by: Dano | October 13, 2006 at 01:52 PM