Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


Categories

October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« "Better Fred than Dead" | Main | Drudge-ing the Church of Chicken Little »

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Erasmussimo

You really should read these things before you post them. Did you even notice that the expert you quote (James Tonkowich) is president of the Institute of Religion and Democracy? Nowhere on his website could I find any specification of what his degree is -- I am skeptical that it is in science, because his Senate testimony is about theology, not science. So now you are reduced to quoting theologians on scientific matters?

Your expert lists some basic questions about climate change and declares that "In my reading of the literature and listening to the debate, I have not seen consensus on any of those questions." This declaration serves to demonstrate that Mr. Tonkowich has not read the IPCC report, which answers most of these questions clearly and with a strong consensus. While he might well be an expert on theological issues, it would seem that, in the matter of climate change, he is definitely an uneducated yahoo.

You also mention the list of scientists and scholars in his testimony. If you examine that list, you'll find some surprising tidbits. For example, it lists Mr. Roy Spencer. A quick Google search reveals that Mr. Spencer also rejects Darwinian evolution. He provides an example of what I mean when I say that some of the people who deny climate change also deny evolution. I'm still looking for some flat earthers in your list.

Working up from the bottom of the list, the next expert is Paul K. Driessen. What makes him an expert? Why, he holds a BA in geology and field ecology!

Your next expert from the bottom is E. Calvin Beisner, Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics, Knox Theological Seminary. Hmm, that doesn't make him much of an expert on climate change, does it?

I could continue this way, but I think I've made my point: you keep posting stories to buttress your claims, and examination of those stories only demonstrates the hollowness of your case.

What's particularly ironic here is the quote from Mr. Tonkowich regarding

The refusal to engage in thoughtful debate about global warming

I have repeatedly referred you to the IPCC reports, yet you have never responded to these, yet they constitute the strongest and most thorough presentation of the case for climate change. I have asked you to present your criticisms of any element of this report, yet you have failed to respond to my request. You're full of bluster and ferocity, you sling mud and insults freely, but you just can't seem to come to grips with the substance of this issue.

So, how about some "thoughtful debate" on the controversy?

Rick
You really should read these things before you post them. Did you even notice that the expert you quote (James Tonkowich) is president of the Institute of Religion and Democracy? Nowhere on his website could I find any specification of what his degree is -- I am skeptical that it is in science, because his Senate testimony is about theology, not science. So now you are reduced to quoting theologians on scientific matters?

Your entire global warming premise is based on theology Erasmussimo only you're not being honest enough to admit it... whole cloth faith-based reasoning stacked largely on computer models that feed not data based on scientific observations but on presumptions unsupported by the record.

Garbage in, garbage out pal. And you are dishing out more garbage on this blog than would fill a New York City landfill only your garbage is smellier.

While he might well be an expert on theological issues, it would seem that, in the matter of climate change, he is definitely an uneducated yahoo.

What it would seem is that anyone who confidently and substantively disagrees with anything you have to say on this issue is an uneducated yahoo... which makes you a bigot... so... keep track here Erasmussimo... you are now a lying bigot...

Capece?

And before you go the all you can do is come forth with ad hominems theme, please talk to the mirror (and my hand).

You also mention the list of scientists and scholars in his testimony. If you examine that list, you'll find some surprising tidbits. For example, it lists Mr. Roy Spencer. A quick Google search reveals that Mr. Spencer also rejects Darwinian evolution. He provides an example of what I mean when I say that some of the people who deny climate change also deny evolution. I'm still looking for some flat earthers in your list.

Roy Spencer:

Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and is skeptical of the view that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

Take those credentials Eras-lying-mussimo, and stick them in your first available bodily orifice...

On to Paul Driessen:

In a biographical note, Driessen states he "received his BA in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University, JD from the University of Denver College of Law, and accreditation in public relations from the Public Relations Society of America." [2]

The biographical profile states he had a 25-year career that included working for the United States Senate, the Department of the Interior and an unspecified "energy trade association".

"He has spoken and written frequently on energy and environmental policy, global climate change, corporate social responsibility and other topics. He's also written articles and professional papers on marine life associated with oil platforms off the coasts of California and Louisiana - and produced a video documentary on the subject," his biographical note states.

As with other environmental sceptics, such as Bjorn Lomborg, Driessen invokes membership of environmental groups to add weight to his critique of the the environmental movement. Driessen claims to have been "a former member of the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth".

According to his biographical note "he abandoned their cause when he recognized that the environmental movement had become intolerant in its views, inflexible in its demands, unwilling to recognize our tremendous strides in protecting the environment, and insensitive to the needs of billions of people who lack the food, electricity, safe water, healthcare and other basic necessities that we take for granted."

Credentials that in my view do two things... substantiate that you Eras-lying-mussimo are a quack and that provide fodder for what it is that you're about - an intolerant environmentalist with an agenda.

You then smear E. Calvin Beisner:

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he teaches church history, logic, apologetics, comparative religions, ethics, and the history of political thought.

I can understand your problems with this guy, hell, he's an expert on logic... something you wouldn't know anything about if it walked up to you and bit you on the ass.

As you can see Eras-lying-mussimo... I've had it up to hear with your garbage. But being the tolerant guy that I am, I'm going to put the issue of whether or not you should continue to grace these pages up to those readers who care to post their thoughts on this. Should you stay or should you go? My vote is to send you on your merry way where you can share your lies, smears and nonsensical opinions with the gullible. But, again, playing the nice card for now, I'll leave that (largely) up to others (though I'll tell you right now, as owner of this blog, I hold veto power).

Are we straight?


Erasmussimo

Garbage in, garbage out pal.

Fine. Specify the garbage. What inputs to the climate models to you take exception to?

I've had it up to hear with your garbage.

Fine. Banish me if you want. My purpose here has been to demonstrate to your readers that you are unwilling to assemble a cogent argument in support of your opinions. I have offered you numerous opportunities to present such an argument, and you have always responded with mudslinging. The more you rant and rave, the more you discredit yourself. And banishing me would be the final proof of your lack of substance.

But I'm always willing to give you another chance. So, whaddya say: why don't we discuss some issues? Have you any specific criticisms of the IPCC report?

Rick

No.

N. O.

No.

You don't come here and dictate the damned rules pal. You don't come here and define how discourse will be played out.

H. E. L. L. N. O.

Got it?

You came here and lied. Bald face lies. If anyone needs to defend any position, you need to defend your own, I need not and will not defend my positions when they are merely reactions to your own.

N. O.

Now... let's try this one last freakin' time.

Renounce your lies. Or admit you made an assertion in ignorance. We might then get into a discussion. But liars and bigots don't make the rules at Brutally Honest.

Are we clear bub?

Erasmussimo

Renounce your lies. Or admit you made an assertion in ignorance.

I have presented my reasoning and offered evidence to support that reasoning. I have invited you to provide evidence to refute my reasoning. I have repeatedly asked you to present your criticisms of the IPCC reports, which constitute the best overall statement of the scientific issues at stake here. As yet, you have not availed yourself of this opportunity.

If you really think that I have lied, or spoken ignorantly, please demonstrate that claim with logic and evidence. So far, I'm reading lots of accusations but no evidence.

You're welcome to make whatever rules you want for this blog. It's your blog. You can declare that the sky is purple or that 2+2=5 or that black is white -- anything you want! But whether anybody believes you -- that's a matter over which you have no direct control. And banning people like me who disagree with you with civility and reason is not going to enhance your credibility.

People are watching; what are you going to do?

"People are watching; what are you going to do?"

Well, I suspect he will either ignore you or continue with the mudslinging. Rick seems either unable or unwilling to engage in reasoned debate.

But he's very inventive with the name calling (I'm providing him an "in").

philmon

It's not necessarily the inputs to the models that are garbage, it's mainly the models themselves.

See, models are not reality. Models are expressions of belief about the nature of reality. If the beliefs that went into creating those models in the first place encompass a large enough portion of the reality they try to predict, and the expressions that are used to simulate those beliefs are, in fact, close enough to reality -- the model might do a fairly decent job in predicting what we might expect.

A lot of expressions in the models are no doubt pretty good, as we use them in short-term forecasts. Short-term forecasts aren't bad out to about 5 days, really. Five days.

Unfortunately, we aren't even close to understanding the feedback mechanisms in Earth's climate "system". Couple that with the fact that over time, according to our ice-core and ocean sediment data analyses - while temperature does indeed tend to correlate quite well with CO2 levels in the atmosphere, temperature increases actually lead CO2 increases by a few hundred years. This really needs to be explained if we want to assert that CO2 levels drive temperature.

And that's just it. The whole theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on the theory that increased CO2 levels will increase Earth's temperature. It's not a stupid theory. It just turns out, apparently, upon closer examination to be wrong. That happens in science. However, if that's the theory, and we plug that theory in as one of the terms in the model, guess what? The model will faithfully show us that the theory is correct. Every. Single. Time. The model doesn't test the theory, it expresses the theory.

The real science happens when you compare your model output to actual reality to figure out where it's right and where it's wrong and why. Unfortunately, too many scientists get too attached to a theory to let go of it and say "well, I thought it might be 'X', but apparently, it ain't" -- when reality doesn't match up with their ideas. The theory must be right. Obviously, reality is wrong.

So they start throwing out data (reality) that doesn't fit the theory (as Mann did with his hockey stick) -- or inventively re-interpreting it -- so that the newly manufactured "reality" now matches their model output.

So time after time the models were run and they couldn't even approximate 20th century climate using the model. Finally, they did run a version that came sort of close. And what did they do to the model to achieve that result? They reduced the assumed effect of increased CO2 by 2/3.

And if you are familiar with scientific method, you will understand that that still doesn't mean that that model is correct. It would be instructive to compare the results to those of a model that ignored increases in CO2. As a matter of fact, I'll bet this has been done, and I wouldn't be shocked to find out that that model performed as well as or better than the one with the AGW assumptions embedded in it.

Homework: Go look for such a study comparing said model outputs.

The consensus is only a consensus within the IPCC, and even that is sleight-of-hand by the lead authors and the politicians who put the whole thing together. There was no vote.

- A skeptical meteorologist.

Erasmussimo

Unfortunately, we aren't even close to understanding the feedback mechanisms in Earth's climate "system".

What do you mean by "close"? The only measure of success here is the how well the models retrodict climate. And even that is tricky to assess. If they do a great job retrodicting polar temperatures but a lousy job retrodicting temperate soil water content, do you say that the model is "close" or "not close"? There are zillions of variables to consider. From what I've seen, the models are pretty good at retrodicting temperatures, but have problems with other factors. But if you've got an objection to any of the climate models used for IPCC, by all means, present it.

Couple that with the fact that over time, according to our ice-core and ocean sediment data analyses - while temperature does indeed tend to correlate quite well with CO2 levels in the atmosphere, temperature increases actually lead CO2 increases by a few hundred years.

As a meteorologist, you should know better than to get it so badly wrong! Yes, the ice core data shows temperature leading CO2 by about 800 years in many past warmings. That's because there was no artificial source pumping lots of extra CO2 into the air. The ice core data shows that the earth can heat up and cool down for other reasons. It doesn't show that artificially injected CO2 can't cause the temperature to increase. Use your logic!

The whole theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on the theory that increased CO2 levels will increase Earth's temperature. It's not a stupid theory. It just turns out, apparently, upon closer examination to be wrong.

The determination that it's wrong is your own personal judgement. The personal judgement of the great majority of scientists is the reverse of your judgement.

Unfortunately, too many scientists get too attached to a theory to let go of it and say "well, I thought it might be 'X', but apparently, it ain't" -- when reality doesn't match up with their ideas.

Why the hand-waving? If you've got a specific accusation to make, let's hear it. Show me where they do that in the IPCC report.

So time after time the models were run and they couldn't even approximate 20th century climate using the model.

Can you cite any substantiation for this assertion? Were you there watching the printers as the output came out? On what do you base this statement?

It would be instructive to compare the results to those of a model that ignored increases in CO2. As a matter of fact, I'll bet this has been done, and I wouldn't be shocked to find out that that model performed as well as or better than the one with the AGW assumptions embedded in it.

If you have a case to make, present it! But if all you have to go in is speculation and personal opinion, why should any reader give it any credence?

The consensus is only a consensus within the IPCC,

The national academies of science of all G8 nations plus several more are also part of this consensus. Just about every academic and professional organization composed of climatologists that has issued any policy statement on climate change has come down firmly in favor of the hypothesis of AGW.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

BlogStuff

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable