• Global Warming Believers

    Taking the endlessly fraught subject of global warming politics, I’ve come to realize that there’s the mirror image of the denier.  While deniers dismiss man made global warming for reasons unconnected to the scientific evidence (though those reasons still have considerable merit), believers accept global warming without reference to the scientific evidence and affirm every line of bunk that is put forward under the name of global warming.  Anyone who thinks An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically legit would be one example.  Another would by my current bete noir David Brin.  About the subject of global warming he writes:

    To be clear, the unequivocal position by the U.S. military has had some effects upon the Fox party line.  Facts like Russian bases erupting along the Arctic Ocean and the opening of the Northwest Passage to summer shipping are pretty undeniable… so Hannity and company have veered to changing the message: “All right, the climate is changing… but… but… climate has ALWAYS been changing and that don’t mean we gotta do anything!”

    In fact, that’s a lie, top to bottom. The last 6000 years has been among the most stable, climate-wise, in the last 20 million… and even so, small perturbations like the 1500s Little Ice Age wrought horrible havoc on nations and peoples. Any astrophysicist will show you how closely Earth skates along the inner edge of our sun’s “goldilocks” or habitable zone… and hence why we can afford only traces of greenhouse gas.

    Ahem:

     

    PAGES2K hockey stick
    Consensus hockey stick

     

    I suppose that you could say that it is ‘less variable’ compared with twenty million years, but here’s the ickle problem: proxies spanning 20,000,000 years have necessarily lower resolution than ones spanning 6,000 years.  Maybe that’s why I couldn’t find any references supporting Brin’s claim.

    Brin also describes how climate change wiped out the Assyrian civilization, but I’d note that this claim of climate change induced collapse is an old one that is receiving more and more criticism these days.

    This is the dialogue of the deaf.  Because the believers think they have “Science!” on their side, they endorse all sorts of nonsense.  And the deniers are so fixated with the obvious bunk that they throw out the real science along with it.

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    • im-skeptical

      There have always been fringe positions on either side of the scientific mainstream. It’s easy to attack them. But unlike the alarmists, the deniers are much better financed, and have considerable political clout. In any case, if you deny the science, you are still ‘loony toons’.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inhofe-an-epa-foe-likely-to-lead-senate-environment-committee/2014/11/05/d0b4221e-64f4-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

      • Please

        Deniers are better financed than the UN? Do the Koch brothers have more
        money than the government? How many grants do the deniers get? Have the
        deniers been able to produce a mainstream movie? Have the deniers been able to get the editors of peer reviewed journals fired?

        The deniers may be wrong, but they aren’t the ones who are a threat to liberty.

      • Please

        Which side leans totalitarian?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4

        How does this get made. Does nobody stop and think, “This will make us look bad.” if nothing else?

        • im-skeptical

          Why don’t you take your lithium pill, crawl back into your survival bunker, make sure the AK-47 is pointed toward the door, take out your little red book of Koch wisdom, and pray the guvmint thugs don’t come to get you.

          • ThePrussian

            Deep thinking to be sure. Tell me – do you still insist that Mann has been exonerated by seven investigations, where six have said nothing, and where the CRU openly says that his hockey stick isn’t up to snuff?

            The reason that many laymen think there is nothing to global warming is that they see stuff like that Greenpeace video, and, not unreasonably, conclude the whole thing is a crock.

            • im-skeptical

              This film was not produced by a governmental organization. It was made by an alarmist, and then immediately removed from circulation when reasonable people saw it and realized how stupid it was. However, ever since that time, it has been used as a propaganda tool by the science deniers in a lame attempt to discredit legitimate climate science. I refer you to my original comment. Perhaps I should have used the term ‘nutbags’ instead of ‘fringe positions’.

            • ThePrussian

              Except that Greenpeace isn’t ‘fringe’ by any estimate of the environmental movement. It’s mainstream.

            • im-skeptical

              That video is in no way representative if a mainstream view. The fact the it is used used for fear-mongering by the right wing fringe is proof of that.

            • ThePrussian

              So an video made by a mainstream environmentalist group is somehow the responsibility of the ‘mainstream fringe’. What about all the other comments by mainstream environmentalists who support a tyrannical agenda? James Lovelock saying it’s necessary to ‘temporarily’ suspend democracy, Hansen saying ‘Chinese leadership’ is necessary to save humanity?

            • im-skeptical

              You have a bizarre notion of what is mainstream. No wonder right-wing nuts are so paranoid.

            • ThePrussian

              Deep thinking to be sure. Yeah, so James Lovelock and Greenpeace aren’t part of the Green mainstream. Tell me, do you ever get tired of rationalization?

            • im-skeptical

              It isn’t me. You’re the one who believes the wacko conspiracy theories about the president.

            • ThePrussian

              Actually, it is more a conclusion that the idea that the President’s brother get’s exactly the same treatment as every other applicant by a notoriously corrupt and capricious inland revenue service is naive, at best. That’s not what bothers me – again, your naivete is touching, but that the President’s brother gets preferential treatment is only to be expected. What bothers me is what that brother is involved in – as advertised by the guy himself.

              You still haven’t answered the question of whether you still persist in this idea that Mann has been exonerated when he hasn’t.

            • im-skeptical

              “the idea that the President’s brother get’s exactly the same treatment as every other applicant by a notoriously corrupt and capricious inland revenue service is naive, at best.”
              – You are impervious to factual information. I’ll say it one last time, and if it still doesn’t penetrate your skull, there’s no hope for you. The president’s “brother” didn’t receive any kind of treatment at all, because he never applied for anything. That’s a FACT, unlike the right-wing conspiracy bullshit that you believe. Here’s another FACT: President Obama’s half-brother describes their relationship as cold and distant, according to the Huffington Post. And while his activities are bothersome to most people, what bothers me is that right-wing morons are trying to drag the president into it, and you believe whatever they say.

              “You still haven’t answered the question of whether you still persist in this idea that Mann has been exonerated when he hasn’t.”
              – Once again, you believe only what you hear from a bunch of right-wing science-denying morons. You are impervious to factual information. This is a quote from Wikipedia (with references, not that you’d ever look at them):

              In November 2009, hackers obtained a number of Mann’s e-mails with climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and published them on the Internet, sparking the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[35] Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann’s research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[36][37]

              The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[38][39][40]

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_%28climatologist%29

            • alfanerd

              LOL! A quote from wikipedia. How precious.

            • im-skeptical

              Crushes your little right-wing fantasy, doesn’t it?

            • ThePrussian

              “Once again, you believe only what you hear from a bunch of right-wing science-denying morons!” – I quoted the studies themselves – directly from the links you provided. Something you completely evaded.

              ” President Obama’s half-brother describes their relationship as cold and distant, according to the Huffington Post.” Uh-huh. And the IRS knows this, does it? Really? Everyone working there?

            • im-skeptical

              “I quoted the studies themselves”
              – Show me where it says they found any kind of dishonesty, malpractice, or wrongdoing in the part of Mann.

              ” Uh-huh. And the IRS knows this, does it? Really? Everyone working there?”
              – I gave you facts. Now it’s time for you to pony up. Show me evidence for your accusations. Give me some facts, instead of just chanting your ideological mantra.

            • ThePrussian

              ” Show me where it says they found any kind of dishonesty, malpractice, or wrongdoing in the part of Mann.”

              Well, the CRU does say that the hockey stick is buggy, but you’re changing the goalposts. I said that none of those studies, except the one done by Penn State, exonerated Mann. None of them did. Please stop wriggling.

              ” gave you facts. Now it’s time for you to pony up. Show me evidence for your accusations.”

              Er, you actually haven’t. You haven’t denied that the reality of those pictures, nor that this guy isn’t bad news. You’ve only yelled that the IRS would _obviously_ treat the President’s brother just like anyone else. Well, if that’s what you believe, that’s what you believe.

              http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/

            • im-skeptical

              I concede the point about IRS consideration for the Obama foundation. I had uncovered information that it didn’t apply for tax exempt, status, and failed to check further to learn that this status had actually been granted anyway. I concede nothing more. I said all along that the guy is sleazy and dishonest, and that his activities are not supported by the president, despite any efforts to make it seem that way.

              As for Mann, it’s time for you to concede that Mann has been exonerated. Only the science deniers cling to the claim that he hasn’t. In addition to the Penn State investigation, the National Science Foundation, lacking evidence to support any of the allegations, has cleared Mann of any charges of misconduct. The fact that the methodology he used is the subject of debate says absolutely nothing about his honesty, and certainly doesn’t implicate him in any kind of wrongdoing.

              http://www.science20.com/uploads/1770191916-429173860.pdf

            • ThePrussian

              So you admit that I was right and you were wrong about the IRS. Thanks.

              As regards Mann: In one ear and out the other – you’re continually shifting the goalposts. Of the seven investigations you cited, six do not exonerate him. Quit wriggling.

              And Mann’s name isn’t mentioned in the document you posted.

            • im-skeptical

              No, I don’t admit that you were right about the IRS. At best, that registration shows the possibility that someone within the IRS may have thought they were doing a favor for the president, when in fact, they were causing political harm. I don’t know whether that individual’s actions were consistent with policy. I’m not jumping to conclusions about it.

              The larger claim that conservative groups were being targeted is still bullshit, as has been shown by the fact that Darrell Issa’s congressional witch hunt has failed to implicate the president or the IRS. The policy that the IRS was following that has been the subject of so many complaints from the right is a policy of compliance with the law. It is the the IRS complying with the law that they object to.

              As for my shifting the goalposts, I have consistently maintained the same position. I said from the very beginning that I make no judgement about the quality of his work. But I don’t make the mistake of confusing his methodology with dishonest practices in the conduct of his work. You have directly accused Mann of dishonesty, and your accusations are not justified by the known facts. Likewise, various people who are known to receive finding from the fossil fuels industry and the Koch brothers have accused Mann of scientific misconduct. Their accusations have been investigated and dismissed for lack of evidence. Mann has been exonerated, by the reckoning of everybody in the world except for the science deniers, who continue to do the bidding of their sponsors.

            • ThePrussian

              “No, I don’t admit that you were right about the IRS. At best, that registration shows the possibility that someone within the IRS may have thought they were doing a favor for the president,” – Right, thank you. You accept my point.

              ” I said from the very beginning that I make no judgement about the quality of his work” No, you said that the investigations exonerated him (which he claim), which the investigations absolutely did not.

              As regards the crappy quality of his work, please see my previous comparisons of what this guy produces when he’s alone and what he produces when he has to work with guys who check his stuff.

            • im-skeptical

              “Right, thank you. You accept my point.”
              – Let me remind you what you said long ago about this: “What I care about is that the US President appears to be giving not very indirect support to someone at the head of not one but two of the worst genocides in my lifetime.” The implication is that the president is somehow in bed with this foundation and that he would influence the IRS to give them favorable treatment. Neither of those things are supported by any factual evidence. I have conceded that the foundation received a tax-exempt status from the IRS, but not that it was influenced in any way by any action or direction from the president, and I don’t know that there was any wrongdoing or policy violation on the part of the IRS. Your conspiracy theory about the president remains nothing but unsubstantiated hogwash from the right wing.

              ” No, you said that the investigations exonerated him (which he claim), which the investigations absolutely did not.”
              – There seems to be an issue of what is meant by “exonerate”. Mann was accused of misconduct – unacceptable or dishonest practices. The investigations have cleared him of those charges. Now you cling to notion that his methodology might not have been the best, and for that reason, he has nor been exonerated. Maybe his methods weren’t the best, or maybe the science deniers are unhappy because they desperately need to come to a different result. That’s a matter of debate. But the accusations of wrongdoing were investigated, and Mann has been cleared. The reports are quite clear about that. He is exonerated. Any you have to be blinkered to deny it.

            • ThePrussian

              ” he investigations have cleared him of those charges […] But the accusations of wrongdoing were investigated, and Mann has been cleared. The reports are quite clear about that. He is exonerated. Any you have to be blinkered to deny it.”

              Except as we’ve established, those reports say nothing of the sort. They don’t investigate Mann and therefore cannot exonerate him. Ergo he was lying, and you are, at best, defending lies.

              Go on, prove me wrong! Post comments from those seven investigations showing that all seven investigated Mann. You won’t. Because you can’t.

              Now you are going along with the line that the US President is an utter chump and he neither knew or had anything to do with what the IRS was up to. Okay, I can buy that.

            • im-skeptical

              “Go on, prove me wrong!”
              – That has been done.

              “Now you are going along with the line that the US President is an utter
              chump and he neither knew or had anything to do with what the IRS was up
              to.”
              – By your insipid definition, the president would be an utter chump any time any government employee does something he is not explicitly aware of.

            • ThePrussian

              “- That has been done.” No, it has not. You have provided not one single quotation that shows that those studies investigated and exonerated Mann – because those quotes don’t exist. Word of advice: don’t tangle with professionals. You’ll find we’re out of your league.

            • im-skeptical

              Show me a quotation (from someone other than Koch’s army of science deniers) that says Mann remains implicated in some kind of wrongdoing.

            • ThePrussian

              Well, I can quote Dr John Christy, just for example, but you are once again wriggling away from the point. Mann claimed he had been investigated and exonerated by six investigations that did no such thing. He lied about that.

            • im-skeptical

              Quoting Christy won’t help your case.

              http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/17/3461320/john-christy-climate-change-dick-cheney-iraq/

              He has denied the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming. While he criticizes climate models for making inaccurate predictions, he’s responsible for erroneous claims of global atmospheric cooling, based on inaccurate measurements.

            • ThePrussian

              Do you mind not wriggling? Did Mann claim that those investigations investigated and exonerated him or did he not? Do those investigations do no such thing, or do the otherwise? Quit trying to squirm away.

              Incidentally, Mann’s crappy stick is derided by – pretty much the entire scientific consensus on this matter, including Mann himself when you can pin the weasel to the mat and force him to work with competent scientists. So – your dodge has a long way to go before it even works as an evasion.

            • im-skeptical

              There were accusations of wrongdoing. There were investigations. Not all of the investigations focused specifically on Mann’s work, but all of them focused on some aspect of the accusations that were made. While there were some findings of practices that should be improved, there were no findings that confirmed the accusations of wrongdoing. If any of these investigations had actually found that those accusations were true, you wouldn’t be spouting about how they don’t exonerate Mann. Instead, you’d be spouting about how he was found to be guilty of wrongdoing.

              Mann has been cleared. No findings of wrongdoing in any of those investigations. He is exonerated.

              Now you and others don’t agree with his methodology. So in the absence of any findings of wrongdoing, you fall back to the position that he used methods that you don’t like. And you try to make it sound as if this is some sort of scientific malpractice of which he has not been exonerated. That’s you wriggling, not me. My position has been constant.

            • ThePrussian

              “Not all of the investigations focused specifically on Mann’s work,” – No, _none_ of them investigated Mann, except the investigations by the same guys who covered up child rape. Mann knew this and explicitly claimed the opposite. He lied. Will you or will you not acknowledge this, after claiming the opposite for the last month?

            • im-skeptical

              More “wriggling” by someone who is in denial.

              It is you who lies. It is you who refuses to acknowledge the truth.

            • ThePrussian

              So you have finally run out of even the pretense of arguments. Good.

              But please, if you are going to continue commenting here, I expect you to upgrade your manners.

            • im-skeptical

              “So you have finally run out of even the pretense of arguments. Good.”
              – What kind of argument does it take to refute someone who ignores facts, but insists on tossing around his conspiracy theories and accusations of dishonesty? Someone who has called me a “party-brain” for not buying your politically motivated stories about the president. Someone who listens to only one side in the case of charges against Mann that have been investigated and dismissed. I didn’t have to show you any of those reports – you were well aware of them, but you choose to interpret them the way Mann’s accusers do. And so you stand in solidarity with your fellows in the echo chamber, and in opposition to the rest of the world.

              “But please, if you are going to continue commenting here, I expect you to upgrade your manners.”
              – Sure. You accuse Mann of lying and dishonesty. You accuse his investigators of covering up child rape. You accuse the president of aiding and abetting a genocidal maniac. And you accuse me of bad manners for daring to say that you are the liar. I’ll go one better. You are a petty, egotistical hypocrite.

            • ThePrussian

              Sweet of you to say :-)

              Look, we’ve established that I have the facts right and you don’t – how on earth you can keep citing those reports when we’ve seen that they don’t say what you claim they say is beyond me. We’ve also established that the IRS did expedite the Barack H Obama foundation and that that foundation palls around with a genocidal murderer. Your only defense is that your President – he is your president, not mine; as I say, I don’t care about your petty squabbles unless they affect the rest of the world – had no idea what the IRS was up to. I’ve conceded I’ll give you that point.

              But please – either upgrade your manners or I will have to give you a time out. I really don’t have the time right now to deal with these little tantrums, so either you upgrade your manners, or I’ll have to give you a little time out.

            • im-skeptical

              Let’s establish what we’ve established.

              First, on the question of whether Obama supports the Sudanese dictator:
              – The IRS granted tax-exempt status to the Barak H Obama Foundation. I was wrong about that, until I saw the evidence.
              – That this was expedited has not been established.
              – That there was anything about it that was out of compliance with policy has not been established.
              – The IRS asked some right-wing organizations about their qualifications for tax-exempt status.
              – The IRS also asked some left-wing organizations about their qualifications.
              – This was in compliance with policy and with the law.
              – There is no credible evidence of any favoritism.
              – A congressional investigation run by right-wing Obama-hater Issa found no wrongdoing by the IRS.
              – The Barak H Obama Foundation has not been supported in any way by the president.
              – The president has a cold and distant relationship with his half-brother, who runs that foundation.
              – The fact that the president’s half-brother seems to support the Sudanese dictator is no reflection on the president of the US.
              – The fact that you think it does reflect on the president shows your willingness to believe what you read on a right-wing Obama-hating website, without critically examining the facts.

              Next, on the question of Mann’s alleged scientific fraud:
              – A group of fossil fuels industry supporters have alleged that Mann has engaged in dishonest or fraudulent scientific work.
              – Specifically with regard to those allegations, Penn State conducted an investigation, which found no wrongdoing on the part of Mann.
              – The methodology employed by Mann was not found to be deficient, dishonest, or fraudulent.
              – The fossil fuels industry supporters have alleged that the investigation was inadequate, or even a cover-up.
              – The National Science Foundation conducted an independent investigation of the same allegations, and also found no wrongdoing on the part of Mann.
              – You continue to insist that they didn’t even investigate Mann, let alone exonerate him.
              – Only those who openly side with the fossil fuels industry supporters think that Mann has not been exonerated. The scientific community and the rest of the world have moved on.
              – You openly side with the fossil fuels industry supporters, and refuse to critically examine the facts regarding these allegations.

              Finally, with regard to my own arguments on this website:
              – After discussion about Obama’s alleged support of al-Bashir, you made a post calling me a “party-brain”. The implication is that my arguments are motivated by political bias.
              – During discussion about global warming, I said that the science deniers were fossil fuels industry supporters, and their arguments were motivated by ties to that industry.
              – You then said that my arguments were invalid because of this reference to their motivation.
              – You are a hypocrite.

              One last thing: if you don’t like what I say and want me to stop, all you have to do is say so, and I’ll stop.

            • ThePrussian

              “- The IRS granted tax-exempt status to the Barak H Obama Foundation. I was wrong about that, until I saw the evidence.”

              Well done.

              “That this was expedited has not been established”

              Still wrong

              “There is no credible evidence of any favoritism”

              Oh, please – stop embarrassing yourself. Look, I take it as read that the US state behemoth is corrupt; to argue that is like noticing the sky is blue. If the IRS had been found giving favor to Jeb Bush when George Bush was President, I’d have been as unsurprised.

              “- The fact that you think it does reflect on the president shows your willingness to believe what you read on a right-wing Obama-hating website, without critically examining the facts.”

              You really are reaching. So if I see the Presidents brother running the Barack H Obama foundation, and posing with the architect of two genocides, and the fact that this foundation got favourable treatment by the US gov’t – I see all this and it gives me a bad turn. That’s supposed to be evidence of bias?

              To the subject of Mann:

              “Specifically with regard to those allegations, Penn State conducted an investigation, which found no wrongdoing on the part of Mann.”

              Which I have never disputed – I have argued two things: 1) that this investigation is worthless, given Penn State’s record on things like child rape, and 2) that Mann claimed (and you claimed) that he was investigated and exonerated by six other investigations, including the Oxburgh investigation.

              That statement is a flat out lie. None of those investigations investigated Mann, much less exonerated him. And while you are trying to wriggle away from this, that was the claim you made, a claim that has been thoroughly refuted.

              “After discussion about Obama’s alleged support of al-Bashir, you made a post calling me a “party-brain”. The implication is that my arguments are motivated by political bias.”

              You are. Look again at our first disagreement: I saw that the President’s brother was palling around with the worst possible people, and that he was getting special treatment from a notoriously corrupt US state machinery. It takes profound and deep bias not to be disturbed at all by that, to take the line “No, no, no – my team would _never_ do anything like that!”

              “You then said that my arguments were invalid because of this reference to their motivation.”

              Actually, not. I never said you were wrong because you were biased, I said you were wrong because you had a shaky grasp of logic and a shaky grasp of the facts. As has been repeatedly demonstrated. Case in point, this:

              ” if you don’t like what I say and want me to stop, all you have to do is say so, and I’ll stop.”

              What I asked is that you upgrade your manners.

            • ThePrussian

              Just to continue to add to this about the investigation of Mann – the National Academy of Sciences did indeed investigate the hockey stick – and it agreed with Professor David Hand that Mann was using, quote, ‘inappropriate methods’, close-quote, saying that Mann’s monkeyshines exaggerated global warming’s extent and reality. That view is backed up by, er, the scientific record on this matter, including the charts that Mann comes up with when others force him to toe the line. Mann, naturally, lied and claimed that the NAS said the opposite.

              And re:Barack Obama and Malik Obama, you claim that they aren’t close. Well, they were close enough for Obama to be best man at Malik Obama’s wedding. Now I am perfectly happy to accept that Barack Obama isn’t personally supporting Suar al-Dahab – that he is just such a bloody fool possessed by such insularity that he doesn’t know or care about all this. Okay, not ‘perfectly happy’ but willing. It certainly doesn’t do much for my opinion of the guy.

            • im-skeptical

              “Still wrong”
              – I have yet to see any evidence of this supposed favoritism. Show it.

              “Oh, please – stop embarrassing yourself. Look, I take it as read that the US state behemoth is corrupt; to argue that is like noticing the sky is blue. If the IRS had been found giving favor to Jeb Bush when George Bush was President, I’d have been as unsurprised.”
              – You should be embarrassed by your own credulity. This was the finding of a congressional investigation, after lots of allegations from right-wing Obama haters. You believe those people. I’ll stick to evidence.

              “That’s supposed to be evidence of bias?”
              – As far as I can tell, your beliefs are much more motivated by political bias than mine. I prefer to go by the evidence.

              “this investigation is worthless, given Penn State’s record on things like child rape”
              – Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? It’s like saying the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research is corrupt because someone in the Federal Ministry of the Interior got away with directing federal funds to a favored contractor.

              “That statement is a flat out lie. None of those investigations investigated Mann, much less exonerated him. And while you are trying to wriggle away from this, that was the claim you made, a claim that has been thoroughly refuted.”
              – You believe Steve McIntyre’s spin. I go by the evidence. Addendum to the Oxburgh Panel report: “For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possible methods.”

              http://scholarsandrogues.com/2011/08/27/nsf-psu-mann-exonerated/
              http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/02/michael-mann-exonerated-yet-ye/
              http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climategate-scientist-cleared-in-inquiry-again/
              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02climate.html?_r=0
              http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-penn-state-inquiry-finds-no-substance-allegations
              http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/22/300821/nsf-inspector-general-investigation-michael-mann/
              http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/michael-mann-cleared-again/244051/
              http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/7/483.full
              http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/04/oxburgh-panel-and-david-hand-apologize.html

              “It takes profound and deep bias not to be disturbed at all by that, to take the line “No, no, no – my team would _never_ do anything like that!”
              – Bashir’s, activities are indeed disturbing. The president’s are not. Your insistence on linking them together is evidence of your bias – not mine. I go by the evidence.

              “Actually, not. I never said you were wrong because you were biased, I said you were wrong because you had a shaky grasp of logic and a shaky grasp of the facts.”
              – More spin. After your own lengthy discussion of my supposed bias, you hypocritically said that my discussion of the bias of the science deniers constitutes a logical fallacy, and that I couldn’t win an argument that way, despite the fact that it was not part of any other logical argument. I was discussing why they hold the position they do, not the correctness of their position.

              “What I asked is that you upgrade your manners.”
              – What you did was threaten to silence me (which is your prerogative). But I follow your own example. If you accuse people of lying, of bias, of failure to comprehend logic, why is it not permissible for me to point out your own guilt in those matters?

            • ThePrussian

              This is the last time I am going to bother to respond to you, because I am tired of your dishonesty. Once again, the question was whether the six investigations that Mann and you claimed, and you linked, investigated Mann and therefore were in a position to exonerate him. As has been shown, they did not.

              You have admitted this by trying to change the subject and the goalposts every single time this came up.

              And it is this mode of arguing, this specific way of getting things wrong, that lead me to write about why people like you – American political partisans – could get things so wrong. I mean look at this:

              “This was the finding of a congressional investigation,”

              Yes, your government investigated itself and gave itself a clean bill of health. Great. As I understand it, your police force has been doing the same thing with respect to its habit of shooting civilians, too… As the Hitch once remarked “The scandal in Washington is never what’s being done that’s illegal. It’s what’s being done that’s legal”

              Final word of advice:

              ” I go by the evidence.”

              That’s like claiming you’re ladylike, skeptical or powerful: If you got t’say y’are, you probably ain’t.

            • im-skeptical

              “This is the last time I am going to bother to respond to you, because I am tired of your dishonesty.”
              – And delighted with your own dishonesty.

              “You have admitted this by trying to change the subject and the goalposts every single time this came up.”
              – Same answer every time: Not one of those investigations found dishonesty or wrongdoing on the part of Mann. He has been exonerated, and you refuse to admit it.

              “Yes, your government investigated itself and gave itself a clean bill of health. Great.”
              – You have no idea what you’re talking about. Like claiming that Mann was cleared by the same people who covered up child molestation – you are absolutely wrong. Are you not aware that Issa has made it his primary mission to bring down the Obama administration since the day he came into the congress? To that end, he has engaged in a non-stop series investigations of Obama’s “scandals”. Like you, he only allows one side of the story into evidence. Unfortunately for the right-wing blowhards, he has failed to find wrongdoing on Obama’s part. It would be fair to say Obama has been exonerated (not that you would ever admit it – Issa doesn’t admit it, either).

            • alfanerd

              Lois Lerner herself, the very same women who’s emails mysteriously disappeared when requested by a congressional committee, fast-tracked the Barack H Obama Foundation’s application. It was approved within one month of filing. And the charitable status was applied retroactively to 2008.

              I found this super secret information using a very obscure web searching tool called Google.

              Go ahead and file yourself. Im sure your application will be approved personally by a senior official within one month of filing and applied retroactively. That’s how they treat every application.

            • im-skeptical

              You right-wing minions sure do follow your leaders blindly.

              Yes, I can Google it. You know what comes up? Right-wing Obama haters. Lots of them. You know what doesn’t come up? Any official findings of wrongdoing. Issa investigated this, and after failing to coming up with anything, he turned his attention to Benghazi. (Any guesses what he found about that?) The FBI investigated it, and found no wrongdoing.

              As for Lernrer’s direct involvement, what evidence do you have about that? Her signature rubber stamped on a document? Approval within one month of what event?

              Also, do you even understand what these approval delays were about? Are you aware that they applied to suspected political groups, both left and right?

              Do you think for yourself, or do you simply echo whatever accusations you hear from your fellow right-wing zealots?

            • ThePrussian

              Again, all you can ever do is Argue Like Stalin – so be prepared to lose.

            • im-skeptical

              When your minions make very similar comments, they elicit no objection from you. Hypocrite.

            • alfanerd

              I was only responding to this comment: That this was expedited has not been established.

              Approval within one month. That is fast-tracked. If you dont believe me, try filing yourself see how long it takes. Oh and try to get retroactive tax-exempt status too.

              Approval within one month of what event?
              The filing date of the application for tax-exempt status.

            • im-skeptical

              You said Lois Lerner fast-tracked it. How do you know she was personally involved?

              You said it was approved within one month, but the IRS says that this foundation didn’t make their own application. So once again, within one month from what event? One month from the time someone in the IRS began handling the case?

              You were amazed that the status was granted retroactively. Did you know that it is normal to do that?

              Finally, this whole big stink raised by right-wing idiots was intended to show some kind if imbalance or partiality on the part of the IRS, under the direction of the evil overlord Obama. The “delays” in processing were to verify the eligibility, under the law, of organizations (whether left or right) whose activity was thought to be political in nature, as opposed to charitable. It doesn’t even make sense to compare the processing time. Unless, of course, you’re a right-wing moron trying to dig up some lame excuse to pin a scandal on the president, counting on the fact that your fellow right-wing morons will be uncritical in examining your accusations.

              Do you know why I call you a minion? It’s because you aren’t interested in finding out the truth. You listen to the right-wing echo chamber, and you believe what you hear. You are willing to believe the worst about whoever they say is one of the bad guys, and you aren’t willing to check the facts or hear the other side of the story.

              If you don’t like me telling you this, just keep listening to Fox, and all those ultra-biased sites like Breitbart and Drudge. You’ll only hear the stories you want to hear – never any inconvenient facts from the other side that might burst your right-wing bubble.

            • alfanerd

              Im not sure who you’re debating with about delays at the IRS and the “evil overlord Obama”. Anyways whoever it is, he seems to be getting under your skin. I would avoid him in the future.

              You stated – That this was expedited has not been established.

              The application was approved within one month of filing and therefore it was expedited.

              You also stated You said it was approved within one month, but the IRS says that this foundation didn’t make their own application.

              Whoever “made their application” is irrelevant. The application was filed on a certain date. That date is called the “filing date”. One month later, the application was approved.

            • im-skeptical

              Since you seem to think it’s necessary to give me a lesson in deductive reasoning, allow me to give you one. The fact that it took one month for some action to occur at the IRS does not entail that it was expedited. In order to make that conclusion, you have to have an argument that makes the case. For example:

              1. If process A occurs in less than 30 days, the process has been expedited.
              2. Process A did occur in less than 30 days.
              3. Therefore, the process was expedited.

              You also have to give evidence or proof that statement 1 and statement 2 are true in order for this argument to succeed. That would be a valid, successful logical argument.

              You have made no such argument. You don’t even know what process took place. You don’t know if someone spent months before creating a completed application form that only needed to be rubber-stamped, and that took 30 days. You don’t know what it really means to expedite something. You don’t know if this was similar to other cases, or completely unique. You certainly haven’t made any valid logical argument.

              So do a little more reading on what it takes to engage in deductive reasoning. You definitely need a lesson.

            • MikeNov

              Mann is implicated in lying to the court about having been exonerated.
              Before that he lied about being a Nobel Prize winner, but they conveniently added a new count in an amended complaint, and quietly let that part drop in the new complaint.

          • alfanerd

            That is exactly the attitude of know-nothing social science grads who can only sneer at skeptics that started me on the path to not believing in catastrophic global warming.

            I used to believe in global warming and I was actually hopeful that it would get my little corner of Canada a little warmer. But then I saw the religious fervour with which leftwing types would attack unbelievers and I started being curious about what is the actual evidence for catastrophe. Computer models, computer models all the way down.

            • im-skeptical

              Instead of listening to propaganda, who don’t you try reading a science book?

            • alfanerd

              I’ve read plenty of science books. But if you have any to recommend, Im all ears.

              As for “listening to propaganda”, Im not sure what you’re referring to. The IPCC itself bases its conclusions on computer models. Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me what piece of empirical evidence convinced you that the alarmist is correct?

            • im-skeptical

              You use the terms ‘believe in’ and ‘unbelievers’ as if climate science were some kind of religion. By your own admission, it wasn’t science that persuaded you – it was propaganda coming from the fringes. I’m sorry to tell you that that is no basis for a sound epistemology.

              As for my being convinced that “the alarmist is correct”, I suggest you learn how to read. I’m sure it will be helpful if you ever do decide to learn some real science.

            • alfanerd

              The term “believe” and its derivatives are not exclusive to religion. One may believe a scientific hypothesis, believe that their friend is lying or telling the truth, believe that spinach is tasty… Einstein did not “believe” in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

              You seem to believe that something is either arrived at by pure reason or is based on religious faith. I dont believe that’s correct.

              What persuaded me was the IPCC’s own admission that the basis for fearing catastrophe is their computer models, and that if you exclude nonsense like Mann’s, current temperature swings are very much in line with what happened in the past. What tipped me off that something may be wrong was behavior like yours.

              As for you believingbeing convinced that the alarmist view is correct, I apologize if I misrepresented your position. Are you not convinced that catastrophic global warming is upon us unless we change our CO2-emitting ways?

            • im-skeptical

              When you say you “believe in” something, it does indeed sound like an expression of faith. You said it, not me.

              With regard to Mann’s data, the deniers are adept at distorting the issue. Look at the graph above. The temperature anomaly is not out of the range that we’ve seen in the past. What you don’t hear them say is that the rate of increase is out of range. There is no significant disagreement between the different models on that. Go ahead and throw out Mann’s data. The scientific consensus doesn’t depend on it. What tips me off that you are a science denier is that you only listen to the propaganda.

              In answer to your question, I believe that climate change is real, and that human activity has a significant impact on it. It is clear that this warming is already producing detrimental effects, and likely that over time, the effects will become more and more catastrophic.

              I also believe that certain deniers like Sen. Inhofe are profoundly ignorant, and in a political position to cause grave damage to our efforts at mitigation, while serving as shills for the fossil fuels industry.

            • alfanerd

              Just eye-balling it, it seems to me the rate of change between 1900 and today is very similar to the rate of change between years 900 and 975 (looking at the red line anyways). Also, since you’re a super awesome scienticizer, I probably dont need to tell you that proxies are typically poor at capturing high frequency signals.

              What tips me off that you’re a lefty social-science grad is that you throw around terms like “science deniers” as if it meant something and you seem to think that the proper approach to science is to believe anything the establishment tells you without looking at the details, because if you look at the details you have no idea whats going on anyways.

            • Phasespace

              I’d just like to point out that we use computer models to predict planetary and spacecraft trajectories well enough to get spacecraft to Mars and other planets, as well as to rendezvous with comets and ultimately land on them. There’s nothing inherently wrong with computer modeling if you are able to correctly model all of the physics involved.

              In the case of climate modeling, the predictions are definitely trickier because the physics is less certain and of a more statistical nature than celestial mechanics, but these uncertainties in the physics and the more statistical nature of climate does not in itself invalidate climate computer models. It does require one to be more careful about making predictions and most climate modeling does take these issues into account when making predictions. If you’re going to invalidate the climate computer models you’re going to have to explicitly state what is wrong with them. What physics are they modeling incorrectly or missing? What input parameters are they using that are wrong, or what are they doing wrong statistically?

              Simply stating that it’s computer models all the way down is not an argument that invalidates the models. There are a whole host of things that *could* potentially be wrong with them, and I’m not necessarily suggesting that we should accept them at face value. I’d just like to hear someone make a pointed criticism of such models that actually points out a clear methodological problem with the models (be it input data, physics, or something else) that the people that run these models aren’t already aware of and are trying to account for. And if they are trying to account for such issues, you need to explain why the climate modelers aren’t adequately accounting for them.

            • alfanerd

              I generally agree with that. It’s just that a computer model of
              interplanetary motion is (relatively) simple, well understood, and well
              tested.

              Climate models are a hodge-podge mess of half-assed
              guesses, approximations and fudge-factors. I dont know much about these
              models, but Im still confident that they’re crap, in the same way that
              Im confident that the Nigerian prince who emailed me this morning is not
              actually going to make me rich.

              Basically, Im sure there are a lot of well-meaning, honest and intelligent people working on these models, but what they’re trying to do is beyond our computational capacity.

              First thing is that the climate is a chaotic system. That means that no matter how well we may measure initial conditions, any computation we may make from them after a few iterations will be meaningless.

              Second, our understanding of the climate system as a whole is embryonic at best. Even the central dogma that a temperature change is a linear function of additional forcing is very uncertain. And the number of mechanisms and depencies that occur in the real world is for all intents and purposes infinite. New ones appear in the literature all the time.

              Thirdly, even when models run on supercomputers that perform a gazillion petaflops, massive approximations are needed. The current grid cell used in models is something like 100km x 100km, as just one example.

              Fourthly, our measurement of initial conditions, is woefully inadequate, despite our best efforts.

              To recap, for landing a spacecraft on a comet, which is still btw, enormously difficult, we have:
              -the certainity of newtonian physics
              -simple linear equations that dont require enormous computing power (apollo missions ran on less computing power than an iphone)

              -accurate measurements of relevant variables

              For predicting the climate we have:
              -a chaotic system
              -incomplete understanding of physics involved
              -insufficient computing power requiring massive approximations
              -enormous uncertainties in measuring initial conditions

            • im-skeptical

              And so we see that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

            • ThePrussian

              Just wanted to say to you two – given the indecent squirming I’ve had to deal with below, yours is the kind of discussion I’m very happy to see this site. Very interesting stuff!

            • alfanerd

              Cheers

            • MikeNov

              I’ll take a stab at this. Climate-skeptic.com has some more in depth explanations. The problem is that according to basic physics, doubling CO2 should warm the planet a little over 1C. Now the models are saying a much higher number, because of positive feedbacks built in. This modeling is too complex, and actually many parts are replaced with simpler parameterizations. This is all acknowledged by the modelers. The issue is then, how well are they modeling individual parts of the climate system? Clouds are a major uncertainty, that can change the sensitivity result substantially, as in from negligible amount of warming to high amount. The sign of the feedback is itself in dispute.

              Then there is the additional factor of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’. How likely is it that the model captures all processes in Nature?

              The climate models basically have a built in assumption of positive cloud feedback, among other variables. This assumption is what creates the multiplier effect of producing high warming from relatively small amount of CO2 caused warming.

            • Phasespace

              Well, I won’t argue the issue of cloud cover because I’m well aware of that problem. My only thought is that your final paragraph is somewhat in conflict with your first. If, the sign and magnitude of the feedback from cloud cover is uncertain, doesn’t it stand to reason that a series of climate models can be run to determine the possible range of the affect? And is it not the case, that this controversy is included as part of the overall range of the predictions that climate modelers are reporting?

              I don’t disagree with the main thrust of your point, but I feel like the kind of criticism you are leveling is for a particular run of a particular model with particular parameters, while the actual predictions that are made are based on a wide range of different models with different input parameters to try to do the best they can to account for the very variations and uncertainties that you are complaining about. I see little evidence to suggest that the people running these climate models aren’t doing exactly as I suggest.

              I’ll also note that I find the climate skeptic site to be about as bad as the climate alarmist sites. That’s not to say that the site’s authors don’t have valid points. But they seem to put too much focus on what the crazy sky-is-falling alarmists are doing than they are on honest criticism, or at least that’s been my impression from reading their positions on a lot of different subjects over the last couple of years.

              Then there is the additional factor of ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’. How likely is it that the model captures all processes in Nature?

              I think the above statement is qualitatively accurate but quantitatively specious. What I mean by this is that, for example, there is no substance on the planet that has similar thermal conductivity and heat capacity to water and exists in large enough quantities to be able to serve as an energy sink comparable to the oceans. And if there was such a substance or a heat absorbing process, its existence would be obvious every time one of our infrared satellites flew over it. If the unknown thermal process (or processes) were non-localized (e.g. atmospheric), then it is necessarily already part of the cloud cover/aerosol problem you already mentioned.

              So, your statement isn’t wrong, but you’re necessarily talking about second or third order effects that are minor or negligible in magnitude and aren’t likely to have much impact on the climate models over all. I think we can say with some certainty that they don’t add up to much, even if we don’t know what all of them are. If they were that significant, they would necessarily be easily detectable.

              I would also warrant that we can probably put an upper limit on what the magnitude of these effects can be before they are detectable by satellites or some other means. I don’t know if any of the climate people have done that, but it shouldn’t be too difficult to do given that we know the accuracy and detection limits of the equipment we are using to look for such effects. So, in short, I don’t buy the “you don’t know what you don’t know argument” in this context. We certainly have the means to be able to make some general estimates about the upper limits of the magnitudes of any unknown factors and put those uncertainties into the climate models, if that seems necessary.

            • alfanerd

              I see little evidence to suggest that the people running these climate models aren’t doing exactly as I suggest.

              You should be looking for evidence that the models do as you suggest, and not be satisfied with a lack of evidence that they dont do as you suggest.

              The models simulate the behavior they are programmed to simulate. They are not programmed with the basic laws of physics and then run to see whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative. They are programmed with either positive or negative cloud feedbacks.

              If you want your funding to keep coming, you better not program your model such that results will support the “denialist” point of view.

              I think the above statement is qualitatively accurate but quantitatively specious.

              CO2 is itself a second or third order effect. The whole catastrophe is based on feedbacks and amplifications of whatever forcing is caused by CO2. You can’t promote one second order effect like CO2 (because it’s useful politically) and dismiss out of hand other second order effects.

            • Phasespace

              The models simulate the behavior they are programmed to simulate. They are not programmed with the basic laws of physics and then run to see whether the cloud feedback is positive or negative. They are programmed with either positive or negative cloud feedbacks.

              Uh, No kidding! But you miss my point. If the physics itself isn’t clear, then it’s rather difficult to merely program in the basic physics. And your assumption that all simulations just put in the “basic laws of physics” and see what the results are is rather ignorant. For some problems this is possible, but for many it isn’t. It is frequently the case that simplifying assumptions are used in simulations and this isn’t controversial. Ever hear of perturbation theory? So in the case of the cloud cover problem, you put in variety of different perturbations, to cover the different possibilities. And the fact that this is well known problem is a sure sign that people are doing just that.

              CO2 is itself a second or third order effect. The whole catastrophe is based on feedbacks and amplifications of whatever forcing is caused by CO2. You can’t promote one second order effect like CO2 (because it’s useful politically) and dismiss out of hand other second order effects.

              Uh no, it’s not. It is the primary driver of the feedbacks that you’re talking about. No CO2, water, or methane in the atmosphere and the feedbacks go away. Just because CO2 is a trace gas, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a primary driver. Are you familiar with blackbody radiation? Have you ever seen what trace amounts of CO2 does to a black body spectrum? And you do realize that the peak of the Earth’s blackbody spectrum is right where CO2, water, and methane are most efficient at absorbing radiation, right? That energy has to go somewhere.

              Just for a second, step away from the climate modeling for a bit and go back to the basic energy balance that must be maintained:

              E_Sun = E_reflect + E_radiation

              Energy input from the sun must be balanced with the energy the Earth reflects and re-radiates back out into space. Assuming that the reflected energy can be largely averaged to a constant over time (and that is a reasonable assumption since both cloud cover and albedo are generally cyclical), then anything that systematically messes with that radiation factor necessarily results in a change in temperature (because that radiation factor is determined by the black body curve). And if you have some substance (like CO2) that removes energy from that black body spectrum, the result is a temperature increase which shifts the peak of the black body radiation curve in order to maintain the energy balance. You don’t need a climate model to come to this general conclusion. This alone indicates that CO2 is not a second order effect.

            • alfanerd

              And your assumption that all simulations just put in the “basic laws of physics” and see what the results are is rather ignorant.

              That’s the opposite of my assumption.

              It is frequently the case that simplifying assumptions are used in simulations and this isn’t controversial.

              That is precisely my point.

              Do you know how the models are programmed? Have you seen the code? And besides, even if you did it wouldnt matter. We dont know what the proper cloud physics should be. Whatever the models are doing is guesswork. You can take alot of guesses if you like, you wont be closer to the truth.

              No CO2, water, or methane in the atmosphere and the feedbacks go away. Just because CO2 is a trace gas, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a primary driver.

              Feedbacks are responses to forcings. CO2, water and methanes are examples of forcings.

              Are you familiar with blackbody radiation? Have you ever seen what trace amounts of CO2 does to a black body spectrum?

              Yes I am. Are you aware that CO2 absorption bands are almost saturated and that the relationship between additional CO2 and corresponding forcing is logarithmic? Going from 0 PPM to 100 PPM maybe a first order effect, but going from 280 PPM to 400 PPM is almost certainly a second, and maybe even a third order effect.

            • Phasespace

              Do you know how the models are programmed? Have you seen the code? And besides, even if you did it wouldnt matter. We dont know what the proper cloud physics should be. Whatever the models are doing is guesswork. You can take alot of guesses if you like, you wont be closer to the truth.

              Actually, I know a bit more about this than you think. I’ve done modeling of energy transfer in planetary scale atmospheres. However, the energy levels that I deal with are much higher, so the transfer mechanisms are different, but the basic equations of state are the same.

              No, but guess work gives you a starting point, and what’s more, it’s not like these guesses are complete shots in the dark. There are reasonable upper and lower limits that can be determined.

              Going from 0 PPM to 100 PPM maybe a first order effect, but going from 280 PPM to 400 PPM is almost certainly a second, and maybe even a third order effect.

              Not quite. You’re not taking into account the increased CO2 scale height that goes with increased concentration? The absorption is indeed saturated, but as the blanket gets thicker, the effect is exponential with scale height because you have more absorbers and re-emitters at higher and higher altitude. Or at least, that’s what I came up with from a fairly simple model of my own.

            • alfanerd

              Guess work gives you a starting point, and what’s more, it’s not like
              these guesses are complete shots in the dark. There are reasonable
              upper and lower limits that can be determined.

              Fair enough. I would submit that it is unwise to completely re-organize the world’s economy and to transfer trillions of dollars based on these “reasonable upper and lower limits”.

              The absorption is indeed saturated, but as the blanket gets thicker,
              the effect is exponential with scale height because you have more
              absorbers and re-emitters at higher and higher altitude. Or at least, that’s what I came up with from a fairly simple model of my own.

              I really have no idea whether this is true or not and it’s the first time I hear about this. But I will note that whatever else we may say about the models, they have predicted far more warming than has been observed. That alone is sufficient for doubting the physical assumptions which are programmed into the models, and in particular the notion that CO2 is a first order driver.

              Also, the 800 year lag between temperature changes and CO2 changes in the paleo data strongly suggests that CO2 is not a first order driver.

            • Phasespace

              Fair enough. I would submit that it is unwise to completely re-organize the world’s economy and to transfer trillions of dollars based on these “reasonable upper and lower limits”.

              I don’t think that is warranted either. My main point is that I think there is enough evidence to suggest that there are changes coming. We don’t know how much, nor how severe, but it is not irrational to suggest that we should be trying to tread more lightly than we have been. And I don’t think we have to up-end our economy to do it.

            • alfanerd

              You do realize though, that ultimately, this is what this is about? Why are we discussing obscure details of climatology on this blog? Because it has immense political (i.e., financial) repercussions.

              China is wagging its finger at the west for only contributing $10 billion to a climate fund which is supposed to contribute $100 billion A YEAR to developing nations. We are supposed to pay danegeld indefinitely based on faulty models and best guesses. The notion that these models which are:
              1. based on guesses, and
              2. responsible for justifying the confiscation of $100 billion a year,
              are reliable and not subject to political pressure is laughable.

              Changes are coming. You could have said that literally at any point in history and be correct. It’s like the words of House Stark, Winter is coming, it’s always true.

              That is not the question. The question is whether we know with enough certainty that catastrophic changes are coming. You’ve just admitted that we do not. The models are woefully inadequate for that. They are interesting academic exercises, but they cannot inform public policy. And obviously, with that kind of dough at stake, there will always be snake-oil peddling charlatans who will insist otherwise.

            • MikeNov

              There is a discussion going on at climateaudit.org about this right now.
              Yes, climate models can be run that look at cloud cover over a range. And when they are run, the amount of warming drops to 1C or less. Yet, these model runs tend not to show up. The assumption of positive feedback is being built in, and there are various papers that say water vapor is 2-3x the CO2 effect. That’s how when they claim to run a complete parameter space model run, they end up with this:
              http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2009/05/prinn-roulette-4.jpg?itok=ItBKquBU

            • Phasespace

              there are various papers that say water vapor is 2-3x the CO2 effect.

              That’s true, but it is also the case that the water vapor effect is constant. The water vapor abundance in the atmosphere isn’t significantly varying, so that isn’t going to cause an *increased* green house effect.

            • MikeNov

              Water vapor can form clouds…

            • Phasespace

              Yes, but this is a cyclical/periodic effect that averages out to a more or less constant, steady-state value over time. So the effect isn’t increasing or decreasing (regardless of the uncertainties in exactly how clouds impact climate models).

              If you are suggesting that, in addition to increased CO2 concentrations, water vapor concentrations (and therefore cloud coverage) are also increasing, then the 2-3x effect becomes important because there’s more water in the atmosphere. Otherwise it’s essentially a constant factor that’s been in place for a very long time and not particularly relevant to climate change predictions except in the sense that climate models do have to include this average concentration to account for the effect.

            • MikeNov

              I’m not sure what you think is the uncertainty regarding clouds.
              Water vapor is constant I would be surprised if this were the assumption.

            • Phasespace

              The uncertainty is with regard to how much clouds reflect solar energy back into to space vs. holding heat in (that’s where that 2x-3xCO2 figure comes from). Under steady-state conditions this factor is essentially constant (but we don’t really know what it is). However, even though this factor is more or less constant, the climate models need an accurate accounting of what this factor is in order to model the global climate correctly. This is particularly problematic for computing any feedback heating that’s caused by higher CO2 concentrations because the magnitude of the feedback is highly sensitive to this factor.

          • Please

            Arrogance is not reason. Mockery is not logic.

            And you just proved the Prussian right. Behavior like you just displayed a part of the reason why intelligent people are skeptical about the science.

            • im-skeptical

              Let me ask you something, Please. Do you think that video promotes an intelligent discussion of climate science?

            • Please

              No, that’s my point.

            • im-skeptical

              Then what exactly is your point?

            • Please

              My point is that arrogance, mockery, and intimidation aren’t intelligent discussion. They hinder intelligent discussion.

              Often, people seek to stifle debate because they don’t believe they can actually defend their position. People notice this tendency, which causes them to at least suspect the person is wrong. I now more than one person who dismisses the science because of stuff like this. Usually, these are the smarter people who would be great assets in sorting these things out.

    • WFC

      Is David Brin writing about the same northwest passage which was navigated by Amundsen in 1906? And the SS Manhattan in 1969?

    • The believer’s disconnect from reality on policy is much worse than their uncritical acceptance of any pronouncement from the climate science cabal. It’s all rainbows and unicorn notions of solar and wind and completely irrational hysteria over nuclear. The reality is that renewibles are proving to be completely impractical at a scale that would matter and may be dangerously destabilizing power grids. With nuclear, we actually have the empirical example of France shifting mostly to carbon free energy in about 15 years.

      • MikeNov

        Google has realized this fact and largely abandoned their renewables reserach.

    • MikeNov

      Penn State investigated Jerry Sandusky too. That’s what started the whole lawsuit by Mann.