So, I’m hanging out on Facebook today, and an old next-door dorm buddy posted a link to a crazy global-warming-is-a-hoax WSJ article. I replied, and things got wacky. I definitely could have done a better job staying away from the ad hominem attacks, but it’s pretty tough when 95% of the people left arguing against global warming (a) have no credentials, (b) are funded by Exxon and/or (c) are deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst.
I’ve cleaned up the transcript a little and tried to remove personally identifying info. Aside from that, it’s as-is. I’ll let you know if we continue the discussion. Your thoughts are welcome! (Yes, that includes you, Jonolan.)
Ex-Marine posted a link.
Today at 8:18am.
Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change – WSJ.com
Summary: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
Ex-Marine comments: The inconvenient truth about the global warming lie is growing.
Some Other Guy at 8:25am June 26
Turn up the heat! I’m cold.
Uncle Vinny at 8:28am June 26
Feel like a making a bet on this one, [Ex-Marine]? I have $1000 that says you’ll be pretty embarrassed about this in 20 years.
Ex-Marine at 8:31am June 26
It’s junk science built on ideology instead of evidence. Al Gore did a pretty good job selling it. Almost as good a job as Obama did on selling change you can believe in.
Some Other Guy at 8:32am June 26
I will bet a million dollars that a thousand dollars isn’t worth today’s 1 dollar in 20 years.
Uncle Vinny at 8:35am June 26
So, that’s a “yes”? We can each put $1000 in an interest-bearing account, and whenever you get embarrassed enough by the contents of that link (Senator Inhofe, for fuck’s sake! LOL), you can sign it over to me.
Ex-Marine at 8:39am June 26
No, I’m not betting $1000 because [Ex-Marine wife] would kill me. So, out of that entire article you choose to highlight Senator Inhofe. Not Dr. Kiminori Itoh (who contributed to the UN climate report); not Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winner for physics); and not Dr. Ian Plimer (who wrote a book debunking the myth of global warming). This is the issue that has gotten the US to where it is on the subject of global warming: selective listening and ignoring voices of dissent. Kudos!
Uncle Vinny at 8:56am June 26
Oh brother. Fine! Put up whatever amount of money you have lying around. (Although, if you can’t convince her that the bet is a sure thing, maybe you should worry?)
You can pretend that the “voices of dissent” have been ignored if you like, but if you just Google a little (try Ivar Giaever, who got his Nobel in Physics in ‘73 for something unrelated to climate, (try this: http://issuepedia.org/Ivar_Giaever/climate) and admits he knows nothing about the science) with anything like a skeptical mind, you’ll begin to get embarrassed pretty quick. Have you spent any time reading debates between the two sides? It’s a blowout… the “it’s a hoax” side is incredibly embarrassing, and the “it’s groupthink” side is only a little less so. There are a few legit scientists who are still criticizing the consensus view, but they aren’t calling the mainstream scientists “hoaxers”.
Holy shit, dude. Ian Plimer?! The guy believes in creation. He’s out looking for Noah’s Ark.
Ex-Marine at 9:01am June 26
There ya go. Continue belittling those who disagree with you (while disregarding what they are actually saying) and consider the debate won. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s cripple the economy even *more* than it already is with cap and trade legislation based on faulty science. Yeah!
Uncle Vinny at 9:28am June 26
I’m not trying to be a dick. Really. But have you spent any time reading both sides of the debate? Because you sound a lot like you’ve just been listening to Rush and Hannity.
Have you spent any time reading wikipedia? Did you follow that link in my previous comment? Does it bother you that you’re relying on a guy who’s out searching for Noah’s Ark? If a math professor tells you that pi is irrational, and a 4th grader says he’s not sure, how much time do you spend worrying about the 4th grader’s opinion? More so, when Dr. Giaever ADMITS he knows nothing about climate science, but just “feels” like those concerned about global warming are part of a “new religion”, doesn’t it make sense to belittle that as junk science?
My mistake on Plimer, by the way. He’s actually anti-creationism, but pro-finding Noah’s Ark. Weird! Anyway, Wikipedia has a plenty of info on him. He’s not denying massive temp changes; he’s saying it’s inevitable, and Strassel puts him in her article as a skeptic!
Ex-Marine at 9:45am June 26
I listen to neither Rush nor Hannity. Google “global warming debunked” and then, if you care to, try to address the **statements** made, not **who** is making them or **what group** is behind them. So far all you’ve demonstrated is the ability of global warming theorists to attack the person making the statements, not the statements themselves. I don’t have the time, energy, nor inclination to dig up dirt on every scientist who supports global warming. It is this philosophy of “proving” the point of global warming through character assassination of the opposing viewpoint holders that is making people sit up and say, “Hey, wait a minute. Where’s your proof?” Thank goodness people are finally stopping to think for themselves instead of believing everything that is crammed down their throat by the government.
Uncle Vinny at 9:48am June 26
Ok, I’ll get to work on that, if you’ll reply to a few of the links and questions I’ve posted above…
Ex-Marine at 10:15am June 26
A lot of the “evidence” of global warming is based on NOAA surface temperature sensors which have specific guidelines on their placement. Unfortunately, the NOAA does not follow the guidelines and places them on asphalt or cement surfaces which cause exaggerated readings of surface temp. Google on “NOAA temperature sensor mistakes” and there are plenty of hits. The Wikipedia article on global warming states, “The most commonly cited indication of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth’s surface.” and yet not one single reference is made to misplacement of NOAA temp sensors. Yeah, Wikipedia is a non-biased and balanced source of information on the topic of global warming. Not! Who cares if Ian Plimer is looking for Noah’s Ark? What specifically about his science is it that you take issue with? Or do you just discount his entire argument because he’s looking for evidence of Noah’s Ark? Yes, I followed the link on Ivar Giaever. Opinion vs. opinion.
Ex-Marine at 10:21am June 26
Further to the above: http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf. I know, I know…now you’ll dig up dirt or otherwise discredit Anthony Watts as well.
Uncle Vinny at 11:03am June 26
Wikipedia covers the urban heat island effect pretty comprehensively here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island “While the ‘heat island’ warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases **trends** in historical temperature record; for example, urban and rural trends are very similar.” Just read the whole article, it’s interesting, and might calm you down.
A plausible reason why this effect isn’t mentioned in the Wiki article on Global Warming is that the Heartland paper you cite is specifically for NOAA, which is specifically about measuring temperature over land in the US. Does the evidence of global warming rely entirely (or even significantly?) on land-based NOAA measurements? No, as you’d see if you followed the link to the IPCC report (http://is.gd/1eCFy), which lays out exactly how they make their claim for rising temperatures (over land, water and in the atmosphere). In fact, they have an entire section (3.2.2.2) on this issue.
Oh god oh god oh god… you could go into that house of mirrors and never come out again. Careful!
OMG!
Wow Vince, you have a lot more stamina than I have ever given you credit for. Talk about a Sisyphusean challenge you have taken upon yourself. Who can argue against the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere rising anymore? But really, man, you have got to stop your character assassinations. A lot of my professors over the years have been trying to find Noah’s Ark. I think this now must fall into the realm of canonical science.
Oh hell yeah. House of mirrors, here I come! Besides, so far this is all pretty easy Google research. I don’t think he has the stamina to ask any difficult questions…
Vinny – on Plimer & Noah’s Ark you are also entirely wrong. Plimer spent considerable energy debunking the claims of some religious group that they had found a fossilised Noah’s Ark. He pointed out, as a geologist that ‘of course it has a keel. Its a syncline’(a common structure in folded rocks). He also publicly took on Creationists about a decade ago because they were demanding equal time in schools for Creationist “science”. As an academic, Plimer has strong feelings about education. As a result he was sued for defamation by the Creationist group, and forced to sell his house to cover legal costs. He has recently courageously taken on AGW dogmatists providing abumdamt evidence that the science on AGW is anything but settled. Perhaps you should read his book.
Agreed, I misread the Wikipedia article on his views of both creationism and Noah’s Ark.
But Neil, I’m curious how you view the rest of the Wiki article on Plimer. In what ways is it incorrect?
I hadn’t read the Wiki article, but have just done a quick scan of it. The critical comments by other scientists are not surptising as Plimer has been quite critical of their work. There have been commments by other scientists not quoted in the article that have been complimentary of his recent book. In his book, which is a major compilation of information, references and his opinions, he has made a number of errors – mostly trivial and unsurprsing in a book of this size and scope. These have been gleefully seized upon in an attempt to discredit the entire book. I had previously read the critique by Prof Ashley (referred to in Wiki). He uses the time-honoured methods of trying to discredit opponents by selecting a small number of disputable points (none of which in this case detract from Plimer’s central theses that the Global Warming we are seeing is a natural process, part of a normal climate cycle as the Earth emerges from the the Little Ice Age around 1850, and that the earth has been warmer tha today in recent history eg Roman and medieval warming periods) and driven principally by solar phenonmena), and then comparing Plimer with the charlatan Von Daniken. All very effective in discrediting someone but not honest or ethical.
I couldn’t disagree more, Neil. Check out the book reviews from experts in the areas he claims to have made revolutionary break-throughs. They are dismissive of his evidence and his methods:
http://www.aussmc.org/IanPlimerclimatebook.php
“In 2008 I debated Ian Plimer on one of Sydney’s top rating radio stations about the facts and fiction surrounding climate change. All of what he had to say was either patently untrue or horribly misleading.”
The professors are 15% kind to him (they say that his chapter on the history of temperature variation in the earth’s distant past would likely pass peer review, and would be a valuable addition to the literature) and 85% brutal, eviscerating his attempts to “shake things up” outside his area of expertise. It should be embarrassing for anyone to promote this book. One of the critics:
“The most disappointing aspect of this book is the wide use of subjective and often emotive text, unbecoming of a scientific treatise, and this is despite a tirade in Chapter 1 suggesting that Ian is the only scientist, or geology the only field of science that understands the scientific method, is rigorous in the use of observations, and the setting and testing of hypotheses. To suggest that the discipline of geology is the framework in which to analyse the climate-change issue, is as indefensible as suggesting that climate models alone are the basis for determining human response to this issue.”
As I understand it — the book is out of print so I can’t say for sure — he’s saying that it’s inevitable that large swings in temperature will happen at some point in the future, because they’ve happened in the past, therefore we should just live with it and not try to control our CO2 levels. But the problem is that the huge swings of the past happened when humans weren’t alive, therefore a sea level 50 meters higher than it is now wasn’t a problem. A 10-meter sea level rise would be deadly for many people now, and there is overwhelmingly convincing evidence that we have it within our power to prevent that from happening.
“Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective. Decide on your position from the outset, and then seek out all the facts that apparently support your case, and discard or ignore all of those that contravene it. He quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments. What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem. Some researchers have shown that the Earth has been hotter before, and that more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages. Yes, quite — this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on a modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, on a relatively stable climate. Ian pushes mainstream science out of context, again and again.”
I’m happy to continue to discuss it, however. What part of what I’ve written do you disagree with?
Vinny – I disagree with almost everything you say but there is not a lot of point discussing it because beliefs on environmental matters are like religion and there is usually no middle ground But… a few comments. All (or most) of the contributers critical of Plimer on the website you quote derive a living from the AGW industry ie they are in schools of Climate-Change or have published on it. How would you expect them to have received this book? What would have been newsworthy is if they had agreed with him.
There is a petition of US scientists (there is a web-site) containing +31,000 signatues who do not accept the IPCC findings. That’s not something you will find reported in the mainstream press.
And I can’t resist commenting on some of your points. E.g. “But the problem is that the huge swings of the past happened when humans weren’t alive”. Not true. Homo Sapiens appeared in the previous interglacial, something like 140,000 years ago, and so survived through the entire Pleistocene glaciation and the multiple periods of warming & cooling since. In the current interglacial in which we now live there has been a series of warm periods and cold periods that most agree is due predominantly to solar variations. It is uncontroversial that in recent history it has been warmer than now by probably 1 or 2 degrees (eg Minoan, Roman, and medieval warmings) and Plimer’s critics for the most part don’t dispute this. Sea level was also higher than today in some of these recent warm periods during the past 14,000 years.
And you also say “and there is overwhelmingly convincing evidence that we have it within our power to prevent that from happening. and there is overwhelmingly convincing evidence that we have it within our power to prevent that from happening.
You also say “there is overwhelmingly convincing evidence that we have it within our power to prevent that from happening.” Don’t know what that evidence is. Sea level has always been rising and falling, temperature has always been rising and falling. It is human conceit to think humans have had or can have anything but marginal impact on that. The much quoted Al Gore correlation between temperature and CO2 levels is not in dispute. But what is rarely quoted (but is undeniable) is that CO2 change lags temperature change. ie rising temperature causes rising CO2 because the oceans hold less CO2 as they warm. That is obvious even on AL Gore’s chart.
By the way, the IPCC quote a sea level rise of around 1.7 mm per year. If that continues, sea level will be higher in 100 years by 17 cm. Not good new if you live on a coral atoll, but equally not catastrophic.
“beliefs” on environmental matters are hardly like a religion. It can be discussed by rational people, and carried out in the pages of peer-reviewed research.
It’s an outrageous accusation that because the entire scientific community draws a paycheck, they will defend that paycheck by lying about the science. Science works by gaining notoriety and fame (yes, and money!) by disproving the current paradigm with facts that can pass peer review. The pages of scientific history are jammed with stories of professors admiringly stepping aside when someone with better data comes along — there are also stories of those that use subterfuge to try to prevent better data from coming to light. The claim that the ENTIRE community is suppressing data would be buttressed primarily by showing me the data. That is a rational inquiry, and can be discussed.
“There is a petition of US scientists (there is a web-site) containing +31,000 signatues who do not accept the IPCC findings. That’s not something you will find reported in the mainstream press.” It’s called the Oregon Petition, and it’s agonizingly wrong that it hasn’t been “reported”. Wikipedia has a big article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition), complete with media links to pro and con views. It’s terrific that “so many” scientists disagree, but science isn’t carried out via petition… it’s carried out with facts.
Sorry for not being clear, the 50 meter sea levels I was referring to happened millions of years ago. Directly from the professor’s quote:
“Foremost among the misleading is his assertion that in the deep past the Earth experienced much higher air temperatures and much higher CO2 than we have today. Yes, this did occur at various times, for example 40 million years ago during the Eocene. But does Plimer tell his readers that at this time sea levels were 50 metres higher than today?? Certainly humanity did not yet exist and importantly all of our cities, agriculture and infrastructure were millions of years from being built. In fact, the building of our cities, infrastructure, and the location of modern farming have all been set during a very stable climate era – the Holocene.”
I was also unclear when saying that we have it in our power to prevent C02 from reaching critical thresholds, which would cause the sea to rise much faster. Of course we can’t prevent natural oscillations in C02, sea levels, etc… but we do have the ability to control our own influence on the atmosphere and the climate.
The lag between temperature rise followed by C02 rise is not “rarely quoted”, it’s common knowledge among anyone following the issue. What do you think this demonstrates?
The issue with 1.7 mm/year is correct. 17cm in 100 years would be bad for many reasons, but what’s worse is the evidence that positive feedback is currently causing the level rise *rate* to increase, and that we may reach a tipping point that would lead to *much* faster rates of level rising.
This is not religion. It’s science. And is discussable.
UGH, the whole “global warming is a hoax” contention is SO ludicrous and empty-headed, I can’t even argue about it anymore. Good for you for being the voice of reason!
The NCDC has put up talking points with regard to surfacestations.org
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
If you are interested in this look for “John V”, “JohnV” and “opentemp” on climateaudit.org . JohnV took preliminary station quality ratings and created a temperature record of the contiguous US48 states using rural stations with good or excellent rating (1 and 2) of Watts troops. Turns out, they tell almost exactly the same story as GISTEMP.
As for Ian Plimer, http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid is a good starter, specifically this collection of links: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/ . For example Plimer uses – both in his book and his talks – a copy of the faked temperature record that Durkin had to retract from his “The Great Global Warming Swindle”; in the graph temperature data from the period 1885 to 1988 is stretched and presented as being data for the period 1880 to 2000. Plimer also lies about the source of this graph, claiming to have copied it from the German book “Klimafakten”, which is simply a bold-faced lie (I personally checked the book). A little warning about the deltoid site: “skeptics” run a high risk of being ridiculed (usually only after their arguments have been debunked). Whatever good Plimer has done in the fight against creationism, it does not show in his current book.