Comments on: Roger Pielke defends his absurd delayer post … by quoting a global warming denier!

By: Answer This

Answer This — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:33:27 +0000

Michael Griffin says “I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists”

This makes him a denier?!? What is it in fact that he is denying?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:24:29 +0000

Another example of Joe as delayer. Misrepresent the statements of the “enemy” and attack. This tactic of the fanatic is part of a pattern of combativeness toward those with whom a true non delayer would seek common ground. Pielke is looking for ways to measure the accuracy of IPCC projections, a scientific inquiry. He does not call people names. As to religious zealotry, consider Al Gore’s description of “a generational mission; the exhilaration of moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence.”

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:09:33 +0000

–”What is it in fact that he is denying?”

He’s using a standard argument: I acknowledge global warming, but doubt that people caused it. Denying the A in AGW (which leads to delaying taking action).

By: Jim C

Jim C — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:55:46 +0000

I don’t think he was calling Mike Griffin a religious zealot. He was linking to an article in which Griffin says:

-”I didn’t realize it had approached the status where you can’t express any sort of a contrary opinion or a comment without it being treated almost as a religious issue.”

So, the 1st half of your posting is wrong, disingenuous, or intellectually dishonest.

By: john

john — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:31:04 +0000

OK, this absurdity has gone on long enough. The problem with your statements, Paul K, Answer This, and Jim C., is embedded in the Griffin quote Jim C. cites.

In it, Mike Griffin talks about “contrary opinion (s).” Well folks, AGW is not an opinion and science is not a clash of opinions or a popularity contest. It’s about data, and being committed to accepting what the data tells us — even when we don’t like it.

Pielke obviously distorts data — he’s got a bias and he’s trying to use the worst kind of sophistry to make the data fit his preconceived notions. Or maybe he’s merely an iconoclast who loves the attention being a contrarian gets him. Either way, his analyses don’t fit the real world. You know, the place where data comes from (as opposed to pulling it out of some anatomical AbuGraib and torturing it until it says what you want it to say).

Griffin, the head of the nation’s lead science agency on global warming doesn’t even seem to have a passing notion of what the sientific method is all about. Astounding. Expressing “opinions” is all well and good — denying what the data is telling you merely because it doesn’t fit your ideology? Not so much.

What’s even more astonding is the fact that you guys are so clueless that you swallow this swill over and over and over again. It’s as if you haven’t got a critical analytical cell in your entire cranium.

The depth of your commitment to willfull ingnorance is breathtaking.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:21:51 +0000

john,
What a fine piece of ad hominem attack. The real world data shows there has been no statistically significant 21st century temperature trend in either direction. This is in sharp contrast to the last decade of the previous century. Data also shows that the current 30 year warming is mainly a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon with the greatest warming occurring in the northern third of that hemisphere. It is entirely within the scientific method to wonder what, if any, meaning the data conveys. Determining what data might falsify (used in the scientific sense) a given theory is the essence of scientific inquiry. The point of my original comment was to criticize the “attack the enemy” mindset. If the planet is truly in jeopardy, such a mindset is a severe hindrance to accomplishing a solution. In that regard, I encourage you to take up Joe’s challenge to delayers to answer the key question: “If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?” Then we might have a meaningful discussion about the future.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:25:57 +0000

Paul — your facts are simply not accurate. I am increasingly of a mind to simply delete disinformation. Especially from people who have not answered the key question. I may have missed it when you answered it. Either, I’d love to see your answer now.

I can tell you that John thinks we need to beat 450 ppm — and I’m sure he wants to do it with efficiency and renewables, but I’ll let him speak for himself.

By: Dano

Dano — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:14:01 +0000

The depth of your commitment to willfull ingnorance is breathtaking.

Confirmation bias added to ideological constructs.

Best,

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:39:35 +0000

Paul K stated “The real world data shows there has been no statistically significant 21st century temperature trend in either direction.” False. Read

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.htm

By: Jim C

Jim C — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:58:14 +0000

“OK, this absurdity has gone on long enough. The problem with your statements, Paul K, Answer This, and Jim C., is embedded in the Griffin quote Jim C. cites.”

john, you have no idea where my sentiments lie regarding GW. But it’s obvious that Pielke’s use of a link was taken entirely out of context and so half of this post isn’t justified…whether GW is real or not! Maybe it was a stupid mistake…or maybe the author thinks you’re stupid enough to not check it out, in which case you should be offended.

As a skeptic, I take everything with a grain of salt and look at both sides of the issue. This particular posting is no different than quote mining, a tactic of the ideologues. Is that the direction this blog should be going in?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:43:57 +0000

Joe,
So you are saying john is a delayer-450. I believe you fall into that area also. I, on the other hand, cannot be called a delayer in any shape manner or form but will throw in with you guys at 450 and then try not to give it much more thought. Efficiency and renewables are wonderful words and should be included in any plan. Of course, they would be present even in a no plan “business as usual” future. My plan is bottom up, sensitive to the consumer and looks to the people. My Plan treats the disease - dependence on carbon consuming energy rather than the symptom - CO2.
It is focused on the actual nuts and bolts of physically changing to a non carbon driven world.

Set 100 year goals for replacing carbon
Set 40 year goals
Set 25 year goals
Implement 10 year plan
Implement 5 year plan
Implement 1 year plan

1 year plan
Legislative initiative
A bill eliminating capital gains taxes on investment in carbon replacing energy investments including improvements to the grid amendable only for defining qualifying investments.
A bill or amendment appropriating sufficient funds to install 5Kwatt solar on all appropriate federal properties.
A bill or executive order requiring all non-military vehicles purchased be hybrid until none are available.
People power
Formation of a national fossil fuel replacement association to assist the consumer in market place participation.

There is, of course, much more.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:50:40 +0000

Let me add a little to the first year, Heck, I’m talking about the first day. Immediately approve the Bay Wind Project. Nothing has been more detrimental to your cause than the very vocal opposition to this vital fossil fuel replacement and therefore CO2 eliminating venture by alarmist Robert Kennedy Jr. who hypocritically puts his own ocean view and the prosperity of local tourism interests above the saving of the planet while recommending trials for treason so called deniers.

By: PGosselin

PGosselin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:43:22 +0000

Paul K
Sen. Kennedy’s reaction is a prime example of elite hypocrisy. They want us to accept laws, regulation and government intervention that they themselves refuse for themselves. The same goes for Al Gore’s, Hollywood actors’ and Co. unwilligness to give up their private jets while demanding the rest of us travel by bicycle or foot.

By: Ian Castles

Ian Castles — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:39:18 +0000

David Benson, You have cited the recent ‘Skeptical Science’ posting on ‘Comparing IPCC Scenarios to Observations’, which draws on Rahmstoorf [sic] et al (2007) to argue, inter alia, that the IPCC’s 2001 projections ‘underestimated temperature rise with observations warmer than all projections.’

Unfortunately, the authors of Rahmstorf et al misunderstood the basis of the ‘projections’ for 1990-2000 in the TAR. As explained in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (2000), ‘the 1990 and 2000 emissions scenarios were standardized in all the SRES scenarios, with emissions diverging after the year 2000′ (Box 5.1, p. 243).

The SRES went on to explain that ‘The standardized scenarios share the same values for emissions in both 1990 and 2000′, and that ‘The 1990 and 2000 emissions estimates for all gases, except SO2, were set to be equal to the initial values in the unadjusted four marker scenarios.’ So, for example, the projections for emissions AND FOR TEMPERATURE for the A1FI scenario, which was not a marker, were set BY ASSUMPTION as equal to those of the average of the four markers.

As an indication of the possible scale of the effect of this procedure, the A1FI scenario assumed that the global energy supply from coal would increase by 30% between 1990 and 2000, compared with an increase of about 5% for the A1B and B1 scenarios.
.
So when Rahmstorf et al conclude that ALL OF the IPCC projections underestimated the temperature rise, they are not in fact evaluating the performance of models against observations - at least as far as the 1990-2000 period is concerned (the greater part of the comparison). In fact, the comparison is invalid in the context in which it was used in the article published in ‘Science’ on 4 May 2007.

Paul K’s conclusion is correct and is in fact supported by the UK Met Office/UEA media release of 3 January 2008. And your claim that Paul K’s conclusion is “False” is itself false.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:03:02 +0000

For the record: Ian Castles comment, just prior, appears to essentially duplicate one on the following thread, where I replied.