Pielke Jr's take on an amazing "Conversation with a Climate Scientist"

There couldn’t be any confusion if the science were settled.
If it were indeed settled no amount of bluster from so called deniers (actually sceptics) could have any effect with the public.
If it were indeed settled then sceptics would universally be regarded in the same way as astrologers, that is, benign eccentrics (I hope trhat does not insult any astrologers too much).
The fact that sceptics are traduced in such a way tells us much about the current state of climate science. It seems to lack any self confidence or support with the lay public.
Just suppose that the warmlings are wrong and energy rationing kills billions through economic devastation, third world poverty and cold without it ever having been necessary. Would they accept a corresponding level of individual personal responsibility to that which they seek to impose on sceptics ?

Holy guacamole! {See – I can make my expletives green}
So, to measure this against a recent post here on WUWT, the two Jeff’s {C & Id} are morally evil for criticizing the Steig et al paper. I mean, if criticizing a failed politician is so bad, how bad is it to criticize a politically correct scientific paper {never mind those minor technical errors; their hearts were in the right place, right?}?
Send out the thought police.

If criticizing Al Gore is the moral equivalent of killing 1000 people then what would be the moral equivalent of punching him in the face? Presumably the destruction of all life on the planet.
On the other hand maybe giving him the Nobel prize is the moral equivalent of curing all disease. Which doesn’t seem to have happened yet. More sacrifices are needed. Maybe sainthood for Al Gore would save us all.

OT, short update:
The warming that started around 8 jan 2009 seems to have ended medio feb. But feb will appear warm in statistics to come.
However now we are back at the situation where 2009 global temperatures are near 2008.
Ice area in the arctic is very near the normal for 1979-2000.
Cosmic rays persist to stay at record levels, Oulo Finland.
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/opdatemar09.gif
And what i find rather interesting: Just as last year, the refreeze of ice already started near 20 feb! – And a quite nice start too:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/antice240203032009.gif

“…
As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.
…”

His statement assumes, though at low probability, that AGW will take place. And what is the “ethical risk” to proponents of AGW if there is a one in a million chance of disastrous global cooling — the onset of an ice age — happening instead?
Tobis’ argument is specious and has no merit because no one knows the true chances of either or neither taking place.

It’s amazing how irrational people get when one refuses to drink the “kool aid”.

Increasing death rates caused by efforts to reduce global warming.
1) Temperature and Fatalities
Evidence: More deaths are caused by cold weather than by hot weather.
Application: Adding CO2 to raise global temperatures will reduce weather related deaths.
2) CO2 and Food
Evidence: Global population is increasing.
More food will be required to feed the global population.
More people die from famines than from excess food.
Primary productivity increases with increasing CO2.
Application: Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase food productivity and reduce the number of deaths from famine.
3) Fuel & Income
Evidence: Families with little work have insufficient income to purchase food resulting in increased deaths from malnutrition and famine.
Use of fossil fuels has strongly increased economic output and incomes.
Consumption of fossil fuels below the population growth rate will reduce global economies unless replaced by less expensive renewable fuels.
Application: The effort by global warming alarmists to reduce CO2 emissions will result in millions of more deaths from cold and from famine than would occur by adding CO2 from consuming fossil fuels.
Challenge: Locate data and apply statistical methods to quantify these trends.

It will be a civil war before soon of a magnitude that makes the Russian civil war and subsequent goulag look like an incomplete draft. People re-read Solzhenytsyn…

Given that the extreme hazards predicted by Gore and others can only be reduced or avoided by drastic reductions in CO2 omissions, ( assuming the AGW brotherhood is correct), then heavy carbon taxes and outright bans on hydrocarbon burning must take place as soon as possible. This will directly and inevitably result in reduced economic activity and lower general prosperity. What is the moral responsibility for those who call for such policies? Reduced economic activity will result in greater poverty, especially among the poorest of the poor, that is, the poorest people in the poorest regions. It is not some abstract and hypothetical risk that faces such people, but very real and statistically measurable increases in malnutrition and disease. We would face an immediate and sustained increase in infant mortality, malnutrition, lower life expectancy, and greater deaths from preventable diseases. Is Mr. Tobis willing to accept direct moral responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands, or millions of the most vulnerable people in the world? Does he even consider them?

Isn’t it the easiest thing in the world for these guys to gather for a conference in Bali, or Copenhagen or Kyoto or wherever, and give themselves a pat on the back JUST for being who they are. Now that’s REAL dignity. (sarc. off)

Ross (10:32:09) :
Tobis’ argument is specious and has no merit because no one knows the true chances of either or neither taking place.
Yes. Furthermore, the typical response of an advocate is to ignore negative consequences (negative w.r.t. his or her hypothesis) when citing already specious arguments. I.e., his fallacy is compounded by the possibility that such warming might decrease cold related deaths by say, 2000 (a number just as arbitrary as Tobis’), resulting in a net gain of 1000 lives. By his own logic, we should be sainted for advocating warming.
Mark

Professor Tobias takes himself WAY too seriously.

Is this based on a Washington Post article? If so, can someone link it in please. Thankyou.

ok I found it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html

“…
As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.
…”
Pure, unadulterated sophistry.

The climate kooks are desparate.
Their grand vision of a “green” society is clashing with economic reality.
Implementing the “green” dream now with the world economy in crisis would be political suicide. The green kooks are beginning to sense that the pols are getting ready to abandon them. And the current cooling is further compounding their misery.
They’re getting shriller and shriller.
Just think about how much Gore and green investors have at stake.

Their comments show that these people belong in padded rooms, and not in science labs.

The parallels of AGW to HIV/AIDS just gets stronger. Just today on WUWT we have:
– warming being delayed for 30 years, just like the period of the progression of HIV to AIDS kept getting extended.
– claims that denying the science is equivalent to killing people”

I’m a little uncomfortable with people drawing parallels between being a sceptic on this issue and being a sceptic on lots of other issues. In fact I would prefer it if general scepticism was excluded from the debate, because it makes us all look like nutters. Thanks. 😉

I can’t find where, on Roger Pielke’s blog, he is asking us for opinions, as stated on the last line of this article (above). I would be willing to offer him my support non-anonymously if I could find it.

I know a guy who was told when he was a teenager by his very religious older sister that looking at a porn mag was no different to physically committing rape.
OK, so if printing an article is no different to killing 1000 people, then it should be OK to kill the author of the article to stop it being printed, as you have just saved 999 lives. Correct?!
These imbecilic arguments show that these people haven’t he faintest idea about complexity, balance, and the real world. They are very narrow minded and reduce things to absurd simplifications. Ironically, they are doing this whilst trying to appear “holistic” and “saving” the world. Saving the very world they are so unable to comprehend.
Sure, small actions can have large consequences–that is their little insight–but as we are all of us performing actions every day, the total outcome of all those billions of small actions have completely unpredictable consequences. I am sure I read a Buddhist teaching explaining this; every event has a vast multitude of influences and causes, so the proper attitude is to be humble about one’s ego and humble about one’s degree of control. Even if I did go do some amazing thing, there were a multitude of influences which caused me to do it and which presented the opportunity to do it. So it wasn’t really “me” that did it, so much as the whole flow of life. Which doesn’t absolve one of responsibility, but it does teach humility.
And the other problem with these silly comparisons between coal stations and “death trains” is that they belittle the real atrocities. And a whole lot of people should be upset about that.
So these greenies may really believe that their thinking about morality is indeed new and better–that comparing coal stations to death trains is an enlightened perspective. Well most of us capable of hearing what they say already know that theirs is an inferior, limited, and brain dead perspective. They took some basic ideas and went too far and got stuck down a dead end. It is patently obvious to the rest of us. We are certainly capable of thinking the way they do and understanding them–we just already know that theirs is a limited and useless point of view on things, one which leads to silly judgements. The environment is a real problem, but theirs is a silly and already outdated discourse.

This way of looking at large but low-probability calamities has interesting corollaries.
AGW is an unproven theory, and even in the most extreme cases is unlikely to kill billions. The only (doubtful) past instance of “runaway” global warming, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum had fairly limited effects.
Asteroid impacts have definitely occurred many, many times in the past and will most ceratainly occur again in the future. A large impact (like the one at the end of the Cretaceous) could definitely kill every human being on Earth.
It seems to me that according to professor Tobis reasoning, any objection to or delay of efforts to locate and deflect asteroids that might hit the Earth must be equivalent to mass-murder, and that resources used to mitigate lesser threats (like AGW) should immediately be re-allocated for asteroid defence.
QED

you just cant make this stuff up. Anything I can imagine as a spoof, turns out to be beaten by the “apparent” truth.
its poe’s law..

Here is how the logic goes…
1. Criticizing Al Gore is the equivalent of killing 1000 people
2. Not allowing criticism of Al saves 1000’s of people
3. Ensuring no criticism by any means necessary will save untold lives
4. Eventually…climate sceptics better learn to check under their cars in the morning before turning the key in the ignition

Post I made over at Promethius :
Prof Tobias,
If you believe your agrument of “morally comparable”, couldn’t the same arguement be made in reverse? It is pretty clear in the world today that health & lifespan is a function of the energy a particular society uses. The countries that use more energy per capita are healthier & live longer because they are in a prosperous society, which is tied directly to energy use (and thus CO2 production). So, if we impliment massive curbs on energy production (the only realistic way to reduce CO2), wouldn’t we expect the overall health & lifespan of people to decrease & then YOU would be the guilty one of a “morally comparable” death of 1000’s. And this is not even considering that the CO2 – AGW hypothesis may not be valid at all. And if this were the case & unneeded energy curbs were put into place, how guilty would you be then.
Not that I think you are guilty, but I do think you need to be more careful how you choose your words. You have to consider the backlash against all environmentalism that may be coming due to a languishing economy & taxes for causes that many see as nothing more than a big govt money grab. The more extreme the envirnmental position that is made, the stronger the backlash will be (that’s human nature) and I am afraid that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. And that ultimately will make the environment truly worse, not better.

Paraphrasing yesterday´s demonstrators:”Global warmers united will never be defeated!” (Wave RED FLAGS !!)

Response to Leif Svalgaard:
Maybe something wrong with the Oulu Monitor, then. As far as I can see it’s all time high since they started up April 1964…

rickM (12:29:06) :
“One wonders how Galileo felt when attacked in this manner by his peers…. and the rest is history.”
Now it is the other way: In Galileo´s time the deniers were in the Church, now Your are the “Church”, the believers, the ones who want to send the rest of us to Inquisition, and we the Galileos of our time.

Sorry, Svalgaard (10:57:26)

Austin (11:33:58) :
“Coal and other fossil fuels supply over 80% of mankind’s energy needs and cannot be removed from the equation for at least two generations.
What Tobis and his ilk propose will lead to the extermination of much of humanity.”
This is exactly what these idiots want. They are a collection of Malthusian and eugenicist fanatics who will never admit they are ever, or ever have been, wrong. Try this (typical) example:
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
Sounds like he can’t forgive us proles for inventing democracy.
Plenty more on: green-agenda.com
AM

If AGW turns out to be false or greatly exaggerated, the politicians, scientists and universities that supported it are going to have to climb their way out of a very deep hole.

A statistical, approach to ethics.
Hey – on the balance of probabilities – what I did was right – yeah that works.
Such a framework would allow any evil act to be justified if it could be shown that “on the balance of probabilities” it would forestall a greater evil.
Actually I really don’t trust that framework – so open to manipulation and deceit.

Anthony, you misrepresent Michael Tobis’ position with these two statements:
– Gore Critics are “Palpably evil”
– Suggests critiquing Gore’s science “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people”
The thing that got Tobis so mad was that Al Gore (who gets the science by an large right) was being put put on equal par as George Will (who gets the science almost entirely wrong), not the fact that Al Gore is critiqued per se.

I have said it before and I am sure that I will say it again, but after much research and observation I have concluded that the primary motivation behind the AGW scam is a Malthusian attempt to limit human population by reducing access to energy. Which I believe is evil in that the “elites” get to choose who gets to live and who does not.
On the other hand I firmly believe that there is no environmental problem that cannot be solved by scientific progress. Those who assume that the world cannot sustain our population growth and hydrocarbon energy usage do not account for new technologies, new inventions, new processes, and new techniques. So they say that “at the current rate”, we will be “here” in x number of years. But no projection of x considers innovation and invention.
Since the beginning of human history mankind has developed new technology to overcome the problems that they were faced with. From using a stick as a tool to computers and satellites we have had a progression of invention. But those who make projections of doomsday scenarios use only current technology in their projections as if the creative spirit in humanity would just cease and we will NEVER invent another thing again.
This is clearly not logical. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say, and the greater the need, the more the effort to find a solution to any problem.
With that said, I have a big problem with the projections of the AGW alarmists. Even if increasing CO2 will cause warming, which I believe is negligible; where in the IPCC’s projections are the effects of new technology?

where in the IPCC’s projections are the effects of new technology?
There are none. Another example of a failure to consider negative consequences (in terms of their own hypothesis) that would serve to balance out the positive. They think the earth is headed for a crisis (or already there) and can only come up with scenarios that basically freeze technology as it stands. All population growth will likewise continue unabated, yet somehow, with all those extra people, we also remain collectively trapped in the same state of technology forever.
Sigh…
Mark

And Ethanol production by the United States killed a REAL estimated 30 million people this past year.
Like I mentioned to my friend last night, this whole AGW thing is just a real shame as it beginning to destroying the credibility of real science, and this is just another example of how.
This Tobis guy has some real issues, and I suggest he address those before he attempts to tackle climate science or he will fail miserably.
WOW! I just can hardly believe what I have just read. Truly amazing!

squidly (13:53:38) :
“And Ethanol production by the United States killed a REAL estimated 30 million people this past year.”
I have only heard that food costs had gone up. Can you provide some proof of this claim? My general set point is skepticism to anything that sounds incredible because it usually is (not credible).

Isn’t it a bit of a diservice to your readers to not acknowledge this post as a cut and paste from marc morano’s email blast? Surely you would have no objection to the clear acknowledgement of sources?
REPLY: what’s your email? Fghyt@bvcxz.com that you put in doesn’t seem to be real. “Fred”
Oh looking at the IP that WordPress provides, I see it’s from Columbia University. That explains it.
The post is combination of two sources and my own writing. I’ll be happy to reveal those sources if you reveal your true name and email address. Seems like a fair trade.
– Anthony

stephen richards (11:17:16) :

I’ve been following the PDO and it appears to have hit a low well below that seen for january for some years; Ie 2nd coldest since 72 and not seen before that since the 50’s. It has been consistently low, and that’s unusual, for some months.

The Southern Oscillation Index is arguably much the same thing. I only trace the index back to 1979 because if you go back too far you end up with a lot of noise and anyway I prefer satellite confirmation. This graph is current up to Feb 2009. Yes it is still in the cold phase.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/SOI.jpg

Oh looking at the IP that WordPress provides, I see it’s from Columbia University. That explains it.LOL! I remember this… ahem. 🙂
Mark

Illustrates my point that Global Warming is a religion. Believers have seen the revealed TRUTH. The likes of Gore are prophets. And the Climate models are the oracles.
Sceptics are of course heretics.
It’s a good job burning at the stake has gone out of fashion.

William,
sorry if I was not very clear with my post. I was quoting Dr. Tobis’ Ethical Society of Austin “Eight Commitments of Ethical Culture”. I was trying to be too clever and forgot the tags. I have nothing to do with his religious group.
I do apologize for the confusion.
Personally, I would not put too much weight on what Dr. Tobis says or does. He is not really at the sharp end of the climate science (or any science). According to his own website, he has a total of three (3) peer reviewed published papers and only one of these is about climate science, this published 9 years ago. The rest of the stuff is conference proceedings.

What kind of scientist says that misrepresentations are OK

That would be Hansen’s kind of scientist:

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.

OT (sorry, its just so interesting…!)
No change in ocean level around Denmark in 115 years…
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/ebovandstand1.gif

I have some more friends of Al Gore who love an interview:
[snip – inappropriate description]
* Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
* John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
* David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
* David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
* Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
* Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
* John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!”
* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
* Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
* Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

@ Ron de Haan (15:30:43) :
“* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: ‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about’?”
Details of that tactic, and how it has been implemented in actuality in the USA…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
Kyoto would accomplish that on a global scale. And there’s no way anyone could know it’s a fake, because…
(a) – Temps go down = “We reversed AGW”
(b) – Temps stay same = “We stopped AGW in it’s tracks”
(c) – Temps go up = “We’re lucky we took action when we did, or it would have been worse.”
It’s a ‘no lose’ proposition for them. The only way they can be shown to be wrong is if they are prevented from imposing their control of our behavior, and nothing happens, which is why they are so desperate to “take action now!”
The warmers have made it a moral issue, and they are on the wrong side of it.

“critiquing Gore’s science “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people”
Tobis,
You just called me a mass murderer. Me, a fellow Longhorn and Geophysicist of over 30 years experience. Perhaps you would care to humbly beg my pardon?
No? Don’t come ’round me looking for a job when UT cans you, pal.

Ralph Waldo Emerson got it right: “The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”

Food prices and ethanol: An update for non farmers
The futures market for March soybeans closed at 8.63 today down from a july 2008high of 16.50 a buschel. The March futures corn contract closed at 3.43 a buschel down froma July 2008 of 8.00.
The prices farmer recieve for grains have fallen tremendously since the summer of 2008. No argument from me that Agricultural commoditied we too high last summer but the prices has corrected(fallen) as they always do. To summarize yes a high percentage of the USA corn crop goes to ethanol production but the price of cron is lower today less of a contributing factor to high food prices

“Geoscientific Model Development”
What a coincidence, that (among other things) is what I do. I’ll keep am eye out for your resume.

len (13:07:04) :
I AGW is real then String Theory is proven beyond a doubt.
Aw, I like the idea of string theory! Mind you, I suppose you could put the Higg’s Boson in the same category. I like that theory too! 🙁

Jari (13:19:11) :
They might even now what the question is for the answer 42.
Would that be “What is the meaning of life?”. I like the hitch-hikers guide…

Obviously Mr. Tobis qualifies as a junk scientist. Before you believe anything he says, you’ll have to fact check it yourself.

D. King (15:29:17) :
This reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the Spanish Inquisition.
Except that “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
suprise … surprise and fear … fear and surprise …. Our two weapons are fear and surprise … and ruthless efficiency …. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency … and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. … Our *four*…no … *Amongst* our weapons …. Amongst our weaponry … are such elements as fear, surprise ….”

While the UK government is prepared to spend billions of pounds to combat the hypothetical risks of global warming, emergency services have seen a 40% increase in calls due to the recent winter.
Local authorities cannot justify the cost of planning for a, historically moderately, cold winter because they are told that these things will become increasingly rare.
Real people have died real deaths quite literally for the price of a bag of salt.
Hmmm!

“* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.””
Nah, that ain’t eco-fascism. That is an old man who has spent his whole life being courteous and interested in a vast array of prats and chateau-bottled shits that he’s been wheeled in front of.
More Grumpy than Green I’d say.

Jeff Alberts (12:46:04) :
I disagree. Based on past cycles, an ice age is much more likely than disastrous warming. The only question is when.

Your point is well taken; I also think an ice age is more likely, but I do not know this nor, in all civility, do you or anyone else; that was my point.

What goes up must come down, and what melts must freeze once more.
Pardon the kludge on gravity.
Of course an ice age is more likely now that a modern maximum has seemingly run it’s course.
Don’t those take several thousand years to develop?
As for those cosmic rays, they are indeed on the down, but that’s reading a trend inside a trend that still rises within the upper & lower ranges of movement over a few years. It all depends on where one is taking the stopping & starting point. It will be many months before a good reading on the daily movement of cosmic rays can be said to be heading back down.
Back off the monitor scale to 1.5 yrs, and observe the rise. Zoom in to 6 months and see the sawtooth inside a sawtooth.

The Trial
The venue is a special session of the International Criminal Court, convened in the United Nations Building in New York City. Mankind is on trial for killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.
The Prosecution team is headed by the IPCC, GISS, and Al Gore. The Prosecution calls witnesses from their own organizations, from prestigious universities and other research organizations, from popular media organizations, and from editorial boards of professional societies across the world.
In all, the Prosecution calls 4,793 witnesses. All confidently state that “Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.” One witness testifies than that he has repeated that statement over and over again at 1,400 press conferences and other talks he has given, and now reckons that he has uttered the words on at least ten times that number of other occasions. He has even inspired young people to write it on signs and march in the streets.
After all 4,793 witnesses have testified, one of the Defense lawyers asks “Do you have any proof? I mean real, tangible, proof.”
A Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and says “The testimony you have just heard is proof enough for any reasonable person. You have heard the considered opinions of 4,793 concerned members of the world’s intelligent class. Only tobacco lawyers or energy company shills would not be convinced by now. I had not planned to waste the Court’s time with any sort of trivia you might call “proof.” However, the Prosecution does understand the needs of the less-gifted. So, to satisfy even you, we will present our computer models.”
A group of 18 scientists associated with the IPCC is brought forward. Each is an expert regarding one of the computer models that has been used to prove that mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.
The Judge says “Wait a minute; I’m not familiar with computer models so tell me how they work.” One of the scientists, a spokesman, explains: “Models are computer programs which are used to test scenarios, i.e., to answer “What if?-type questions. Data and assumptions are input, and the computer model uses sophisticated equations and algorithms to assess the implications of the input information and then print out the results.”
The Judge says “Thank you, please proceed.” The scientist states “My colleagues and I have extensively tested the scenario ‘What if Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.’ On average we believe that we have run the programs about 100,000 times each on the most powerful super-computers ever manufactured. The consistency of the output is stunning. Invariably, the output reads ‘Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.’”
The Judge asks “Where do these computer models come from anyway.” The spokesman says “Well, each research organization usually writes its own code but most of them generally use the overall logic and techniques pioneered and proven by others, such as by Ford Motor Company in the 1950s in conjunction with its development and marketing of its advanced E-cars, or enhanced versions pioneered by the Coca-Cola company in the early 1980s in preparation for replacing an obsolete product with the new Coke. Some of our climate models are now so superior that their overall logic and layout has now been adopted and emulated by other industries, such as the world’s banks, other financial institutions, large insurance companies, and government regulatory bodies. I think it should be clear by now that computer models are essentially infallible. The Prosecution rests.”
The Judge says “Yes, that appears clear and convincing to me. Now I would like to remind the Defense that its client Mankind is on trial for killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Moreover, I remind you of the burden of proof: Your client will be assumed guilty until proven innocent. Present your case.”
The lead Defense lawyer replies “Thank you, Your Honor. We have three Defense teams. The first will examine the facts of the Prosecution’s case in more detail. The second will present our Matlock defense, and the last team will present our star witness.”
A spokesman of the first Defense team steps forward. He says “We have reviewed the evidence presented as ‘tangible,’ that is, the set of computer models presented by the Prosecution. Our computations indicate that the modelers have consistently over-estimated a key parameter called ‘climate sensitivity’ by an approximately a factor of three. We believe the models do not accurately treat phenomena called ‘feedbacks.’ For instance the models assume cloud feedback is always positive whereas we have satellite evidence that it is more often negative. We believe the models are lacking in their treatment of ocean/atmosphere interactions such as ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. As far as we can tell Solar variability is largely ignored or unduly minimized….”
A Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and shouts “I object! Your Honor, did you listen to those words ‘indicate,’ ‘approximately,’ ‘we believe,’ and ‘as far as we can tell.’ This testimony is nonsense and without a shred of credibility. Who in their right mind would accept a statement simply because someone says they believe it or simply that their ‘computations indicate’ something. The Prosecution demands that this testimony be ruled inadmissible.”
The judge says “I agree. The consensus established by the Prosecution should not be vilified in this manner. This line of evidence is out of order. The Defense is instructed to get on with presenting its Matlock defense. By the way, what does that mean?”
The spokesman for that Defense team arises and says “Your Honor, we named the team after a popular TV series which starred an attorney named Matlock who always proved his client’s innocence by finding the truly guilty party. We think we have done that with respect to climate change. The Court will recognize that many changes in temperature and weather are controlled by the natural cycles associated with the Earth’s rotation and its revolution around the sun. We believe that climate is controlled by other natural cycles, or more precisely quasi-cycles operating at various other time scales. The most notable perhaps are the multi-year quasi-cycles such as ENSO (El Nino and La Nina), multi-decadal quasi-cycles such as the PDO and the AMO, multi-centennial quasi-cycles of sunspot variation (their numbers per cycle and cycle length), and multi-millennia quasi-cycles due to slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in the orientation in space of its axis of rotation. These quasi-cyclic processes cause periods of warming and cooling on Earth. We suspect that the very warm (but not unprecedented) period around 1998 resulted when all four of the quasi-cycles mentioned were in a warming period at the same time. We think that perhaps today the Earth is at a peak of a multi-centennial warming period that started sometime around 1850, and that the late twentieth century warming was merely the sum of that warming trend combined with a multi-decadal quasi-cycle (the PDO) which was also in a warming phase at that time. Judging by the fact that the length of multi-centennial warming periods which have occurred over the last 4,500 years are getting shorter and shorter, we may well be halfway through our current warming period now. There may well be some very cool times ahead.”
Another Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and shouts “Your Honor, there they go again–there they go again using words like ‘we believe,’ ‘perhaps,’ ‘we suspect.’ The Prosecution demands that this flimsy fairy tale be rejected and stricken from the record.’
The Judge replies “So be it. I must say that I am so far disappointed with the quality of the Defense. Tell me, are any of your team members qualified Scientists? Do any of them publish papers and articles in peer-reviewed climate science or other journals?”
The Defense spokesman answers “Yes. Thousands of our team members are qualified Scientists, hundreds of whom have published thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals over the years. However, it is true that they don’t publish as often nowadays owing to a new and modern standard that many of the climate journals have adopted.”
“And what, pray tell, new standard is that?” the Judge asks. The Defense spokesman answers “Well, nowadays publishable climate papers have to contain the sentence ‘Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels,’ and our papers don’t.”
The Judge yawns and says “Now I’m getting bored. Let’s get going. Bring in your star witness. That’s all you have left.”
The third Defense team brings in the star witness, which to the Court’s surprise, is the Earth itself! The spokesman says “Your Honor, please meet the Earth.” The Judge says, “Hello, how are you.” The Earth replies “I’m fine, very fine indeed, except would you mind turning up the thermostat a bit in here. I’ve been feeling a little chilly lately, going back to shortly after the year 2000 as best I can recall.”

it’s a red warning flag at very least when language starts to head in that direction; when an idea is being flagged as morally comparable to 1000 deaths because it conflicts with a belief of one’s own, it can be a projection of the worth of one’s own belief.
Historically there seems to be but a short evolutionary step in political or religious ideologies – especially when you’re saving the entire race or planet – from the idea of a virtual number of lives the opposition is murdering by criticising the belief, to a number of virtual lives being saved by the belief, to the number of actual lives the idea is worth full stop, to the number of lives that can safely be sacrificed in order to save them.

Neutron Monitor Smorgasbord: All the monitors you ever wanted to see.
So how’s my counts now?
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/newark.html
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/sanaenm_e.html
http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/hermanus_e.html
http://oldcr.oulu.fi/Request.dll?Y1=2008&M1=Jan&D1=01&h1=00&m1=00&Y2=2009&M2=Mar&D2=02&h2=00&m2=00&YR=00&MR=00&DR=01&hR=00&mR=00&PD=1
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/inuvik.html
http://cgm.iszf.irk.ru/
http://neutronmonitor.ta3.sk/realtime.php
http://132.248.105.25/ (Mexico , check Daily button)
http://pgi.webhop.net/observatory/nmonitor/
http://pgia.ru/CosmicRay/
http://cosray.phys.uoa.gr/
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/fortsmith.html
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//realtime/mcmurdo.html
http://ybjnm.ihep.ac.cn/nm/ (try Jan 2008 to Mar 2, 2009, hourly res.)
Answer: Flat to up.

A bit off topic but a wonderful read is this German news article that says I will be done in from climate change due to sea worms farting out laughing gas. I kid you not. Read it .
Cheers and thanks for putting up the good fight.

Or maybe the drumbeat was for the purpose of getting votes from a fringe voting block. Don’t tell me that Obama did exactly what Bush did?????? Do I smell vote pandering? Are the colors fading or am I getting color blind? Red and blue are beginning to take on the same hue.

Robert Bateman (19:55:43) :
They’d probably be more likely entertaining the idea of letting loose the plagues on the cities, capping the coal mines, composting the crops & killing the cattle if it got to that stage. There’s good CO2 & bad CO2 remember? 😉
Darnit – what if the aliens need a CO2 atmosphere? They’ll have to go as well!

Ross (18:06:25) :
Your point is well taken; I also think an ice age is more likely, but I do not know this nor, in all civility, do you or anyone else; that was my point.

I agree that no one knows. I made the same point in another post, that never got approved. Anyone who says this is coming or that is coming are really guessing. I’ll go with the odds.

Jerry Lee, absolutely wonderful read!

4years, Field corn is selling for $0.06/lb. We “carried over” 1.8 Billion Bushels of field corn this year.
You are just regurgitating Big Oil memes.

Hey 4-years. I think both sides genuinely think they know best about how to make our country successful. Whether or not they are right (both or one), is yet to be played out. You mention consumption (I don’t know what you mean by public consumption). Consumption is not a bad thing. Every generation of producers hope that people will buy what they produce. Ask any small, medium or large business owner. Ask any red, blue or calico colored politician. It’s how to get to a place where producers produce and buyers buy that the roads part.
To have your road (or my road), you have to be in a place of power (or else you don’t get to be head of committees). It stinks, but whoever is in power gets to put into place their road. But to be in a place of power, you have to win votes. Politicians do everything they can to win votes. That means that they pander to the left, the right, the middle, and to people so far on the fringe that they share space with Pluto. I think that Obama did his fair share of vote pandering. Whether or not he pulls through on bedding down with his fringe is as fraught with ifs, ands, or butts as Bush’s was with the bed laid out by the neo-religious conservatives. He chose not to get into bed with them after he got their votes (not a bad thing in my opinion). I wonder if Obama will do the same thing.
But I just can’t go as far as you do in your opinions of the other side. I wouldn’t say that about Bush and his party. Did he lie? Likely. Did he break some rules? Probably. Did he abuse his power? At times. Was he at the helm when the ship was steered in a way that caused at least some of the economic woes we face? It seems that way. Sigh. So will Obama I’m guessing. However, that makes neither party some evil power-hungry entity bent on lining their own pockets. Because I may think someone is wrong, that does not equate to me thinking them evil.
What makes you hate the left so much? It reminds me of the Civil War days. Republicans were the party of the North. Liberal. Forward thinking. Focused on Federal rule over state rights. Democrats were the party of the South. Focused on returning to the days of agrarian old. States rights was sovereign. And they apparently hated each other then, even though the Democrats are now the liberals, and Republicans are now the conservatives. Given the convoluted path of both sides, and the mixing and trading of beliefs, again, why do you hate the other side so?
What makes Obama and the left evil in your eyes? And it has to be more than you just thinking he and they are wrong. I’m a teacher. If I equated wrong with being evil, I would need to find another line of work.

“Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.”
This quotation is where his whole case falls apart because it seeks to give one justification for his complaint then brushes that justification aside in favour of an pre-determined ideological position.
He starts out with the proposition that Mr Gore is more accurate than Mr Will factually (or, if you prefer, scientifically). That point stands or falls on an assessment of the degree to which the points put by Mr Gore and Mr Will are supported by observable fact and, where there are no observable facts, scientific hypothesis. That is where one would expect a fair minded person to end his argument. He asserts that Mr Gore is more accurate than Mr Will. That’s fine. If he is he is, if he isn’t he isn’t. It is a neat self-contained point that stands or falls on an analysis of the evidence.
But having tried to assert that Mr Gore is more accurate, he dismisses Mr Will not on the ground that he is less accurate but on the ground that he is “perpetuating this dangerous skew”. In other words, it is not the alleged inaccuracy that is objectionable. What is objectionable is the opinion the allegedly inaccurate material supports.
His argument about accuracy is wholly redundant. The AGW Armageddon theory is correct, therefore to argue against it is dangerous. Mr Gore argues for it, so he is correct. Mr Will argues against it, therefore he is dangerous. That being the established position of Mr Tobis prior to examining any details of what Mr Gore and Mr Will have said, it does not matter one jot what they say, his conclusion will be the same. Mr Gore is inaccurate – so what, he’s right anyway. Mr Gore is accurate – of course, because he’s right. Mr Will is accurate – so what, he’s wrong. Mr Will is inaccurate – of course, because he’s wrong.
Mr Tobis is not putting forward an argument he is asserting a concluded opinion.

So, criticising Gore is like killing 1000 people. Wow, AGW must be a really serious business. What are his views on Gore becoming incredibly rich thanks to his AGW/CO2 profiteering? Surely that makes Gore 1000 times worse?
If coal trains are ‘death trains’ then what the hell does that make Gore? This is the man who makes $millions with his carbon credit scam.

Leif Svalgaard (19:53:24) :
Nick Yates (17:56:59) :
This minimum is lasting bit longer than recent minimums. Have cosmic rays also been at a ‘high’ level for longer than for other minima since 1952?
Here are several long-term records. Judge for yourself:
Leif,
Thanks for that.
I guess the answer is it may be, but we’ll have to wait a bit longer to see. I wonder what happened in 1991->1992, the flux was really low.

Michael Tobis is a disgrace to reputable scientists and reputable computer engineers.
“Consider some statistical expectation of human lives that will likely be lost as a consequence of the delay due to this confusion. I think such a number could present a very grave picture indeed.” – Michael Tobis
These hysterically unsubstantiated comments are intentional. He has a habit of posting alarmist rhetoric on blogs. IMO he has no business calling himself a computer engineer when he does not have a remote understanding of computer systems. It is an embarrassment to the field of computer science to have him call himself a “computer engineer” when he cannot even comprehend GIGO. He is one of many who graduate with a computer related degree and then believe that computers have magic powers and/or emotions. They get stuck in academia because their computer illiteracy would immediately get them fired in the private sector. There you cannot BS your way around software that produces nonsensical results. It is some sort of cruel joke that the whole AGW hysteria is based on the computer illiteracy of people like Michael Tobis.
I had a debate with him and he could not comprehend why a paper that claims the broken solar radiation tranfer codes in GCMs is irrelevant because they did a lot of math actually makes the case AGAINST GCMs by admitting the code was broken. Some people have no business declaring themselves “experts” on computer systems.

To call someone ‘palpably evil’ serves no prupose other to to polarise the argument and effectively end any debate. The ridiculous futuristic statistics on which this position is based demonstrate nothing but totally simplistic and linear thinking. It makes me mad. 8 million people die every year for no other reason than they are too poor to stay alive. That’s nearly a billion over the course of this century. It makes Tobis’ fantasy 1000 seem ridiculous. Access to cheap energy is what lifts people out of poverty.
Hitler and Stalin were evil for enforcing their vision of world order on Europe – with the deaths of millions.
The Khmer Rouge were evil for forcing their visiion of world order on Cambodia with the deaths of milllions.
The people who flew planes into the Twin Towers were evil fro trying to impose their vision of world order on all of us.
People like Tobis are no different – they are fanatics too. Not giving the billions of this world access to the cheapest forms of energy to let them live, in pursuit of some totally misguided vision on how you think the world should be ordered is the same. It is morally repugnant.
And if people are better off – maybe when the next storm comes, they will see it on TV, get into a reliable car on a reliable road and drive the hell out of the way – just like the rest of us do.

“how did I give ammunition to my enemies”?
In a debate, anytime you advance a theory that is demostratably false it will undermine your position. If your point is ridiculus right on the surface, credibilty is destroyed. Mr. Tobias has arrived at that point.

Definitely unfair snip, but not my call.
We can clearly see horrific results of eco-fascism in the DDT panic. We are going down the same path without being able revisit past abominations?

“To call someone ‘palpably evil’ serves no prupose other to to polarise the argument and effectively end any debate.”
Yes, but there are some people who really ARE “palpably evil” and with whom no debate will have any effect anyway. They are “evil” after all.
Just calling someone that, based on wild “truther” style associations and without a DEMONSTRABLE basis in fact, is usually a sign that the caller is at best confused, and at worst indulging in a little psychological projection.
But the use of that term is a big gun, and it probably shouldn’t be used unless it is needed, because sometimes it is.
For example, I have no problem labeling bin Ladin evil, as well as Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat. Of course, when someone says “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” while clearly amoral, it is not necessarily evil (might just be a clueless idiot), though it is pushing the envelop, IMO.
Among those who banned DDT there were many who believed it really was dangerous. Yet there were also those who knew if it’s use were constrained, the hazards could be limited and millions wouldn’t die as a result. Those latter are, IMO, definitely evil. But when you don’t know someone’s motives, calling them evil, should be avoided, unless they’ve made the same mistake before and should know from experience that it will also be very harmful this time as well.
That said, I guess it’s clear I quite agree with your assessment.

And you thought the USA is a democracy?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30891

timbrom
“I believe I heard somewhere that the person who actually placed the first ban (an American in the EPA?) has, by now, overtaken Mao as the greatest mass killer in history.”
I suspect that is very close, if not the actual truth. Premature deaths world-wide from malaria are estimated at 1 million per year. (CDC, see link below). Given a 35 – year ban, or roughly that time frame, then it would be about 35 million people.
http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/impact/index.htm

IS THIS “PALPABLE” ENOUGH FOR ANY OF YOU?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/03/barack-obama-updates-soviet-flag.html

Why chlorinating potable water is important:
“Disinfecting our drinking water ensures it is free of the micro-organisms that can cause serious and life-threatening diseases, such as cholera and typhoid fever. To this day, chlorine remains the most commonly used drinking water disinfectant, and the disinfectant for which we have the most scientific information.”
source: Health Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/chlor-eng.php
We know that chlorinating water is safe, effective, and prevents serious diseases. Can anyone please explain to me why funds are not available to ensure every person has chlorinated water to drink, but funds are available to build computer models of climate change?

Global warming is real, folks. The temperature now is Fahrenheit 451.
=============================================

Allan M R MacRae (01:22:50) :
It is probably too late tonight to write anything sensible.
However, I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..
Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.
For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.
I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.
I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.
There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.
I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.
I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.
Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.
I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.
While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.
Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.
Best regards to all, Allan
Definently sensible! Well said.
Cheers G

Roger Sowell: “Given a 35 – year ban, or roughly that time frame, then it would be about 35 million people.”
The 1972 EPA ban on DDT in the US was for non-public health purposes such as agriculture. There was no ban for public health purposes and DDT can still be used for this purpose.
In its day DDT was a life-saver for millions of people, especially in third-world countries, but among other practices over-use in the 1950s and 60s in agriculture led to the development of resistance in mosquito populations and eventually the abandonment of large-scale efforts at eradication.
However, DDT is still in use in some countries as part of a range of strategies to combat malaria. The DDT ban myth has a wide currency across the internet, but is not founded on the facts and ignores the science of pest control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria

Bjorn Lomborg claimed that with the money spent on Kyoto-based programs controlling C02 to save just one person, 36,000 people could have been saved in third world countries through mosquito control programs reducing deaths from Malaria. That is from just one program. There are many more, such as provision of clean water (some 6,000 children die every day from water related diseases), hunger relief, etc. When you think of the many billions of dollars that could have been spent raising living standards, particularly in third world countries that have instead been wasted on the complete fantasy of manmade warming, the argument could be made that those promulgating AGW are guilty of a worldwide holocaust, and already responsible for the deaths of literally millions. But, this is only the beginning. Clearly, raising energy costs will hurt poor people most, reducing their already-low standard of living even more, thus causing many millions more deaths.
AGWers claim to be concerned about over-population, since it is we humans who are “responsible” for “C02 pollution”, which is “destroying our planet”. Perhaps, consciously or not, this is one way they are carrying out a “cure”.
Talk about “palpably evil”!

Allan M R MacRae (01:22:50)
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.
Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.
I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.
While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.
Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.
Well said, and while I sympathize with the sentiment, I have to say that it is just way too late for that. The horse has left the barn, the die is cast. This is, in a very real sense a war, and one that we didn’t start. Appeasement not only didn’t work for Churchill, it backfired. The anti-science of AGW ideology, like nazism, has to be ground into the dirt from which it came. It has become public enemy number one.

timbrom, thanks, I stand corrected. Usually check those things out first before posting, too, oh well.

One of the commenters claims:
“There couldn’t be any confusion if the science were settled.
If it were indeed settled no amount of bluster from so called deniers (actually skeptics) could have any effect with the public.”
Oh, if only that were so. The question of whether or not the earth is a few thousands or a few billions of years old is about as settled as a science could be. Yet 50% of “the public” opt for the former ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism).
Most members of the public aren’t scientists, they just listen to what they hear on their televisions. Those, like Beck, who broadcast their opinions have a responsibility to their public to do a bit of homework. If they do this poorly, or don’t even try, then other public speakers have a responsibility to correct them.
Tobis is honorably trying to correct some serious misconceptions and caricatures floating around out there on the airwaves. He’s a scientist, not an entertainer, so his delivery is perhaps less polished. Pay attention to what he’s actually saying, not to what the entertainers spin it as. Feed the sound bites to the dog, and read the paragraphs. Once you’ve done that, but not sooner, tell us why he’s wrong.

“…read the paragraphs. Once you’ve done that, but not sooner, tell us why he’s wrong.”
“As a consequence, the public debate about global change issues is dangerously skewed from the most basic and crucial facts, as currently understood and enunciated by virtually every major scientific body in existence.”
“Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.”
-Michael Tobis
I’ll pick a phrase:
“…Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks,”
What does “effective politics” mean? Not allowing the press into your seminars so that you can lie freely? And “truthful description of risks”?
Entire icecap to disappear in five years:

Models show 20′ of sea level rise:
http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/al-gore-weathers-confrontation-at-economics-summit
“…George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.”
Because he stated the truth? George Will is a man of integrity who values truth. Tobis prefers those who lie and frighten to attain their ends. For a good look at Tobis’ position statement see this:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/the-trouble-with-revkins-critics/
Of course Tobis has now changed the statement but he can’t hide the fact that he is a politician NOT a scientist.