I’ve had a feud with David Appell ever since he brought my deceased mother into an attack article about me, which I retort in: David Appell denies he has any class . Maybe that was when he hit bottom, because since then he’s been steadily publishing articles that are starting to make sense to those of us that don’t fret fearfully about AGW, climate change, and weather is not climate unless we say it is. And, he’s even calling out people like Bill McKibben and Peter Gleick for their selective over the top rhetoric and dishonesty. The light bulb seems to have gone on for Appell, and it isn’t a twisty bulb.
He makes some good points here:
Quark Soup by David Appell: Bill McFibben on the Weirdest Weather
Bill McKFibben went on Democracy Now today to talk about the President’s attempt to make everyone happy on the Keystone Pipeline (or, at least, make everyone equally unhappy), and mentioned the warm weather in the US, calling it the “weirdest weather ever seen in this country.”
Personally I find such talk strange, since here in Oregon it’s been cold and rainy (and even snowed last night), but that’s another matter.
But weirdest weather ever? Weirder than the Dust Bowl years? Than any of various “storms of the century,” or 1972’s Hurricane Agnes, a June hurricane that swept away all our lawn furniture and precipitated a 20-year feud between my grandmother and my great uncle-in-law when she suggested, as we…
…
McKibben does this a lot, like with last year’s Hurricane Irene, which he attributed to warm water off the east coast. Yet the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season had a near normal number of major hurricanes, with an above average number of tropical storms with a near normal number of major hurricanes. Back then KcKibben picked off all the global hot spots:
“Last year was the warmest ever recorded on planet Earth. Arctic sea ice is near all-time record lows. Record floods from Pakistan to Queensland to the Mississippi basin; record drought from the steppes of Russia to the plains of Texas. Just about the only trauma we haven’t had are hurricanes plowing into the U.S., but that’s just luck—last year was a big storm year, but they all veered out to sea. This year we’re already on letter I—which in a normal year we don’t get to until well into October.”
Now he sticks to the US heat wave, with no mention of the recent deep freeze in eastern Europe. And if you want to cherry pick, Arctic sea ice is currently at it highest extent in several years.
But the one that really deserves QOTW notice is this one:
Are we really going to rebuild all of civilization to avoid the occasional heat wave and rising seas and some slightly stronger hurricanes? I was thinking about this last night, and the answer is clearly no. Yes, these aren’t the only impacts of climate change, by any means, but we get a lot of value from burning fossil fuels. A lot. There is as yet no viable substitute for them. I was thinking about my personal list of concerns, the big ones, and the honest answer is climate change is pretty far down the list, after health care, income (and so, the economy), clean local air and water, crime, and then things like war and terrorism and then hungry and poor people across the globe and animal suffering and probably a few things that aren’t occurring to me now, and then climate change. Sorry, but that’s the truth.
Welcome to lucidity Mr. Appell.
UPDATE: It seems we are back to the death threat thing again, so maybe now Appell will go soft on McFibben and get all bent out of shape when we aren’t all shocked like he did before? His issues was that I just wasn’t shocked and angry enough, but when you look at the charges and “investigation” as I did, there was nothing of substance there.
Steve Milloy writes on Junkscience.com
Death-threat-apalooza: McKibben ‘endured death threats’ for linking early spring to climate change
Following in the footsteps of whiners Katharine Hayhoe and Michael Mann, now 350.org’s Bill McKibben is claiming to have been the target of “death threats.” But maybe he’s just tying to distract from an allegation of racism?
It seems McKibben and other eco-groups aren’t so tolerant of minorities when it comes to saving Gaia. Pre-emptive note to Appell, I’m not shocked about that either.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The world getting saner, one ex-Leftie at a time.
Happily, people can change.
There was a documentary programme on the BBC newschannel yesterday, all about Sir Paul Nurse and the Royal Society. In it, Sir Paul said that it was important to be sceptical, especially about your own work, since otherwise you would only find stuff which confirmed your own initial outlook or prejudice.
A refreshing outlook, I thought.
Hope springs eternal. Maybe there will be a way to climb down from radical warmism. Sadly, I suspect they will figure out a way to keep the taxes and world government aspects “just in case” warming reappears in the future 😉
Edit:
Repetition for emphasis? Something crossed up there …
“Yes, these aren’t the only impacts of climate change, by any means, but we get a lot of value from burning fossil fuels. A lot. ”
Looks like he started reading things.
McSomething-en isn’t a scientist so Appell feels free to reason
Yes to what Interstellar Bill said.
Considering the depth and volume of Warmist blather DA has been responsible for to date, I’d keep my powder dry.
An explicit and detailed abjuration of the Precautionary Principle justification via the “fat-tail” narrative would be a valuable piece of evidence of comprehension of the implications of the above quotes, though.
As we all know, it has never been about the warming – only about control and more money for the government to toy with.
“by any means, but we get a lot of value from burning fossil fuels. A lot”
Ya know… when I need to go a distance, it only takes me about 5 minutes to add 340 more miles of drivability to my vehicle. And when I’m done a five hours later, 5 minutes gets me another 340 miles of range.
Can a coal fired car do that? (electric) If I throw a thousand pounds of stuff in the back will it appreciably affect my range?
“Sir Paul said that it was important to be sceptical, especially about your own work, since otherwise you would only find stuff which confirmed your own initial outlook or prejudice.”
Well, he should know! I’m still waiting for him to retract his assertion that humans produce seven times as much CO2 as nature does (when agreeing with Bob Bindschadler on the BBC).
Time to walk the walk, Sir Paul.
As the science progresses and the predictions are observed as false we will see more and more of them moving toward the skeptical center. Radical environmentalism will soon be out of fashion.
GeoLurking says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Can a coal fired car do that? (electric) If I throw a thousand pounds of stuff in the back will it appreciably affect my range?”
No, extra batteries are so heavy that adding more battery leads to an asymptotic approach to a maximum no matter how much battery you add. David Mackay has computed it. That’s why you find the typical 100 miles maximum range advertised in all kinds of electric cars.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Can a coal fired car do that? (electric) If I throw a thousand pounds of stuff in the back will it appreciably affect my range?
Yup. Yup it will. Just not in the direction which is desirable…
Then Appell won out over some tough competition. This was not our program, per se In his very first Weekly Address, President Obama explained that the key to his economic program was a three year plan to fundamentally transform America to a Clean Energy economy, and in his second, he put his Clean Energy initiative as the first pillar of his entire economic program, even over health care. This video looks at President Obama’s Weekly Addresses through the years, examining how his rhetoric and his actions on energy match up to our realities. A few blatant on-video lies, and we end up with today’s Truth: this was not their program per se.
“johnmcguire says:
March 26, 2012 at 10:04 am”
I don’t think so. There is a very nasty rash spreading from downunder.
Actually I have a longer history than Anthony Watts with David Appell. Back in 2005 when Climate Audit was setup, I made a pest of myself recommending Steve’s posts on the original Quark Soup blog, until in a fit of pique, Appell banned me.
I wore it as a badge of hono(u)r.
Later Appell deleted his blog. I took my share of the credit for that as well.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Appell produced his hagiography of Michael Mann for Scientific American back in 2005, trying to resuscitate Mann’s floundering career.
Its now obvious even to Appell that AGW has been wildly over-promoted and some of its leading lights are not at all what they seem. I think that the antics of Mann and Gleick among others, have caused Appell to start asking the hard journalistic questions he should have been asking a decade ago.
Better late than never…
I had a long discourse with David Appell over at Dr Curry’s a couple of months back, and it was all refreshingly civilised and rational, not the normal moonbattery, or the increasing snarkiness of Chris Colose. Good to know that there are some people who haven’t jettisoned reason.
“What does it gain a man if he saveth the entire planet but loseth his soul”.
Perhaps Mr Appell has realised which way the wind is blowing, that championing AGW is no longer saucily progressive, that its not after all going to be the tool that kicks the foundations out from under capitalism. Too much of the dubious science has been debunked for anything more than modest mitigation be likely for the foreseeable future. Sea walls: too boring.
Death threats. Hahahahaha, He wishes he got death threats. Likely prearranged and sent by Peter Gleick. just like Warmists to believe ‘death threats’ make their nonsense credible. No doubt he is anxiously waiting by the phone for Matt Lauer to call.
If anyone would threaten those CAGW shills then it would likely be their own side since their ridiculous rhetorics are damaging “the cause”.
McKibbens comments on Irene and last years hurricanes show why he is IGNORANT about the actual facts. Its either that or he is delusional, or deceptive. Cant be anything but
those options.
Either you dont know and you shoot your mouth off, you do know and you simply cant process the data, or you do know and then deceive the public. Let me assume you dont, Here are some storms to look at to compare Irene too: 1933 midatlantic for wild track into mid atlantic from the east, 1938 probably given where it hit, the most remarkable storm ever from the tropics ( 10 feet of water into New Orleans is one thing, 13 feet into Providence and 186 mph wind gust a Blue Hill, fuggeddabout ,1944 had wind gusts FROM THE NORTH to 156 mph at Cape Henry Va, almost destroyed ACY, the sisters of 54, Carol, Edna, Hazel ( thank God Dolly veered out) and Donna (1960) ( gave hurricane force winds to all states on the east coast) All were stronger than Irene. Your statement on Irene showed pure ignorance, so now that you have been told, you will not make such statements if 38 happens to show up one of these years ( why it hasnt again is more the mystery to me, btw) So did the global warming cause Irene to weaken, Bill?. And about those numbers.. the ace index was slightly above normal for the atlantic last year , but they name storms in the middle of nowhere that wouldnt have gotten named in previous years . Here is an example, the ferocious Jose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jose_Aug_28_2011_1750Z.jpg.
So if we want to talk global tropical activity, after all we are talking GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION, CHANGE, WARMING, WHICH EVER ONE YOU HAVE THIS WEEK, look at the Ace.. OH IAM SORRY, AT NEAR RECORD LOWS. Here you should look at this link from Dr Ryan Maue so you can make sure you are up to snuff and dont make up this stuff
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg
One more time Bill, since the flip of the PDO, the 17 year non trend has started down, as I opined on Oreilly in 08 it would. Of course the left wing blogs pounced because they knew it opened up to the public what really is going on Guess what, by next winter, a new down spike is likely It will be up the next few months, so try not to be tempted to use that cause the weather will throw it right back in your face. One Hansen screaming Super Nino is enough ( which by the way is an admission it is the enso that regulates the earths temperatures… pile up warm events it warms, but in a cold PDO its the other way around, as we are starting to see now)
here is that link
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
Folks its time all of you get active in countering immediately and anyway you can, not with name calling, but actual facts. I assume by addressing Bill by his name is not name callings. Saying one is ignorant is not name calling if he chooses to ignore the facts to bolster his confidence. There is even a name for that. the Dunning Krueger Effect. Saying some one is either deceptive or delusional applies when a set of facts are known, like for instance all the stronger hurricanes I showed you and the person somehow can not process that, or he can and simply makes the statement anyway knowing full well it doesn’t fit facts.
But this battle can and will be won on facts, and when these things come up, if you know about it, you should be willing to make sure the facts are known.
While AGW is number 22 on a list of 22 things people are concerned about, Jobs are up there at number one and the global warming agenda is destroying the jobs of many, while padding the pockets of a few
David has come a long way since he himself was much like those he now criticizes.
His own earlier attributions of heat waves, hurricanes and melting ice to AGW made him just as easy a target as he now finds McFibben. \
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan
Appell, “There is no crisis that will change our minds – not heat waves in France, not Katrina, not the disappearance of Arctic ice up north. We want what we want, and our species is lousy at planning for the future.”
Question:
Doesn’t the entirety of misinformers (Mann, Schmidt, Romm & MFibben etc) who David has carried so much water for and his own distribution of stuff,
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/09/climate_in_wonderland.html
demand he admit he was wrong and apologize? And only then should skeptics give him a hug and say that’s OK buddy? Come on David, you can do it.
Joseph Bastardi says:
March 26, 2012 at 11:00 am
“Saying one is ignorant is not name calling if he chooses to ignore the facts to bolster his confidence. There is even a name for that. the Dunning Krueger Effect. ”
In the case of McKibben, it’s not the Dunning-Kruger effect. He’s bought and paid for.
Rockefeller Family Foundation >> Sustainable Markets Foundation >> 350.org
>> “It’s hot in here” (Youth lunatics)
http://compleatpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/10/peer-reviewed-earth-sciences-literature.html
I wonder, on a hypothetical list of 100, whether it would be noticeably higher than 99-100 …