Quote of the Week: ‘global warming stunts black holes’

It appears “global warming” is now the most potent force in the universe, according to a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. An actual scientific paper preprint published in the Cornell University science archive makes the connection to black holes in the title, and includes “climate change” in the abstract.

Sigh. It isn’t even past coffee on Sunday morning and already we have our winner. This one… is weapons grade stupidity. I would not believe that a scientist from a prominent research institute could utter such a statement had I not read it in a prominent science magazine. It’s another “Vinerism” in the making: Children just aren’t going to know what black holes are.

It immediately reminded me of the famous line uttered by Tom Cruise in the movie a A Few Good Men:

“Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid!

But then again, this is The New Scientist. Read on, emphasis mine.

Something must have limited the growth of these black holes. Now Takamitsu Tanaka at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, and colleagues have a climate-based explanation.

Black holes need cool gas to grow so this would have slowed down the growth of other black holes in smaller protogalaxies, even as the growth of black holes in the most massive protogalaxies continued apace (arxiv.org/abs/1205.6467v1).

“This global warming process could have basically quenched the latecomers,” says Tanaka. “The early ones end up being the monsters and they prevent the overgrowth of the rest.”

Tanaka probably should have said the “galactic warming process”, and maybe he did, and this could is a misquote by the unnamed author of the article at TNS. UPDATE: This line from the abstract tends to suggest it was a deliberate statement from the scientist:

Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.

Either way, it shows how global warming on the brain tends to create an environment for such ridiculous comparisons to make it to press.

I decided I should make a screencap of the paper abstract, becuase I have a feeling it will disappear:

Next I suppose we’ll be reading comparisons of the “global warming process” to problems at the atomic interaction level, such as maybe the sun is now producing fewer neutrinos or some such rot. Don’t laugh, it could happen.

Read The New Scientist article here.

Unfortunately, comments are only allowed from subscribers, so if there are any subscribers out there, please leave a comment pointing out this idiotic comparison. Better yet, write a letter to the editor of the magazine.

In the meantime, feel free to use this motivational poster:

201 thoughts on “Quote of the Week: ‘global warming stunts black holes’

  1. *blink* *blink*

    So now our CO2 emissions control one of the more powerful forces in the universe?

    There is nothing CO2 can’t do.

  2. I think its pretty obvious to Mr. Tanaka that Mentos makes up most of the missing mass of the galaxy. If we look at earth’s CO2 as a big bottle of soda, dropping the galactic Mentos is playing obvious havoc with super nova/black hole creation.

    While I am not sure this explanation would satisfy Max Planck, I think the mentos theory will appeal to Doug Plank, the hard-hitting ex-defensive back of the Chicago Bears.

  3. Astounding – but slightly OT; my QOTW would be: …this is commonly referred to as ‘research’. There will be plenty of opportunities to use that one again.

  4. At this point, the phrase “galactic warming process” exists nowhere but on this site.
    “This global warming process could have basically quenched the latecomers” is quickly propagating around the Net.

  5. I am more inclined to believe that the journalist misquoted…the journalist has “global warming” on the brain.

  6. Tanaka HAD to have been misquoted, and abetted by sloppy and ignorant editing.

    Great QotW, though!!!

    PS. Limiting comments to subscribers means limiting intelligent discourse and transparent interchange. Is this where a Science magazine wants to go? Non subscribers will remain so if the publication removes “hooks” like comment submissions, that would have repeatedly attracted them.

    Looks like editorial sloppiness also translates into managerial ineptitude!

  7. I would not call him stupid, he managed to drop THE “scientific” buzz word into the mix in a totally unrelated area and probably got more attention for it.

  8. I think you’re being a bit harsh. Japanese researcher working in Germany reported by a journalist who doesn’t understand English in a magazine that doesn’t understand science….

  9. Leon0112 says:
    June 10, 2012 at 7:27 am
    It has to be a misquote.

    It is.

    In this instance, it’s “Should we or should we not follow the advice of the infinitely-in-multiple-dimensions stupid!”

  10. Grantsmanship.

    Phrases to put in your paper if you want to be published.
    Phrases to put in your grant proposal if you want to actually get the grant.

  11. Could it be a few astrophysicists have picked up on how to get wider recognition and seemingly unending grants by having the right conclusion? A type of cancer spreading among scientists?

  12. I guess astrophysicists can speak with as much certainty about stuff that don’t really know, just like climate change scientists. Basically, this guy is making a WAG, but still speaks with total authority.

    While it is out of my league…I didn’t know that black holes needed cool gas to grow. I thought they only needed available mass. Who would of thought that massive gravity wells were so selective in their accretion.

    Also, I would think that the local ‘climate’ of a massive protogalaxy would be far hotter than the climate of a smaller one.

    Shows you what I know.

  13. I’m also voting for “This is what is commonly referred to as research”.

    Such delicious irony.

  14. “Next I suppose we’ll be reading comparisons of the “global warming process” to problems at the atomic interaction level, such as maybe the sun is now producing fewer neutrinos or some such rot. Don’t laugh, it could happen.”

    No we won’t; for that would open up the question of whether the sun influences our climate. Such a link must always be denied by the IPCC climate scientists and their media. The sun is taboo.

  15. Steve says:
    June 10, 2012 at 7:59 am

    Grantsmanship.

    Phrases to put in your paper if you want to be published.
    Phrases to put in your grant proposal if you want to actually get the grant.

    ________________

    Agreed…
    with an eye to the present state of the scientific/political world, I don’t believe for a minute that Takamitsu Tanaka was misquoted.

  16. “Misquating Tanaka”

    Actual quote from actual paper.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6467v1

    Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.

  17. Ric Werme says:
    June 10, 2012 at 7:41 am
    I think you’re being a bit harsh. Japanese researcher working in Germany reported by a journalist who doesn’t understand English in a magazine that doesn’t understand science….

    That could also describe a typical inanimate-object-as-temperature-proxy-study team…

  18. I love the abstract :
    “Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change , in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs. We present two specific models with global miniquasar feedback that provide excellent agreement with recent estimates of the z=6 SMBH mass function.”
    Well it shows that global warming is hindering BH growth, such a pity, as said above it becomes clear that children just aren’t going to know what black holes are.

  19. 8:50am, Sunday, 6/10/12….. Sorry jaymam, it’s there. I just read it, as advertised.

    What’s wrong with Tanaka’s viewpoint is that if he is right, then Global Warming is a GOOD thing, otherwise there would be an out-of-control proliferation of black holes.

    If in fact New Scientist has misquoted him, then they’ve reduced themselves to the level of scientific integrity and understanding of Time magazine, or Newsweek. Or Real Climate.

  20. Are “stunted black holes” a bad thing?

    Personally, I always found the idea of them lurking around out there, sucking everything up, a bit scary.

    I think I might stick to my SUV and stunt them a bit more to be on the safe side.

  21. I love WUWT but the readiness to heap on the scorn without looking or seeking to understand is beginning to undermine the solid foundation of the site. I’d hate to see WUWT ruin it’s good reputation built on solid reporting and facts by getting in the habit of taking cheap shots at every comment out there.

    Take the time to try to understand what is being said before flinging scorn and make sure of your target – whether it is the scientist, the New Scientist or whether the New Scientist is simply misusing information that makes sense in context.

    “Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.”

    Making fun of things that are actually correct in context undermines WUWT.

    REPLY: I probably should have made the abstract part of the original article, that is now rectified. The money quote from the abstract is:

    Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.

    So, I think the scientist deserves scorn for trying to link the “climate change” phrase to something otherworldly and temporally almost at zero hour for the universe, but TNS even more so for editorial failure. – Anthony

  22. Tanaka -neat name. Like something from a Bond movie, or Flash Gordon.

    Colonel Takana: General Kala! Black Hole approaching!
    Kala: What do you mean, “Black Hole approaching?”
    Colonel Takana: On a Hawkman rocket-cycle. Shall I inform Karoly?
    Kala: Imbecile! Karoly would shoot you for interrupting his peer reviewing with this news! Fire when Black Hole’s in range!
    [Black Hole escapes]
    Kala: It’s escaping, idiot! Dispatch war rocket CO2 to bring back Its body

  23. All this from New Scientist about black holes but nothing about carbon’s effect on white holes? Is this a clear case of hole color prejudice?

  24. Come on. The abstract said globally warm, warming in a spherical volume. Climate referred to the conditions around the black hole. Tanaka said nothing wrong. The incompetents at New Scientist have CAGW on the brain and didn’t even understand what he was talking about. They just knee jerked when they heard climate, global and warming used in the same paragraph. And I used to read that mag.

  25. Gary says:
    June 10, 2012 at 9:04 am
    Making fun of things that are actually correct in context undermines WUWT.

    How is “Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs” correct in context?

    Scratch that — how is “…miniquasars…globally warm…” correct in *any* context?

  26. The use of the word “global” is a very poor choice technically speaking (not to mention geometrically speaking) in the context of gases and black holes. Technical writing, be it for research or manual reporting, requires clarity, not color. Technical clarity comes from three methods: Organization, sentence structure, and word choice. This effort fails at least on word choice.

  27. Is not the universe expanding, leading to overall cooling? Culminating in heat death of the universe?

  28. “it becomes clear that children just aren’t going to know what black holes are.”

    I’m sacred now…Oh wait…I never knew what Black Holes were in the first place.

    Does anyone?

  29. Gary says:
    June 10, 2012 at 9:04 am
    “Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.”

    Sorry, still doesn’t make much sense. It sounds like an ad for some special cooker or something.

  30. “Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.”

    @Gary: so, are you saying the terms “climate change” and “globally warming” are usual terms of reference in this subject?

    I’m not disputing, just asking for clarity

  31. The €uro is in meltdown. Rio +20 is a farce waiting to happen. So what do “scientists” do when they need sponsorship? Scare the [snip . . kbmod] out of gullible voters so that they support politicians that want to save the planet and tax us more and more based upon the fraud that pays the “scientists” to produce yet more fraudulent research …. for the children. I worked for such a man, and utterly despised him.

    But it is the politicians that are most to blame. Without cataclismic global warming there is no need to tax us to hell.

  32. Gary, the title of the paper, per the link by harrywr2, is:

    “X-ray emission from high-redshift miniquasars: self-regulating the population of massive black holes through global warming”

    I mean, really…. massive black hole … MBH … Mann, Bradley, Hughes ……….

    MBHes regulating their own population using “global warming ….

    If that doesn’t beg for parody, I don’t know what does.

    RTF

  33. It may have been a correct quote but the term is out of context. Remember, global is often used as a synonym for “total” and “all.” So, IOW, a “global” effect can be meant to say an “everywhere” or “all-encompassing” effect. His usage just happened to trip over a buzz word. My 2 cents.

  34. Japanese into German into English likely left a bit of the meaning on the editor’s desk. What an embarrassment. I suspect auto-translation.

  35. Jim Clarke says:
    June 10, 2012 at 8:04 am

    While it is out of my league…I didn’t know that black holes needed cool gas to grow. I thought they only needed available mass.

    A large pool of cool gas is needed, as hot gas is (necessarily) expanding and exiting the neighborhood. Chowing down local stars isn’t enough; they’re just minor debris in the mass represented by large cool gas volumes.

  36. I read this and tried to shoot myself in the head. As luck would have it, global warming has warped the nature of reality, changed the laws of physics, and the gunpowder in the bullet would not ignite. …. There is no depths to which these guys will not sink, and apparently that’s a good strategy. I seem to remember some WWII leader who wrote a book that mentioned speaking to the lowest common denominator.

  37. kim2ooo says:
    June 10, 2012 at 9:32 am

    “it becomes clear that children just aren’t going to know what black holes are.”

    I’m sacred now…Oh wait…I never knew what Black Holes were in the first place.

    Does anyone?
    ____________________

    Made a trip through Black Hole
    To see the other side
    Had to get past light speed first
    A fast and whirly ride
    As to what was found there
    Sorry, can not say
    While consciousness expands for us
    Man’s not yet there, this day

  38. CO2, Such a multipurpose and all powerful substance. To think that for all these years I have been drinking neat Scotch whisky when I should have been drinking soda pop.

  39. pat says:
    June 10, 2012 at 10:01 am
    Japanese into German into English likely left a bit of the meaning on the editor’s desk. What an embarrassment. I suspect auto-translation.

    There are three co-authors — Takamitsu Tanaka (MPA), Rosalba Perna (JILA/Colorado), Zoltán Haiman (Columbia University). Based on their organizational affiliations and the use of English astrophysical terminology, dollars to doughnut holes the paper was written in English ab initio.

  40. Tom i Oslo says:
    June 10, 2012 at 8:36 am

    I think you all are a little unfair. New Scientist is really a dating site. The magazine is only a cover so there i[s] really no need for them to be to scientific.

    http://dating.newscientist.com/s/a/17833

    Gary thinks it’s unfair to take cheap shots. Let’s make fun of their dating site instead!

    In Scott Adams’ world of Dilbert, finding shiny toilet paper replacing the expensive soft stuff in the rest room was the first sign of your company going down the pan. Maybe having a dating site is the first sign of New Scientist going down the pan. One can but hope …

  41. Whether Tanaka chose “global warming” ineptly or not, it will probably increase the paper’s score on computer searches (and is there any other kind today?). The phrase is Google-bait. I don’t doubt many “researchers” salt their text (and particularly their abstracts which the search engines constantly scour) with just such terms. Just smart marketing…who cares about the truth?

  42. Ken Harvey says: To think that for all these years I have been drinking neat Scotch whisky when I should have been drinking soda pop.

    Never! I’ll stick to my scotch.

  43. I’m also voting for “This is what is commonly referred to as research”.

    Pride comes before a fall….

  44. It is unfortunate that people, including the readers of WUWT, seem to focus on the specific keywords and not the substance of what is being said. It’s even more unfortunate that the rabid lunatics in the warmist press will be now seriously believing the preposterous notion that _our_ global warming may affect black holes.

    This is indeed a poor choice of terminology on the researcher’s part. The words “climate” and “global” in this case are applied to the gas surrounding the black hole. Perhaps instead of “climate” they could have used something like “ambient temperature trends of the surrounding gas clouds”. And perhaps instead of “global” they could have used another word… But help me out here. What word other than “global” would _you_ use to describe a phenomenon that affects gas in the volumes measured by hundreds and thousands of light years? “Galactic” works if you have a galaxy, but there may not have been a galaxy around a primordial black hole. As much as I dislike it, the words “climate” and “global” do get the sense across — as long as you aren’t seeing the world only through the climate debate filter.

  45. The New Scientist must be a direct offshoot of New Math – results are unimportant, only your intent is.

  46. WOW!
    Now as long as you can work the word “climate” or “global warming” into a paper you can get published even if the paper has nothing to do with our globe.
    I think the “Blackhole” of “Global Warming” has sucking enough scientists’ integrity up where the sun don’t shine.
    You guys in it’s pull, RESIST!

  47. What’s next – the United Galaxies spawning an Intergalactic Panel on Climate Change? And what’s the new boogie-man – cosmic rays and neutrinos? The universe must be made safe for future generations of black holes!

  48. There’s local warming- warming that occurs just in certain areas like the proximity of stars or galaxies and the other warming is called global, because it happens everywhere in the whole universe.
    It’s sounds confusing but think about programming, where you have local and global variables and the latter are always “global variables” even when the computer system leaves earth and travels to mars or the outer solar system and has. I don’t think NASA’s programmers call their “global variables” in spacecraft’s something like “universal variables” just because their not on the terrestial globe anymore.

  49. While I am not sure this explanation would satisfy Max Planck, I think the mentos theory will appeal to Doug Plank, the hard-hitting ex-defensive back of the Chicago Bears.

    Or thickasaplank elsewhere.

  50. Grandpa Boris says:
    June 10, 2012 at 11:51 am
    “But help me out here. What word other than “global” would _you_ use to describe a phenomenon that affects gas in the volumes measured by hundreds and thousands of light years?”

    “Global” comes from “globe”; meaning a ball-shaped object representing the Earth, available in shops around (!) the globe (!). See, I used the word correctly.

    The universe is not a globe.

  51. Grandpa Boris says:

    June 10, 2012 at 11:51 am

    You could try gas cloud in it’s entireity. Those gas which are influenced by the Black Hole. The remnants of a galaxy or sun which ahs come under the influence of, or thoses particle in the environment of the Black hole. Globe, in english, is expected to be used in reference to a globular object, usually solid unless you are talking about the Globe theater in London, England. If not, don’t be stupidly pedantic.

  52. C’mon, is this really any more silly, stupid, asinine, gut busting hilarious, idiotic, or downright ridiculous than Obama claiming last week that the economy’s actually “fine”? Maybe that jokester, Tanaka, could get together with that old jokester, Obama, and feed us a few more. They say things go from bad to worse to hilarious. Ok, we’ve just now gotten to the hilarious part but what happens after that?

  53. Les Clay (@LesClay) says:
    June 10, 2012 at 11:22 am
    So, if a Yamalian tree fell into a black hole…
    =======================================================
    “The Team” would ensure a hockey stick still emerged.

  54. BarryW says:
    June 10, 2012 at 9:20 am
    Come on. The abstract said globally warm, warming in a spherical volume. Climate referred to the conditions around the black hole. Tanaka said nothing wrong.

    Now I remember what jarred when I read that. The paper said “global” rather than the specific term I’ve seen and heard astronauts, astronomers, and the (only) astrophysicist I know use when they described a spherical volume in space — the word “globular.”

  55. “this is weapons grade stupidity.”

    I hope that phrase is released under a Creative Commons license, I think I may need to use it in the future.

    I have a lot of respect for the Max Planck Institute. This is presumably a mis-attribution, you must have meant Max the Plank (as in two short…).

  56. When political correctness creates an environment where colleagues dare not tell a scientist just how stupid they are, you get things like this.

  57. Didn’t “black hole” at one time have rather vulgar connotations, before astronomers and theoretical physicists co-opted the term? ;-> Maybe the authors of this paper are referring to the original meaning.
    /snark

  58. I pity the authors, who are likely to find themselves at the center of a fecal maelstrom, not understanding why. I think from context it’s clear enough to me the discussion is not about terrestrial climate, but rather the galactic “climate” with respect to black hole formation. Note the warming effects are on the “IGM” (interglacatic medium).

  59. This is great news. I’ve always felt rather uncomfortable about the risk of LHC creating a mini black hole that gets out of control. At least now we know global CO2 emissions will prevent any such entity from expanding once it spreads beyond the confines of CERN.

  60. Hold on, Anthony. Isn’t it possible that Tanaka is using the word “global” in the broad connotation (i.e., as being universal to the system in question) rather than in the planetary sense?

  61. Soon we will learn that our sun, other planets, and yes, even the stars revolve around the earth.

  62. First: it doesn’t matter what was said or if it was right or wrong – if WUWT makes a habit of making fun of things they haven’t bothered to look at to find out what the meaning is – it not only looks ignorant it is ignorant.

    “@Gary: so, are you saying the terms “climate change” and “globally warming” are usual terms of reference in this subject? ”

    Reading the science reference it clearly has nothing to do with global climate or climate in any real sense – but referring to x-ray emissions as heating the galactic gas raising the average temperature which has the effect of reducing favorable conditions for the formation of black holes. Even on the New Scientist, without looking to the reference, one who bothered to try to understand what was being said could make sense of what it meant.

    Discussing the particular characteristics of this event is off the point. Due attention should be paid and some effort to figure out what was being said before shooting one’s mouth off. (This is not the first WUWT article I have read this week that I felt departed from that general advice.)

    In this case maybe what the New Scientist translated to its readers from the scientist’s paper made sense to make fun of but since no one bothered to understand it or looked into what they were referring they not only made fun of the article but took shots at the scientist as well. Reading the scientist’s comments in context what was being said made sense to me and would probably make sense to anyone who bothered to try to understand.

    I think failing to do so and speaking ill of everyone involved without bothering to figure out who said what or why greatly undermines the reputation WUWT has earned with all its hard work and attention to facts. To those who read the article and understood what was being said and then encountered what was written on WUWT will see the writing on WUWT as ignorant and without depth or understanding and that opinion will carry over to other things on WUWT.

    …or so I do caution. Do with it what you please.

  63. I wrote Taka, and here’s his response:

    The title is a play on words. We are using “global” in the sense “occurring everywhere”. That we do not mean the planet Earth should be clear from the context of the paper.

    We also chose “global” in the sense that the quasar feedback is not local, which is the context most frequently discussed in the literature; that is, it occurs on scales far larger than the black holes’ own galaxies. We therefore certainly did not mean “galactic”, as that adjective would imply local feedback.

    Global is commonly meant in terms of the “globe” but I’m pretty sure global variables don’t mean variables pertaining to the Earth. Of course Kernighan and Ritchie could have been wrong on that.

    “Global” can be used in the more general sense used by Taka, and he meant it as a clever play on words.

  64. Gary, you can’t be serious. You actually think that these choice of words, clearly borrowed from climate science of a more Earthly bound variety, provided clarity? I prefer my technical reading dry, dry, dry, and free of popular jargon. The article begs to be jeered at for such a juvenile attempt to sex up the subject, instead of heralded as being a clear and concise treatise of black hole propagation theory.

  65. Gary says:
    June 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    First: it doesn’t matter what was said or if it was right or wrong – if WUWT makes a habit of making fun of things they haven’t bothered to look at to find out what the meaning is – it not only looks ignorant it is ignorant…………
    I think failing to do so and speaking ill of everyone involved without bothering to figure out who said what or why greatly undermines the reputation WUWT has earned with all its hard work and attention to facts. To those who read the article and understood what was being said and then encountered what was written on WUWT will see the writing on WUWT as ignorant and without depth or understanding and that opinion will carry over to other things on WUWT.

    …or so I do caution. Do with it what you please.
    =====================================================
    I’ve never claimed not to ignorant of just about everything, to one degree or another. One thing I’m not completely ignorant of is how the varied verbage associated with “hockey sticks” is showing up in papers and the MSM. In this article it has nothing to do with this planet. Yet, there it is. Why? Because it sells? Because it seeks to make “hockey sticks” here so accepted that they can be used figuratively to explain events outside our galaxy? Perhaps Tanaka used an unfortunate comparison. But if he was trying to say that the unproven theory behind “hockey sticks” explains what he’s saying about blackholes, there are better minds than mine here at WUWT, with more information than I have that understand that info, to put that theory to the peirazo.

  66. @Gary

    Without reading the article at all I knew instinctively what they would have been talking about. C’mon…it is just plain silly and or laughable to, in this day and age, use the phrase ‘global warming’ in relation to delaying or limiting the formation of black holes. It is obviously distracting and adds nothing to the science.

    Written science is supposed to communicate, effectively. Physicists are given to a bit of whimsey when naming their discoveries, but ‘global warming’? Gimme a break. If the use of the term was not deliberately trying to attract attention (who knows, maybe even ridicule of the term) it was thoughtless. Maybe there is a betting pool in their research group that will go to the person making the most outrageous and pointless use of the phrase. If so, they have stiff competition, what with everything under the sun being blamed on it. His over the sun link is over the top.

  67. I agree with the comment that said this is a cheap shot that’s making you look petty.

    The Japanese gentleman is obviously using the term ‘climate change’ analogously – not trying to draw a direct connection but trying to illustrate a point. And the term ‘global’ – with the meaning of occurring everywhere – is standard English, albeit not the very best term he could have selected.

    It would serve to differentiate skepics from apologists if you (especially commenters) weren’t as spiteful and needlessly picky as they are.

  68. The propagation of our global warming can not travel faster than the speed of light, therefore only entities within about 200 light years could possibly be affected. Just in case you need a quick rebuttal to the ill informed New Scientist reader.

    I read an article once where Carbon Dioxide was on the brain of the writer so much so that he said he used to breath in deeply carbon dioxide years ago before air quality improved in his city, apparently unaware that carbon dioxide is created deep within your lungs continuously, and even more so when you are exercising. Even the editors of the newspaper missed that one. (probably meant monoxide).

  69. If this were April 1st I would a gotcha. Now I’m speechless.

    Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.

    [my bold]

  70. I see lemur eyes. One big one and one not-so-big one. Who wants to peer review that?

  71. Carrick says:
    June 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm
    I wrote Taka, and here’s his response:
    ……………………………..
    “Global” can be used in the more general sense used by Taka, and he meant it as a clever play on words.

    No, he meant it as a not so clever way of attracting the attention of future funding organisations. I wonder whether the words “global warming” or “climate change” appeared in his grant application?

  72. Am not so sure if black holes prefer their gas chilly. It might help them to reel in more if the velocities, either of the molceules or of the cloud as a whole, are low – but they heat them up pretty thoroughly before dining on them – until they emit lots of x-rays. Given that most interstellar gas clouds are pickled at 2 to 10 degrees Kelvin, that may be understandable, though I suppose a steady diet of hydrogen and helium tends to taste a little stale at any temperature.

  73. I think what has happened is he had the AGW dictionary addon for Microsoft Word installed. He tried to type in Galactic Warming, but it automatically changed it to Global Warming. When he tried to change it back, ‘Clippit’ warned him that the probability of his paper being published would be significantly lower.

  74. In fairness, I think they are using the word “global” to mean something other than the climate of a planet. The global neighborhood of our galaxy is the “Local Group”, the global neighborhood of the center of a galaxy is the core of the galaxy. I would give these guys the doubt of using a “loaded phrase” here.

  75. Can you read? This article is not about nor does it reference climate change on earth. It is talking about galactic changes in climate around black holes. So who is galactic-ally stupid again?

    REPLY: Can YOU read? The point is they are using Earthly terms of the present to describe the distant past histories of black holes…that have no “climate”. Plus that, the universe has been cooling ever since. Note the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature – Anthony

  76. I think Gary is confused. He assumes in his own words that we did not try to figure out what was said, and that would be an incorrect assumption as far as I go at the very least. These guys basically used terms improperly and that is not good science. In science, you are precise with both language and with terms. If you do not use terms properly, you are wrong in the end.

    So yes, they deserve derision and they deserve to be laughed at. If they had put in the paper a /sarc or a reference that they were being sarcastic that would be something different. But without that, this paper is hopelessly lost.

    As carrick shows, this was meant as a play on words, which without a disclaimer somewhere at the end if you will detracts from what they are saying. They really need to edit the paper and add that or put something in the end showing that they were being humourous. Then again, science is not about humor and making small little jokes. Its about science and nothing else.

    I could use the terms such as stupid to refer to someone and if I meant to say smart without the sarcastic mark, it appears I am calling someone stupid. Same is true here. Words have meaning and in the end you have to use proper DICTION otherwise you are being humorous. Not sure what the scientists were thinking personally. As much as its funny, its not defensible. I thought science was serious business with serious money being spent. Is the point being made that money spent on science is just a funny way to waste it?

  77. Christopher Watson writes:

    I agree with the comment that said this is a cheap shot that’s making you look petty.

    The Japanese gentleman is obviously using the term ‘climate change’ analogously – not trying to draw a direct connection but trying to illustrate a point. And the term ‘global’ – with the meaning of occurring everywhere – is standard English, albeit not the very best term he could have selected.

    It would serve to differentiate skepics from apologists if you (especially commenters) weren’t as spiteful and needlessly picky as they are.

    Christopher, there appear to be a lot of us commenters here who do not necessarily buy the notion that the title and abstract were not composed with the intent of their being misconstrued (either accidentally or deliberately) in the popular media.

    If these curiosities written by Tanaka et al. were innocent, it doesn’t matter because they are still potentially damaging to science and to the public if misused. And that’s something they should care about.

    RTF

  78. Anthony:

    The point is they are using Earthly terms of the present to describe the distant past histories of black holes…that have no “climate”.

    I think you’re being too literalist here. Is a “global variable” in a software program one that pertains to a terrestrial quantity?

    “Global” gets used in other ways than in terms of the “globe”, especially in mathematical sciences. See definition 3 in Merriam-Webster:

    of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) : universal <a global search of a file>

    See my comment from the author above.

  79. Jimbo:

    No, he meant it as a not so clever way of attracting the attention of future funding organisations

    You’re assuming motive, which is a logical fallacy, and having assumed motive, what you came up with makes no sense. Come on… NSF is going to give him more funding for studying black holes because he used the term “global warming”???

    This is just dumb, sorry. He said he was making a play on words, I have no reason to doubt him, it’s perfectly sensible in the context he provided, just as I have every reason to doubt your Jedi mind reading skills, and possibly your reasoning skills too.

  80. Brad:

    It is talking about galactic changes in climate around black holes

    I thought this too until I got his reply (I admit not having bothered reading his paper, I just queried him on the meaning and whether he used the right word). He emphatically doesn’t mean “galactic”, he says that would be “local warming”.

    By the way I think this article establishes that “global” is a term of art in cosmology, to distinguish it from “local”.

    (Again programming example: “global variable” versus “local variable”.)

  81. Well it had to come to this. Our climate diseased earth is already decreasing the number of sun spots.
    Who’s going to save the universe from this infection.

  82. @Carrick The New Scientist made no reference to global/local variables. While they may mean different things in cosmology, surely this guy and the New Scientist writer can’t be living in caves and never heard of the most common use of the term. At the very least, they should post a caveat, and generally they should know better than to mix the terms for articles destined for public consumption. Even physicist Lubos Motl thoug this was akin to “climate porn”, and suggests the terms were intentionally mixed to promote interest in the article.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/06/global-warming-has-stunted-black-holes.html

  83. Christopher Watson says:
    June 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    “The Japanese gentleman is obviously using the term ‘climate change’ analogously – not trying to draw a direct connection but trying to illustrate a point. ”

    I agree. He just follows the advice from this youtube tutorial, that’s all.

  84. DJ says: “Sorry jaymam, it’s there. I just read it, as advertised.”

    Incorrect.
    On June 10, 2012 at 7:27 am, the phrase “galactic warming process” (including the quotes) existed nowhere but on this site (i.e. WUWT), according to Google.

  85. Anthony, to be honest, I think it’s similar to the problem that occurs commonly when a person who isn’t a native English speaker tries to create a joke, in English. I don’t think we can though argue that global is a prior term of art in cosmology. .

    One can always argue whether levity has a place in something so grave as a journal article (especially given the multi-national nature of the readership). That’s an ongoing debate

    As to the New Scientist reporting, well… it wouldn’t be nice if I said I what I thought about the editor who generated this whopper “Cosmic climate change may have stunted black holes”.

    I’m pretty sure “Cosmic climate change” is not a “term of art” in cosmology. :-P

    Then again, I’ve not had a high opinion of reporters as a group for a long time. (There are definite exceptions.)

  86. * I should have said “One can always argue whether levity has a place in something with such gravity as a journal article”.
    ** See meaning 2

  87. Using ‘global warming’ in the title of a paper and necessarily in any funding application appears eminently prudent, given today’s climate… #sarc

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    Marcus Aurelius Augustus

  88. I wrote Taka, and here’s his response:

    The title is a play on words. We are using “global” in the sense “occurring everywhere”. That we do not mean the planet Earth should be clear from the context of the paper.

    We also chose “global” in the sense that the quasar feedback is not local, which is the context most frequently discussed in the literature; that is, it occurs on scales far larger than the black holes’ own galaxies. We therefore certainly did not mean “galactic”, as that adjective would imply local feedback.

    Global is commonly meant in terms of the “globe” but I’m pretty sure global variables don’t mean variables pertaining to the Earth. Of course Kernighan and Ritchie could have been wrong on that.

    “Global” can be used in the more general sense used by Taka, and he meant it as a clever play on words.

    ———————————
    Hmmm. Looks like I was right. ;)

  89. Just to be clear, I fully know what is going on with this paper, and have the same thoughts as Anthony expresses. My point about our global warming propagating to distant places was simply a means of heading off any linkage a warmist might mistakenly make of a miss reading of this paper.
    Note the globe has warmed since the Little Ice Age, hence I use the term Global Warming.

  90. Sorry I agree with GOOCH if you weren’t involved in the stupidity that has become climate science debate it makes perfect sense. As much as we disagree with Climate Science it does contain descriptions of process and predictions that supposedly would pertain to any planet with an atmosphere. Scientists rightly or wrongly talk about Venus with a runaway greenhouse effect etc the extension onto young black holes is an extension.

    In some ways such thought excercises are useful because if the atmospheric science is right it should be able to be to be taken to other planets.

    Interesting enough WUWT carried a series of articles on the stupidity that is “Unified Climate Theory” that violates QM, GR/SR and would require the rewriting of half of physics but basically did the same thing took an AGW theory and took it to other planets to prove or disprove it.

    WUWT carried the same argument in reverse seems to be lost on most on here because it has global warming in the discussion preordained stupidity positions kick in.

    I am very lukewarm on AGW theory but like Spencer and Linzden I do like my science cold hard and calculated and for the same reason as unified climate theory took there calculations to other planets “IF” climate science is correct it should be transposable to other planets and even young black holes.

  91. Carrick says: Anthony, to be honest, I think it’s similar to the problem that occurs commonly when a person who isn’t a native English speaker tries to create a joke, in English.

    Ouch, ouch, ouch. See Takamitsu Tanaka’s home page:

    Places I’ve lived

    1981: Born in Osaka, Japan. Residence in Kyoto.
    1984–1985: Dayton, Ohio, USA.
    1985–1990: Kyoto
    1990–1999: Newton, Massachusetts, USA
    1999–2003: Ithaca, New York
    Summer 2002: Kathmandu, Nepal
    2003–2005: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    2005–2009: New York, New York
    2009–2011: Brooklyn, New York
    Summer 2011: Kyoto and Osaka, Japan
    2011-present: Munich, Germany

    Baseball and “Taka Tanaka”

    For those of you looking for the character from the movie “Major League 2“, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

    However, I did make an ever-so-small contribution to baseball in December of 2006: when pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka joined the Boston Red Sox, I translated for the Boston Globe his responses during the introductory press conference. I am also mentioned in the book “Dice-K: The First Season of the Red Sox $100 Million Man“.

    I translated material for the book Banzai Babe Ruth: Baseball, Espionage, and Assassination during the 1934 Tour of Japan by Robert K. Fitts.

    So it appears that Dr. Tanaka posesses both an outstanding command of English language, a cosmopolitan experience of culture … and a sense of humor.   :)

  92. I see the creation of this paper going down something like this…

    First Astrophysicist: Did you see some of those new papers published in The New Scientist?
    Second Astrophysicist: You mean the ‘Climate Science’ ones. Man, those were weak.
    First Astrophysicist: I know, right? Can you believe how they can get published just by linking anything back to ‘Global Warming, no matter how tentatively?
    Second Astrophysicist: I sure wish we could get our papers published just by adding the right phrase.
    First Astrophysicist: …Well, why can’t we?
    Second Astrophysicist: What, you mean come up with our own unfalsifiable theory that can be linked to any cosmological effect?
    First Astrophysicist: No,no. I mean we could start adding Global Warming to our papers.
    Second Astrophysicist: I don’t know. The climate scientists don’t like it when you play in their sandbox. Look how much trouble they’ve given to Svenmark over his cosmic ray/climate theory. They won’t tolerate anything that might lesson their CO2 effect.
    First Astrophysicist: That’s true, but I don’t mean how Astrophysics can effect the climate, I mean how ‘Global Warming’ effects the cosmos.
    Second Astrophysicist: … Wait, what?
    First Astrophysicist: Think about it. What if ‘Global Warming’ is causing Pulsars to speed up, or It’s decreasing the expansion of the universe. Oh, I know, how about it slowing the growth of Black Holes. That sounds impressive.
    Second Astrophysicist: Are you crazy! You’d never get a paper like that through peer review.
    First Astrophysicist: Bet you $10 It not only gets published, but it makes it into AR5.
    Second Astrophysicist: You’re on.

  93. LdB says:
    June 10, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    “Interesting enough WUWT carried a series of articles on the stupidity that is “Unified Climate Theory” that violates QM, GR/SR and would require the rewriting of half of physics but basically did the same thing took an AGW theory and took it to other planets to prove or disprove it.

    WUWT carried the same argument in reverse seems to be lost on most on here because it has global warming in the discussion preordained stupidity positions kick in.”

    And as you fail to mention, Anthony expressed his reservations about it and that theory was roundly criticized here.

    And BTW, how did Tanaka “take an AGW theory and take it to other planets to prove or disprove it”?

    Oh. You mean he has proven AGW by theorizing about black holes. I see.

  94. I have no real objection to people using the language of global warming to describe black holes if they want to. It seems a bit risky for serious scientists who don’t want to be laughed at, but that’s their choice.

    Mean while back on planet Earth, some people use the language of black holes to describe global warming, because of the amount of money it is sucking away from more deserving research.

  95. I have no beef with this choice of words.

    A black hole is a globe. Climate is not limited to Earth. Warming may or may not occur at the event horizon of a black hole.

    Frankly, it undermines the whole idea that global warming/climate change are limited to the planet where humans produce CO2. The correlation is demolished. That could be a good thing in terms of public education.

  96. Dirk:

    Yes Anthony expressed reservations I am glad he did but WUWT still carried the article. Did anyone ask Lubos what he thought of “Unified Climate Theory” because what alot on here won’t realize Boltzmann and Planck’s corrections to Boltzmann is one of the few places QM meshes in with classic physics.

    Applying the same standard the journal may have had reservations about the article but they still carried it does that make them worse????

    Yanaka took a science theory to a black hole when it still has gases around it. The theory can’t be proven it can only be falsified by that test, we do the same thing the GR/SR we find weird extensions where if the theory is wrong it will fail and check.

    So no standard AGW theory isn’t proven what I guess you could say is it didn’t fail badly enough to be blatantly wrong nothing much more than that.

  97. I can remember way back to the olden days when New Scientist was worth reading for scientific development. I really do like the phrase ‘Weapons Grade Stupidity’ a lot.

  98. Can someone explain how a greenhouse gas which can only have that name as it is not escaping the planet have any effect outside of this planet. Obviously i must be extremely stupid.

  99. Carrick says:
    June 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    I wrote Taka, and here’s his response:

    The title is a play on words. We are using “global” in the sense “occurring everywhere”.

    So there you have it. They did use this wording deliberately. Global means everywhere when you’re in an earthbound context. If you’re on a scale larger than galaxies and you mean everywhere the appropriate term is universal, not global.

    It’s not clear what the intended “play” was but they probably figured it would get some attention to their paper. It worked. It got them coverage in New Scientist and got coverage on WUWT.

    They’re famous.

    Just goes to show, even if you’re working on intergalactic physics, if you can work “global” and “warming” into there somewhere you’re onto a winner.

  100. don’t count on the paper going away quickly. it is worth a few chuckles but it appears it’s all about the clunky nature of the choice of words as they appear in english. It’s rather obvious there was no actual claim of human CAGW involvement present and unless the authors were just trying to be cute or sarcastic with their choice of words, it was probably not intentional. If it was intentional, then it would appear to be a rather sarcastic dig at climate pseudo-scientists who make outrageous claims about what is being caused by CAGW.
    it would seem too that their conclusions about the presence of SMBHs after less than 1Gyr could turn out to be controversial and possibly even a bit disconcerting for the cosmological status quo.

  101. All your base are belong to us.

    I suspect he meant “globally” as in universally, like a global variable, rather than global as in applying to a single planet.

    But somebody with a tin ear still has some ‘splainin to do. Or somebody who think they’re a marketing whiz would get more attention for the paper (hey, worked!) playing word games.

  102. I think you have ndeed worked out your problem. to fix it you could try reading using even basic wiki more often (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)

    [quote]
    A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect
    [/quote]

    Being in stationary orbit around any planet is not a requirement of a greenhouse gas,

    That is an indication of how far out of context this whole argument has been taken.

    All we need next is Doug Cotton to start posting on how his theory covers black holes and our jourmey to the absurd will be complete.

  103. Looks like the actual black hole bit (ie quasars heating up the early gas clouds & thus reducing black hole formation) could make sense (well… unless those relatively dense streams of particles from the quasars *cause* more black holes…?). But… global warming? Urgh.

  104. Hmmmmm. Seriously guys, these are physicists. They call subatomic particles quarks. And give them properties like charm and color.

    So the first thing to watch out for is metaphors and other quirky descriptions.

    You really need to get this addiction to pissing on every scientific paper that comes along under control. Maybe there is a telephone hotline somewhere you can ring.

  105. The abstract is now on phys.org. The more one reads the sillier the abstract. Who knew that black holes had generations? At least their calculations paint a self-consistent picture. If not they would have told us, right? Having two models that agree adds to their credibility. Or is that one model with a variable?

  106. It means an offense to Max Planck´s name, the greatest physicist of the 20th century.

  107. Particle physicists are notorious for whimsical nomenclature. In this case, some cosmologists with a nice paper got attention by applying the term “global warming” metaphorically to describe the increase in temperature of the early IGM due to heating by the first generation of galaxies.

    I’d cut them some slack, not wanting to be thought of as a humorless scold. Don’t we have actual distortions and misrepresentations to worry about?

  108. But this all presupposes that there realy are Black Holes – and maybe a Great Pumpkin. For those keeping an open mind there is always the Electric Universe.

  109. Are people REALLY so poor at critical thinking and context?

    Repeat after me: ” This paper has NOTHING to do with earth’s climate. It has NOTHING to do with the mechanisms that change earth’s climate.”

    This paper is about the climate (Climate: noun 3.the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place) of the Intergalactic Medium and the global (Global: adjective 2. comprehensive.) changes that black holes caused in the IGM about 8 billion years before our sun or planet were even formed.

    Suggestions to use “galactic” instead of “global” would be improper, since the paper deals with intergalactic materials (ie outside of galaxies). And “universal” would be too large. So “global” is a perfectly legitimate adjective in this context. The title and abstract are perfectly understandable.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “… it shows how global warming on the brain tends to create an environment for such ridiculous comparisons …”
    The irony ….

  110. Since black holes are to astronomy what manmade greenhouse gasES are to “climate science,” the scientist simply accidentally showed the true parallelism between the state of the two sciences.
    I am sure it was just an innocent slip of the tongue. In spring, this happens a lot.

    Notice how his “Monte-Carlo realization” (aka computer model) “provides a feedback mechanism” for “black hole created climate change” and saves the consensus theory which is failing to match observations returned from space. I think it is a wonderful bit of involuntary truthtelling.

    He is certainly to be commended for working out that the production of z>6 “black holes” predicted by theory is far too high and does not match what is “seen” by several orders of magnitude, as noted in the first few sentences of his abstract.

  111. No, tjfolkerts, you are wrong about the title and abstract being perfectly understandable.

    Please don’t be saying that I and everone else you are criticizing believes as you just said we have, about the paper. That’s not very nice. We have varying beliefs on this matter.

    I have already described some of my beliefs about it.

    To boil it down: this matter is not about physics. It is about ethics. Something that requires an above-average amount of critical thinking skills to understand. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who haven’t understood, perhaps because it would never have occurred to them that people outside their own little groupthink bubble could be anything but wrong in their understanding of a complex matter. How very unfortunate.

  112. An updated reply from the author Taka Tanaka.

    Ah-hah, now I see the mini-controversy our work has caused in some corners of the inter-tubes. :)

    The controversy is unfortunate, but also slightly amusing. The article says nothing about Earth, CO2, or the atmosphere. It is talking about the influence of quasars in the first one billion years after the Big Bang, i.e. about astrophysical processes that took place 13 billion years ago.

    Again: “Global”, in the sense that it occurs everywhere in intergalactic space and across billions of light-years, and to distinguish from the “local” quasar feedback discussed in the literature that acts on galactic and sub-galactic scales ― “global”, of course, being an antonym of “local”. “Warming”, in that the emission from quasars heats intergalactic gas. The choice of words, I would argue, is accurate English, doubling as a physically apt *analogy* that also acts as a catchy play on words. (As you point out in the forum, the notion that I would somehow get more grant money by using this catch phrase is simply absurd.)

    I concede that a total layperson hearing the words “black-hole-made global warming” could get the wrong impression. (In fact, I’ve joked about possible responses from climate change deniers and activists alike….) But here’s the thing: we were not writing for a layperson audience, but rather to fellow astrophysicists who had no capacity for making this mistake. From astrophysicists, we have received overwhelmingly positive feedback on our manuscript. My colleagues seem to have gotten a chuckle out of the analogy, but that’s all it is. And the short New Scientist article also makes it pretty clear it’s just an analogy.

    Please feel free to post the above comments on the forum.

    Best regards, Taka

    Anthony–I’m pretty sure Taka wouldn’t mind if you included his comments as an update to your post.

    • @Carrick- ask him why he didn’t think that using the terms “global warming” and “climate change”, two of the most overused phrases on the planet, in the context of a paper on cosmology and subsequent news story, would not cause any controversy? Surely, he can’t be living in a cave. Point is, I think he used these phrases to bring attention to his paper and himself (it worked) and simply won’t admit he’s using a wordplay strategy.

      – Anthony

  113. Science is all about self-promotion these days. You see catchy titles and puns in paper titles all the time (e.g., “Some Like It Hot” or “Caught in the Act”). I don’t fault a scientist for trying to get her peers to read her papers, any more than websites using controversial-sounding headlines to get clicks.

    The analogy is metaphorically apt but has nothing to do with planetary climate science at all. THAT’S WHY IT’S FUNNY TO ASTROPHYSICISTS.

    I don’t see how this is any different than the New Scientist using catchy-sounding findings to increase readership, or how Anthony has taken the study totally out of context to take any dig at scientists.

    What I see as malicious is this: Why didn’t Anthony attempt to contact the author(s), as Carrick has, to see what they meant? Their emails are publicly available, and Tanaka seemed very willing to answer questions. Why just call them “weapons-grade stupid” on a very technical paper that is light-years outside your own expertise? In my view, this was done solely to incite controversy, and is unethical.

  114. Anthony if you mean by “worked” that it generated more PR for his very interesting paper.

    Very clearly he was making a play on words. We physicists do that sometimes. He’s says that’s what he did. I don’t know what there is left to admit by that. You’re assuming motives of somebody you’ve never even met for the reasons that he chose that particular play on words,

    It was pointed out above the names for our quark particles, “up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom [or truth and beauty]”, each of which either a ±2/3 or± 1/3 of an electron’s charge and are endowed with a color red, green or blue (or their opposites, anti-red, anti-green and anti-blue). As Taka points out, as you know who your audience is, there isn’t much chance of miscommunication.

    What’s not to like?

    REPLY: If the situation were reversed, the MSM and blogs would be all over me or some other climate skeptic. Clearly, when he uses phrases like “climate change deniers”, we know what sort of person he is. Clearly, he meant to use those words. When you give an interview to “the New Scientist, that puts your “audience” in the realm of layman, and he made not caveats. He knew what he was doing, either that or he’s a complete idiot.

    I find his labeling and wordplay disturbing.

    Lubos Motl had it right, this was “climate porn” – Anthony

  115. Robert, “You know, I find Dr. Tanaka’s use of the term “climate change deniers” vs. “activists” quite revealing in itself.”

    Why? They’re standard terms. Nobody can decide what either side should be called, and it seems no matter what you call them, they’re going to object (or the other group will object).

    Please come up with a term that we can all agree on, and we’ll all agree to use it.

    [Reply: Concerning the pejorative “deniers”, please read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

  116. Carrick says: June 11, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Carrick, that is just a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? There are quite a few “standard terms” that are derogatory, malicious, and betray either ignorance or deceit. There are quite a few terms Dr. Tanaka might have used (I prefer Climate Realist myself, but that does have pejorative connotations toward those who do not accept my point-of-view) and, much like those who casually use “the N-word” to describe certain fellow Americans, betrays having taken a position and point of view without a great deal of analysis or thought. Such is the base of the vast “scientific consensus”.

  117. Carrick says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Robert, “You know, I find Dr. Tanaka’s use of the term “climate change deniers” vs. “activists” quite revealing in itself.”
    Why? They’re standard terms.

    For one thing, the term “climate change denier” is a lie. Skeptics do *not* deny that the climate changes; we affirm that it does, and it’s a part of natural variation for which there’s empirical evidence, as opposed to those who believe — on the basis of no evidence — that humans are somehow the cause of global warming/climate change *right now*.

  118. Bill, some people do deny that climate is changing. Heck some of them deny the existence of photons! Others deny well established physics like radiative physics. Or well established measurement practices (once you hit this threshold, ironically, you’ve included people on both side of the divide including some people being excoriated on another thread for their flawed statistical methodology).

    Robert, I think it’s a bit unfair to expect him to spend over-much time on your feelings in using a broadly used term used commonly in the press to describe you (see who this thread was activity and perhaps unfairly ridiculing). I can understand not liking the term, I won’t use it myself, but I am a lot more heavily involved in the debate that Taka is.

    If you guys want to get really grumpy, read this on climate change deniaal i n the Wikipedia.

    I agree that calling everybody who is skeptical of proposed remediations of potential catastrophic AGW is over broad a “denier” is overly broad and unfair. Enough said, IMO, let it lie.

  119. Carrick says: June 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    It’s not a question of my “feelings”. I suspect Dr. Tanaka does have views on climate and he is one of the thousands of scientists that are touted as part of the scientific consensus… yet his views are no more profound than any other reader of the MSM.

  120. Robert, we’re back to the assuming motives fallacy again. As far as I know, Taka claims any particular authority on global warming, so if you can point to any document where he is “touted” as part of the scientific consensus that would be helpful. I doubt you’d fine one, as from what I can tell, he is as bemused by the “activists” as he is by the ones on the other side of the fence.

    Since we’re well into “guess what this person is saying based on how he dotted his “i” territory” I think I’ll sign off this thread. Laterz.

  121. A few of the commenters seemed to feel we ‘deniers’ might have been overzealous in our ridicule of,at least, the wording of this new study, perhaps even to the pint of being ‘unethical.’

    Overzealous? Well, why wouldn’t we be?:

    1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
    2. Incredible shrinking sheep
    3. Caribbean coral deaths
    4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
    5. Disappearing lake in Chile
    6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
    7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
    8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
    9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
    10. Monsoons in India
    11. Birds laying their eggs early
    12. 160,000 deaths a year
    13. 315,000 deaths a year
    14. 300,000 deaths a year
    15. Decline in snowpack in the West
    16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
    17. Hunger in Nepal
    18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
    19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
    20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
    21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
    22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
    23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
    24. Floods in Jakarta
    25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
    26. Snowfall in Baghdad
    27. Western tree deaths
    28. Diminishing desert resources
    29. Pine beetles
    30. Swedish beetles
    31. Severe acne
    32. Global conflict
    33. Crash of Air France 447
    34. Black Hawk Down incident
    35. Amphibians breeding earlier
    36. Flesh-eating disease
    37. Global cooling
    38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
    39. Beer tastes different
    40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
    41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
    42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
    43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
    44. Confusion of migrating birds
    45. Bigger tuna fish
    46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
    47. Worldwide hunger
    48. Longer days
    49. Earth spinning faster
    50. Gender balance of crocodiles
    51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
    52. Increase in kidney stones in India
    53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
    54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
    55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
    56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
    57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
    58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
    59. Bigger spiders
    60. Increase in size of giant squid
    61. Increase of orchids in UK
    62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
    63. Cow infertility
    64. Conflict in Darfur
    65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
    66. Worldwide wars
    67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
    68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
    69. Migration of cockroaches
    70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
    71. Drowning of four polar bears
    72. UFO sightings in the UK
    73. Hurricane Katrina
    74. Greener mountains in Sweden
    75. Decreased maple in maple trees
    76. Cold wave in India
    77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
    78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
    79. Rise in insurance premiums
    80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
    81. Cold spells in Australia
    82. Increase in crime
    83. Boiling oceans
    84. Grizzly deaths
    85. Dengue fever
    86. Lack of monsoons
    87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
    88. Acid rain recovery
    89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
    90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
    91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
    92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
    93. Radical North Sea shift
    94. Heroin addiction
    95. Plant species climbing up mountains
    96. Deadly fires in Australia
    97. Droughts in Australia
    98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
    99. Tsunami in South East Asia
    100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

  122. The real questions are, can these black holes migrate fast enough to avoid extinction? And will this “global warming” force the larger ones to eat the smaller ones?

  123. This one… is weapons grade stupidity.

    ….one of the best Anthony Watt-isms I’ve read yet!! Must remember that for the future!!

  124. Carrick says:
    June 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Bill, some people do deny that climate is changing. Heck some of them deny the existence of photons! Others deny well established physics like radiative physics.

    The fact that “some people” do is not a valid argument for tarring all skeptics with that brush, particularly since — as I pointed out — skeptics *affirm* that the climate changes, so the term “climate change denier” is a flat-out lie. Your attempted explanation is a No-Go At This Station — retake Logic 101.

    Or well established measurement practices (once you hit this threshold, ironically, you’ve included people on both side of the divide including some people being excoriated on another thread for their flawed statistical methodology).

    Excuse me, but you need to get a tighter grip on your argument.

    I agree that calling everybody who is skeptical of proposed remediations of potential catastrophic AGW is over broad a “denier” is overly broad and unfair.

    Nice attempt at changing the terms of the argument in midstream. However, you’re falsely assuming that it’s all about being skeptical of remediation — we’re skeptical of your unfounded claim that climate change is a catastrophe.

    Enough said, IMO, let it lie.

    “The debate is over” — you guys keep reinforcing your own stereotype…

  125. Bill, just to be clear CAGW not “my” hypothesis nor do I think it’s valid.. Just because I don’t drink one group’s koolaid doesn’t mean that I accept every precept of CAGW, nor do I think all of the claims of the CAGW alarmists are supported by the main stream science that they are supposedly based on.

    Seriously the reason I suggest we wind this down is because this has become a completely fricking boring go-nowhere conversation. That’s my opinion too. You’ve said what you think, same for me. What’s left other than ad nausea repetitions?

    As to stereotypes, I’m the one who admits most people don’t fit into one and seems like you’re the one trying to put everybody into one including me.

    Ciao.

  126. So after again reading the abstract and the summaries of the study by the New Scientists & phys.org, the points of the paper, it looks like are
    (1) black holes heated gas everywhere in the early universe. Several prior papers have already reached this conclusion, it look slike, from the references in the paper… i.e. kind of thing “every cosmologist knows now”. (So Lubos seems to be wrong here.)
    (2) this heating affected the black holes themselves, or other black holes in other galaxies.

    So then the author’s explanation to Carrick makes perfect sense. “Global warming” is an accurate English description, because it’s “heating that’s occuring everywhere” (especially since he wanted to distinguish from local quasar warming, which apparently is also a thing?). And it’s a tongue-in-cheek analogy in sense that black holes are “changing the cosmic climate to their own detriment.”

    When New Scientist ran with it, I doubt they had much control over how their work and quotes would be presented. If you read the New Scientist piece, it’s clearly an analogy. But as Tanaka says in his bemused comments, just skimming the headline can induce a “WTF” reaction. MAybe New Scientist should’ve put “global warming” in quotes or something, put in a sentence to doubly clarify its an analogy, for us nonscientists?

    It seems like WUWT went with that “WTF” reaction without carefully reading the articles or contacting the authors… a bit unfair, if you ask me.
    Not sure I have the sense of humor to respond with a smily face after total strangers call me and my colleagues “weapons grade stupid” on the internet….. so kudos to Tanaka for that.

  127. Now I have a picture in my head of Stephen Colbert criticizing sports announcers on his show for “misleadingly” referring to big players as “bears” to promote the “ursine agenda”. You know, being angry at people for making an analogy to something he’s angry about. … And that’s my analogy to this whole situation! HEY-OH!

  128. leftinbrooklyn says:
    June 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    Overzealous? Well, why wouldn’t we be?:
    1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West

    100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

    They forgot to list the most ominous result of AGW — the dearth of Nessie sightings!

  129. Bill Tuttle says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm
    Carrick says:
    June 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Bill, some people do deny that climate is changing. Heck some of them deny the existence of photons! Others deny well established physics like radiative physics.

    The fact that “some people” do is not a valid argument for tarring all skeptics with that brush, particularly since — as I pointed out — skeptics *affirm* that the climate changes, so the term “climate change denier” is a flat-out lie. Your attempted explanation is a No-Go At This Station — retake Logic 101.

    Not only a flat out lie, but the term “climate change denier” logically applies to AGW activists who think climate never changed/changes, but remained/remains flat until man-made emissions changed/change it, the Hockey Stick is their emblem.

    They use the term applicable only to themselves to distract from the fact that they are nincompoops for believing climate never changes and for believing that carbon dioxide can magically heat the earth 33°C.

    Rather than sceptics objecting to the Holocaust connection, which is the reason they use the term against us, and getting further distracted by getting sidetracked by their endless ‘no we don’t mean it’ arguments, we could simply remind them that they are the ones in denial of climate change as we have ample proof that ice ages come and go which neither we nor carbon dioxide had anything to do with initiating, and, that only nincompoops could believe that the Hockey Stick trumps the Vostok Graph which shows all these massive global climate changes in and out of ice ages where carbon dioxide levels lag behind dramatic warming by 800 years.

    That’s what they’re really distracting us from – showing them up to be akin to flat earthers and unable to conceptualise outside of their “Climate Change Denial Hockey Stick” emblem like those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.

    As for this paper, I could begin to make sense of it, or rather what they were trying to say, once I’d translated global to universal. As it stands the use of global in the play on words merely obfuscates for me, as I first thought they meant the black hole was being heated by “back-radiation” …. :)

    I’m clearly not the target audience.

  130. Carrick says:
    June 11, 2012 at 11:52 pm
    As to stereotypes, I’m the one who admits most people don’t fit into one and seems like you’re the one trying to put everybody into one including me.

    Your defensive assertion is at odds with your statement of June 11, 2012 at 11:18 am: “Why? They’re standard terms.” And I didn’t try to put you into a stereotype — you self-assigned by your comments.

  131. catdeadalive says:
    June 12, 2012 at 12:14 am
    If you read the New Scientist piece, it’s clearly an analogy. But as Tanaka says in his bemused comments, just skimming the headline can induce a “WTF” reaction.

    You need to check the definition of “bemused” — Tanaka wasn’t confused by the reaction his use of the terms elicited, he was delighted, because he got the reaction he was hoping to get.

  132. Bill Tuttle: “You need to check the definition of ‘bemused’ ”
    Oops, I meant “amused”.

  133. catdeadalive says:
    June 12, 2012 at 7:35 am
    Bill Tuttle: “You need to check the definition of ‘bemused’ ”
    Oops, I meant “amused”.

    I once heard a briefer use “conjugation” when he meant “conjunction.”

    Hilarity ensued.

  134. The following is for all the commenters on this page who, in a disappointing display of lesser critical thinking skills, have still failed to see that it’s the ethics rather than the physics of the authors’ words that is more questionable.

    Hopefully the following will help clarify the ethical lapse that is at issue here.

    Ross Douthat, writing for New York Times News Service, has a column out which is published in today’s Tampa Bay Times. The title is

    Science leading us to doorstep of new eugenics

    I quote from this column (bold-face is mine, bracketed text is mine):

    The American elite’s pre-World War II commitment to breeding out the “unfit” — defined variously as racial minorities, low-IQ whites, the mentally and physcially handicapped, and the criminally inclined — is a story that defies easy stereotypes about progress and enlightenment. On the one hand, these U.S. eugenicists tended to be [. . .] ivory tower dwellers and privileged have-mores with an obvious incentive to invent spurious theories to justify their own position.

    But these same eugenicists were often political and social liberals — advocates of social reform, partisans of science, critics of stasis and reaction. “They weren’t sinister characters [. . .]”, Conniff writes of Fisher and his peers, “but environmentalists, peace activists, fitness buffs, healthy-living enthusiasts, inventors, and family men.” From Teddy Roosevelt to [. . .] Margaret Sanger, fears about “race suicide” and “human weeds” were common among self-conscious progressives, who saw the quest for a better gene pool as of a piece with their broader dream of human advancement.

    [. . .]

    Having left behind pseudoscientific racial theories, it’s easy for us [not really “us” but rather “today’s progressive scientists” –RTF] to look back and pass judgment on yesterday’s eugenicists. It’s harder to acknowledge what we [actually “they” –RTF] have in common with them.

    First, a relentless desire for mastery and control, not only over our own lives but over the very marrow and sinew of generations yet unborn. And second, a belief in [their] own fundamental goodness, no matter to what ends [their] mastery is turned.

  135. In the old days people got ahead by using the terms “new” and “smart” and “green” and were rewarded for it. In the new era it is “global warming” and “climate change” until further notice from trend setters. The publishing mills runs on.

  136. Nope, don’t see how it has to do with ethics. The science appears to be valid (most of what they report is confirming previous studies), and their use of words was found amusing by others in their field.

    I think people are angry with the authors for making an analogy to something that makes them angry. The only people that feel misled are people that didn’t bother to read the articles in full.

    Since the authors have not misled their peers or deceived funding organizations, what did they do wrong? What did they gain, other than brief attention in the press and blogs like this? Who did they hurt, other than those who mistook their analogy for fact (because they didn’t read carefully)?

  137. Richard T. Fowler says:
    June 12, 2012 at 8:59 am
    The following is for all the commenters on this page who, in a disappointing display of lesser critical thinking skills, have still failed to see that it’s the ethics rather than the physics of the authors’ words that is more questionable.
    Hopefully the following will help clarify the ethical lapse that is at issue here.

    We had the eugenics argument here a month ago — you’re ‘way late to the party…

  138. catalivedead says:
    June 12, 2012 at 11:21 am
    Nope, don’t see how it has to do with ethics. The science appears to be valid (most of what they report is confirming previous studies), and their use of words was found amusing by others in their field.

    I think people are angry with the authors for making an analogy to something that makes them angry. The only people that feel misled are people that didn’t bother to read the articles in full.

    Since the authors have not misled their peers or deceived funding organizations, what did they do wrong? What did they gain, other than brief attention in the press and blogs like this? Who did they hurt, other than those who mistook their analogy for fact (because they didn’t read carefully)?

    What an extraordinary comment. I shouldn’t have to explain any of this to someone who is intelligent enough to understand the paper. But it appears I am being asked to.

    The ethical lapse, obviously (at least to me) is in finding that use of words amusing, and also in using a scientific paper to try to promote this decidedy pseudoscientific issue that is outside the authors’ topic of study. [1]

    Regarding people being angry, I personally am upset and offended because 1) an analogy is made in a lighthearted manner to a political program (AGW and associated policy prescriptions) that has very similar goals to a eugenic program, and 2) because that analogy is then open to being misused by journalists and commentators to promote the same progam.

    “[W]hat did they do wrong?”

    They exploited an issue that had nothing to do with their paper’s topic and has a lot to do with a political program to do immense harm to some of the public in order to enrich others. They didn’t have to use those exact words and phrases. Even “global warming” in the title … if they needed a new term, it seems to me “IGM warming” would have been just fine, most especially for the title, and as a bonus it wouldn’t have had the same ethical problem.

    Please also notice that the title does not describe the same thing that the abstract does. As I wrote before (but no one seemed to pick up on it), “self-regulating” in that context implies that the MBHes are regulating their own population, whereas the abstract says it’s miniquasars doing the regulating. So it appears that great lengths were gone to to make the connection to AGW more noticeable, even to the point of writing a title that misrepresents the actual subject of the study.

    “What did they gain, other than brief attention in the press and blogs like this?”

    At the very least, they gained satisfaction at the expense of the present and future victims of the Great Climate Hoax. It doesn’t take a code of ethics to know that one doesn’t dance on people’s graves. That is a no-go, regardless of the “context” of the situation.

    So can we agree to disagree about all this, or have you more questions from out of left-field for me?

    To Bill Tuttle, that sounds interesting, sorry I missed it. Anyway, I was quoting a new column that appeared in today’s newspaper, and hopefully you can see this is very relevant to this thread. BTW I think you made some very good points on this thread, particularly at June 12, 2012 at 3:55 am — very well stated.

    RTF

    Footnote

    [1] And yes, his use of the term “deniers” as well as his seemingly snotty, condescending Gergis-esque attitude toward all of his critics, while completely ignoring the arguments I and others (including Anthony) had made about ethics, prove to me that he is trying to promote Team climate “science”, and not just be ironic.

  139. Richard T. Fowler says:
    “Please also notice that the title does not describe the same thing that the abstract does. As I wrote before (but no one seemed to pick up on it), “self-regulating” in that context implies that the MBHes are regulating their own population, whereas the abstract says it’s miniquasars doing the regulating. So it appears that great lengths were gone to to make the connection to AGW more noticeable, even to the point of writing a title that misrepresents the actual subject of the study.”

    No such misrepresentation has taken place.
    For making such statements about things being “obvious”, etc., I get the feeling you haven’t even bothered to look up what a quasar is.
    From reading the paper, the New Scientist, and phys.org pieces, I learned that “quasars” = “growing supermassive black holes”.
    So “miniquasars” = “smaller black holes, some of which are growing into supermassive black holes”.
    So the title and the abstract are totally talking about the same thing.

  140. Richard T. Fowler says:
    June 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm
    To Bill Tuttle, that sounds interesting, sorry I missed it.

    It got pretty lively. Generated a lot of heat and smoke, and — unsurprisingly — a good deal of light.

  141. catalivedead says:
    June 12, 2012 at 10:42 pm
    Richard T. Fowler says: “Please also notice that the title does not describe the same thing that the abstract does. As I wrote before (but no one seemed to pick up on it), “self-regulating” in that context implies that the MBHes are regulating their own population, whereas the abstract says it’s miniquasars doing the regulating. So it appears that great lengths were gone to to make the connection to AGW more noticeable, even to the point of writing a title that misrepresents the actual subject of the study.”
    No such misrepresentation has taken place.
    For making such statements about things being “obvious”, etc., I get the feeling you haven’t even bothered to look up what a quasar is.
    From reading the paper, the New Scientist, and phys.org pieces, I learned that “quasars” = “growing supermassive black holes”.
    So “miniquasars” = “smaller black holes, some of which are growing into supermassive black holes”.
    So the title and the abstract are totally talking about the same thing.

    No, they’re not. A quasar is the collision of the gas accretion formed by a *spinning* black hole. The black hole’s gravity pulls gas toward it, and the hole’s spin orients the gas toward its equatorial plane, which ejects most of it in two jets of magnetized gas oriented 180⁰ apart. That action is what reduces the gas “in the neighborhood.” A spinning black hole powers the quasar – a non-rotating black hole will not produce a quasar, so equating a quasar with a black hole is incorrect. A quasar is not a black hole, a quasar is *powered* by a black hole.

  142. The petty, childish, stubbornness being displayed on his page is just astounding. It’s remarkable how vicious people will get in order to avoid admitting that they were wrong.

    First Dr. Tanaka was criticized for writing a paper about global warming. Then when it turns out you’d jumped to conclusions and it wasn’t about global warming at all, you accused him of deliberately tricking you into thinking it was about global warming just to make a fool of you, when you could have avoided that pitfall yourself by taking the step of READING THE PAPER before presuming to tell the world what it was about. And the cited proof of Dr. Tanaka’s motives is apparently his condescending attitude towards you, something you mention without the slightest hint of irony…apparently oblivious to how you’d spoken of him and his work WHEN YOU HADN’T EVEN EXAMINED THAT WORK. You call an expert in his field “weapons grade stupid” based on your own premature conclusion about his paper that you never bothered to read, and then you expect him to go out his way to treat YOU with respect, and when you feel slighted by him you insist that’s the proof that you were right all along? You’re lucky he took the time to try to explain it to you at all, since you certainly didn’t deserve an explanation after the way you spoke about him. I’m sure he’s sorry he took the time to give you that explanation, because you’ve made it clear that you refuse to listen to anybody who won’t tell you that you’re right. You’ll never back down and apologize to Dr. Tanaka, you’re just going to keep moving the goalposts so that you’re always right.

    The real irony here is that you have become what you are trying to mock. You’re so dogmatic about your “skepticism” of climate change, so rigidly and uncompromisingly dogmatic, that you betray your own cause. You claim you’re not convinced by the science behind claims of man-made climate change, but what happened on this blog suggests that if someone did manage to prove the existence of man-made climate change, you would still refuse to listen.

  143. A few observations.

    1) Typing “miniquasar” into Wikipedia redirects to “X-ray binary” where we find that there are a number of different types, none of which is called a”miniquasar”. But we read that in X-ray binaries generally,

    “The X-rays are produced by matter falling from one component, called the donor (usually a relatively normal star) to the other component, called the accretor, which is compact: a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. ”

    2) Under the section “Classification”, we read that there is such thing as “microquasars” which are described as “radio-jet X-ray binaries that can house either a neutron star or a black hole.” So again, even with the specific type of X-ray binary known as the microquasar, there is no requirement for a black hole.

    3) According to the article, the low-, intermediate-, and high-mass X-ray binaries (which are types that are all distinct from microquasars) can all have a neutron star as their accretor. (This is what I had been taught in both high school and college, but I now have found current support for it in that article.)

    4) There are two other types of X-ray binaries listed: X-ray bursters and X-ray pulsars. In the Wiki. article “X-ray burster” is found:

    “These astrophysical systems are composed of an accreting compact object, typically a neutron star or occasionally a black hole, and a companion ‘donor’ star”

    and in the article for “X-ray pulsar” we find:

    “An X-ray pulsar consists of a magnetized neutron star in orbit with a normal stellar companion and are a type of binary star system.”

    5) So apparently there is no requirement for any type of X-ray binary to involve a black hole, making catalivedead’s argument about miniquasars even less accurate.

    6) Finally, I note that in the Wikipedia article for “Quasar” there is this:

    “Quasars may also be ignited or re-ignited from normal galaxies when infused with a fresh source of matter. In fact, it has been theorized that a quasar could form as the Andromeda Galaxy collides with our own Milky Way galaxy in approximately 3–5 billion years.[6][7][8]”

    So once again, no black-hole requirement. The two categories, black hole and “miniquasar” may perhaps have overlap, but they also appear to have a degree of independence from each other. Which was my understanding at the time I began commenting about the title of the Tanaka et al. paper.

    RTF

  144. @Bill Tuttle, You’re right that quasars are powered by black holes. As a minor side point, it’s not true that the black hole has to be spinning, but it is true that the visible quasar (“QUAsi-StellAr Radio source”) comes from accretion power of material falling onto a black hole. (This power comes from the release of gravitational energy as material falls from far from black hole down to close to the black hole, similar to how a ball speeds up as it falls toward the ground and it converts that kinetic energy into another form when it hits the ground.)

    But regardless, there’s nothing misleading (to someone who knows what the terms mean) or dishonest about the title or the text. The black holes do self-regulate. As far as I can tell from reading the paper, it happens in the following manner:
    (a) mass accretes onto the black hole; (b) the material falling onto the black hole becomes very hot, thereby producing a quasar (or miniquasar if the black hole is still small); (c) this quasar heats the intergalactic medium, thereby slowing the rate of accretion of gas onto the black hole.

    Of course, anything can be misleading to people who don’t know what the terms mean, but those people weren’t the intended audience.

  145. The author of the original post and some commenters here seem to be approaching Tanaka’s paper from a “shoot-first (don’t bother asking questions later)” attitude. The original author came across something he didn’t understand, and he assumed it was very (“weapons grade”) stupid. Instead of writing to the author (whose email address is easily found, as it was Carrick managed to find it without difficulty) he decided to ooo and ahh at the stupidity instead of making an honest attempt to see whether the author was actually saying anything stupid.

    Don’t you think it’s a good idea to approach life by not assuming complete strangers are idiots but instead by making a good-faith effort to see what they’re saying?

    It seems to me that this whole conversation has devolved into searching for a reason to be upset and offended by what Tanaka wrote. I suppose one could have a reasonable debate about whether there’s ever a place for humorous (to experts) titles in the scientific literature. Here’s another example from astrophysics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1874 — no astronomer would ever think the author is actually talking about frogs; instead, s/he would figure out what the term is referring to. Does the “humor” (not really laugh-out-loud humor, granted) or playfulness of the title add to the product or detract? I could imagine reasonable people disagreeing on this matter, and I’m not sure what the right answer is, myself. When you read highly technical material for a living, a moment of linguistic levity can be refreshing, but clearly clarity is important too. But the assumption that the authors are doing this for base motives (to gain fame and fortune) is a pretty ungenerous one, and in this case seems to be to be completely unrealistic. Really, the idea that the NSF would fund the research more because the paper has the words “global warming” in it is pretty absurd. NSF astrophysics grant applications are judged by other astrophysicists, who are exactly the people who are not confused by the language of Tanaka’s title and manuscript.

  146. @Richard T. Fowler

    Briefly: You’re right that the term microquasar can refer to systems that are powered by compact objects that are not black holes (i.e., neutron stars). But that has nothing to do with Tanaka’s paper — he is clearly talking about miniquasars that are powered by black holes. (Incidentally, if a quasar is “ignited” by the merger of Andromeda with the Milky Way, it will be because of fresh gas accreting onto the black holes at the centers of Andromeda and/or the Milky Way.)

  147. NoonMoon says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:54 am
    (Incidentally, if a quasar is “ignited” by the merger of Andromeda with the Milky Way, it will be because of fresh gas accreting onto the black holes at the centers of Andromeda and/or the Milky Way.)

    That could turn out to be either the Mother Of All Supernovae or the unverse’s largest red dwarf. Any ideas?

  148. Mr. Fowler:

    Enough already. How can you be so stubborn? You were wrong, you know you know you were wrong, and you also know it wasn’t Dr. Tanaka’s fault that you were wrong. If you can’t be adult enough to admit it and apologize, then please just have the decency to stop talking about the issue altogether instead of continuing this charade. Nobody exploited any issues except YOU, Mr. Watts, and Mr. Tuttle. The three of you are so totally obsessed with proving that climate change is a hoax that you are exploiting what you identified as an opportunity to discredit those mean old elitist liberal scientists. Dr. Tanaka’s paper wasn’t political. YOU politicized it because you simply can’t bring yourself to admit that you jumped to a conclusion that was totally wrong.

  149. OK–I’m a nobody in the “global” scheme of things–(published researcher but in social sciences–not applicable here). However I have to defend Anthony for finding this worth noting–as did I. Those of you turning on Anthony and this blog are trying to make too much about an observation regarding a nutty title to a paper. (I read the whole thread and its both funny and provocative)

    The abstract could have easily read “the IGM warming” instead of “globally warm the IGM.” and I doubt Anthony or myself would have found this “weapons grade stupid.” Tanaka admitted he was trying to make a play on words– but to what avail? He said it was intended for his peers–but he and his peers know that others will misinterpret it and THAT is what makes it funny to them and quasi-offesive to me.

    I wouldn’t say “unethical” but I would say silly. So it gave his peers a laugh or two at our seeming expense, who cares? Let us laugh back at them. However, why do you say Anthony was “wrong?” He ovbiously knew the scientist wasn’t writing about CO2 issues on earth and wondered why he was using those terms when he noted, “Either way, it shows how global warming on the brain tends to create an environment for such ridiculous comparisons to make it to press.”

    Thank you Anthony for drawing attention to this rediculous comparison. Your observation did give me a chuckle and Tenaka’s responses only convinces me that the warmists have no respect for honest scientific discourse.

  150. @Day By Day
    I have no idea what Dr. Tanaka had in mind when writing the paper, and neither do you. But why assume nefarious intentions? (“and his peers know that others will misinterpret it and THAT is what makes it funny to them”) Why assume that he was laughing at you or anyone else?

    Here’s my assumption:
    He had no idea that any non-astronomers would even notice, much less pay attention to the paper and its title. And if he considered that anyone would notice and pay attention, it didn’t occur to him that anyone would misunderstand. Notice his words: “The controversy is unfortunate, but also slightly amusing.” Don’t jump on the “amusing” bit — clearly, he’s saying that it’s unfortunate that anyone misunderstood what he was saying, but it’s kind of amusing in retrospect that people who haven’t looked at the paper at all think he’s talking about the effect of CO2 on black holes.

    Again, I don’t know that my assumption is right and you don’t know that yours is, since neither of us lives inside Dr. Tanaka’s head. But I think it’s better to assume people have good intentions unless they absolutely force you to draw a different conclusion.

    Certainly, when I write research articles, I don’t think at all about how nonexperts might misunderstand and get upset about my language. I assume (generally a VERY safe assumption) that hardly any nonexperts ever read my work. I don’t sit around emitting mordant chuckles at how the masses might be confused by my plays on words.

    I doubt you want my advice, but my advice would be to reserve taking offense (or quasi-offense) for situations that are truly worth it. I really don’t think anyone who wrote the paper was trying to mock anyone else. (As for the commenters here, well, that’s another story … many of them are CLEARLY trying to mock Dr. Tanaka, and to the extent that intentionally mocking someone is worthy of offense, Dr. Tanaka would have far more grounds for being offended than anyone here would.)

  151. I haven’t seen any credible evidence that I am wrong, and I don’t believe I am. So DB is wrong when writing the things that DB says I “know”. Enough said. Oh yeah: I didn’t “jump” to any conclusions. Only in some people’s overactive imagination, perhaps. And there’s no “charade” on my part, and no reason to think there is. I have called it as I’ve seen it. More offensive words being tossed for no rational reason.

    Thank you, Anthony, for bringing this to our attention and drawing Dr. Tanaka out to make his awful comment, so that (among other things) I knew that my instinct was correct and also knew not to bother with reading the paper.

    Richard

  152. DB says:
    June 13, 2012 at 8:41 am
    Mr. Fowler…Nobody exploited any issues except YOU, Mr. Watts, and Mr. Tuttle. The three of you are so totally obsessed with proving that climate change is a hoax that you are exploiting what you identified as an opportunity to discredit those mean old elitist liberal scientists. Dr. Tanaka’s paper wasn’t political.

    So, you either missed Dr. Tanaka’s e-mail in which he *said* he used the politically-charged term “global warming” in an astrophysical paper in order to get a rise out of “climate-change deniers” or you’re ignoring his admission in order to slam us knuckle-dragging skeptics for pointing out that he used politically-charged terminology in an astrophysical paper.

    YOU politicized it because you simply can’t bring yourself to admit that you jumped to a conclusion that was totally wrong.

    Tanaka politicized it, we pointed it out. You just don’t happen to like that we did.

    Tough.

  153. @NoonMoon. please read Tuttle’s June 13, 2012 at 8:48 pm response to DB–he says what I would, only better. I agree that neither of us know what “Dr. Tanaka had in mind when writing the paper.” I was referring to the title and what he told us about why he used those terms.

    And you are right, I don’t *want* your advice, but I’m going to take it in this case. “but my advice would be to reserve taking offense (or quasi-offense) for situations that are truly worth it” because on this you are also right.

  154. @Bill Tuttle:

    You wrote, “So, you either missed Dr. Tanaka’s e-mail in which he *said* he used the politically-charged term “global warming” in an astrophysical paper in order to get a rise out of “climate-change deniers””

    Dr. Tanaka said no such thing. Putting asterisks around “said” still doesn’t make it true.

    Here are his actual words:
    “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words “black-hole-made global warming” could get the wrong impression. (In fact, I’ve joked about possible responses from climate change deniers and activists alike….)”

    That doesn’t mean that he used that language in order to get a rise out of anyone. It simply means that it struck him as amusing that someone might think he’s talking about terrestrial CO2 affecting black hole growth (e.g., Eric Worrall’s snark above: “All hail CO2 – if our planet’s CO2 can control one of the most powerful forces in the Universe, I know where my prayers are going!”).

    I keep asking: why assume that he was doing something mean or evil or sneaky? Life is more pleasant if you assume people have good intentions until proven otherwise. Nothing Dr. Tanaka has written has proven that he had any desire to trick, upset, or get a rise out of anyone.

  155. A person does not always have to write their intention for others to know what it is. What they think is funny or “cute”, what they find relevant or irrelevant, or even what they find to be true or false, can sometimes prove volumes about their intent.

    What is unclear to one person can be proven to another. Witness AGW theory, for example. There is much that is proven or disproven to some, but getting others to comprehend (or to admit their comprehension) is entirely another matter. Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree, and move on to other issues.

    RTF

  156. NoonMoon says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:29 pm
    Dr. Tanaka said no such thing. Putting asterisks around “said” still doesn’t make it true.

    If he joked about it, he realized the reaction he’d produce.

    Here are his actual words:
    “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words “black-hole-made global warming” could get the wrong impression. (In fact, I’ve joked about possible responses from climate change deniers and activists alike….)”

    Bingo.

    That doesn’t mean that he used that language in order to get a rise out of anyone. It simply means that it struck him as amusing that someone might think he’s talking about terrestrial CO2 affecting black hole growth…

    Then why did he use non-cosmological terminology in cosmological paper? “Global” is borderline incorrect usage in that “globe” commonly refers to a solid — “globular” is the cosmological term for a defined area of space.

    I keep asking: why assume that he was doing something mean or evil or sneaky?

    I didn’t say he was doing something mean or evil — I said he politicized his paper unnecessarily.

    Life is more pleasant if you assume people have good intentions until proven otherwise.

    Life can be *shorter* if you assume good intentions on someone’s part without justification. Always assume neutrality until you’ve observed for a while.

    Nothing Dr. Tanaka has written has proven that he had any desire to trick, upset, or get a rise out of anyone.

    Then why did he say “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words ‘black-hole-made global warming’ could get the wrong impression” ? A paper purporting to be a proper scientific report should be worded such that *no one* can misunderstand it.

  157. (If you want further response or explanation from me, please email me.)

    Enough.

    It is amazing that so many people are sure of what my and my coauthors’ intents were. First people assumed I had less than perfect command of the English language, and now people are assuming what was in my and my coauthors’ heads.
    Allow me to save you the trouble of speculation. Am I being honest in what I say below? I can only hope you take me at my word, because that is all I can offer.

    All of this really is rather unfortunate. My email address is right on the abstract. If you had asked me nicely what I meant to say, as Carrick has, I would have been happy to clarify my position and save you the trouble of speculating and assuming things about me. I would still be happy, if any of you are ever in Munich, to explain the astrophysics of my work to you over a beer and a good laugh. I have many friends who have polar political views from mine; this does not prevent us from enjoying a baseball game or talking about the Universe. Again, my contact information is not hard to find.

    Let me address several things:
    (1) Our intent behind the use of the term “global warming”.
    Again:
    – In that we are describing a *global feedback process* (this is an astrophysical term, distinct from “local feedback”, that means the feedback acts on very large distance scales) that *warms the intergalactic medium*, this is correct English.
    – It is also analogous to how purported AGW is supposed to work. The black holes change the “cosmic climate” (the temperature of intergalactic gas) and they live with the consequences (lower accretion rates). We think (and have been told by our peers!) that this is a useful analogy that conveniently conveys the physical process to other astrophysicists whose specialty might not be the early Universe or quasars.

    If you find the analogy distasteful or offensive, then we can agree to disagree.

    However, my coauthors and I did not mean to offend or anger anyone. To suggest that I *wanted* people to shout about our work on the internet is ridiculous. In general, I do not want to make people angry or play jokes on them. (I try to be a nice person.) I do not enjoy being called “weapons grade stupid” on a blog, “unethical” in its comments, or an “idiot” on Twitter. As I referred to earlier, the reaction from dozens of our astrophysicist colleagues (mostly senior scientists, several at the director level) has been overwhelmingly positive. Precisely zero colleagues found our choice of words misleading or confusing. (There was actually some discussion on other technical wording issues, but not on our use of “global warming”.)

    We joked that a super-green activist organization or a conservative member of Congress or might contact us to explain the effect of CO2 on black holes. We *joked* because we didn’t think such a misunderstanding would actually happen.

    This brings me to Bill Tuttle’s last comment:
    — ‘Then why did he say “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words ‘black-hole-made global warming’ could get the wrong impression” ?’
    ==> Because taking any words, especially scientific jargon, out of context is misleading.
    — ‘A paper purporting to be a proper scientific report should be worded such that *no one* can misunderstand it.’
    ==> I would respond that anyone reading the paper in full would not confuse our astrophysical study as anything more than an analogy to AGW. Just reading the title and assuming you know what is in the paper is silly (see “Propeller and Frog” example by NoonMoon above).

    As NoonMoon has noted above, it’s easy to misunderstand when you don’t know the terminology. Richard T. Fowler suggested that we went through great lengths to connect black holes and miniquasars to make the global warming analogy. This is not correct, as the growth of black holes and miniquasars are inseparable in this context. Richard incorrectly speculated we made a sketchy stretch of logic, at least in part because he did not understand the terminology.

    The suggestion that I have acted to promote the AGW paradigm for “Team climate science”, or that I would somehow benefit from using this terminology, is also incorrect. My personal views on AGW should be irrelevant … but if you’re curious, I’m an agnostic — I will buy the current scientific consensus, until I see overwhelming arguments against it. (But I’m not an expert, nor do I have a strong emotional attachment to this topic, so forgive me for not wanting to debate AGW any more than I wish to debate proper macroeconomic policy for the EuroZone.) We make no statements endorsing or refuting AGW. We merely compare the process by which BHs can change the cosmic climate and in so doing affect themselves to the way AGW is said to work.

    That I am not an expertise in climate science does not disqualify me from making a broad analogy. The term “survival of the fittest” appear in the title of at least one astrophysics paper, for example, but I doubt the authors are experts in evolutionary biology. There are numerous other examples: “weather forecast of the galactic center” (referring to predicting the astronomical appearance of gas falling in the supermassive black hole there); “Let there be light” (usually referring to the formation of the first stars). If I compare an astrophysical process to Bigfoot or talk about black holes regulating their own population, that does not mean I believe in Bigfoot and population control or are endorsing them. Assigning guilt or belief in this way is unfair; again, why didn’t you just email me instead of writing “I think this guy meant these things because he used these words”?

    (2) As for my supposedly “condescending” attitude.

    I was not aware that the term “climate change denier” is a pejorative. If you prefer to be called skeptics, or whatever other term, then I will call you that. I did not mean it as an insult, and did not realize it is an offensive term to some. Sorry!

    (3) Speaking of condescending attitudes….

    I do believe that the author of this blog, and the commenters, have been unfair to me. If you find the analogy distasteful, fine. But please do not insult my intelligence on a public forum, when I have done nothing of the kind to you. This is hurtful because you are also insulting my coauthors and all of our colleagues who read and approved of our work — and I respect them all tremendously. There is a difference between disagreement and calling someone stupid (again, I have many friends whose intellects I respect but with whose politics I disagree).

    Lastly, I would like the “motivational poster” to be removed or modified. I found it a little funny, because I never imagined someone would ever put my name on one of these things.
    BUT: It attributes directly to me, and to the New Scientist, words that I have NEVER uttered and have not appeared in that publication. It is a FABRICATED quotation, published in a public forum, presented in a context that is ridiculing my intelligence and work, and therefore damaging to my reputation.

    Again, if you think our analogy to AGW is ridiculous, that’s fine. Then at least use an accurate quote in the poster. (If you choose to use the New Scientist one in which I refer to the “global warming process”, please put quotes around “global warming” for context.)
    And please, tone it down a little. After some of the people here (collectively) have accused me and my colleagues of being stupid, unethical, intentionally politicizing, condescending, promoting the AGW paradigm, etc. … after this, I’ve explained what I meant, and I’ve offered to answer your questions over email or in person over a drink. And I’ve tried to do it nicely. (I hope there are no pejoratives I didn’t know about in this comment!) I would appreciate it very much if you would extend the same courtesy to me and my colleagues.

    Best regards,
    Taka

  158. @Bill,

    I get the feeling you’re pretty entrenched in your view that Dr. Tanaka did something bad, so perhaps more discussion will not be terribly productive, but just a few quick responses:

    Then why did he use non-cosmological terminology in cosmological paper? “Global” is borderline incorrect usage in that “globe” commonly refers to a solid — “globular” is the cosmological term for a defined area of space.

    It’s simply not true that “globular” is better term for what he was referring to. “Global” is used frequently in astrophysics to mean large-scale or “universal” (which also means large-scale and not necessarily Universe-scale). Witness a few papers that use global exactly this way (you won’t find any that use “globular” this way — a “globular cluster” is a cluster that’s shaped like a sphere, but Dr. Tanaka was using “global” to mean “large-scale,” not to mean spherical):
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..389H (“Global variation of the dust-to-gas ratio in evolving protoplanetary discs”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCAP…06..003A (“Constraints on the global topology and size of the universe from the cosmic microwave background”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21015.x (“The AGN content in luminous infrared galaxies at z˜ 2 from a global SED analysis including Herschel data”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1205.5619G (“Turbulence properties and global regularity of a modified Navier-Stokes equation”)

    Life can be *shorter* if you assume good intentions on someone’s part without justification. Always assume neutrality until you’ve observed for a while.

    Oh, pshaw. No one’s going to die sooner from assuming that Dr. Tanaka had good intentions until proven otherwise.

    Then why did he say “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words ‘black-hole-made global warming’ could get the wrong impression” ?

    Because, umm, he concedes that a total layperson could get the wrong impression. Look at your logic again. That is no evidence that he was trying to trick, upset, or get a rise out of anyone.

    A paper purporting to be a proper scientific report should be worded such that *no one* can misunderstand it.

    Well, that’s clearly an unrealistic goal. *Someone* can always misunderstand *anything*.
    As I said above, I suppose there could be a reasonable debate on the issue of whether colorful language is okay in scientific writing. But for what it’s worth, the scientific community does not seem to agree with your assertion, however. Here are a few examples of papers that have colorful titles that could be misunderstood by someone reading only the title:
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ…722L.178P (“The Propeller and the Frog”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375.1364L (“Inside the whale: the structure and dynamics of the isolated Cetus dwarf spheroidal”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ…728L..30G (“What Happened to the Other Mohicans? The Case for a Primordial Origin to the Planet-Metallicity Connection”)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AAS…210.0809B (“Moving from Cities to Suburbs? Exploring Environments of UV Luminous Galaxies Using Cosmos”)
    I don’t know any astronomers who would say that these authors are doing something scientifically improper by using colorful titles. You could make that argument, but it’s far from a main-stream argument.

  159. By the way, it looks like a lot of the links in my post above are broken. If you want to see the pages I tried to link to, Include the text of the form “…210.0809B” that follows the link as part of the url, and copy and paste into the url bar of a browser.

  160. I can see the arguments are becoming circular, so if I get to Munich on my next leave, I’ll take Dr. Tanaka up on his offer. NoonMoon, if you can join us, I’m buying the first round.

  161. @Carrick, @NoonMoon, @DB, @catalivedead/@catdeadalive, @”A fan of *MORE* discourse” and others who have argued in my and my colleagues’ favor:
    Thank you for giving me and my coauthors the benefit of the doubt and helping to explain some of the astrophysical jargon.

    Again, to anyone that wants more clarification or explanation: Please email me. If you have questions about my intentions or our scientific study, I am happy to respond as time allows. I don’t bite, I don’t think I’m condescending, and I enjoy intellectual discourse as long as it is civil and open-minded.

  162. (Note: I wrote my most recent post before Dr. Tanaka’s appeared. Please pay attention to his, as it’s far more relevant than my speculations and inferences.)

  163. Taka,

    I appreciate you addressing my arguments seriously and politely, which is more than I can say for quite a few others in similar circumstances.

    I do start to get the sense from your words that you actually may not have understood the effect and meaning (to us) of the term “climate change denier”. If so, I accept your apology.

    I am sorry that you took offense at some of my words. All I can think to say is that you should treat this as an object lesson to yourself, by considering that your words may have made me and others feel the same way or worse. I still cannot really tell if it seems relevant to you how a non-astrophysicist feels about the tone and suggestions of your words in a scientific paper. If it does seem relevant to you, then that is much appreciated, and perhaps some good can have come out of all this.

    For my part, the term “skeptic” is good enough for this context. I appreciate the offer of a change of terminology. But please, can we avoid “climate change skeptic”, as I have yet to encounter anyone who is skeptical of the existence of climate change.

    I didn’t try to e-mail you because of the very negative experiences, in doing so, of some AGW skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre, in corresponding with some AGW “agnostics” or other non-AGW-skeptics. And also because some of your statements which I have commented about were very hurtful and it seemed quite impossible that there was not deliberate intent present. With your latest comment here, I accept that there is certainly now room for doubt about your intent in that regard. If my lack of e-mail correspondence has produced any effects that have been hurtful to you, I am sorry that you have felt this way, but please consider that what is happening to average people as a result of the politics that you are “agnostic” about is extremely, extremely hurtful to me and to many others, including many who are and have been close to me. Given this fact, and with great regret, I am doubtful that there is anything accurate and relevant I could have written that would not have given you this kind of reaction. In any event, while you may not see it as any big thing for AGW skeptics to contact you, I personally am sufficiently concerned, in this day and age, for the security of my loved ones that I go out of my way to avoid corresponding with those who have expressed disagreement with me on political issues.

    I humbly suggest that you look into climate-related issues a little more, and try to suspend judgment as much as possible unless and until you can see the matter through the eyes of someone who has truly been damaged by the policies and the “research” that you are “agnostic” about. There has indeed been overwhelming evidence and, on some mattesr, proof amassed against the mainstream views. And it is very relevant to all of us. So please, if nothing else, I beg you to take an emotional interest in it. Lives are most definitely at stake, and have been at stake.

    Regarding your list of other types of analogies and your statement, “Assigning guilt or belief in this way is unfair”, I respectfully suggest to you that this is different, because this involves a global effort by many thousands to do serious harm to many millions using just such tactics as have been associated (whether rightly or wrongly) with you and your colleagues. So I humbly and respectfully suggest that some leeway is in order on this particular issue.

    If there is anything that you feel needs to be addressed by me that I have failed to address, I invite you to again call it to my attention, and I will try to address it to your satisfaction. Thank you again for your reply.

    Richard T. Fowlr

  164. Looks to me like Tanaka-san is having a bit of fun playing Buzzword/Bulldust Bingo. Pretty lame in-crowd guffawing, but not on the same level as 10:10:10

  165. Dear Mr. Tanaka–thank you for this answer. I very much appreciate it and retract the “weapons grade stupid”–as i see how you took that to impugn your intelligence or your paper–not so. I was actually referring to the perceived crassness and what appeared to be the “joke” in the title on Climate Realists. When I put in my 2 cents worth, I had already read your initial response and it sounded like you intended it to be misleading and thought the analogy funny to be misleading. What Mr Fowler replied with reflects my beliefs to a tee.( Richard T. Fowler:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:01 am)

    How I mistook what you intended–you also mistook my comment–I certainly respect your profession and personally know how much work and dedication go into these papers. Most “stupid” people don’t publish papers. So forgive me for my misunderstanding and any hurtful comments I made. You have demonstrated integrity here, gained my respect, and show an openness for honest dialog so needed in the scientific community. (at least once it has become politicized)

    Thank you for joining us.

Comments are closed.