Gosh! Who would think a climate scientist could get so angry about people criticizing a politician? Here is an amazing exchange seen on Prometheus. Some highlights and excerpts follow
- Gore Critics are “Palpably evil”
- Suggests critiquing Gore’s science “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people”
According to his bio, Michael Tobis of the University of Texas is a “Research Scientist Associate (in practice, mostly a software engineer) at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in the delightful city of Austin.” Tobis is also editor of the EGU journal Geoscientific Model Development.
Here’s an excerpt from the blog conversation:
“As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.” […] Tobis later asks: “I’d sure like to know how I ‘gave ammunition to my enemies’”
Pielke Jr. writes about kerfluffle:
“I am beginning to get a better understanding why some scientists react so strongly to some of the things we write here at Prometheus. For instance, one climate scientist suggests that my calling out Al Gore for misrepresenting the science of disasters and climate change (as well as Andy Revkin’s comparison of that to George Will’s misrepresentations) to be the morally comparable to killing 1,000 people. I kid you not. I wonder how many climate scientists share this perspective.”
Keith Kloor, a journalist, summarizes the exchange [Pielke Jr.] had this week with that climate scientist: http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2009/03/02/climate-gutterball/
What are we to make of Michael Tobis, a University of Texas climate scientist, who on his blog recently said this about Revkin: “I don’t think his dragging Gore into Will’s muck was a minor transgression of a fine point of propriety. I think it was palpably evil.” (End excerpt of Tobis.) […]
Tobis is just getting warmed up. In the comment thread of his post, he has this exchange (which I’m excerpting) with Roger Pielke Jr (who Tobis and other bloggers blame equally for his role in the Revkin piece that equates Gore with Will). Tobis: “It is difficult for me to state how grave I think the transgression of ethics committed by Revkin and Pielke in this matter is. Consider some statistical expectation of human lives that will likely be lost as a consequence of the delay due to this confusion. I think such a number could present a very grave picture indeed.”
Pielke Jr’s response.:
“If you think that it was unethical for me to point out that Gore was misrepresenting the relationship of disasters and climate change (based on my research I should add), then I am really amazed. What kind of scientist says that misrepresentations are OK or should be ignored if politicians with the right values are making them? [And maybe I read you wrong, but are you really suggesting that Revkin and I are complicit in “statistical deaths”? Please do clarify that odd claim …]”
Tobis obliges:
“Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew. As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It’s not all that obvious to me that it isn’t.” – Pielke is incredulous: “Wow. These sort comments give far more ammo to your political enemies than anything I could ever say or do. Eye opening stuff.” – Tobis asks later in the exchange: “I’d sure like to know how I ‘gave ammunition to my enemies’? – Pielke Jr. is now asking on his blog: “Anyone care to give him an answer?”
Read it on Prometheus
[snip off-color comment]
Paraphrasing yesterday´s demonstrators:”Global warmers united will never be defeated!” (Wave RED FLAGS !!)
One wonders how Galileo felt when attacked in this manner by his peers…. and the rest is history.
Response to Leif Svalgaard:
Maybe something wrong with the Oulu Monitor, then. As far as I can see it’s all time high since they started up April 1964…
I’ve visited Tobis’s website… he’s a true blue warmer and a Hansen believer…. and totally unhinged like Hansen.
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/
rickM (12:29:06) :
“One wonders how Galileo felt when attacked in this manner by his peers…. and the rest is history.”
Now it is the other way: In Galileo´s time the deniers were in the Church, now Your are the “Church”, the believers, the ones who want to send the rest of us to Inquisition, and we the Galileos of our time.
David L. Hagen (10:41:05) :
Increasing death rates caused by efforts to reduce global warming.
An excellent response to: critiquing Gore’s science “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people”
The greatest risk posed by the propaganda for severe global warming is that those behind it fail to look both ways before crossing the street. Further, inappropriate misdirection of causes for various trends leaves many in different areas of the nation and globe uninformed on what their near future climate will mostly likely entail.
Here in the southwest we have had a mild winter… but I understand WHY we have, and, it is not global warming. We have a moderate drought period. Again, I understand WHY, and, it is not global warming.
“Heat deaths” exist and for much of the Holocene have existed. Instead of wasting money on the sci-fi fanatasy “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore could have made a difference. He could have opted to save thousands, tens of thousands (over time), of lives. He could have made a movie, if he wanted to stay focused on warm temps, regarding the need for hydration in both hot and cold environments. Avoid alcohol (wine in France), avoid caffine (sodas, coffee, teas) during high summer heat. The benefits of a little shade, a fan, long sleeve clothing, and a damp cloth on the neck in times of high temps.
A movie of reality, a movie of adapting to climate environment. A movie to help mankind. But, Gore opted not to.
He made his fairytale movie, promoted his money making scheme, and has done nothing for mankind, no act of humanity.
Sorry, Svalgaard (10:57:26)
I disagree. Based on past cycles, an ice age is much more likely than disastrous warming. The only question is when.
Austin (11:33:58) :
“Coal and other fossil fuels supply over 80% of mankind’s energy needs and cannot be removed from the equation for at least two generations.
What Tobis and his ilk propose will lead to the extermination of much of humanity.”
This is exactly what these idiots want. They are a collection of Malthusian and eugenicist fanatics who will never admit they are ever, or ever have been, wrong. Try this (typical) example:
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
Sounds like he can’t forgive us proles for inventing democracy.
Plenty more on: green-agenda.com
AM
palpably evil
It’s so clear to me now. Scepticism = Satanism.
I’m off to the nearest church of climate alarmism to repent my sins and plead for forgiveness.
I must buy some carbon credits on the way…
Robinson (11:29:05) :
I didn’t mean to imply that an AGW skeptic was automatically a HIV/AIDS skeptic, but instead it is amazing how similar the approach to the science and to the skeptics is in the AGW world and the HIV/AIDS world.
Coincidence?
Tobis obliges:
“Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks,
And my translation:
~Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between “get’r done lies” and just enough truth to sell descriptions of scare mongering risks,
See, that’s the difference between skeptics and warmers. I don’t see the axis that connects, as opposites, “truthful descriptions” and anything that could be held as positive.
There is no choice to be made. “Truthful descriptions” are good. Anything that is not a truthful description is not good. Period. Done. No “what is is” or simulated data food product as 2nd derivative semi-truth, no moral ruler to adjust the “truth” for a greater good, nothing. Nada. Zip. There is truthful description, and there is not-truth: deception; bad juju.
(And for the inevitable troll: Yes, I do understand the occasional need for deception, especially in combat. It is still a lie, and still deception. In wars you kill people; doesn’t make killing a good thing either…)
If AGW turns out to be false or greatly exaggerated, the politicians, scientists and universities that supported it are going to have to climb their way out of a very deep hole.
I AGW is real then String Theory is proven beyond a doubt.
An unprovable unobservable theory is a philosophy, not science. And this philosophy (AGW) by its history does not care about people at all … except in the terms of crude population control that is obviously not obtained by elevated general wealth or well being. In contrast we may find some phenomena to prove String Theory as we observe the margins of Astronomy and Quantum Mechanics … in Black Holes perhaps?
Personally, the fact that AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics is enough for me to wonder how programmers were allowed to take the supposition of Revelle et al so far … I have to conclude it is simply money and funding from Luddite hopefuls and organizations (you could trend the formation of Luddite Organizations and CO2 in the atmosphere 😀 ) Which politically is a healthy on balance but that is another discussion about social value … On the other hand, science is a method not a political tool.
The ‘misery index argument’ can be used much more effectively against the AGW movement than against its detractors so as Jeff L suggests so they should be careful.
After all, if we’ve entered a minimum the AGW movement can expect some type of backlash to their antipathy for fellow human beings. For timing, I’m waiting for the AMO to go cold and the Eastern Seaboard to get weather like they haven’t seen in a couple hundred years for a decade or two. No, we are not there yet but I will wager that the Northern Ice Cap will cross the average area next winter … at the peak.
A statistical, approach to ethics.
Hey – on the balance of probabilities – what I did was right – yeah that works.
Such a framework would allow any evil act to be justified if it could be shown that “on the balance of probabilities” it would forestall a greater evil.
Actually I really don’t trust that framework – so open to manipulation and deceit.
I think Prof. Tobis has the authority what comes to talking about ethics. He is the board member of the Ethical Society of Austin. Their “Eight Commitments of Ethical Culture” are
“1. Ethics is central.
The most central issue in our lives involves creating a more humane environment.
2. Ethics begins with choice.
Creating a more humane environment begins by affirming the need to make significant choices in our lives.
3. We choose to treat each other as ends, not merely means.
To enable us to be whole, in a fragmented world, we choose to treat each other as unique individuals having intrinsic worth.
4. We seek to act with integrity.
Treating one another as ends requires that we learn to act with integrity. This includes keeping commitments, and being more open, honest, caring, and responsive.
5. We are committed to educate ourselves.
Personal progress is possible, both in wisdom and in social life. Learning how to build ethical relationships and cultivate a humane community is a life-long endeavor.
6. Self-reflection and our social nature require us to shape a more humane world.
Spiritual life is rooted in self-reflection, but can only come to full flower in community. This is because people are social, needing both primary relationships and larger supportive groups to become fully human. Our social nature requires that we reach beyond ourselves to decrease suffering and increase creativity in the world.
7. Democratic process is essential to our task.
The democratic process is essential to a humane social order because it respects the worth of persons and elicits and allows a greater expression of human capacities. Democratic process also implies a commitment to shared responsibility and authority.
8. Life itself inspires religious response.
Although awareness of impending death intensifies the human quest for meaning, and lends perspective to all our achievements, the mystery of life itself, the need to belong, to feel connected to the universe, and the desire for celebration and joy, are primary factors motivating human “religious” response.”
These people are open, honest, caring, and responsive. So you lot, shut up!
They might even now what the question is for the answer 42.
Anthony, you misrepresent Michael Tobis’ position with these two statements:
– Gore Critics are “Palpably evil”
– Suggests critiquing Gore’s science “morally comparable to killing 1,000 people”
The thing that got Tobis so mad was that Al Gore (who gets the science by an large right) was being put put on equal par as George Will (who gets the science almost entirely wrong), not the fact that Al Gore is critiqued per se.
“The Obama administration will set a limit on the carbon emissions of the United States, whether or not the climate change bill the President proposed last week is passed by Congress and the Senate”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/03/obama_will_circumvent_congress_to_limit_us_emissio.html
Problem is the polititions.
I have said it before and I am sure that I will say it again, but after much research and observation I have concluded that the primary motivation behind the AGW scam is a Malthusian attempt to limit human population by reducing access to energy. Which I believe is evil in that the “elites” get to choose who gets to live and who does not.
On the other hand I firmly believe that there is no environmental problem that cannot be solved by scientific progress. Those who assume that the world cannot sustain our population growth and hydrocarbon energy usage do not account for new technologies, new inventions, new processes, and new techniques. So they say that “at the current rate”, we will be “here” in x number of years. But no projection of x considers innovation and invention.
Since the beginning of human history mankind has developed new technology to overcome the problems that they were faced with. From using a stick as a tool to computers and satellites we have had a progression of invention. But those who make projections of doomsday scenarios use only current technology in their projections as if the creative spirit in humanity would just cease and we will NEVER invent another thing again.
This is clearly not logical. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say, and the greater the need, the more the effort to find a solution to any problem.
With that said, I have a big problem with the projections of the AGW alarmists. Even if increasing CO2 will cause warming, which I believe is negligible; where in the IPCC’s projections are the effects of new technology?
Well I am late to the thread but I want to answer Mr. Tobis directly.
If one is going to actually believe, as you claim you do, that contributing to something that causes mass death is morally equivalent to mass murder; aren’t you saying that you are morally a mass murderer?
The crippling of the economy and the rediculous fear mongering about global climate change is already causing excess death especially in the developing world. Any carbon tax, cap and trade or other pseudo scientific policy decisions of this type will certainly cause far more suffering and death than even the most unlikely and extreme warming scenario.
Reality is an unforgiving thing and it isn’t a BS filled computer model that pretends to simulate something when we don’t even understand the inputs or their effects in the real world.
Any likely warming would be a good thing for the environment and it certainly would be for humans. Certainly on balance an increase in CO2 is beneficial to plant production. Mr Tobis is in fact convicted by his own words. Cold kills, warmer would be a pleasant relief.
I think you may want to consult with Greenpeace here Mr Tobis. They are ardent supporters of your position. But, they at least admit the result will be many millions of human deaths.
where in the IPCC’s projections are the effects of new technology?
There are none. Another example of a failure to consider negative consequences (in terms of their own hypothesis) that would serve to balance out the positive. They think the earth is headed for a crisis (or already there) and can only come up with scenarios that basically freeze technology as it stands. All population growth will likewise continue unabated, yet somehow, with all those extra people, we also remain collectively trapped in the same state of technology forever.
Sigh…
Mark
As long as they’re the choices “we” say you should make.
And Ethanol production by the United States killed a REAL estimated 30 million people this past year.
Like I mentioned to my friend last night, this whole AGW thing is just a real shame as it beginning to destroying the credibility of real science, and this is just another example of how.
This Tobis guy has some real issues, and I suggest he address those before he attempts to tackle climate science or he will fail miserably.
WOW! I just can hardly believe what I have just read. Truly amazing!
Climate change superstitions put human well being at risk
Christopher Lingle , Ubud , Bali | Tue, 03/03/2009 1:47 PM | Opinion
For evidence of bureaucratic inertia, look no further than the recently concluded UN climate conference in Poznan . Like a meeting on Bali last year and another meeting in Copenhagen next December, the aim is to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol to try to halt global warming. This is serious stuff since implementing the Kyoto Protocol could cost to $180 billion annually.
These meetings and Kyoto reflect an underlying premise promoted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). For its part, the IPCC lives and dies by the hypothesis that human contributions to greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change.
Manmade global warming has become what scientists call an “ex cathedra” doctrine that, like a superstition. Challenging such positions puts reputations or financial support at risk.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/03/03/climate-change-superstitions-put-human-well-being-risk.html