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
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (15:21:33) :
Sorry the previous post was related to this posting
@Gripegut/Ryan Welch (14:21:15) :
“squidly (13:53:38) :
“And Ethanol production by the United States killed a REAL estimated 30 million people this past year.”
I have only heard that food costs had gone up. Can you
“Geoscientific Model Development”
What a coincidence, that (among other things) is what I do. I’ll keep am eye out for your resume.
I find myself being annoyed that a person like Roy Spencer can be doing so much good work with regards to climate change but then I find out he believes in creationism.
It completely kills the chance of referring to his work in debate with an alarmist as they will point an accusatory finger at Spencer’s creationist beliefs.
But then I find myself thinking, has anyone asked what Al Gore or James Hansen’s religious beliefs are?
Or why is it that at Climate Change protests the activists pray to God often?
We need consistency here. Politicising climate science is bad, but when religion is thrown into the mix things just get more confusing.
len (13:07:04) :
I AGW is real then String Theory is proven beyond a doubt.
Aw, I like the idea of string theory! Mind you, I suppose you could put the Higg’s Boson in the same category. I like that theory too! 🙁
If Al Gore fell in a forest, and no one was around, would anybody care?
Jari (13:19:11) :
They might even now what the question is for the answer 42.
Would that be “What is the meaning of life?”. I like the hitch-hikers guide…
This is the second CCC (i.e. Climate Change Cheerleader) that I see snapping in a week. That shows they are out of argument and the science is certainly not on their side, or could we say… the Dark Side of Science.
Obviously Mr. Tobis qualifies as a junk scientist. Before you believe anything he says, you’ll have to fact check it yourself.
NOT GOOD NEWS…
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/files/pressrelease04Jul2006.pdf
Where is the “moral indignation” of the self-styled defenders of the planet?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Tobis’ (snip [saving moderator the trouble]) observation… “Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks,”
The term “effective politics” has a positive connotation, when all it means is that one is able of getting one’s agenda legislated into law. It ignores the fact that history is replete with “politicians” who were very “effective” in wrecking unprecedented havoc in the world.
The term “truthful description of risks” is equally misleading. After all, if what Gore claims will happen actually did, than the risks Gore claims for his otherwise unscientific assumptions are “truthful.” If the seas rise, then indeed many coastal areas will be at increased risk of flooding, etc. But the seas aren’t rising any faster now than 50 or 100 years ago. But if the were…
I know that Dr. Pielke requested we not attack the Tobis, so I won’t, but when someone is that evasive, it is EVER so hard to restrain oneself.
D. King (15:29:17) :
This reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the Spanish Inquisition.
Except that “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
suprise … surprise and fear … fear and surprise …. Our two weapons are fear and surprise … and ruthless efficiency …. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency … and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. … Our *four*…no … *Amongst* our weapons …. Amongst our weaponry … are such elements as fear, surprise ….”
Is Dr. Chu worried about AGW-caused droughts effecting California’s largest cash crop?
While the UK government is prepared to spend billions of pounds to combat the hypothetical risks of global warming, emergency services have seen a 40% increase in calls due to the recent winter.
Local authorities cannot justify the cost of planning for a, historically moderately, cold winter because they are told that these things will become increasingly rare.
Real people have died real deaths quite literally for the price of a bag of salt.
Hmmm!
Gore Critics are “Palpably evil”
…ehh. I’ve been called worse. Just yesterday for instance.
Dude, you are a phony, a fraud and a troll who has nothing better to do than maliciously waste people’s time.
If you want to learn about and understand the actual science of climate change, you already know where to find the information. But you are not interested in that. You are interested in reciting the scripted lies that you are spoon-fed by “scientists” like sports writer George Will and “on-air personality” Rush Limbaugh, and in deliberately wasting people’s time.”
by a fellow named SecularAnimist
Posted on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 08:56 AM at the Columbia Journalism Review blog, under the heading The George Will Affair.
All I asked him for was one bit of evidence proving AGW, or showing George Will wrong.
The main fallacy of this guys arguments is that the real cause of increased CO2 is overpopulation. In order to bring excessive CO2 emissions to sustainable levels, at least 1/3 of the human race must be exterminated. This is the nasty truth none of them will admit publicly, at least not until they have their grip on state power that is as unassailable as any totalitarian dictatorship.
These AGW cultists are ethically equivalent to Nazis while packaging themselves as Holocaust victims.
len (13:07:04) : “An unprovable unobservable theory is a philosophy, not science.”
My understanding of how science works is that theories are not provable, they are only disprovable.
My contention is that the AGW Theory is disprovable, and it is time for all the informal arguments to be synthesised into a formal disproof.
“* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.””
Nah, that ain’t eco-fascism. That is an old man who has spent his whole life being courteous and interested in a vast array of prats and chateau-bottled shits that he’s been wheeled in front of.
More Grumpy than Green I’d say.
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:26) :
Cosmic rays are no higher this minimum than at every odd-even minimum since 1952, and have in fact started to come down.
Leif,
This minimum is lasting bit longer than recent minimums. Have cosmic rays also been at a ‘high’ level for longer than for other minima since 1952?
Your point is well taken; I also think an ice age is more likely, but I do not know this nor, in all civility, do you or anyone else; that was my point.
It’s not okay to disagree on the basis that a millionth chance that AGW will happen and kill 1 billion people. But, it’s okay to keep quiet while the proponents of AGW undertake massive climactic alterations to stave off the 1 in a million chance.
So, what happens if this turns out like the “eggs are bad for you, oops wrong cholesterol type” or “salt is bad for you eat sea salt, oops sea salt is bad for you” misreads?
It’s such a messy read.
If I were George Will I’d be ripping into them repeatedly.
Good grief.
What goes up must come down, and what melts must freeze once more.
Pardon the kludge on gravity.
Of course an ice age is more likely now that a modern maximum has seemingly run it’s course.
Don’t those take several thousand years to develop?
As for those cosmic rays, they are indeed on the down, but that’s reading a trend inside a trend that still rises within the upper & lower ranges of movement over a few years. It all depends on where one is taking the stopping & starting point. It will be many months before a good reading on the daily movement of cosmic rays can be said to be heading back down.
Back off the monitor scale to 1.5 yrs, and observe the rise. Zoom in to 6 months and see the sawtooth inside a sawtooth.
Paul S (16:41:35)
Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency … and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Paul,
I can’t stop laughing!
I’m glad you see it too!
Dave
Re: Stephen Wilde (10:10:47) :
“Just suppose that the warmlings are wrong and energy rationing kills billions through economic devastation, third world poverty and cold without it ever having been necessary. Would they accept a corresponding level of individual personal responsibility to that which they seek to impose on sceptics ?”
…not sure they aren’t already at that level of responsibility. Doesn’t starving people in poor countries by putting food in the gas tank as ethanol in order not to add additional CO2 to the carbon cycle rather than using it to feed people meet the criteria for that level of responsibility?
I am thinking now that all this issue of green ideas are only wishful thinking of psychiatrically feeble minded people who always are in need of a coming disaster or armageddon in order to solve their inner and unconscious contradictions or traumas. The funny or tragicomical fact is that these were supposed to affect third world countries and , among other purposes, to decrease the populations of those undesired negroes, indians or whomsoever is of no white skin, but they are evidently affecting in first place those “developed” nations, and, if the next cooling becomes true, it will affect primarily the NH.
The Trial
The venue is a special session of the International Criminal Court, convened in the United Nations Building in New York City. Mankind is on trial for killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.
The Prosecution team is headed by the IPCC, GISS, and Al Gore. The Prosecution calls witnesses from their own organizations, from prestigious universities and other research organizations, from popular media organizations, and from editorial boards of professional societies across the world.
In all, the Prosecution calls 4,793 witnesses. All confidently state that “Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.” One witness testifies than that he has repeated that statement over and over again at 1,400 press conferences and other talks he has given, and now reckons that he has uttered the words on at least ten times that number of other occasions. He has even inspired young people to write it on signs and march in the streets.
After all 4,793 witnesses have testified, one of the Defense lawyers asks “Do you have any proof? I mean real, tangible, proof.”
A Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and says “The testimony you have just heard is proof enough for any reasonable person. You have heard the considered opinions of 4,793 concerned members of the world’s intelligent class. Only tobacco lawyers or energy company shills would not be convinced by now. I had not planned to waste the Court’s time with any sort of trivia you might call “proof.” However, the Prosecution does understand the needs of the less-gifted. So, to satisfy even you, we will present our computer models.”
A group of 18 scientists associated with the IPCC is brought forward. Each is an expert regarding one of the computer models that has been used to prove that mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.
The Judge says “Wait a minute; I’m not familiar with computer models so tell me how they work.” One of the scientists, a spokesman, explains: “Models are computer programs which are used to test scenarios, i.e., to answer “What if?-type questions. Data and assumptions are input, and the computer model uses sophisticated equations and algorithms to assess the implications of the input information and then print out the results.”
The Judge says “Thank you, please proceed.” The scientist states “My colleagues and I have extensively tested the scenario ‘What if Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.’ On average we believe that we have run the programs about 100,000 times each on the most powerful super-computers ever manufactured. The consistency of the output is stunning. Invariably, the output reads ‘Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.’”
The Judge asks “Where do these computer models come from anyway.” The spokesman says “Well, each research organization usually writes its own code but most of them generally use the overall logic and techniques pioneered and proven by others, such as by Ford Motor Company in the 1950s in conjunction with its development and marketing of its advanced E-cars, or enhanced versions pioneered by the Coca-Cola company in the early 1980s in preparation for replacing an obsolete product with the new Coke. Some of our climate models are now so superior that their overall logic and layout has now been adopted and emulated by other industries, such as the world’s banks, other financial institutions, large insurance companies, and government regulatory bodies. I think it should be clear by now that computer models are essentially infallible. The Prosecution rests.”
The Judge says “Yes, that appears clear and convincing to me. Now I would like to remind the Defense that its client Mankind is on trial for killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Moreover, I remind you of the burden of proof: Your client will be assumed guilty until proven innocent. Present your case.”
The lead Defense lawyer replies “Thank you, Your Honor. We have three Defense teams. The first will examine the facts of the Prosecution’s case in more detail. The second will present our Matlock defense, and the last team will present our star witness.”
A spokesman of the first Defense team steps forward. He says “We have reviewed the evidence presented as ‘tangible,’ that is, the set of computer models presented by the Prosecution. Our computations indicate that the modelers have consistently over-estimated a key parameter called ‘climate sensitivity’ by an approximately a factor of three. We believe the models do not accurately treat phenomena called ‘feedbacks.’ For instance the models assume cloud feedback is always positive whereas we have satellite evidence that it is more often negative. We believe the models are lacking in their treatment of ocean/atmosphere interactions such as ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. As far as we can tell Solar variability is largely ignored or unduly minimized….”
A Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and shouts “I object! Your Honor, did you listen to those words ‘indicate,’ ‘approximately,’ ‘we believe,’ and ‘as far as we can tell.’ This testimony is nonsense and without a shred of credibility. Who in their right mind would accept a statement simply because someone says they believe it or simply that their ‘computations indicate’ something. The Prosecution demands that this testimony be ruled inadmissible.”
The judge says “I agree. The consensus established by the Prosecution should not be vilified in this manner. This line of evidence is out of order. The Defense is instructed to get on with presenting its Matlock defense. By the way, what does that mean?”
The spokesman for that Defense team arises and says “Your Honor, we named the team after a popular TV series which starred an attorney named Matlock who always proved his client’s innocence by finding the truly guilty party. We think we have done that with respect to climate change. The Court will recognize that many changes in temperature and weather are controlled by the natural cycles associated with the Earth’s rotation and its revolution around the sun. We believe that climate is controlled by other natural cycles, or more precisely quasi-cycles operating at various other time scales. The most notable perhaps are the multi-year quasi-cycles such as ENSO (El Nino and La Nina), multi-decadal quasi-cycles such as the PDO and the AMO, multi-centennial quasi-cycles of sunspot variation (their numbers per cycle and cycle length), and multi-millennia quasi-cycles due to slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in the orientation in space of its axis of rotation. These quasi-cyclic processes cause periods of warming and cooling on Earth. We suspect that the very warm (but not unprecedented) period around 1998 resulted when all four of the quasi-cycles mentioned were in a warming period at the same time. We think that perhaps today the Earth is at a peak of a multi-centennial warming period that started sometime around 1850, and that the late twentieth century warming was merely the sum of that warming trend combined with a multi-decadal quasi-cycle (the PDO) which was also in a warming phase at that time. Judging by the fact that the length of multi-centennial warming periods which have occurred over the last 4,500 years are getting shorter and shorter, we may well be halfway through our current warming period now. There may well be some very cool times ahead.”
Another Prosecution lawyer jumps to his feet and shouts “Your Honor, there they go again–there they go again using words like ‘we believe,’ ‘perhaps,’ ‘we suspect.’ The Prosecution demands that this flimsy fairy tale be rejected and stricken from the record.’
The Judge replies “So be it. I must say that I am so far disappointed with the quality of the Defense. Tell me, are any of your team members qualified Scientists? Do any of them publish papers and articles in peer-reviewed climate science or other journals?”
The Defense spokesman answers “Yes. Thousands of our team members are qualified Scientists, hundreds of whom have published thousands of papers in peer-reviewed journals over the years. However, it is true that they don’t publish as often nowadays owing to a new and modern standard that many of the climate journals have adopted.”
“And what, pray tell, new standard is that?” the Judge asks. The Defense spokesman answers “Well, nowadays publishable climate papers have to contain the sentence ‘Mankind is killing the Earth using carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels,’ and our papers don’t.”
The Judge yawns and says “Now I’m getting bored. Let’s get going. Bring in your star witness. That’s all you have left.”
The third Defense team brings in the star witness, which to the Court’s surprise, is the Earth itself! The spokesman says “Your Honor, please meet the Earth.” The Judge says, “Hello, how are you.” The Earth replies “I’m fine, very fine indeed, except would you mind turning up the thermostat a bit in here. I’ve been feeling a little chilly lately, going back to shortly after the year 2000 as best I can recall.”
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (17:48:25) :
PRICES GOING DOWN???
http://www.biodirectory.it/files/art2008/glofig13.png
No, and there appear to be are many reasons for that, one of which is wasting them on biofuels.
Sorry old data