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
Robert Bateman (21:11:52) :
The cycles turn down at the same rate they ramped up.
No, the fall is quicker than the rise [especially for Odd-Even transitions], which if you turn the curve upside-down is consistent with the sunspot curve rising faster than declining…
http://www.leif.org/research/Moscow-NM-Inverted.png
Now, for very weak cycles the rise might actually be slow [cosmic ray down-ramp slow too]. This may be the case for the coming SC24. The downturn both for Thule and Oulu is clear enough, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/oulu.png
Get with it, Robert: it has turned. Same with F10.7.
Robert Bateman (21:11:52) :
Look at the 70’s. Many such slight downturns did not pan out to be the downramp.
Remember that EVEN-ODD cycles behave differently fro ODD-EVEN cycles [for cosmic rays], resulting in the alternating pointed and flat ‘tops’.
Frank Mosher (10:38:06) :
It’s amazing how irrational people get when one refuses to drink the “kool aid”.”
Im starting to wish I had some of that Koolaid… I wouldnt be so miserable. As it is I’ve been finding myself thinking about joining the teaparty:)
To summarize yes a high percentage of the USA corn crop goes to ethanol production but the price of cron is lower today less of a contributing factor to high food prices
Yes but a high percentage of the USA crops are genetically altered and being turned down in many countries. They had to have somewhere for them to go:P
hope my bold and itallic work right..:)
“Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.”
This quotation is where his whole case falls apart because it seeks to give one justification for his complaint then brushes that justification aside in favour of an pre-determined ideological position.
He starts out with the proposition that Mr Gore is more accurate than Mr Will factually (or, if you prefer, scientifically). That point stands or falls on an assessment of the degree to which the points put by Mr Gore and Mr Will are supported by observable fact and, where there are no observable facts, scientific hypothesis. That is where one would expect a fair minded person to end his argument. He asserts that Mr Gore is more accurate than Mr Will. That’s fine. If he is he is, if he isn’t he isn’t. It is a neat self-contained point that stands or falls on an analysis of the evidence.
But having tried to assert that Mr Gore is more accurate, he dismisses Mr Will not on the ground that he is less accurate but on the ground that he is “perpetuating this dangerous skew”. In other words, it is not the alleged inaccuracy that is objectionable. What is objectionable is the opinion the allegedly inaccurate material supports.
His argument about accuracy is wholly redundant. The AGW Armageddon theory is correct, therefore to argue against it is dangerous. Mr Gore argues for it, so he is correct. Mr Will argues against it, therefore he is dangerous. That being the established position of Mr Tobis prior to examining any details of what Mr Gore and Mr Will have said, it does not matter one jot what they say, his conclusion will be the same. Mr Gore is inaccurate – so what, he’s right anyway. Mr Gore is accurate – of course, because he’s right. Mr Will is accurate – so what, he’s wrong. Mr Will is inaccurate – of course, because he’s wrong.
Mr Tobis is not putting forward an argument he is asserting a concluded opinion.
What makes Obama and the left evil in your eyes?
Socialism, of course. And, for the record, neither “side” is right in this instance. Unfortunately, neither side really listens to the economics experts that do get it right (the conservatives pay them lip service, but that’s not enough), and I wouldn’t be surprised if 4years agrees with that sentiment.
Mark
Well, I think that if you want to play those games you need to consider the entire equation.
First one also needs to multiply the number of deaths due to warming by the percent chance that CO2-based AGW theory is actually correct in the first place, and again by the percent chance that even in AGW is true the expected consequences are true.
Then one must subtract from that total the average number of babies that INEVITABLY starve for every $billion expended OR NEVER CREATED on account of global warming, multiplied by the number already spent, lost, or never created.
[%GWD x %AGW] – [DB/$ x $ loss]
IMO, the dead babies are the “winners”.
So, to measure this against a recent post here on WUWT, the two Jeff’s {C & Id} are morally evil for criticizing the Steig et al paper.
They were so convincing that I think they probably rate positively holocaustian.
So, criticising Gore is like killing 1000 people. Wow, AGW must be a really serious business. What are his views on Gore becoming incredibly rich thanks to his AGW/CO2 profiteering? Surely that makes Gore 1000 times worse?
If coal trains are ‘death trains’ then what the hell does that make Gore? This is the man who makes $millions with his carbon credit scam.
I see it’s from Columbia University. That explains it.
Well, on the one hand, I am a CU alum.
On the other hand, when there was discussion on the quad about whether is was theoretically possible for a tax cut to stimulate economic growth, it was Everyone vs. One (me).
They sort of felt sorry for me. I was a nice (liberal) guy and they felt badly that I should (obviously unthinkingly) side with the Great Satan (at that point in his second year in the white house) . . .
It is probably too late tonight to write anything sensible.
However, I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..
Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.
For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.
I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.
I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.
There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.
I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.
I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.
Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.
I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.
While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.
Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.
Best regards to all, Allan
Pamela:
Re: color blind 🙂
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png
JimB
Leif Svalgaard (19:53:24) :
Nick Yates (17:56:59) :
This minimum is lasting bit longer than recent minimums. Have cosmic rays also been at a ‘high’ level for longer than for other minima since 1952?
Here are several long-term records. Judge for yourself:
Leif,
Thanks for that.
I guess the answer is it may be, but we’ll have to wait a bit longer to see. I wonder what happened in 1991->1992, the flux was really low.
Wow. The haughty superiority & self-rightcousness is palpable.
Did academia all go to school in the old USSR? No, apparently the USSR came to America decades ago.
Michael Tobis is a disgrace to reputable scientists and reputable computer engineers.
“Consider some statistical expectation of human lives that will likely be lost as a consequence of the delay due to this confusion. I think such a number could present a very grave picture indeed.” – Michael Tobis
These hysterically unsubstantiated comments are intentional. He has a habit of posting alarmist rhetoric on blogs. IMO he has no business calling himself a computer engineer when he does not have a remote understanding of computer systems. It is an embarrassment to the field of computer science to have him call himself a “computer engineer” when he cannot even comprehend GIGO. He is one of many who graduate with a computer related degree and then believe that computers have magic powers and/or emotions. They get stuck in academia because their computer illiteracy would immediately get them fired in the private sector. There you cannot BS your way around software that produces nonsensical results. It is some sort of cruel joke that the whole AGW hysteria is based on the computer illiteracy of people like Michael Tobis.
I had a debate with him and he could not comprehend why a paper that claims the broken solar radiation tranfer codes in GCMs is irrelevant because they did a lot of math actually makes the case AGAINST GCMs by admitting the code was broken. Some people have no business declaring themselves “experts” on computer systems.
So when a court in England found Gore’s movie AIT to be in error on 9 items is the court responible for 9000 deaths? When Lord Moncton showed that in there were 35 errors in the movie does that equate to 35000 deaths?
Silly stuff.
However with a world map showing the extends of the last ice age it is easy to see how many people will die if they don’t move when, not if, glaciers return. Canada gone with 25 million dead or migrating south. Finland, Sweden, Norway etc gone.
Do these people deny all geologic history of hundreds of millions of years just to control others. And that is what this argument is ultimately about is control of people re freedom. If I control your access, cost and amount of energy you can have I can control your life ergo control your freedom.
To call someone ‘palpably evil’ serves no prupose other to to polarise the argument and effectively end any debate. The ridiculous futuristic statistics on which this position is based demonstrate nothing but totally simplistic and linear thinking. It makes me mad. 8 million people die every year for no other reason than they are too poor to stay alive. That’s nearly a billion over the course of this century. It makes Tobis’ fantasy 1000 seem ridiculous. Access to cheap energy is what lifts people out of poverty.
Hitler and Stalin were evil for enforcing their vision of world order on Europe – with the deaths of millions.
The Khmer Rouge were evil for forcing their visiion of world order on Cambodia with the deaths of milllions.
The people who flew planes into the Twin Towers were evil fro trying to impose their vision of world order on all of us.
People like Tobis are no different – they are fanatics too. Not giving the billions of this world access to the cheapest forms of energy to let them live, in pursuit of some totally misguided vision on how you think the world should be ordered is the same. It is morally repugnant.
And if people are better off – maybe when the next storm comes, they will see it on TV, get into a reliable car on a reliable road and drive the hell out of the way – just like the rest of us do.
“Aron (10:05:30) : If he believes the seas are going to rise by up to 20 metres, why did he just buy a beachfront property in San Francisco?”
I hadn’t herd about this house. Can I have a link to the story?
The housing market in the San Francisco area has been hit very hard the past two years, except for San Francisco. Houses there are still very expensive, especially if it’s a nice one on the beach. This makes me wonder how much Al Gore is profiting from global warming. He said on 60 Minutes that he donates his profits to charity. I think he meant profits from An Inconvenient Truth only.
“how did I give ammunition to my enemies”?
In a debate, anytime you advance a theory that is demostratably false it will undermine your position. If your point is ridiculus right on the surface, credibilty is destroyed. Mr. Tobias has arrived at that point.
Leif – can you tell me why Oulu shows a rise through 2008 if the other stations do not, I only monitor the Oulu site, and it certainly has gone to the highest point in their record, which must indicate something….
Mike Jonas – I am interested in the formulation of a critique – I am close to publishing a book that will do that – but it is over 300pages! Out in a couple of months – and would be glad to be part of a scientific project group – you can contact me via the ethos-uk.com website.
Definitely unfair snip, but not my call.
We can clearly see horrific results of eco-fascism in the DDT panic. We are going down the same path without being able revisit past abominations?
Roger Sowell
I’ve only reached your first comment on this thread, so please forgive if I’ve been overtaken by events. Re your remarks and the reference to DDT. I believe I heard somewhere that the person who actually placed the first ban (an American in the EPA?) has, by now, overtaken Mao as the greatest mass killer in history.
“To call someone ‘palpably evil’ serves no prupose other to to polarise the argument and effectively end any debate.”
Yes, but there are some people who really ARE “palpably evil” and with whom no debate will have any effect anyway. They are “evil” after all.
Just calling someone that, based on wild “truther” style associations and without a DEMONSTRABLE basis in fact, is usually a sign that the caller is at best confused, and at worst indulging in a little psychological projection.
But the use of that term is a big gun, and it probably shouldn’t be used unless it is needed, because sometimes it is.
For example, I have no problem labeling bin Ladin evil, as well as Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat. Of course, when someone says “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” while clearly amoral, it is not necessarily evil (might just be a clueless idiot), though it is pushing the envelop, IMO.
Among those who banned DDT there were many who believed it really was dangerous. Yet there were also those who knew if it’s use were constrained, the hazards could be limited and millions wouldn’t die as a result. Those latter are, IMO, definitely evil. But when you don’t know someone’s motives, calling them evil, should be avoided, unless they’ve made the same mistake before and should know from experience that it will also be very harmful this time as well.
That said, I guess it’s clear I quite agree with your assessment.
I think I want to get a T-shirt now with “Palpably Evil” emblazoned on it.
And you thought the USA is a democracy?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30891
I came across a little regarded document the other day which contained the phrase “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nice thought. How do we go about pursuing happiness when we’re freezing to death because we aren’t allowed to burn stuff?