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
timbrom
“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.”
I suspect that is very close, if not the actual truth. Premature deaths world-wide from malaria are estimated at 1 million per year. (CDC, see link below). Given a 35 – year ban, or roughly that time frame, then it would be about 35 million people.
http://www.cdc.gov/Malaria/impact/index.htm
Who is in charge of the USA, The American Taxpayer or the Radical Left?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320977215507791
IS THIS “PALPABLE” ENOUGH FOR ANY OF YOU?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/03/barack-obama-updates-soviet-flag.html
Well, I am sure I am awfully late to the party, this post having over 180 comments on it already…
But I do hope that this will help to illustrate to many out there that while there are a lot of scientists who are open to evaluating the science, there are a great many more scientists (as well as those who may call themselves “scientists” but whose daily active role is anything but) who don’t care about the science. The debate, for them, is over. The facts are firm. The reality is now. Such is why Tobis can accuse Pielke Jr. of, essentially, the willful homicide of 1,000 people for disputing Al Gore’s ridiculous claims on climate change (e.g. no Arctic ice in 5 years).
A more important point is that this blog, its contributors (financially as well as in writing), and its supporters (those who call themselves ‘skeptics’ or are otherwise in agreement with Pielke Jr. on this matter) are all complicit. Yep, that’s right, we are all ‘palpably evil’ murderers. That, my friends, is the naked perspective of the Climate Change movement.
Believe or be proclaimed a heretic and burnt at the stake for your transgressions!
Again, welcome to the church of Holy Climate Change.
Why chlorinating potable water is important:
“Disinfecting our drinking water ensures it is free of the micro-organisms that can cause serious and life-threatening diseases, such as cholera and typhoid fever. To this day, chlorine remains the most commonly used drinking water disinfectant, and the disinfectant for which we have the most scientific information.”
source: Health Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/chlor-eng.php
We know that chlorinating water is safe, effective, and prevents serious diseases. Can anyone please explain to me why funds are not available to ensure every person has chlorinated water to drink, but funds are available to build computer models of climate change?
Mar 04, 2009 ICECAP.US
Clinton Ranks Climate Change More Important Than Human Rights
By E. Calvin Beisner, National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Chinese leaders February 22 that human rights issues, such as China’s oppression of Tibet, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Climate change outranks human rights?
That’s right. Ms. Clinton thinks climate change, which is filled with scientific, economic, and moral uncertainties, outranks human rights issues. So while Tibetans suffer Chinese tyranny, and Muslim women continue to suffer oppression from the Taliban, and Christian minorities continue to suffer violence and death in Darfur (partly fueled by Chinese arms sales to and interest in oil production in Sudan) and elsewhere, and millions of people continue to suffer as sex slaves all around the world, our Secretary of State is going to give priority to climate change.
Little could be more shameful.
Global warming is real, folks. The temperature now is Fahrenheit 451.
=============================================
“kim (16:13:15) :
Global warming is real, folks. The temperature now is Fahrenheit 451.”
I’ve wondered a few times if global warming would come to this.
I heard Dennis Miller joking a couple times about possible Congressional hearings some day on tv where we might hear something like this, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of global warming?”
Allan M R MacRae (01:22:50) :
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
Definently sensible! Well said.
Cheers G
Philip_B (14:59:21) :
“It’s a good job burning at the stake has gone out of fashion.”
Are you kidding, that would generate far too much CO2! Instead we have taxes, and the repression of the masses through the promulgation of imaginary threats (i.e. AGW).
As the saying goes – there are only 2 certainties in life – death and taxes.
Though I’d add a 3rd to that list – salesmen/politicians. In all of human history there is always someone with charisma and “authority” who has the ability to sell spectacles to the blind.
Roger Sowell: “Given a 35 – year ban, or roughly that time frame, then it would be about 35 million people.”
The 1972 EPA ban on DDT in the US was for non-public health purposes such as agriculture. There was no ban for public health purposes and DDT can still be used for this purpose.
In its day DDT was a life-saver for millions of people, especially in third-world countries, but among other practices over-use in the 1950s and 60s in agriculture led to the development of resistance in mosquito populations and eventually the abandonment of large-scale efforts at eradication.
However, DDT is still in use in some countries as part of a range of strategies to combat malaria. The DDT ban myth has a wide currency across the internet, but is not founded on the facts and ignores the science of pest control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria
People who link to Wikipedia as a source have no business posting on the internet.
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Bjorn Lomborg claimed that with the money spent on Kyoto-based programs controlling C02 to save just one person, 36,000 people could have been saved in third world countries through mosquito control programs reducing deaths from Malaria. That is from just one program. There are many more, such as provision of clean water (some 6,000 children die every day from water related diseases), hunger relief, etc. When you think of the many billions of dollars that could have been spent raising living standards, particularly in third world countries that have instead been wasted on the complete fantasy of manmade warming, the argument could be made that those promulgating AGW are guilty of a worldwide holocaust, and already responsible for the deaths of literally millions. But, this is only the beginning. Clearly, raising energy costs will hurt poor people most, reducing their already-low standard of living even more, thus causing many millions more deaths.
AGWers claim to be concerned about over-population, since it is we humans who are “responsible” for “C02 pollution”, which is “destroying our planet”. Perhaps, consciously or not, this is one way they are carrying out a “cure”.
Talk about “palpably evil”!
It’s easy for most of us to hide from how desperate many “third world” people have it (out of sight, out of mind). On the other hand, runaway global warming is the “in-your-face” threat that will seek you out and be evident everywhere. No hiding. And this personal threat is masked with stated concerns about how runaway global warming will hurt the poor people of the world the most. The poor people are hurting now.
Allan M R MacRae (01:22:50)
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.
Well said, and while I sympathize with the sentiment, I have to say that it is just way too late for that. The horse has left the barn, the die is cast. This is, in a very real sense a war, and one that we didn’t start. Appeasement not only didn’t work for Churchill, it backfired. The anti-science of AGW ideology, like nazism, has to be ground into the dirt from which it came. It has become public enemy number one.
Bruce Cobb
I think you mean Chamberlain. Churchill was virtually ostracised in the ’30s for resisting appeasment. Then won the war.
timbrom, thanks, I stand corrected. Usually check those things out first before posting, too, oh well.
The exchange between Tobis and Pielke was extremely chilling and mind-numbing. Tobis is the product of extreme ideological scientism and years of mind conditioning to the idea that statistics and arbitrary definitions of right and wrong can be used to determine moral culpability. Not just to mention his arbitrary, a priori characterizations of the (moral and political) differences between Gore and George Will, the latter of whom was largely reporting what was happening in connection with the corrections Gore had to make to his slide presentation. I happen to side with George Will in this battle for the hearts and minds of the American public.
I am even more disturbed by the fact that Tobis does his dirty work at the University of Texas, where my son attends school. He’ll just have to think for himself, a characteristic that Tobis is highly incapable of.
One of the commenters claims:
“There couldn’t be any confusion if the science were settled.
If it were indeed settled no amount of bluster from so called deniers (actually skeptics) could have any effect with the public.”
Oh, if only that were so. The question of whether or not the earth is a few thousands or a few billions of years old is about as settled as a science could be. Yet 50% of “the public” opt for the former ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism).
Most members of the public aren’t scientists, they just listen to what they hear on their televisions. Those, like Beck, who broadcast their opinions have a responsibility to their public to do a bit of homework. If they do this poorly, or don’t even try, then other public speakers have a responsibility to correct them.
Tobis is honorably trying to correct some serious misconceptions and caricatures floating around out there on the airwaves. He’s a scientist, not an entertainer, so his delivery is perhaps less polished. Pay attention to what he’s actually saying, not to what the entertainers spin it as. Feed the sound bites to the dog, and read the paragraphs. Once you’ve done that, but not sooner, tell us why he’s wrong.
“”” Ron de Haan (12:37:13) :
And you thought the USA is a democracy? “””
Well ron sorry to disabuse you but the USA most certainly is NOT a democracy.
In fact in the US Cosntitution arcticle IV section 4 you will find:-
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union, a Republican from of Government; and shall protect each of them against invasion….”
So it’s a Republic; not a democracy; well and the Governmnet pays no heed to that little piece about protecting each of the States against invasion
; and then in Artical I Section 8 you will see that one of the things the Congress is authorised to do is to call out the militia to defend the borders against invasion; and they don’t do that either.
“…read the paragraphs. Once you’ve done that, but not sooner, tell us why he’s wrong.”
“As a consequence, the public debate about global change issues is dangerously skewed from the most basic and crucial facts, as currently understood and enunciated by virtually every major scientific body in existence.”
“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.”
-Michael Tobis
I’ll pick a phrase:
“…Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks,”
What does “effective politics” mean? Not allowing the press into your seminars so that you can lie freely? And “truthful description of risks”?
Entire icecap to disappear in five years:
Models show 20′ of sea level rise:
http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/al-gore-weathers-confrontation-at-economics-summit
“…George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.”
Because he stated the truth? George Will is a man of integrity who values truth. Tobis prefers those who lie and frighten to attain their ends. For a good look at Tobis’ position statement see this:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/the-trouble-with-revkins-critics/
Of course Tobis has now changed the statement but he can’t hide the fact that he is a politician NOT a scientist.
Aron writes: “If Gore is Mr Efficiency who believes we should only consume what we need, how is he gaining so much weight so fast?”
Eureka, I just thought of something Gore can do to keep the oceans from rising! Stay out of them.