Responding to the last blunder he made where he assigned WUWT ownership of the “Our Climate” app, Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope makes a blunder anew, 5 times.
Heh.
See the full writeup and see if you can spot all five:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/apple-fools-day-again_b_684263.html
Blunder aside, I found this interesting:
My post on the threat of extreme weather attracted only ONE response, whose key point was: “How on earth are we supposed to ‘destabilize; the climate? Are you not careful with your words or do you really believe that the climate would become instable with more CO2? In the latter position you would find yourself rather lonely.”
…bordering on rediculous
Mr Pope: “increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy. Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over … More kinetic energy in the atmosphere means a less-stable climate regime”
Illogical. A better analogy would be that you have a pot of water on the stove set to a very low simmer. The water is warm and stable as the heat going in equals the heat going out. Now you bring in a bunch of people into the kitchen. CO2 level goes up due to all the breathing and now the water starts boiling rapidly.
You know, I love how scientists, statisticians, and mathematicians and economists who are not “climate scientists” are attacked when they dispute the science with the defense that they are not climate experts. Yet any idiot that can barely use a computer that spouts scientific nonsense supporting AGW is held in high esteem by this warming crowd.
“What you can’t do is have it both ways by saying that feedback loops can be counted on to prevent rapid climate change and that there has been lots of rapid climate change in the past.”
Clearly Mr. Pope knows nothing about dynamic systems. If you read this, Mr. Pope, just look up the word “hysteresis”. Within limits, there can be a lot of oscillation in a long-term stable system. Or just look up “oscillator”.
Now this is silly; they should give him a job where he doesn’t have to utter his assumptions about weird complicated things; he starts to sound like expert geologist Dr. h.c. Al Gore.
Instable use of drugs by the rich elite. Same old same old.
“I was on a plane all day after my post last week …”
Yes and hypocritically expelling countless tons of evil CO2 into our precious atmosphere while you were at it. Spare a thought for our grandchildren.
“I was on a plane all day last week.”
Quite a trip, and instabling the chemical composition of the atmosphere according to prepondering scientific consensus, but let’s not be redolent.
“But I don’t apologize for my view that climate cynics are defying not only the scientific consensus but also common sense by arguing that we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate. ”
Strawman. No skeptic argues that “we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate.”. Mr. Pope; setting up a strawman and knocking it down is the most often used argumentative technique in leftist circles; that much is known; but it is still not a valid argument.
I was never very good at those “find the 5 dogs in the drawing below” things, but I’ll give it a shot.
Before I start, I’d like to note as a bonus that the sentence ‘Indeed, the threat of CO2 destabilizing the climate was precisely my point — increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy.’ needs to be taken out and shot, but is not clear enough to point out a distinct blunder.
1. ‘So WUTW seemed to be marketing “Our Climate” as its own’.
No evidence has been presented for “as its own”, and contrary evidence is in the article Mr. Pope says he read: ‘I had been asked to review this app. So, for “inquiring minds”, no, I earn nothing from it, just like in a scientific paper review’.
2. Five instances of typo “WUTW”.
3. Climate / weather confusion. ‘Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over — generates a major hurricane, alters the patterns of precipitation over Central Asia, locks a high-pressure system keeping out precipitation over California’s Sacramento Valley — whatever.’
A hurricane is definitely weather. A high pressure system ditto. Patterns of precipitation could make it into climate if sustained over decades.
4. Simple logical fallacy: ‘you might think that under present circumstances the feedback loops are likely to work against climate instability. What you can’t do is have it both ways by saying that feedback loops can be counted on to prevent rapid climate change and that there has been lots of rapid climate change in the past.’
Clearly, you might think that “under present circumstances” feedbacks are negative but under past circumstances they might have been positive or very small. But that’s not my real problem with this paragraph. I believe that feedbacks must be, and have been, negative over most of history, because otherwise Earth would already be an iceball or a sauna. That doesn’t rule out rapid change from strong forcings – Milankovitch cycles, for example.
5. ‘climate cynics are defying not only the scientific consensus but also common sense by arguing that we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate’.
Not so much a blunder, rather a deliberate straw man, but I’ll go for it anyway.
Please,please,please don’t make me read his stuff !!!!!
Is English his first language?
He speaks “enviro-ese”. It’s like “journalese” only more obscure and better at hiding the fact that he’s talking rubbish most of the time.
From the HuffPo article:
“So WUTW seemed to be marketing “Our Climate” as its own, and the first reviewer seemed to be thanking WUTW. As a result, I made a mistake.
A mistake? At least two in that sentence alone. I quit reading after that.
Oh, the insufferable indignity of having it pointed out that one of the Cardinals of the new religion has stepped in a mud puddle. Alas.
Well, that, and the redefinition of “pointing and snickering” as “hyperventilating”.
He is a concern troll. Pope is all worried about an app for a phone.
Last week Obama announced 2 billion dollars for coal plant in Illinois. How is he coming on getting that shut down? Since he is playing the grandchildren card, he must worry about the money and the CO2. They can sequester the CO2 or he can sequester his grand kids. The home is double CO2 than is found outdoors.
Futuregen
Released, promoted — what’s the difference indeed. He’s right you know — and here’s the proof…
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
So there you have it…
thegoodlocust says:
August 17, 2010 at 2:05 am
To be fair, ‘heat’ really is just kinetic energy of molecules, so he is in fact right. I doubt that he understands that, however, given the associated ‘trapping of incoming sunlight’ description.
I could make a misspelling joke here about “Carol” Pope, but I won’t. 😉
“Are you not careful with your words or do you really believe that the climate would become instable (sic) with more CO2? In the latter position you would find yourself rather lonely.”
Hands down, my favourite. I had no idea that belief in CO2 caused climate instability was such a lonely position.
“Its first tip on the top ten list is that the climate has, indeed, changed in major ways, and rapidly, in the past, due to forces other than human intervention. This is one of the facts on which all sides of the debate can agree. But that fact, unfortunately, is quite sufficient to establish that we cannot count on climate feedback loops yielding a ‘net sum’ that is ‘small or negative.'” (emphesis mine)
That fact also shows that the increase in temperature over the recent 30 yrs. is not unusual. Pointing out “that fact” is, I think, a bigger gaffe for Mr. Pope.
Great quote from Alice In Wonderland.
However, it was the RED QUEEN!
Max
I like one of the comments on HP.
“Carl, i know Anthony Watts of WWUT and he’s a good human being, but so so wrong about AGW and climate chaos in the future. He means well, but….”
So Carl calls it WUTW and Danny Bloom calls it WWUT.
lol
Huffington Post, Huffpo, 2nd City; not a real website; a recent creation historically speaking, the product of one Arianna Huffington; not significantly coupled to reality …
.
Should amend to include: Will ‘publish’ anything; unabashedly on the side of wrong, incorrect, stupid countless times …
.
When preaching to the choir , the importance of the meaning of words pales in comparision to how they sound . Often , objective facts are irrelevant to the subjective “truth” – if it sounds right , if it feels fight , then it is right . Enviromental activists , beginning with David Brower , have preached this “sermon” to their followers for decades . Gullible Gaiaists aren’t particularily literate .
Hey guys, give the poor fellow a break on that plane trip. Sure, he was on a plane all day, but nowhere does he say it was actually flying. In fact if he actually was on the aircraft, it couldn’t have been flying, otherwise he would have been blown off (though come to think of it, that would explain a lot).
I’ve figured that the problem with huffington post is that with all their huffing and puffing they never blow any house down, they just keep on huffing and puffing, and all that collection of air in the head really can’t be all that healthy.