A new post containing a cartoon from Josh will appear every hour. At the end of the 24 hours, everything will be collated on a single page. Readers are encouraged to post skeptical arguments below, as well as offer comments on what has been seen from the Climate Reality Project so far.
——-
Netting the big fish – payback
Al’s CRP prominently featured lots of red herrings, such as his attempts to link skeptics today to tobacco company style “denial” tactics. Whatever pays the bills I suppose. From their press room:
This campaign comes at a critical time. As the impacts of climate change are growing more prevalent, so is the resistance to finding the truth and implementing solutions. Just like the tobacco companies that spent decades in denial that smoking causes cancer, oil and coal companies are determined to sow denial and confusion about the science of climate change, ignore its impacts, and create apathy among our leaders. This event is the first step in a larger, multi-faceted campaign to tell the truth about the climate crisis and reject the misinformation we hear every day.
For the record, Mr. Gore, both of my parents died of smoking related illnesses. As a result, I abhor everything about tobacco. Therefore Mr. Gore, you can take that comparison and forcefully insert it into the bodily orifice of your choice.
From Junkscience.com:
Al Gore has conveniently forgotten that his family used to be in the tobacco industry.
As reported by NPR about an interview yesterday with Gore as part of his 24-hour assault on climate science:
He went on to accuse those who express the loudest doubts about whether humans are contributing to climate change of “doing exactly the same thing that the tobacco industry did after the Surgeon General’s report came out” linking smoking to cancer. “They hired actors and dressed them up as doctors and gave them scripts” saying that smoking isn’t harmful. Today, said Gore, “carbon polluters” are paying for climate change doubters to say similar things.
But as reported by the New York Times in 1998,
Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee. And it took several years after Nancy Gore Hunger’s death for Mr. Gore and his parents to stop growing tobacco on their own farms in Carthage, Tenn.
So it seems that the Al Gore and his family were quite content to profit from tobacco users for more than 20 years after the January 1964 publication of the first Surgeon General report on smoking and health.
[h/t to PaulH for the Junkscience story]
UPDATE: Here is the video about smoking from the CRP
====================
Josh put a lot of work into these, so if you like the work, drop by the tip jar. Unlike Gore’s CRP, he won’t spam you asking for more. Buy him a beer, he’s worked a long time bringing us enjoyment with only some “attaboys” sent his way.
@Tim Minchin
The wicked witch of the west is a tough roll to fill. I think Trenberth would be a good fit but Naomi Oreskes would also work well.
A skeptic remark: Milloy conveniently forgot Al Gore distanced himself from his parents industry from the start.
[Note: But he still takes the money. -mod]
I read somewhere that Jeanne Calmain (the French lady who died fairly recently at age 122, as the world’s oldest person) had smoked for over a century.
Her name was Jeanne Calment. She had lived so long that she once even met Vincent van Gogh, whom she said was very ugly and reeked of alcohol.
And sure she lived to 122. But it was a premature death, of course. If she hadn’t smoked, she would have lived to 140 or more.
^^^
Thanks, Frank, I stand corrected. Must’ve been remembering hearing her mentioned on the radio – after all, we Brits do try very hard to be as useless at other peoples’ languages as we are at our own … 🙂
Everyone here seems to be in agreement. Al Gore drives them absolutely crazy. The technical term is GIS: Gore Insanity Syndrome. It is suffered by people who cannot write three sentences about global warming/climate change without a snide and deprecating reference to Al Gore. As if his existence somehow made the thousands of research articles confirming human influences on world climate suspect or false. How silly. Like saying relativity is wrong because you do not like Albert, that peculiar little Austrian. Or the law of gravitation is wrong because Isaac was an alchemist. Insults and personal accusations are the recourse of people with no empirical evidence to address the issues. So, please bring out your evidence and demonstrate how the scientists that presented on Climate Reality are wrong. And try to get over you revulsion of Al.
ytty says:
“…please bring out your evidence and demonstrate how the scientists that presented on Climate Reality are wrong.”
As usual with the climate alarmist crowd, ytty has the scientific method exactly backward and upside-down. The onus is on those pushing the AGW hypothesis to provide testable, real world evidence showing that AGW exists.
But no such evidence has ever been presented. AGW may well exist [I happen to think it does, but that it’s effect is wildly overstated], but currently all the “proof” of AGW is in the assumptions contained in computer models. That’s not good enough – unless you’re captive to a belief system. Then, evidence doesn’t matter. But to scientific skeptics who insist that the scientific method must be followed, observational, measurable evidence of AGW is necessary. If there were actual, measurable, testable evidence confirming AGW, then scientists would agree on the measurements. But such physical evidence is non-existent.
Finally, Algore is a self-serving charlatan who deserves all the ridicule heaped on him. He is a hypocrite who has mansions by the sea shore, while preaching like Elmer Gantry about imminent 20-meter sea level rises. The world does not contain enough ridicule for fat Albert.
ytty says:
September 16, 2011 at 11:40 am
🙂 Maybe, if Mr Gore actually debated what he claims?
Smokey, Do you know what a computer model is? Models are ways of linking disparate empirical evidence into a coherent whole. They are certainly not infallible and that is why there are a variety of models but they have shown good accuracy in postdiction, that is, accurately modeling past climate change. On that basis they are used for prediction. However, to say that ‘currently all the “proof” of AGW is in the assumptions contained in computer models’ is just plain wrong. There are multiple lines of empirical studies, using earth based observational data, satellite data and historical data that independently of computer models demonstrate the high probability that GW is A–not completely A but in significant proportions. The empirical studies I referred to are the presentation of evidence of AGW. Also, do not forget the many paleoclimate studies showing the link between high CO2 in the past and temperature. So when I said ‘demonstrate’ I meant counter the evidence of the empirical studies of current and past climate with evidence of your own. I keep looking for that but never see it. Some people are so certain that the large majority of climatologists are completely wrong and I have (naively) assumed that they have some proof of that other than ‘Al Gore turns me off’ or ‘climatologists are all money grubbing liars.’
ytty obviously gets his talking points from Skeptical Pseudo-Science and similar CO2=CAGW propaganda blogs. If he sticks around here for a while he will probably learn things he never knew about. Like the null hypothesis, and what an argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy is.
To repeat: there is no testable, empirical, replicable evidence that passes the scientific method, directly connecting any temperature rise with increased CO2. There is no evidence. As in none. It’s computer models all the way down.
And models hindcast all the time. You can find stock market models that hindcast the markets quite well. But they cannot forecast any more accurately than GCMs. If they could, some pimply nerd would own the world.
ytty says, “…do not forget the many paleoclimate studies showing the link between high CO2 in the past and temperature.” Yes, there is a link. But it is the opposite of what ytty believes it to be: ice core evidence clearly shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not causing temeperature rises; CO2 is simply a function of temperature.
Finally, ytty should listen to the 31,000+ climatologists, scientists and engineers [including over 9,000 PhD’s, and all with degrees in the hard sciences] who have co-signed the following statement:
“No convincing scientific evidence” means exactly that. And the fact that there is substantial evidence that more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere means that more CO2 is good.
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. ytty probably heard that today for the first time, right here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. If he stays around, he will gradually realize that he’s been spoon-fed warmist propaganda by the heavily censoring climate alarmist blogs he’s been reading.
Smokey, speaking of restating talking points. I have read the same points you made over and over again in this and other sites. My talking points actually come from the research literature. I have done something unheard of–actually reading technical articles and books rather than blogs. I had to laugh when you said “null hypothesis” because I explained this so many times to undergraduates to whom I taught statistics and research methods before my current work, which is all empirical research. CO2 is definitely beneficial and it keeps us all from freezing to death. What we are debating is the level of CO2. Everyone know that CO2 in ancient climates follows the rise in temperature. Everyone know that! Just pick up a good paleoclimatology textbook and read about it. What you will learn is that there a multiple forcings of warming and that in the longer term–hundreds of thousands of years–CO2 acts as a feedback to forcings arising from changes in the earth’s orbit, inclination, etc. Is that what is happening now? No, you see there were no people burning coal and oil in those days–the situation is very different now. We are pumping billion of tons per year, something unprecedented so far as we know. There is so much evidence in current climate studies for the effects of CO2 that it is hard to list them all. I am not sure what you mean by ‘testable empirical evidence.’ If you mean studies in the laboratory, there is at least 100 years of studies showing that this gas and others absorb and re-emit infrared light. Are you challenging the validity of those studies? If you mean field studies, there is the absorption patterns of light, as measured by earth-based compared to satellite based instruments, which show just what the theories predict: CO2 absorbs infrared, the atmosphere warms, more water vapor is held in the atmosphere which causes more heat absorption, etc. The stratosphere is cooling, just as is predicted. Greater nighttime warming, just as predicted. This is standard college textbook stuff and you can look at the charts and data tables–all empirical data. As to ‘replicable,’ my goodness how many replications do you need? I could provide a list from the major journals for you but you can get those yourself if interested.
As to the 9,000 Ph.Ds, there are a few individuals in climatology that I am familiar with who deny some aspect of AGW–generally centering on debates about climate sensitivity. There are also some people in the other earth sciences, particularly geology, who deny certain aspects of AGW. As to the other 8,950 of those Ph.Ds., where are they hiding? Come out, come out whereever you are and enlighten those of us who are open minded.
ytty says:
“There is so much evidence in current climate studies for the effects of CO2 that it is hard to list them all.”
Yet you have never listed even one. You only give us your opinion. In Texas they call that “All hat and no cattle.”
I can refute every major point you’re trying to make. But it’s tedious, so I’ll cherry pick:
“As to the other 8,950 of those Ph.Ds., where are they hiding?”
Right here. And they outnumber CAGW believers by about 10:1. The OISM petition is not the only challenge to CAGW by skeptical scientists [the only honest kind of scientist]. There are several others, links on request.
Next, you don’t seem to understand the concept of the null hypothesis. Here’s the definition: The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified, because there are no differences whatever between the current global climate and the global climate parameters throughout the Holocene. In fact, today’s climate is exceptionally benign. The ≈40% increase in CO2 has not resulted in the endlessly predicted alternate hypothesis of “climate disruption”. Every current parameter of temperatures, trends, and duration has been greatly exceeded in the past, when CO2 was under 300 ppmv. Thus, the alternate hypothesis of CO2=CAGW is falsified.
Next, if you’re now labeling CO2=CAGW a “theory,” you simply do not understand the proper use of scientific terms. This can help you to use the proper terminology.
Next, you claim that “…there is at least 100 years of studies…” showing a greenhouse effect. Yet there is no direct connection showing that the relatively small amount of CO2 we emit causes warming. As the null hypothesis confirms, the claimed warming cannot be presumptively blamed on human CO2 emissions because the planet’s temperature is well within normal parameters for the Holocene. Further, R.W. Wood conducted an experiment [cf: Philosophical magazine 1909, vol 17, p319-320] – using actual greenhouses – that shows a negligible greenhouse effect.
You also stated: “… do not forget the many paleoclimate studies showing the link between high CO2 in the past and temperature.” You implied that CO2 caused past warming, otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned it because the cause-and-effect debunks CO2 as the causative agent. But when I falsified that notion, you changed your tune 180°: ” Everyone know that CO2 in ancient climates follows the rise in temperature. Everyone know that!” Of course, that deconstructs the claim that CO2 caused global warming in the past.
I could go on, but when someone jumps the fence like that when proven wrong, it indicates they suffer from cognitive dissonance – which is rarely curable. And if you believe that Al Gore is anything but a self-serving propagandist who is clearly afraid to debate, then you do not understand human nature, either.
Smokey,
Don’t waste your time with this ankle-bitin’ yelper. Total waste of time.
We could use your resources on other fronts. 😉
Your skeptic / denier friend,
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
savethesharks,
I’m retired, so I have the time to refute globaloney posts like ytty’s.
I don’t respond to change ytty’s mind; that’s extremely unlikely. I respond to give new readers the other side of the debate. Then they can make up their own minds after seeing both sides. Generally they end up seeing the climate BS conjecture for what it is… baseless hype. And that’s why public opinion is changing. We’re making a difference here.
Thanks for your own comments, too. I always enjoy them, and they make a difference, too. For sure.
Steve C (September 16, 2011 at 12:47 am) wrote:
I read somewhere that Jeanne [Calment] (the French lady who died fairly recently at age 122, as the world’s oldest person) had smoked for over a century. … If tobacco is as lethal as they say, it’s a v-e-r-y s-l-o-w sort of lethality. … Oh, and yes, I’m a (totally unapologetic) smoker, though in my case only for a trifling 40 years or so. …
About 2 in 3 smokers escape the more serious consequences of their addictions, giving rise to a false sense of security among smokers and prospective smokers. While it’s convenient to believe that you’re a member of the “2 out of 3,” there’s no guarantee you are. That is just as true after you’ve been smoking 40 years as it would be if you’d just taken your first puff.
About 1 in 3 smokers has serious negative consequences from smoking (lung cancer, heart disease, etc.). For some, it’s a hammer blow that arrives early in life — e.g., a young woman who began smoking in high school and, ten years later, is snatched from her husband and young children by lung cancer. Others may appear to have escaped, but are dealt a crushing blow decades later.
As a boy, my father had to work to help support his family. He started in the rail yard as a scrawny, 14-year-old kid, loading and unloading boxcars after school and on Saturdays. Needless to say, he was much weaker than the men he was working with. There were many boxes he couldn’t even move. But he could do one thing to be like the men he worked with. He could smoke.
A year after the first Surgeon General’s report was released, and 43 years after he began smoking, my father quit. His doctor was very pleased, telling my father that it was good he stopped when he did, because he was in the early stages of emphysema. Twenty-six years passed — good years — and then my father came down with pneumonia, which caused additional damage to his already weakened lungs. After the pneumonia, his resting blood oxygen saturation level was below 70% (it should have been 96% or greater). He spent the rest of his life chained to an oxygen concentrator or an oxygen tank.
So don’t believe you’re in the clear because you’ve been smoking for 40 years. Do yourself a favor and quit, if at all possible. While stopping smoking won’t undo 40 years worth of damage to your body, some of it will heal over time. And no new damage will be done.
Stop smoking. Do it for your family. Do it for yourself. Good luck!
For one, I’m glad you’re “on the job”. Thanks. It is important to counter such remarks in an intelligent respectful way, that’s what differentiates skeptics from the elitists.