UPDATE5: 5/5/10:30AM Donna Laframboise pulls out of the conference.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/05/05/why-i-wont-be-speaking-at-the-heartland-conference/
Instead, those of us who had accepted Heartland’s invitation to take part in its conference found ourselves blindsided – a mere two weeks before the conference is set to begin – by a torrent of negative press. Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.
Blindsided is right. AFAIK, not one attendee was given the courtesy of weighing in on the billboard campaign beforehand, and if I had been given that courtesy my answer would have been a resounding NO. Instead, I believe we all got the notice after the fact.
UPDATE4: 7PM PST Heartland issues a press release ending the billboard
May 4, 2012 – The Heartland Institute has pulled its global warming billboard starring Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber whose manifesto expressed his belief in catastrophic man-caused global warming. The digital billboard ran for exactly 24 hours along the Eisenhower Expressway near Chicago in the suburb of Maywood, Illinois.
The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312-377-4000.
“This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention.
“This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message. We found it interesting that the ad seemed to evoke reactions more passionate than when leading alarmists compare climate realists to Nazis or declare they are imposing on our children a mass death sentence. We leave it to others to determine why that is so.
“The Heartland Institute doesn’t often do ‘provocative’ communication. In fact, we’ve spent 15 years presenting the economic and scientific arguments that counter global warming alarmism. No one has worked harder, or better, on that task than Heartland. We will continue to do that – especially at our next International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago from May 21 – 23.
“Heartland has spent millions of dollars contributing to the real debate over climate change, and $200 for a one-day digital billboard. In return, we’ve been subjected to the most uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists. The other side of the climate debate seems to be playing by different rules. This experiment produced further proof of that.
“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
========================================================
UPDATE3: 3:15PM PST I saw this private letter to Joe Bast earlier from Ross McKitrick, and I agreed with Ross in a reply. He has posted it on Climate Audit so I’ll share an excerpt here:
He wrote: “This kind of fallacious, juvenile and inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to enhance your reputation…”
“…hands your opponents a huge stick to beat you with, and sullies the reputation of the speakers you had recruited. Any public sympathy you had built up as a result of the Gleick fiasco will be lost–and more besides–as a result of such a campaign. I urge you to withdraw it at once.”.
UPDATE2: 1PM PST
From Joe Bast via email:
We will stop running it at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)
UPDATE: I’ve added a simple poll at the bottom to gauge opinion on this issue. – Anthony
There’s a disturbance in the farce. Tom Nelson captures these:
Do you believe global warming is real, poses risks to the environment, and needs to be addressed? The Heartland Institute, a think-tank based in Chicago which has promoted climate skepticism, wants you to know you’re in some sinister company.
Twitter / @eilperin: In new ads, the Heartland …
In new ads, the Heartland Institute suggests only terrorists believe in the link b/w human activity and global warming: wapo.st/IOUuEI
Predictably, ThinkProgress/Climate Progress is all bent out of shape.
But Joe Romm and Brad Johnson (who now also runs “Forecast the Facts” to hassle TV weatherpeople) think nothing of making a similar comparison about “deniers”.
Speaking of “mass murderers and madmen”….
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/25/277564/norway-terrorist-is-a-global-warming-denier/
Romm of course will be unable to embrace his own hypocrisy, because he’s reportedly paid a six figure sum by the Center for American Progress to write the hateful detritus he produces daily.
That said, I’ll be blunt; I think Heartland’s billboard campaign is a huge misstep, and does nothing but piss people off and divide the debate further. IMHO it isn’t going to win any converts, and had they asked me I would have told them that it is a bad idea that will backfire on them.
Here’s what they have issued in a press release about it:
May 03, 2012May 3, 2012 – Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too.
Heartland’s first digital billboard – along the inbound Eisenhower Expressway (I-290) in Maywood – is the latest effort by the free-market think tank to inform the public about what it views as the collapsing scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming. It is also reminding viewers of the questionable ethics of global warming’s most prominent proponents.
“The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists,” said Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast. “They are Charles Manson, a mass murderer; Fidel Castro, a tyrant; and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Global warming alarmists include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).
Bast added, “The leaders of the global warming movement have one thing in common: They are willing to use force and fraud to advance their fringe theory.” For more about the billboards and why Heartland says people should not still believe in global warming, click here.
Ugh. Ugly.
There’s more than enough climate ugliness to go around. Though, it seems harder and harder to find this ultimate warmist embarrassment.
Anybody that can help with Donna’s suggestion?
And there’s many more examples of climate ugliness from the left that we’ve seen.
On another note, the serially mendacious commenter known as “Dorlomin” left this comment over at the Romm shop:
dorlomin says:
I thought I should clear this up. First, “dorlomin” of course is all about smear, that’s his MO, and the MO of the many anonymous cowards who purvey such things without having any integrity or courage themselves.
Second, the simple fact is that I didn’t know about the association of the person making the claim that “Climate skepticism could soon be a criminal offence in UK
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/climate-skepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence-in-uk/
Third, when I learned who was behind the story, I immediately took it down because it was an inappropriate source, just like I don’t post videos from LaRouche and other fringe organizations.
Of course “dorlomin” and left foot forward would have you believe that I consort with these folks and have them over for drinks and dinner, rather than the fact that once I learned more, I found them offensive and immediately deleted the story. It was my mistake for not checking sources further.
“dorlomin” is of course playing the very hate game he rants about, and is hypocritically blind just like Romm. The only difference is that one is paid to produce propoganda and the other is a coward.
But will Climate Progress delete their offensive story about climate deniers and terrorists? Not likely, it would hurt their sales figures image.
POLL:
Note: multiple anti vote stuffing features are enabled in this poll. I’ve made the questions simple so that editorial bias in the questions is minimal.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm
“That’s what I’m demanding? This is pure invention by you.”
Gimme a break. We both know what we are talking about. You are the one whose hypothesis demands wrenching change. You therefore have to justify it. Without application of forceful reasoning, the body politic will stay in motion on its preappointed path. So far, you guys are applying logical femtodynes (and political gigaNewtons).
“So, if I understand you right here there isn’t any significant externally forced climate change ever… without a significant forcing or change in the physical configuration of the system. Fixed that for you. That is why you bear the onus of proof – because of the necessarily strong restoring forces, you have to prove that your disturbance is large enough to significantly overcome them. In that, your side has failed utterly.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
So show me your science and the empirical data that allegedly have falsified what has been stated by mainstream climate science.”
It hasn’t warmed for at least 10 years when CO2 concentration has continued rising, and ought to be the controlling factor in temperature at this point according to your hypothesis. Done.
You guys think it’s all just a great big accident, just a wayward random walk which will drift one way, then another based on tiny additions of one key ingredient or another. So, you muck around with aerosol fudges and imagine that, when you turn the knob just right to get the result you want, you have somehow created a scientifically compelling case that you know what is going on. It’s bascially a convoluted exercise in curve fitting, but the curve fit has no predictive power outside the interval in which it is applied. As John von Neumann famously remarked, “with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” Big deal.
You do not appreciate the power of the feedbacks. You do not appreciate the conditions which are necessary to have reached a quasi-equilibrium in the first place. And, as long as you treat the system as though it is unconstrained, you will continue to rack up embarrassing failures like the failure to anticipate early 21st century temperature doldrums.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“How is this just a cyclical behavior and nothing else, if the second “cycle” maximum is significantly higher than the first one?”
Look at the chart again, and pay attention. 1910-1940: +0.6 degC. 1970-2000: +0.6 degC. It shows up even more clearly in more reliable datasets than GISSTemp. The ~60 year harmonic comes out quite clearly in a power spectral density plot (another analysis tool with which the warmists have little familiarity). There are two full cycles in the data. This is no artifact. This is no accident.
There is a trend which has been in evidence since the end of the LIA (and therefore not of human origin), and a ~60 year cyclical component superimposed on top of it. And, it is all natural. The current lull in temperatures arrived right on time a few years after the millennium. We will now show a relative decline until 2030 or so, then rise again. All prefectly naturally.
“…which is statistically signficant with at least 95% probability.”
Bollocks. You are using inappropriate tools designed for analyzing deterministic trends in data sets with independent measurement noise. Mark statistics up as another area in which the “mainstream” climate science community is woefully inadequate.
Bart says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“The ~60 year harmonic comes out quite clearly in a power spectral density plot (another analysis tool with which the warmists have little familiarity). There are two full cycles in the data. This is no artifact. This is no accident.”
And, here is a plot where you can see the two cycles with the naked eye. It is so obvious and prominent that you have to not want to see it to miss it.
Jan P. Perlwitz
Can I take your failure to respond to the questions I posed above;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/04/heartlands-billboards-and-joe-romms-stunning-hypocrisy/#comment-976810
as an admission that you cannot cite any evidence that Earth is warming rapidly?
Furthermore, if you cannot demonstrate rapid warming, would you agree that GISS claims like “All three show particularly rapid warming in the last few decades.”,
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
are simply alarmist rhetoric?
So, if I understand you right here there isn’t any significant externally forced climate change ever, when the boundary conditions change, according to your understanding, since “powerful” negative feedbacks drive the system always back to basically one and the same equilibrium state. No significant response to changes in the atmospheric composition, like an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, no significant response to solar activity changes, to any changes in the Earth orbital parameters, and then, consequently also no significant response to galactic ray changes. Ever.
The Feedback Modulation Theory (a name I just invented) of climate change predicts that factors that affect feedbacks cause the climate to change. Which means aerosols (multiple affects), GCRs and perhaps ozone. The Forcings model recognizes that factors that affect feedbacks drive climate change, but ascribe small values to them or ignore them all together.
I’m skeptical that Jan P. Perlwitz is the Jan P. Perlwitz of GISS. Besides not immediately recognizing the null hypothesis reference as pointed out in an earlier post, the poster calling themselves Jan P. Perlwitz seemed to not have any knowledge surrounding Trenberth’s reversal suggestion.
Bruce Cobb wrote: “Trenberth’s desperate attempts to reverse the null hypothesis.”
Jan P. Perlwitz replies:
”If you make assertions about statements by others, in a real scientific publication this would have to be backed up with evidence and proof of source. But I know, this here is just an opinion blog, science is not conducted here. So everyone can just make any claims about anything and its opposite w/o being mandated to back it up.”
The Jan of GISS would surely know such “evidence” and “proof of source” is easily obtainable:
“Past attribution studies of climate change have assumed a null hypothesis of no role of human activities. The challenge, then, is to prove that there is an anthropogenic component. I argue that because global warming is “unequivocal” and ‘very likely’ caused by human activities, the reverse should now be the case.” — Kevin E. Trenberth
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.142/abstract
And extensively discussed:
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2011/11/what_if_climatologists_reverse.php
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pdf/Press-Final_NullHypothesis.pdf
John West said on May 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm:
John West makes a good point. In consideration, thereof I would like to withdraw my comment regarding Perlwitz.
Tom G(ologist) says:
May 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“What the skeptical community must recognize is that newspapers and radio and television are not in the entertainment or news business. They are in the business of providing an audience for their advertisers. PERIOD. Otherwise they will be OUT of business.”
Unless you are subsidized by the state!
“We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”
Well done HI!!! With that one statement, you’ve advanced your status in my estimation, and I hold you in higher regard today than I did before. No surrender, no retreat, and above all else, no apologies.
Regarding Donna LaFramboise withdrawl from Heartland:
I appreciate the critical analysis of Donna LaFramboise. IPCC is a disease-riddled patient clearly in need of some serious doctoring. Ms. LaFrambois biopsied some of the worst bits with a surgeon’s skill and diagnosed the patient as being, among other things, “A Delinquent Teenager”, and “a pathalogical liar”. Her writing doesn’t mince words.
It is therefore ironic and surprising to see her forego her invitation to Heartland – she cancelled her invitation to participate in a debate about the IPCC at the forum – with the following comments:
It is strange and a bit disingenuous for Ms. Laframboise to link climate scientists of the IPCC to “delinquent teenager(s)”, and “pathalogical liar(s)”, and yet balk at the billboards’ hyperbole, which implies that some global warming advocates are deranged and more than a bit super-loony. Is her hyperbole any less vitriolic than Bast’s? Does she have better taste in vitriol?
She stops short of “crazy” in her diagnosis of warmers, but I would suggest that if it walks like a duck…
In any case, the billboards were a mistake. They’ve been removed. Now, let Laframboise reconsider her invitation to the Heartland conference. Go and participate. If anybody asks about the billboards, tell them that issue is so last week – like the exploding students in the classroom.
heartland should make bumper sticker of that billboard. it would sell.
i wonder if monbiots deck of cards idea he ripped off from iraqwar ever got any negative press?
The Heartland experiment also revealed something else: that some of our friends on the CAGW side may have sociopathic leanings. If they can compare skeptics to holocaust deniers and worse, and then scream bloody murder when the favor is returned, there’s a problem *somewhere* and it may not just be the science.
Someone asks:
“All you needed to do to prove J Peden was wrong was to provide one solitary example of a successful prediction based on the “CO2=warming hypothesis”.
Cooling of the stratosphere
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Jan P. Perlwitz:
At May 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm (above) I wrote to you saying;
“On a previous thread I showed how your own words proved you are a pseudoscientist, and you failed to provide any other possible understanding of those (your) words despite repeated attempts to obtain such an alternative explanation from you.”
At May 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm you have replied saying;
“Well, I guess that’s what you imagine about yourself and what you are asserting now.”
Oh ,dear, “imagine” about myself? You think that obscures reality.
The thread was
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
My pertinent post was as follows and anybody can check the link to see that my account of our subsequent conversation was as I said.
Richard
—————————————
Richard S Courtney says:
April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am
Jan P. Perlwitz:
Thankyou for your reply at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am to my comment to you at April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm. However, it is an understatement to say that I am underwhelmed by your reply.
Taking your last point first, you say to me;
“…your singling out of my comments for your ad hominem indicates a certain bias in your perception and opinion.”
Say what!?
I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.
However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).
You babble about the difference between the words “show” and “explain”. This is semantic obfuscation because I quoted you accurately and in full. Importantly, your semantic quibble has no meaning in the context of what I wrote.
Then you assert;
“Scientific proof is not possible in a comment section of opinion blogs.”
Let us be clear. “Scientific proof” IS NOT POSSIBLE period.
There is scientific evidence, scientific argument and scientific conclusion but “proof” is a mathematical concept and is NOT a scientific possibility.
However, you assert;
“Scientific proof for scientific theories can only be found in the scientific literature”.
NO! It can not! Scientific “proof” does not exist and, therefore, cannot be “found” anywhere.
If “scientific proof” were possible then an existing scientific understanding could not be overthrown.
Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).
Science obtains as much evidence as possible and assesses it all in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’.
Pseudoscience assumes something is ‘true’ and seeks evidence to confirm (i.e. to prove) it.
And your assertions that “science” is not conducted here but only “opinions” are expressed are further evidence that you have little if any understanding of how science is conducted (n.b. again, this is not an ad hominem).
Science consists of assessing all available evidence in attempt to discern the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’. Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
And you say;
“I do science somewhere else, not here.”
Yes, I noticed that. Please stop presenting pseudoscience here and present science instead.
Importantly, you were asked to “show” and you were not asked to “prove” your premise. And this distinction is NOT a semantic quibble. You were asked for an explanation and/or evidence (which is how something is shown scientifically) of your premise: you were NOT asked for “proof”.
And your reply to me does attempt to explain your premise saying;
“I certainly do believe that I understand how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works…” etc.
Sorry, but you have failed the assignment. Few doubt the radiative properties of dipole molecules or the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect. But that is not an answer to Babsy who wrote;
…”Your premise is that increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is causing said atmosphere to warm up. I say show me the mechanism that produces this phenomena. And you cannot.”
It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
“In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”
The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.
Please note that the above three paragraphs are science and not merely opinion.
And you ask me;
“So please explain to me what are the supposed criteria, which are allegedly fulfilled, that makes this blog a “scientific blog”? There are no valid scientific standards here. Anyone can assert anything and its opposite, w/o being mandated to back up assertions, to bring proof of source, or, generally, follow the rules of a real scientific publication. Nothing of what is here produced is put under real scientific scrutiny by scientists. How can this be a “scientific blog” then? It can’t.”
The criteria are that evidence is presented, challenged, debated and evaluated with a view to obtaining better understandings (i.e. knowledge). Incidentally, this IS conducted by “scientists” (your claim otherwise merely demonstrates that you have not read the blog). Simply, much science is conducted here which falsifies your assertion that science “can’t” be conducted here.
And what “standards” are you asserting exist elsewhere. Do you want WUWT to devolve to the mendacious behaviour of ‘The Team’ as revealed by the ‘climategate’ emails? I and others would oppose the reduction of standards here to that level.
Your claim of “rules of real scientific publication” is baloney. I give a few examples which show it is baloney.
The Editor of Nature published two papers by third-rate patents clerk without putting those papers to peer review because he knew the reviews would be negative. But those papers (on what their author called relativity) revolutionised physics.
Two bicycle salesmen published their seminal paper on aviation in a journal on bee-keeping because the ‘rules of scientific publication’ made it impossible for them to publish in more appropriate journals. And the existence of the aviation industry shows the value of that paper: where it was published, its lack of pre-publication peer review, and the credentials of its authors do not alter its value in any way.
Similar examples are legion.
I repeat, your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.
The remainder of your reply to me is merely ad hominem and so is not worth the bother of a response.
Richard
I’m old enough to have lived and remember the Unabomber ; his letters his threats, his mystery.
It was clear he was very intelligent, very unhappy, and very unbalanced, at the time, but I could not help hoping he would discover the benefits of Lithium salts, and a doctor to confide in, and that he would surrender to the police on his own free will. The fact that it had to be his mother and his brother who gave him away, had me shattered for a long time.
So, for me, this billboard campaign is doubly despicable.
richardscourtney says:
May 6, 2012 at 1:26 am
@ur momisugly Jan Perlwitz:
Say what!?
I made no ad hominem; none, zilch, nada. Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.
Don’t get too flustered — “That’s an ad hominem” is his standard rebuttal to any points you might raise, including those you might have about the reliability of computer simulations…
Eli Rabett says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:47 pm
ROTFLMAO!!
Yesterday I sent an email to Donna Laframboise with this message:
– – – – –
I have not received any response.
What happened to the fearless investigative journalist that I have morally and intellectually supported from well before her book can out?
John
The “scientist” Jan Perlwitz seems to believe in the Monty Python method of argument:
My thoughts on UPDATE 5.
Prima Donna.
Pointman
John West says:
May 5, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Since “R. Gates” hasn’t been around lately, at least that I have noted, I’m wondering if that person has returned using a different nom de plume and IP address? As I recall, R Gates was a big fan of Trenberth.
@Larry Cullen Ledwick (hotrod) at May 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm (and everyone else, like G. Karst, Bruce Houston, John West and who else who made similar statements about me not understanding “null hypothesis” and are as delusional to believe they are competent judges of my qualification as a scientist, only using the interpretation of some comments I make in an opinion blog as a basis)
Larry Ledwick, you wrote:
Well, firstly, I could say in reply to you, thank you, your comment by you here demonstrates “beyond doubt” your strongly distorted perception by showing a large deficiency regarding the ability to understand what you read, and you seem to share this with the other ones mentioned above who obviously followed a similar misinterpretation of what I said, since I didn’t make any statement like the one you ascribing to me here. My statement referred to a specific “null hypothesis” user “Smokey” has repeatedly tried to impose. I didn’t say anything like that the epistemological concept of “null hypothesis” was something “global warming sceptics” had invented. Do you really believe I didn’t know about “null hypothesis” as a concept? You are not reading, you are projecting and you jump to conclusions. What it is with you guys?
Secondly, from your insistence on “null hypothesis” that allegedly must be rejected everywhere in science, I conclude that you all seem to follow a strong positivist view on science, a dogmatic Popperism in your believe about how science would and should work. That indicates to me that none of you has ever worked in science and that none of you has much clue how the real scientific process works. Popper’s normative epistemology has been falsified and it is outdated. I would say, a more modern understanding of the scientific process based on the epistemological theories developed by Thomas Kuhn and, independently, Paul Feyerabend, is more common among the ones who work in the sciences, since these theories provide a more adequate explanation of the scientific process.
As for some of your other statements.
The statement that something unusual is going on due to anthropogenic activity in comparison to the range of natural variability relative to a specific time scale is indeed one made by mainstream climate science. And, of course, the scientists who make such statements are required to provide the scientific evidence. You can get informed about the scientific literature where such efforts have been made up to about the year 2005 by reading the IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1, The Physical Science Basis.
Is this a “simple fact”? How do you know? What is the evidence for this “simple fact”? Or is this alleged simple fact just an assertion postulated by you?
Who says that current temperatures are “unprecedented” w/o any further specification? I, for instance, do not says this. You are drawing strong generalized conclusions about a whole body of research from mere assertions you make about alleged “simple facts” and alleged statements by climate scientists.
Jan P. Perlwitz
You say HI is not the victim of attacks from global warming believers? For your part you may not be attacking them and other ‘skeptics’. But there is a lot of attacking of skeptics happening. There is a huge movement of unfair, unfounded, below-the belt, and even mindless attacks on skeptics. If you would take a few weeks and search things out you will find it just about everywhere you look.
Also, it shows bias on your part, and naïveté, to say GISS is not involved in politics.You have James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt working with you.
Here’s a little on James Hansen’s involvement in politics:
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
May 6, 2012 at 6:25 am
Yawn….. Oh! I’m sorry! Did someone say something? I just woke up.
richardscourtney at May 6, 2012 at 1:26 am:
Right, anyone can check. This doesn’t refute what I said, though. Now you are just copying and pasting your post from the previous thread w/o mentioning (hoping no one is really checking?) that I replied to the post you are copying, pretending you hadn’t got a rebuttal, to score some points here now. This is pathetic.
I can copy/paste too. This was my rebuttal:
**********
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 19, 2012 at 8:15 am
Richard S Courtney, at April 15, 2012 at 10:32 am, wrote:
“At April 14, 2012 at 3:45 am I replied to your post at April 14, 2012 at 12:49 am and I then explained how your post clearly and unambiguously demonstrated you are a pseudoscientist.
You have not replied (which is not surprising).”
You are clearly overestimating the substance of your elaborations and the importance of your person. Replying to your palaver isn’t on the top of my priority list of the things I do in my life.
As for your alleged demonstration. What you really have done:
1. Applied straw man argumentation. You were babbling about how I didn’t understand that “mathematical proof” was not possible in science, and then you concluded, because I didn’t understand this, I did not know the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Yours is a strawman argumentation, since I didn’t say a word about “mathematical proof”. Again, you just misrepresented what I said. Your misrepresentation is based on redefining the word “proof” by postulating it means the same as “mathematical proof”.
The meaning of the word “proof”:
“Definition of PROOF
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : experience
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 :
.
.
.
8 : […]”
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof)
Based on giving another meaning to the word “proof” you falsely equalize scientific proof and mathematical proof.
Mathematical proof is only a special case of proof. The word “proof” itself has a wider meaning. If both were just identical you didn’t need the adjective “mathematical” to specify it. “Mathematical proof” would be a pleonasm.
The theory of evolution is scientifically proven, i.e., there is an
overwhelming amount of evidence for that this theory is able to comprehensively explain a part of the real world. It is also proven that the moon is not made from green cheese. We have the data that prove this.
2. You invent statements I haven’t made:
“Your claim that consideration should only be afforded to information you like that is only available in or from sources you like is a proclamation of pure pseudoscience.”
I haven’t made such a claim anywhere. You are a falsehood disseminator. Projecting a lot?
3. You resort to appeal to majority to reassure yourself of the validity of your “arguments”, which is a logical fallacy.
“Anybody can see that I deconstructed your comments.”
Sure, the majority here will “see” and applaud you. It’s the same majority that very likely will applaud to anything, no matter how illogical or contrary to the data and published finding of science it is, as long as it confirms the preconceived views of the fake skeptic crowd.
You certainly make a lot of noise with your straw man arguments, falsehoods about what I said, and other logical fallacies which you apply, but the intellectual substance of all of it is rather meager.
Also, you don’t seem to know what “ad hominem” means. You say,
“Your comments concerning “scientific proof” demonstrate that your understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience is severely lacking (n.b. this is a factual statement and not an ad hominem).”
Because it was a “factual statement” (allegedly) is couldn’t be an ad hominem?
“However, your unfounded suggestion that I have “bias” in my “perception and opinion” is an ad hominem. Indeed, it is an unjustified insult which tells much about its provider (i.e. you) and nothing about its target (i.e. me).”
Ad hominem means “unfounded suggestion” or “unjustified insult”?
An “ad hominem” argument is an argument “to the man”, about a person’s character, bias, beliefs, ideology, interest. The question whether an argument is “ad hominem” has nothing to do with whether it’s a factually true statement or not.
As for the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.
You weren’t satisfied with my explanation about the basic principles of the greenhouse gas effect exerted by carbon dioxide. You objected:
“It is a fact that CO2 is a GHG so – all other things being equal – an increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative warming of the Earth’s surface. But so what? That is not what you were asked because all other things would NOT be equal if atmospheric CO2 were to increase. Indeed, you admit that all other things would not be equal when you write;
“In reality, it’s a bit more complicated, since there are also turbulent, sensible and latent energy fluxes, and there is convection, there is a vertical lapse rate of the temperature, the atmosphere has different strata with different properties.”
The “mechanism” you were asked to show was how the entire climate system would respond such as to cause the atmosphere to warm up. You have not done that, and so it seems Babsy was right to claim “you cannot”.”
Let’s be clear what you are asking me. You are asking me to write an essay here, in which I explain the working of the whole Earth system in it’s total complexity, taking into account all essential aspects of this system, all essential interactions between its components, all positive and negative feedback relationships, and name all the evidence from measurements and observations for that it really works like this, referencing all the scientific publications where this evidence has been presented, and then, taking into consideration all of this, to explain how an increase in carbon dioxide leads to a warming of the surface and troposphere, and again, present all the evidence needed to show that it really works like this and reference all the scientific publications where the evidence has been presented.
All this in a comment in a thread of this opinion blog.
And you are faulting me that I haven’t delivered.
You are asking me to write here in a comment an essay of book length with many hundred pages that reviews and assesses the current knowledge about Earth’s climate.
Oh, wait. There is such a book with a comprehensive review and assessment. It’s called IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1, “The Physical Science Basis”. The next IPCC report with an updated status about the knowledge of the workings of the climate system is going to be published in 2013.
You wrote at April 15, 2012 at 12:03 am,
“You are using the pre-climate-science view that science is about understanding the natural world.”
I’m still waiting for the evidence for your assertion according to which my view was science wasn’t about understanding the natural world. The only way to prove your assertion, if it was true instead of just being absurd nonsense for the purpose to discredit me, would be to present statements made by me where I expressed such a view.
You also wrote:
“Climate-science practitioners use the post-normal method of studying models which they construct from their opinions, beliefs and prejudices.”
And what is your supposed evidence for this assertion? Where have I chosen such an approach in my scientific work? I’m still waiting for the evidence that I have done so. You would have to provide the evidence on the basis of the scientific publications where I’m an author. But you won’t provide any, since you only have made this up. The question for me is whether you deliberately make these things up, then you are a deliberate falsehood disseminator. Or whether you believe what you say. Then your perception is highly distorted, looking for confirmation of your preconceived views making you see things how they are in your head, not how they are in reality.
Both of your assertions are ad hominem arguments. Both are to the man. It is telling that this was what you knew to come up with, after I had asked for the scientific evidence that a large part of the global scale warming over the recent decades is to be attributed to PDO. The scientific evidence for which I’m still waiting. The PDO claim doesn’t agree with the mainstream view in climate science. Asking for the scientific evidence is just legit. It looks like you felt the need to divert from a legit question.
John Whitman says: (in e-mail to Donna Laframboise )
“Did you consider showing up at ICCC-7 and using your talk as a vehicle for having an open discussion about the billboard usage by HI?”
While we disagree on whether the billboards were a mistake, I agree that the magnitude of the “incident” (whichever side of the fence you fall on) isn’t anywhere near the level that would justify “quarantine procedures”. Your suggestion is right on the money.
I think we should all try and keep a little perspective here. It’s not like HI broke any laws, committed fraud, or identity theft. HI didn’t call for warmists houses to be allowed to burn or for international trial for crimes against the economy. HI didn’t produce a video where warmists are exterminated RAID style ……. etc.. etc…..
IMO It’s a poorly conceived billboard, $200 poorly spent, and over. Hopefully with lessons learned. HI still has my full support and admiration for all the GOOD they do.
BTW: the same message delivered in slightly different context wouldn’t have aroused any controversy. For example if the billboard had merely stated something like: Norway mass murderer’s disbelief in global warming is no more relevant than Unabomber’s belief in global warming. (Ok so that’s a lot to read @ur momisugly 70 mph, I’m just saying, a different context.)