From Jo Nova, just unbelievable. Of course Lewandowsky is involved too:
Skeptics equated to pedophiles — Robyn Williams ABC. Time to protest.
Hat tip to Graham Young editor of Online Opinion. Follow his twitter account.
These comments by Williams are far worse than what Alan Jones said in October that created a national storm.
News just in: This morning on the “science” show Robyn Williams equates skeptics to pedophiles, people pushing asbestos, and drug pushers.
Williams starts the show by framing republicans (and skeptics) as liars: “New Scientist complained about the “gross distortions” and “barefaced lying” politicians come out with…” He’s goes on to make the most blatant, baseless, and outrageous insults by equating skeptics to people who promote pedophilia, asbestos and drugs.
Full story here: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/breaking-skeptics-are-like-paedophiles-drug-robyn-williams-abc-time-to-protest/
One wonders how many alarmists will stand idly by while this goes on. One wonders if the University of Western Australia will have the integrity to censure Stephan Lewandowsky for his ugly remarks and for his outright lies cloaked under the approval of the University ethics department.
They have become the merchants of hate.
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/complain.htm
UPDATE:
Graham Young writes in Paedophilia, climate science and the ABC
In today’s Science Show Robyn Williams smears climate change sceptics by comparing scepticism of the IPCC view that the world faces catastrophic climate change because of CO2 emissions with support for paedophilia, use of asbestos to treat asthma, and use of crack cocaine by teenagers.
Don’t believe me? Then listen to the broadcast.
…
“Punitive psychology” as it is called, was widely used in the Soviet Union to incarcerate dissidents in mental institutions. In modern Australia the walls of the prison are not brick or stone, but walls of censorship, confining the dissident to a limbo where no-one will report what they say for fear of being judged mentally deficient themselves.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ie.. the closest point, with the sun directly overhead, receives “P” energy / unit area, and as one moves away from that point, the energy reduces.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
59 years with no temperature increase with huge rises in CO2. Just a 14 year period with rising temperatures and CO2 out of 73 years, yet some people still believe CO2 is driving climate, madness.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1980/normalise/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1995/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/normalise
Richard Courtney, Mosher often gives the impression that he was brought up in a barn.
The only (slight) consolation is that he is equally ill-mannered and dismissive to just about everybody. It seems to be one of the burdens that great intellects such as his have to bear when dealing with lowly and lesser mortals like just about everyone else.
Four more:
37. That global temperatures must be higher in coming decades if emissions continue to rise, because certain natural cycles seem poised to enter a cooling phase
38. That most predictions by warmists have been correct [a separate list is needed for these—e.g., the tropical tropopheric hotspot]
39. That warmists have dealt adequately or openly with these failures, or have been called to account for them by their media cheerleaders
40. That the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers accurately summarizes its Assesment Reports, or is endorsed in toto by the contributors to those reports, or is endorsed by “the world’s scientists”
Thanks. My #38 above includes your #38 suggestion. I urge others to toss their ideas into the suggestion box—and/or for Anthony to establish a thread devoted to an appeal for such contributions.
To make an effective counter to warmism, I believe the Credo needs to summarize contrarian views on the entire range of warmist conventional wisdom. It needs to be a “broadside” salvo. Perhaps the Credo should be divided into topical groups, with science under its own heading. Possibly there should be subheadings. (At the moment I’m in the “brainstorming” phase of its creation, where I’m just throwing stuff on the table as it comes to me.)
I know what you mean. I’ve come up with a couple of good one-liners that could be used as corporate tag-lines, namely:
For Apple: “Once you bite, you’re bitten”
For IBM: “Big enough to be small”
And I came up with a couple of dozen quick-hits in response to Anthony’s plea for contributions to his “Did you know that . . . . “ series a few weeks back. I think that such bite-sized arguments are wonderful, and I hope Anthony opens a permanent (tabbed) thread where contributions to it can be made, resulting eventually in a 100-item tornado that will unsettle the settled.
But a credo isn’t meant to sell—it’s meant to summarize, like an executive summary. Executive summaries are longer than seven seconds. They have to be. If we can create a credo with under 100 litems, it will run only two pages, which isn’t too long for an executive summary. (It could form a table of contents for a longer document that would argue each of our Credo’s points in detail.)
Possibly the most important items should be boldfaced, to cater to readers with a limited attention span.
It should avoid overstatement and rhetoric (which will look to portions of the audience like “ranting”). It should avoid including contrarian views that are not held by a consensus (!) of contrarians; or if it does it should not fully commit itself to them. Such an extensive summary would indicate, to neutral readers, that we have at least fully considered and addressed the issues. It would encourage them to read further, and to grant us some provisional credibility. That’s a start.
This fragrant person is doing the rationalists a big favour. When people cannot argue rationally it is either that they are unfortunately suffering mental problems or they have no arguments and thus resort to abuse.
So in resorting to abuse Robyn Williams is an abuser and has much more in common with paedophiles who abuse children, people who misuse asbestos are abusing members of the public and drug dealers of course in many cases abuse their customers.
If the cap fits Mr Williams I suggest you wear it.
To the moderator. I wrote “no-feedback” and I meant “no-feedback”. In order to explain I need to be a little long-winded. The IPCC has an extremely complex, hypothetical way of estimating how much global temperatures will rise as a result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It is a multi-stage process.
The first step is to estimate the radiative imbalance cause by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is termed radiative forcing. The number is impossible to measure, so no-one has the slightest idea what it is. It is generally agreed that the number is positive. Steven Mosher (SM) would have us believe the number is 3.7 Wm-2, and this number is written on tablets of stone.
The next step is to estimate no-feedback climate sensitivity. It is assumed that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere instantaneously doubles, and global temperatures react to the change in radiative forcing. The no-feedback climate sensitivity also cannot be measured, so, again, no-one has any idea what it’s value is. And again, SM would have us believe that the number 1.2C is written on tablets of stone.
The final step is to assess the feedbacks, which allegedly increase the response and amplify the 1. 2 C . Not to be repetitious, once again there are no measured values, and any number obtained is meaningless.
I have no objections to this type of estimation, just so long as before anyone claims that the numbers have any meaning, they are confirmed by actual measurements; actual empirical data. No such data exists, from temperature records of the 20th and 21st centuries. My estimate is one of a very few that has been attempted.
So, yes, I said “no-feedback” and I meant “no-feedback”.
Steven Mosher says:
November 25, 2012 at 1:11 am
start with this.
then get the book referenced.. chapter 2.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld001.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steven,
Those slides are telling you the same thing I am telling you. CO2 changes the ERL (Effective Radiating Level) in the atmosphere. Which is EXACTLY what I said in my explanation above. CO2 doesn’t change the amount of energy in the system, it changes where it is at any given time.
If you would take some time to understand this issue, then you’d understand why your explanations of sensitivity are completely wrong.
johanna says:
November 25, 2012 at 5:16 am
Agreed. Most often you will also find that brash arrogance is a cover for deep seated insecurity.
davidhoffer,
Those two physics arguments of yours were very lucid. Discussion from such clear statements are fruitful. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
I find analogies that try to teach physics in general unfruitful and therefore find unfruitful your car/ traffic analogy @ur momisugly :
John
John Whitman;
I find analogies that try to teach physics in general unfruitful and therefore find unfruitful your car/ traffic analogy @ur momisugly :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Explaining why something is unfruitful has value. Simply stating that it is unfruitful, is unfruitful.
Your kind remarks regarding my physics explanations much appreciated.
davidhoffer:
analogies are not explanations.
analogies are not definitions.
analogies may be very poetic, but they suffer from inaccuracy (because they are not the entities they are being used to ILLUSTRATE rather DEFINE) and they suffer from incompleteness (because they do not possess all the attributes that the nominal topic does).
analogies are problematic, additionally, because they have attributes that the nominal topic does not – and therefore carry a freight of inapplicable attributes (call them STRAWMEN, if you want poetry instead of properly using language as language)
analogies are poetic and may be indicative of a person who lacks the comprehension to express a point using language.
analogies are simplifications that may reveal that the speaker views himself as the instructor and the listener as simple.
just say what you mean using words that have definitions and you’ll avoid the epistemological failures engendered by substituting semiotics for argumentation.
plus, it will conceal your secret desire to be a demagogue, which detracts from the message – unless that IS the message?
i’ll coin a neologism for this: punditosis, or cryptonarcissism – the secret desire to be worshipped by minions. it can bring down the best of them who lack self awareness.
davidmhoffer says:
November 25, 2012 at 8:59 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Explaining why something is unfruitful has value. Simply stating that it is unfruitful, is unfruitful.
Your kind remarks regarding my physics explanations much appreciated.
– – – – – – – – –
davidmhoffer,
Thanks for your reply.
Analogy is not an epistemologically valid tool for knowing what is. Do you claim analogy is any kind of scientific argument? I suggest avoiding it if clear understanding of physics is the goal. Do you think scientifically it is fruitful or valid in physics which is tasked with understanding what ultimately is. I find analogy in physics unfruitful.
If analogy is not valid argumentation within the science of physics, then it is also not valid in using it to explain physics to the public. Not fruitful except to mislead the public.
John
gnomish says:
November 25, 2012 at 10:15 am
– – – – – – – –
gnomish,
That was nice. : )
Well, masked man, who are you? I would like to know who is behind the gnomish mask and buy both davidmhoffer and you a brew together. We have a lot of good things to ‘face-to-face’ about while enjoying relaxing libations . . . I think (hope).
John
Thanks, i’d love to take a physics course from a prof who understands the nature of knowledge.
i’ll visit your blog when you get it going…maybe contribute something on semantic analysis and how a speaker reveals much more than he intends.
John Whitman;
Analogy is not an epistemologically valid tool for knowing what is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I provided an analogy which explains in an easy to understand manner my point to Mosher, which was measuring things at either end of a path doesn’t tell you what happened to those things along the path. I maintain that the analogy serves the purpose.
Gnomish – I provided three different explanations at three different levels of understanding. If you with to take exception to any of them please do so on a case by case basis. Calling me names served no purpose and diminishes your credibility.
davidmhoffer says:
November 25, 2012 at 11:05 am
– – – – – – – – –
davidmhoffer,
Please take my critical comments about ‘analogy’ as my generic approach to analogy in science discussions. It is not specifically centered on your analogy; I actually thought your analogy was well done as analogies go. : )
I always read your posts, every single one; that is the best praise I can have for a blog commenter. I can say that of only a handful of blog commenters.
I would like to have some liquid libations with you someday. And also with that masked man called gnomish. : )
John
John Whitman;
Analogy is not an epistemologically valid tool for knowing what is. Do you claim analogy is any kind of scientific argument?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I do not. But my comments were addressed to Mosher, who is not a scientist but a journalist with an interest in climate science. I provided three different explanations addressing his misunderstanding of the basic physics. Each one is valid in itz own way.
I make my living explaining extremely technical products to people. It is rarely possible in a one hour meeting to give the precise technical answer to a question unless the person asking the question already understands 95% of the answer. But the question gets asked, and it must be answered as best as one can given the time available and the technical knowledge of the questioner. Sometimes an analogy is useful, and sometimes is makes matters more confusing. You make a judgment call and hope you’ve done the right thing. In this case I hedged my bets and provided three different cuts at it. I’m trying to illustrate an issue, not write a text book.
– – – – – – –
gnomish,
Well, masked man, wrt my WP blog ‘premisedetectionandanalysis’ is still awaiting my first post. I am working on one. Probably it will be published around Christmas.
Viva epistemology! And the other branches of the philosophies that created the enlightenment!
John
Steven Mosher says:
November 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“The forcing from C02 is not zero. the physics used to radars, and cell phones, and IR missiles, and satillite pictures of the earth, that physics ( tested, calibrated, validated with field tests ) tells us that doubling c02 gives us 3.7watts.”
You have been misinformed. The “physics … that tells us that doubling CO2 gives us 3.7 watts” is fundamentally based on the environmental lapse rate and its estimated (non-zero) value. If the lapse rate were to go to zero, there would be no greenhouse effect and no forcing from atmospheric CO2 concentration. None of the above technologies that you mentioned have anything to do with the lapse rate.
The heat transfer calculation that computes a 3.7 W/m2 CO2 forcing assumes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not significantly decrease the lapse rate. This assumption is an educated guess. There are no controlled experiments that support this assumption and consequently there is no direct evidence for it. In fact there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise.
Earth, Mars and Venus all have CO2 in their atmosphere (the Earth has substantial amounts of water vapor as well) and they all have environmental lapse rates significantly less (~30% less for Venus and Earth, Mars lapse rate has been known to change signs) than their adiabatic lapse rates. This supports the notion that adding greenhouse gases to a planet’s atmosphere will cause the environmental lapse rate to decrease. It would only take about a 3% lapse rate decrease to reduce the surface temperature on Earth by 1°K. Incidentally, a 3% average reduction in lapse rate would probably be undetectable with current instrumentation.
Can somebody explain to me what exactly has been said? how can one “promote pedophilia”? You’re either a pedophile or not; how can the condition be promoted (other than by killing off the non-pedophiles)?
analogy is not explanation.
i explained why.
so did mr Whitman.
put away your tarbaby, dave.
gnomish;
analogy is not explanation.
i explained why.
so did mr Whitman.
put away your tarbaby, dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn’t say it was, in fact I was specific that it was not. Yet you continue to hurl invective at me. To what purpose I know not.
Cripwell
“. The number is impossible to measure, so no-one has the slightest idea what it is. It is generally agreed that the number is positive. Steven Mosher (SM) would have us believe the number is 3.7 Wm-2, and this number is written on tablets of stone.”
Actually it is measured.
lets do a thought experiment Jim.
What is the radius of the earth?
What does the moon weight?
How far is it to the moon?
What is the temperature of your house?
How do we measure these ‘things’.
Do we get out a tape measure and hold one end on the earth?
Do we put the moon on a scale?
Do we wrap a tape measure around the earth?
Do we measure the kinetic energy of every molecule in your house?
nope. what we do is a combination of theory and observation. A combination of known physics and observation. So, I point a laser the moon. I measure the time it takes for the signal to go there and back. Now I have time. How do I get distance? well, I apply a theory that tells me that the speed of light is constant and bingo, I have an estimate of the distance. Use your imagination and you can see that we rarely make “direct’ measurements of anything we claim to know. We combine observation and theory. Let’s say you are building a plane. Say, F-18, and its flying around quite nicely. Now a smart engineer says ‘what of we double the thrust’, how fast will it fly. What do we do? Do we go out and build a double thrust engine and throw it in the plane to measure things? nope. We do some math. We do some physics. And the result tells us that the plane will only increase in speed by 200kts because of the increased weight.
You are driving in your car. you have 5 gallons of gas. you get 20 miles per gallon. its 200 miles form home. How many gallons at minimum should you put in your car?
Well, whats the point of all this. First, we dont make direct measurements of most things. we combine observation and known physics to make estimates. We dont put the moon on a scale, we estimate its weight using physics. We know the distance to the moon by using physics, not by pulling out a tape measure. And in our everyday life we depend on this kind of “knowing”
Well what about c02? First we know precisely how it interacts with the longwave IR given off by the earth. This is measured. the defense of our country depends upon this physics being true.
the operation of C02 detectors in buildings depends upon our understanding of how IR interacts with c02 being true. Your cell phone designer, your radar designer all have to understand how the gases in the atmosphere interact with all types of molecules. Why do we select X band for certain radars? why do we use millimeter wave for covert communications? how can a radar see rain? how does it detect minerals in the soil? radiative physics.
radiative physics is expressed in a collection of algorithms. Those algorithms ( physics) run on satellites. they are used to “subtract” the effects of atmosphere so that the ground truth can be observed. So, you take a picture at the top of the atmosphere and then if you want to know what the earth looks like at the surface you have to ‘account for” the effects of transmitting through gases. We do this every day. Our modern civilization depends on it.
The best of these algorithms are called Line by line models or LBL. now mind you Jim these models used to be classified, but now they are not. They were classified because we used them to design weapons.
The way you test a LBL model is as follows. You take a source on the ground and you predict using the physics what you will see in space. you can even do the test at various altitudes.
Like with the MASTER program. You have a known emitter on the ground and you predict what you will se in space given the physics of how IR travels through gases.
Since its hard to control the gases between the emitter and the sensor, you also do tests in areas that are known to have very small quantities of certain gases. So, you test in antarctica because of the super dry conditions there.
You can also test looking up. You fly a emitter of IR at altitude and you look UP at it through the atmosphere, testing your physics. Its important that this be right if you want to shoot down planes. One thing you see when you look up is Downwelling IR from the atmosphere itself in addition to the IR emiited by the target. Bascially, we know how IR propagates through the atmosphere. we know how all frequencies propagate. Its the basis of everyday devices working properly.
So you take this physics and you predict. if I decrease water vapor what will I see at the sensor.
Then you test that, in antarctica. The physics works. You want to measure the air temperature at 5km above the earth ( like skeptic spenser does) guess what? you need physics to account for the transmission through c02. You test that. the physics works.
Now ask the question. what does the physics tell us will happen if we double c02?
Do we go out and double c02 and measure? nope. Same way we dont run out and throw a new engine in the plane without first applying known physics. When we apply known physics to this problem the answer is…………3.7Watts.
You might think it is wiser to actually double c02 and measure that. Well we are one our way to doing that but not by design. A smarter engineer will apply known physics to the problem.
Known, tested, validated, physics tells you that doubling c02 will increase forcing by 3.7 watts.
there is no experiment that suggests otherwise. there is no physics used in the construction of working devices that suggest otherwise.
Weren’t Einstein’s thought-experiments analogies?