“Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”
Well of course they should.
Course syllabus to be designed by Dr. Mann; syllabus advisor A. Gore. Course text “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”. All students required to bring a hockey stick to class. Final test: All students will be required to recite publicly and from memory ALL the evil capabilities of CO2.
Need I add? /sarc
F. Ross
August 8, 2014 8:47 pm
stan stendera says:
August 8, 2014 at 7:23 pm
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is the …
Surely you have seen her on TV with her mouth open. Ed Shultz is married to Debbie.
[+emphasis]
Thanks for the info; explains a lot.
🙂
bobl
August 8, 2014 9:47 pm
This is insane, any respectable earth science course surely would have to address the carbon cycle revealing that all life, most planetary oxygen, most carbohydrates (mammal food) ultimately comes from co2 and that it’s dangerously close to starvation levels. Surely that’s earth science 101
Appreciate the allure of being so vastly superior in intellectual and moral status to entirely half the population of Western civilization that you are practically sporting a gold halo. This however is made possible, fully enabled, by Glenn Beck having left Fox News, the only mass audience show that displayed actual details of scientific fraud. Almost no serious pressure is being out on the left or on working academics that they are promoting now try obvious fraud. All we have for loudly calling out fraud is the Goddard blog chock full of crackpot commenters and Holocaust photos, which helps lose instead of win a culture war, for Steve’s lack of civil discipline. It’s going to require a testosterone injection by young conservatives and libertarians I’m afraid, since the urban artists and professionals who now dominate national elections still detest anti-science religious right abortion banners way too much to consider acknowledging the validity of climate model skepticism. Goddard is right about the core situation that Republicans could end the debate in two hours if they really wanted to, by simply exposing *details* of fraud on television. But nobody has put the Marcott 2013 bladeless input data out there, to a mass audience, for instance. Well why not?
TomRude
August 8, 2014 9:59 pm
Considering many earth scientists do not buy the CAGW theory, these ignoramuses of MSNBC should take the courses themselves!
This thread is getting out of hand. First, anyone named Ed has heard all the Ed jokes. Second, we all have to admit that we were totally nonplussed by the science of the Kerry Model, as presented in Jakarta in February. That is, of course, excepting Philip Mulholland, who encapsulated the idea with his notation of “Greenhouse Glass warming.” The U.S. Secretary of State had the courage to present his model on foreign soil, and garnered the prestigious “Jackson” Award from the DDP. So I can envision the topic of the first few re-education lectures.
Michael 2
August 8, 2014 10:29 pm
dccowboy says: “I had a friend who quoted ‘National Geographic’ as an authoritative scientific source. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response.”
It is what it is. I quote National Geographic probably more than I quote other publications. Within its realm of expertise, its charter so to speak, it is the best there is. It also reaches a large audience whereas whatever you have in mind as a scientific authority very likely reaches a small audience.
It is, like essentially all publications and journalism, left wing. That’s the nature of the journalism beast.
bushbunny
August 8, 2014 10:41 pm
There are similarities here with Galileo Galilei and his assertion was we revolved around the sun.
Mind you with freedom of speech we can say ‘we have a credible argument against alarmists’
But that is not good news worthy as nothing has changed, even the climate.
James Bull
August 8, 2014 10:57 pm
So the big question is was anyone able to stomach this long enough to find out the result of the poll.
And the result is not 97% before we count the votes.
James Bull
I thought of all sorts of smart comments, but at the end of the day he’s just a know nothing talking head, desperate to sell air time. He won’t be so full of himself when he has no job!
Ed Shultz was very effective because he used to be a Republican who’s conscience bothered him after viewing so much poverty created by trickle down economics, so he switched sides. Now he is a disappointing money slut who will say anything for cash.
Catcracking
August 8, 2014 11:31 pm
You guys are wrong.
MSNBC is very popular in a certain house in Washington who provide Ed et. al. talking points.
Carbon500
August 8, 2014 11:47 pm
What sort of ‘abnormal and severe’ things is he talking about? Here’s a typical lack of attention to detail for a bit of cheap publicity. Let’s hope no-one believes him.
Crispin in Waterloo
August 9, 2014 12:07 am
Is there a reason why I have never heard of Ed Schultz?
SAMURAI
August 9, 2014 12:27 am
Ed Shultz is such a useful idiot of the clueless left.
What “strange” climate is Mr. ed referring? Even Mr. Ed’s beloved IPCC admits that severe weather trends haved changed in 50~100 years..
Is Mr. Ed referring to global warming trends? Hmmm. Global temp trends have been flat for 18 years and falling for the past 14 years…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is referring to Sea Level Rise, which is stuck at 6~7″ per century, which is perfectly normal…
Or maybe he’s referring to polar ice where Arctic Sea Ice is showing signs of recovery and the Antarctic sea ice trend has been rising for the past 35 years, and just set a 35-yr record anomaly last month…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is suggesting ocean pH dropping from 8.15 in 1750, to pH 8.10 in 2014 after burning through 50% of known fossil fuel reserves is “strange” and cause for concern, regardless of the fact that the average ocean pH over the past 250 million years has been pH7.6….
Hmmmm…. Perhaps it’s Mr. Ed that needs a refresher course in basic science instead of blindly repeating busted leftist CAGW propaganda….
John Coleman
August 9, 2014 12:30 am
We should try to concentrate on the science and stay away from the politics. I want liberals and Democrats to feel comfortable being global warming skeptics. And, I get nervous around people who deny global warming simply because they are Republicans. Frankly, the older I get the less use I have for either party. Basically it seems the politicians have mostly solid out for millions in campaign dollars.
It is true that MSNBC has a much smaller audience than CNN or Fox News. However, the Ed Show is viewed by over 450 thousand people on the average day. Compare that number to the 650 people who attended the ICCC9 last month. How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses?
News for this guy. In 2005 I completed an M.S. degree at an American university with a GPA of 4.0 .
I was a climate lukewarmer then but am now a full-fledged skeptic. I am not skeptical about the physics, specifically the role of CO2, H2O vapor and other GHGs.
Rather, I am more skeptical about the magnitude and direction of feedbacks, the role of the Sun and the strength of internal climate variability relative to forcings.
So education in Earth science or even atmospheric physics is not going to achieve the goal of winning converts to Catastrophic AGW (CAGW).
I admit that on first reading of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge U Press, 2012), I missed Murray Salby’s pointers to flaws in the CAGW thesis.
If you can afford it and are willing to put some effort, I recommend Dr Salby’s excellent book, probably the most comprehensive textbook in atmospheric physics. (You may conclude, as I did that Dr Salby is one of a very few world-class atmospheric physicists.).
Salby’s book needs a first reading as a textbook, an effort that will take about one month for a person with some climate physics background and perhaps three months for a person who has to supplement the book with supporting studies.
However, to gain insight into Dr Salby’s interpretation of AGW as presented in his video lectures found on Youtube, this first reading should be followed by a very close second reading of selected chapters, focusing on the global energy budget, the role of the oceans and the interaction between oceans and atmosphere.
For me the most important chapter was Radiative Transfer (no. 8), especially Fig. 8.1 adapted from Goody and Yung,
The graph appears at Fig. 1.1 on page 4 on Google Books in Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis 1995, for which the URL is:. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=goody+and+yung+Atmospheric+Radiation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ScnlU_KSMYq48gWT54D4Bg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=goody%20and%20yung%20Atmospheric%20Radiation&f=false
Inspection of the Black-Body spectra for the Sun (6000K) and the Earth (250K) shows why methane (CH4) is seldom mentioned in regard to CHG. You can see that CH4 lies on the long right tail of the spectrum for the Sun and also on the long left end of the tail of the spectrum for the Earth. Methane is a GHG but its impact is small not merely because of its scarcity but also because of the location along the Black-Body spectra of Sun and Earth of its absorption and emission windows, indicated by the ordinate (height on Y axis of the graph.
This is one example of what one can learn from Dr Salby’s book. But there is a lot more to keep a student busy long after the lectures are finished and forgotten.
To work out the quantum physics of the greenhouse effect, you will need something like Goody and Yung’s text, which is still probably the most comprehensive.
I doubt if the greenhouse effect can properly be understood without quantum physics. You can go a long way with classical physics, but what is really needed is modeling using both classical and quantum physics. I don’t know if this has been done. Blog references to the molecular effects of radiative transfer mention vibration and rotatation but not the quantitative significance of these effects in the real atmosphere.
By all means let’s have more Earth science education, but don’t expect education to have the same effect as propaganda.
Arron
August 9, 2014 1:09 am
Reducation
[red-yoo-key-shuh n] noun
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring superficially plausible general knowledge, developing the powers of emotionalism, inability to reason and data manipulation, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for left-wing life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular socialist dogma or attitudes, as for a profession in the media or chasing taxpayer funds.
3. a degree, level, or kind of socialist schooling: a university reducation.
4. the result produced by left-wing instruction, training, or study: to show one’s reducation.
5. the science or art of teaching socialism; propagandising: reducate the masses.
UK Sceptic
August 9, 2014 1:15 am
Those whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad.
This bloke is all but frothing at the mouth.
I’m persuaded by Arrhenius and the basic science. When living or even just over-nighting in sealed glass receptacles. I’m always wary of rising CO2 and consequent temperature gains from those strong laboratory lights.
Ken L
August 9, 2014 1:34 am
Non scientist progressives like Ed Schultz constantly harp about “deniers” being scientifically ignorant or anti-science, but if you ever are involved in a discussion with them from a sound knowledgeable base on the actual scientific issues, they inevitably and ironically demonstrate a high level of ignorance. Almost any one of us here, including even yours truly with my lowly level of expertise, could make Schultz look like the fool shows himself to be on this subject – and most others. This is by no means the first time his mouth has played receptacle to his foot.
“Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”
Well of course they should.
Course syllabus to be designed by Dr. Mann; syllabus advisor A. Gore. Course text “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”. All students required to bring a hockey stick to class. Final test: All students will be required to recite publicly and from memory ALL the evil capabilities of CO2.
Need I add? /sarc
[+emphasis]
Thanks for the info; explains a lot.
🙂
This is insane, any respectable earth science course surely would have to address the carbon cycle revealing that all life, most planetary oxygen, most carbohydrates (mammal food) ultimately comes from co2 and that it’s dangerously close to starvation levels. Surely that’s earth science 101
Appreciate the allure of being so vastly superior in intellectual and moral status to entirely half the population of Western civilization that you are practically sporting a gold halo. This however is made possible, fully enabled, by Glenn Beck having left Fox News, the only mass audience show that displayed actual details of scientific fraud. Almost no serious pressure is being out on the left or on working academics that they are promoting now try obvious fraud. All we have for loudly calling out fraud is the Goddard blog chock full of crackpot commenters and Holocaust photos, which helps lose instead of win a culture war, for Steve’s lack of civil discipline. It’s going to require a testosterone injection by young conservatives and libertarians I’m afraid, since the urban artists and professionals who now dominate national elections still detest anti-science religious right abortion banners way too much to consider acknowledging the validity of climate model skepticism. Goddard is right about the core situation that Republicans could end the debate in two hours if they really wanted to, by simply exposing *details* of fraud on television. But nobody has put the Marcott 2013 bladeless input data out there, to a mass audience, for instance. Well why not?
Considering many earth scientists do not buy the CAGW theory, these ignoramuses of MSNBC should take the courses themselves!
try obvious = truly obvious
This thread is getting out of hand. First, anyone named Ed has heard all the Ed jokes. Second, we all have to admit that we were totally nonplussed by the science of the Kerry Model, as presented in Jakarta in February. That is, of course, excepting Philip Mulholland, who encapsulated the idea with his notation of “Greenhouse Glass warming.” The U.S. Secretary of State had the courage to present his model on foreign soil, and garnered the prestigious “Jackson” Award from the DDP. So I can envision the topic of the first few re-education lectures.
dccowboy says: “I had a friend who quoted ‘National Geographic’ as an authoritative scientific source. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response.”
It is what it is. I quote National Geographic probably more than I quote other publications. Within its realm of expertise, its charter so to speak, it is the best there is. It also reaches a large audience whereas whatever you have in mind as a scientific authority very likely reaches a small audience.
It is, like essentially all publications and journalism, left wing. That’s the nature of the journalism beast.
There are similarities here with Galileo Galilei and his assertion was we revolved around the sun.
Mind you with freedom of speech we can say ‘we have a credible argument against alarmists’
But that is not good news worthy as nothing has changed, even the climate.
So the big question is was anyone able to stomach this long enough to find out the result of the poll.
And the result is not 97% before we count the votes.
James Bull
A little research shows Debbie Wasserman Schultz is married to Steve Schultz.
http://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/11/quiz-how-well-do-you-know-debbie-wasserman-schultz/001480-020896.html
Oh, what a tangled web we weave once trying to deceive. I think the general masses are getting bored with this.
http://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/meet-debbie/
She has been married to Steve Schultz, a banker, for 20 years.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism
http://m.psp.sagepub.com/content/38/6/808.short
I thought of all sorts of smart comments, but at the end of the day he’s just a know nothing talking head, desperate to sell air time. He won’t be so full of himself when he has no job!
Ed Shultz was very effective because he used to be a Republican who’s conscience bothered him after viewing so much poverty created by trickle down economics, so he switched sides. Now he is a disappointing money slut who will say anything for cash.
You guys are wrong.
MSNBC is very popular in a certain house in Washington who provide Ed et. al. talking points.
What sort of ‘abnormal and severe’ things is he talking about? Here’s a typical lack of attention to detail for a bit of cheap publicity. Let’s hope no-one believes him.
Is there a reason why I have never heard of Ed Schultz?
Ed Shultz is such a useful idiot of the clueless left.
What “strange” climate is Mr. ed referring? Even Mr. Ed’s beloved IPCC admits that severe weather trends haved changed in 50~100 years..
Is Mr. Ed referring to global warming trends? Hmmm. Global temp trends have been flat for 18 years and falling for the past 14 years…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is referring to Sea Level Rise, which is stuck at 6~7″ per century, which is perfectly normal…
Or maybe he’s referring to polar ice where Arctic Sea Ice is showing signs of recovery and the Antarctic sea ice trend has been rising for the past 35 years, and just set a 35-yr record anomaly last month…
Or perhaps Mr. Ed is suggesting ocean pH dropping from 8.15 in 1750, to pH 8.10 in 2014 after burning through 50% of known fossil fuel reserves is “strange” and cause for concern, regardless of the fact that the average ocean pH over the past 250 million years has been pH7.6….
Hmmmm…. Perhaps it’s Mr. Ed that needs a refresher course in basic science instead of blindly repeating busted leftist CAGW propaganda….
We should try to concentrate on the science and stay away from the politics. I want liberals and Democrats to feel comfortable being global warming skeptics. And, I get nervous around people who deny global warming simply because they are Republicans. Frankly, the older I get the less use I have for either party. Basically it seems the politicians have mostly solid out for millions in campaign dollars.
It is true that MSNBC has a much smaller audience than CNN or Fox News. However, the Ed Show is viewed by over 450 thousand people on the average day. Compare that number to the 650 people who attended the ICCC9 last month. How are we ever going to get the skeptical message to the masses?
News for this guy. In 2005 I completed an M.S. degree at an American university with a GPA of 4.0 .
I was a climate lukewarmer then but am now a full-fledged skeptic. I am not skeptical about the physics, specifically the role of CO2, H2O vapor and other GHGs.
Rather, I am more skeptical about the magnitude and direction of feedbacks, the role of the Sun and the strength of internal climate variability relative to forcings.
So education in Earth science or even atmospheric physics is not going to achieve the goal of winning converts to Catastrophic AGW (CAGW).
I admit that on first reading of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (Cambridge U Press, 2012), I missed Murray Salby’s pointers to flaws in the CAGW thesis.
If you can afford it and are willing to put some effort, I recommend Dr Salby’s excellent book, probably the most comprehensive textbook in atmospheric physics. (You may conclude, as I did that Dr Salby is one of a very few world-class atmospheric physicists.).
Salby’s book needs a first reading as a textbook, an effort that will take about one month for a person with some climate physics background and perhaps three months for a person who has to supplement the book with supporting studies.
However, to gain insight into Dr Salby’s interpretation of AGW as presented in his video lectures found on Youtube, this first reading should be followed by a very close second reading of selected chapters, focusing on the global energy budget, the role of the oceans and the interaction between oceans and atmosphere.
For me the most important chapter was Radiative Transfer (no. 8), especially Fig. 8.1 adapted from Goody and Yung,
The graph appears at Fig. 1.1 on page 4 on Google Books in Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis 1995, for which the URL is:.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ji0vfj4MMH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=goody+and+yung+Atmospheric+Radiation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ScnlU_KSMYq48gWT54D4Bg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=goody%20and%20yung%20Atmospheric%20Radiation&f=false
Inspection of the Black-Body spectra for the Sun (6000K) and the Earth (250K) shows why methane (CH4) is seldom mentioned in regard to CHG. You can see that CH4 lies on the long right tail of the spectrum for the Sun and also on the long left end of the tail of the spectrum for the Earth. Methane is a GHG but its impact is small not merely because of its scarcity but also because of the location along the Black-Body spectra of Sun and Earth of its absorption and emission windows, indicated by the ordinate (height on Y axis of the graph.
This is one example of what one can learn from Dr Salby’s book. But there is a lot more to keep a student busy long after the lectures are finished and forgotten.
To work out the quantum physics of the greenhouse effect, you will need something like Goody and Yung’s text, which is still probably the most comprehensive.
I doubt if the greenhouse effect can properly be understood without quantum physics. You can go a long way with classical physics, but what is really needed is modeling using both classical and quantum physics. I don’t know if this has been done. Blog references to the molecular effects of radiative transfer mention vibration and rotatation but not the quantitative significance of these effects in the real atmosphere.
By all means let’s have more Earth science education, but don’t expect education to have the same effect as propaganda.
Reducation
[red-yoo-key-shuh n] noun
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring superficially plausible general knowledge, developing the powers of emotionalism, inability to reason and data manipulation, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for left-wing life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular socialist dogma or attitudes, as for a profession in the media or chasing taxpayer funds.
3. a degree, level, or kind of socialist schooling: a university reducation.
4. the result produced by left-wing instruction, training, or study: to show one’s reducation.
5. the science or art of teaching socialism; propagandising: reducate the masses.
Those whom the gods want to destroy they first make mad.
This bloke is all but frothing at the mouth.
I’m persuaded by Arrhenius and the basic science. When living or even just over-nighting in sealed glass receptacles. I’m always wary of rising CO2 and consequent temperature gains from those strong laboratory lights.
Non scientist progressives like Ed Schultz constantly harp about “deniers” being scientifically ignorant or anti-science, but if you ever are involved in a discussion with them from a sound knowledgeable base on the actual scientific issues, they inevitably and ironically demonstrate a high level of ignorance. Almost any one of us here, including even yours truly with my lowly level of expertise, could make Schultz look like the fool shows himself to be on this subject – and most others. This is by no means the first time his mouth has played receptacle to his foot.