UPDATED (1/23/2010) with suggestions from the comments
For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul? Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?
-Job 27:8-9
Deniers of climate change like to castigate Al Gore and others for the supposed hypocrisy of preaching the benefits of CO2 reductions while flying on jets, living in big houses, etc. I won't defend the big house (although Gore did respond to accusations by installing renewable energy onsite), but there's no problem with jetting around to climate conferences, because those trips result in net CO2 reductions.
But those are technicalities. The real problem with gloating over climate activists' small specks of hypocrisy is that it ignores the hypocritical planks inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of opposition to CO2 reductions. Here are some ways in which deniers are hypocritical (feel free to add suggestions in the comments):
But those are technicalities. The real problem with gloating over climate activists' small specks of hypocrisy is that it ignores the hypocritical planks inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of opposition to CO2 reductions. Here are some ways in which deniers are hypocritical (feel free to add suggestions in the comments):
1. They profess that markets can solve all problems while simultaneously preaching that businesses will never be able to adapt to higher energy prices.
2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.
3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).
4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.
5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change. (see this Tom Friedman article)
6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so.
3. They say they support free markets, but oppose cap-and-trade (the free market solution to climate change).
4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.
5. They argued that averting a 1% chance of catastrophic terrorist attacks justified spending $100 billion a year on the Iraq war, but oppose investing billions of dollars per year in averting a much higher risk of catastrophic climate change. (see this Tom Friedman article)
6. They said the US did not need a permission slip from other countries to go to war in Iraq, but don't want to act on climate change until poor countries have done so.
7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.
8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.
9. They support subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power but not for renewable energy.
10. They claim to believe in property rights, but don't stop polluters from sending their CO2 onto other people's property (or the common property of the atmosphere).
11. They call themselves "conservatives" but oppose efforts at conservation.
12. They claim humans are not wise enough to intervene in the economy without causing unintended consequences, but have no problems with humans massively intervening in Nature by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (WAG).
13. They say it's unwise to make decisions off of uncertain climate models, while basing their own predictions of economic doom off of uncertain economic models (WAG).
14. Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse (anonymous).
15. They removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail. But they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not be allowed to fail (anonymous).
11. They call themselves "conservatives" but oppose efforts at conservation.
12. They claim humans are not wise enough to intervene in the economy without causing unintended consequences, but have no problems with humans massively intervening in Nature by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (WAG).
13. They say it's unwise to make decisions off of uncertain climate models, while basing their own predictions of economic doom off of uncertain economic models (WAG).
14. Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse (anonymous).
15. They removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail. But they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not be allowed to fail (anonymous).
16. They say 30 years is too short a time to conclude there's a global warming trend, but base their own claims of "global cooling" on a 10-year trend (Tony O'Brien).
17. They say scientists don't respect skepticism or disagreement, then point to disagreements between scientists as evidence of conspiracy or that the science isn't "certain" (Tony O'Brien)
18. They say CO2 can't affect climate, but also use the argument that CO2 must be saving us from an ice age (Tony O'Brien)
19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien).
20. They never criticise each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one, e.g. they say it's the sun causing global warming, and when the sun cools down they say it's cosmic rays (Tony O'Brien).
21. Denier Willis Eschenbach falsely accuses Australian scientists of fraud for "blatantly bogus" adjustments of temperature data - without ever contacting the scientists to ask why the adjustments were made, or even mentioning their previously-published explanations. Then, when The Economist calls him out, Willis whines, "the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements." (WAG)
22. They accuse university scientists, small renewable energy companies, and Al Gore of manufacturing "alarmism" for money, while ignoring the far greater financial incentives of the giant fossil fuel industry to manufacture doubt, denial, and delay. (WAG)
23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous). [I particularly like this one - I'm going to dedicate a whole post to it soon. In the meantime, here's a previous post to help visualize what "economic doom" looks like.]
24. They promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything else (anonymous).
25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson) [e.g. "Leftists, Communists, eliteists snakes that prey on our children in their quest to take over the world."]
26. They say, "You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong," but then they claim "Loehle's reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today!" (Prof. Mandia) [One of my favorites]
27. Denier S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position." But then: "A reviewer of IPCC reports, Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference 'Have Humans Changed the Climate?,' hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament." (Prof. Mandia)
28. They claim that temperature data that shows warming cannot be trusted because it has been fraudulently adjusted, but then use that same data when it shows temporary cooling to say that "observations prove the models' predictions wrong." (WAG)
29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled". (Anonymous)
30. They demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for their code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data (see Scafetta's dodging at RC) (True Skeptic)
31. They challenge the scientific consensus and demand empirical "proof" that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves. "I'm just asking questions!" (Rumble) [Here's where the proof is]
32. They oppose government regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourge research into and development of renewable energy, because that would be "too much government intervention in people's lives." Yet by and large they are the same people who will pass laws to prevent/regulate abortion, gay marriage. (Anonymous)
33. Climate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely. (RF Shop)
34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times. (Mike G)
35. They claim proxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet denialists use them to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision. (Mike G)
36.They say instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, deniers point out that the measurements are being corrected constantly. Then they say that it is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case. (Mike G)
18. They say CO2 can't affect climate, but also use the argument that CO2 must be saving us from an ice age (Tony O'Brien)
19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien).
20. They never criticise each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one, e.g. they say it's the sun causing global warming, and when the sun cools down they say it's cosmic rays (Tony O'Brien).
21. Denier Willis Eschenbach falsely accuses Australian scientists of fraud for "blatantly bogus" adjustments of temperature data - without ever contacting the scientists to ask why the adjustments were made, or even mentioning their previously-published explanations. Then, when The Economist calls him out, Willis whines, "the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements." (WAG)
22. They accuse university scientists, small renewable energy companies, and Al Gore of manufacturing "alarmism" for money, while ignoring the far greater financial incentives of the giant fossil fuel industry to manufacture doubt, denial, and delay. (WAG)
23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous). [I particularly like this one - I'm going to dedicate a whole post to it soon. In the meantime, here's a previous post to help visualize what "economic doom" looks like.]
24. They promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything else (anonymous).
25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson) [e.g. "Leftists, Communists, eliteists snakes that prey on our children in their quest to take over the world."]
26. They say, "You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong," but then they claim "Loehle's reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today!" (Prof. Mandia) [One of my favorites]
27. Denier S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position." But then: "A reviewer of IPCC reports, Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference 'Have Humans Changed the Climate?,' hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament." (Prof. Mandia)
28. They claim that temperature data that shows warming cannot be trusted because it has been fraudulently adjusted, but then use that same data when it shows temporary cooling to say that "observations prove the models' predictions wrong." (WAG)
29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled". (Anonymous)
30. They demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for their code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data (see Scafetta's dodging at RC) (True Skeptic)
31. They challenge the scientific consensus and demand empirical "proof" that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves. "I'm just asking questions!" (Rumble) [Here's where the proof is]
32. They oppose government regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourge research into and development of renewable energy, because that would be "too much government intervention in people's lives." Yet by and large they are the same people who will pass laws to prevent/regulate abortion, gay marriage. (Anonymous)
33. Climate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely. (RF Shop)
34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times. (Mike G)
35. They claim proxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet denialists use them to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision. (Mike G)
36.They say instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, deniers point out that the measurements are being corrected constantly. Then they say that it is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case. (Mike G)
37. They say it's disingenuous to point to extreme weather events (Hurricane Katrina, wild fires, etc.) as evidence of warming, but crow joyously over every cold weather event ("it's snowing in Texas!). (WAG)
38. They point to the "decline" in tree-ring proxy data as evidence that Michael Mann is covering up cooling temperatures, but criticize proxies as unreliable when they show past temperatures cooler than today's (and when temps look warmer in the past, they accept the proxy data as reliable again). (WAG)
39. They say the US can't act on greenhouse gas reductions until other countries agree to, and then fly to Copenhagen to try to prevent other countries from acting (WAG)
40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous)
41. When climate scientsits don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of hiding in their ivory towers', when they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line. (Anonymous)
42. Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide. (Anonymous)
43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)
39. They say the US can't act on greenhouse gas reductions until other countries agree to, and then fly to Copenhagen to try to prevent other countries from acting (WAG)
40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous)
41. When climate scientsits don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of hiding in their ivory towers', when they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line. (Anonymous)
42. Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide. (Anonymous)
43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)
44. Taking as gospel truth sources which up until that moment they had previously castigated as never to be trusted (e.g. last year's Pravda article claiming the Sun was the cause of GW) (Sergei Rostov)
45. Criticizing AGWers [people who accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming] because of their political and/or religious leanings while complaining they are being criticizing solely because of their political and/or religious leanings. (Sergei Rostov)
46. They say that we know nothing about clouds and subsequently they say that clouds can explain the warming trend. (Jesús)
47. They say there hasn't been any warming, but later they explain the warming with mechamism different than CO2. (Jesús)
48. They explain the warming with mutually exclusive theories (eg. cloud albedo, sun, ocean currents...) (Jesús)
49. They criticize climate advocates for "wanting to send us into a technological dark age," even though they themselves advocate the use of 19th century energy production technologies over innovation and research. (WAG)
50. They favor the UAH satellite data and say it is the most accurate - until that data also shows warming, and they start looking for errors in it. (WAG)
51. They claim the peer review process is broken and yet cite (the occasional) peer reviewed studies as proof when it suits them - trumpeting the fact that it's peer reviewed! (Anarchist)
52. Uber-denliast and oil-funded Senator Inhofe uses arguments from paleoclimate to 'disprove' global warming yet is also a Young-Earth creationist who belives the earth was created around 6000BC - well before the data he cites. (Anarchist)
53. They claim to support "good science" and technological process while citing people whose ideas retard technological progress - e.g. who don't belive in evolution and an expert in the made-up field of 'Orgone Energy' (this is energy from your libedo! As seen in the Cato Institure Ad featuring 'Dr' James DeMeo (Anarchist)
54. They claim that they are sticking up for liberty and against big government while opposing the development of markets and technologies that would lead to micro-generation and so free us from centralized production energy that requires state regulation (Anarchist)
55. They have no problems judging with absolute certainty a body of work in which they have no hands on experience, and yet accuse climate scientists of arrogance and elitism (WAG).
If you have more suggestions, leave them in the comments.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-Matthew 7:3-5
Posts
Humanity adding ~15Gt/year (net) to ~3000Gt baseline atmospheric CO2 is "pissing in the ocean" but spending 0.1% of GDP per year on reducing emissions will precipitate world-wide economic collapse.
ReplyDeleteThey removed regulation from banks in the name of free markets, then spent trillions of dollars to rescue banks because they were too big to fail.
ReplyDeleteBut they refuse to spend smaller amounts on the greater damage of climate change, even though it's more important that the planet not allowed to fail.
Typo: an extra "want" in 6
ReplyDelete1)30 years is too short to determine a trend, but ten years is.
ReplyDelete2)Western power production is so much cleaner, but the regulation used was uneconomical.
3)It the sun, sun quiet its cosmic rays.
4)CO2 does not affect climate, CO2 is saving us from an ice age.
5)It is all conspiracy, any disagreement between scientists proves that it is flawed.
Regards Tony O'Brien
Absolutely brilliant. I've argued a number of these recently, but to see them all laid out so clearly is quite powerful. This goes straight into "Favorites."
ReplyDelete6)We need more science before we can make a decision, oppose the financing projects.
ReplyDeleteThey never criticise each other even when taking opposite sides. Just ignore the discrepancies and charge ahead. When one argument looses traction recycle an old one.
regards
Tony
Thanks for the suggestions, I've added them to the list, along with a couple of my own that I should have remembered the first time.
ReplyDeleteThey call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW.
ReplyDeleteThey promote nuclear power (and pooh-pooh small scale "roof-top" photovoltaics), while decrying government control over anything.
ReplyDeletethanks for the suggestions everyone. keep 'em coming when you think of any more!
ReplyDeleteI have one you should add - "They continually insult people who disagree with them."
ReplyDeleteSuperb! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHere are some maybes:
"You can't trust proxy data so the hockey stick is wrong" but then they claim: "Loehle's reconstruction shows the MWP is warmer than today!"
S. Fred Singer: "From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position."
but then
"Singer now shares the 2007 Nobel peace prize with Al Gore,” according to materials announcing his keynote speech at a one day conference “Have Humans Changed the Climate?,” hosted by Roger Helmer, a British conservative member of the European Parliament.
Prof Mandia -
ReplyDeleteGood catch on the first one about the hockey stick. Can't believe I missed that one!
They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled".
ReplyDeleteThey demand full disclosure of data and code from scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions; and yet, when asked for their code or data to replicate denier studies, they try every weasel way to avoid sharing code and data (see Scafetta's dodging at RC)
ReplyDeleteThey challenge the scientific consensus and demand proof that it is correct, yet at the same time insist that they don't have to prove anything themselves.
ReplyDeleteThey oppose regulation to control CO2 emissions, improve fossil fuel efficiency, encourage energy conservation and encourge research into and developmentof renewable enerygy. Yet by and large they are the same people who will defend to the death the right to own firearms, pass laws to prevent abortion, gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnother one:
ReplyDeleteClimate change deniers demand unequivocal proof that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming, even though they are unable to present any evidence at all that it is safe to allow atmospheric CO2 levels to continue to rise indefinitely.
They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times.
ReplyDeleteProxies are also unreliable during modern times when they show dramatic warming in agreement with the instrumental record, yet they can be used by denialists to show with great certainty that it was much warmer at various points in Earth's history, back to several million years, or that CO2 was much higher at certain times in the past to high degrees of precision.
Instrumental measurements are unreliable for measuring surface temperatures and as evidence of such, they are being corrected constantly. It is much more accurate to measure temperatures from 200 miles up by converting microwave measurements to temperature and then attempting to filter out signals from each layer you're not interested in. The constant corrections for computational errors and orbital drifts are not evidence against reliability in this case.
Mike G - thanks for pointing out skeptics' inconsistent use of proxies. Pretty much any criticism of the hockey stick is internally inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteI do not know where to begin. Much of what you have recorded here is complete nonsense, Its about as valid a how to talk to a climate change skeptic. The worst of which is the photovoltaic issue. I have researched the problem my self and in short photovoltaic will barely break even with the energy requirements to produce same. The US dept of energy anticipates that these systems will have a 30 year lifespan and produce 80% of the energy after 30 years. Similirly .1% GDP really. How about 10% to 15% GDP total in real terms.
ReplyDeleteEmanuele Lombardi
Wrt #5, I'm pretty sure there isn't even a 1% chance of a terrorist attack. For the last nine years, the chances of an American in the US dying in a terrorist attack have been zero.
ReplyDeleteEmanuele Lombardi -
ReplyDeleteThose estimates of photovoltaics' potential are based on current technology. I believe capitalism is powerful enough that if you put the right incentives in place (a price on carbon), clever entrepreneurs will invent new technologies that dramatically increase renewables' ability to meet our energy needs.
As for the GDP issue, what are you basing the 10-15% on? I've been trying to find a study that predicts economic impacts like that, but the worst case scenario I've read is that GDP could be 3% smaller in 2030 than it would have been otherwise. On a per year basis, that's 0.14%. Cumulative GDP over decades is not a useful measure of economic activity.
These two are similar
ReplyDeleteWhen climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science.
When climate scientsits don't respond to attacks and smears they are again accused of hiding in their ivory towers', when they do defend themselves they are accused of circling the wagons and promoting the party line.
@Emanuele Lombardi
ReplyDeleteYou can't just throw out numbers like that and not back them up. Your assertion about the energy pay back time of PV defies common sense (i.e., how could something that barely produces the energy it has consumed being made could pay off economically over the long term [absent massive subsidies]). From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics), I read:
Life-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years[74], but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[70].
Deniers claim that projections of warming can't be trusted because (they think) scientists made doom and gloom predictions of global cooling in the 1970's. However they accept the claims that regulation will be ineffective and/or economic suicide despite the fact that the think tanks and lobbies that are pushing those predictions also made (incorrect) doom and gloom predictions that phasing out CFCs and leaded gasoline would be ineffective and/or economic suicide.
ReplyDeleteDeniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks.
ReplyDelete-Wheels
This was sensored as a reply to your comment at Tamino's site.
ReplyDeletehow about "you can't trust short term trends" and "anything less than 30 years is insignificant on a climate scale"
Followed by, "2009 is the xth hottest year in history" "2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record
Anonymous (12/29) says:
ReplyDelete"how about "you can't trust short term trends" and "anything less than 30 years is insignificant on a climate scale"
Followed by, "2009 is the xth hottest year in history" "2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record"
In my eyes, those are mostly defensive arguments against deniers' short-term claims. Plus, given humans' typical short-sightedness, it's necessary to remind the public that global warming is still going on, even when short-term events aren't statistically relevant.
- Taking as gospel truth sources which up until that moment they had previously castigated as never to be trusted (e.g. last year's Pravda article claiming the Sun was the cause of GW).
ReplyDelete- Criticizing AGWers because of their political and/or religious leanings while complaining they are being criticizing solely because of their political and/or religious leanings.
Side notes:
As I recall, in Paul Krugram's column, he references a 0.2% GDP cost rising to a max of 1.2% by 2100(?). I question even this much, though, as it seems to me that green spending would in the long (and even medium) run have a negative cost (green businesses, for example, actually make more profits). Even 1.2%, though, is a small price to pay for keeping a huge chunk of the world's most valuable real estate above water (the part of Mahhattan Island housing Wall Street is I believe worth some $2.5 trillion (over 0.5% GDP) all by itself
As I understand it, Gore's home is also the site of two businesses whith a total of over 100 full-time employees. Given this - and doing the math beginning with the actual TPUC data of 3 times the energy consumption of a normal household), we see that he was using 3 times LESS energy than the average, PLUS was purchasing the maximum green energy from the local utility PLUS at the time was retrofitting with on-site green capacity (now completed, as you pointed out).)
Sergei Rostov
Denaialists can find a lot of arguments, because they don't standy by any coherence or logic, their only requirement is that it goes against emission regulations, so they always argue with contradictory evidence. Sorry if this is a repetition, but I cannot read them all:
ReplyDelete- They say there hasn't been any warming, but later they explain the warming with mechamism different than CO2.
- They explain the warming with mutually exclusive theories (eg. cloud albedo, sun, ocean currents...)
- They say that we know nothing about clouds and subsequently they say that clouds can explain the warming trend.
- They say there's no climate change and then they say there's nothing we can do to stop it.
- They say climate change is a good thing, so why are they assessing whether we have any means to stop it?
They don't have any real coherent/logical view on climate change; they are just a bundle of contradictions.
Jesús.
Updated - just hit #50 with the addition of deniers fishing for inaccuracies in the UAH satellite data now that it shows dramatic January warming (courtesy of Joe Romm).
ReplyDeleteAlso, Sergei -
ReplyDeleteYou're right about 1.2% of GDP in 2100 being exceedingly small. The other thing to note about that figure is that we'll be much richer then, so 1.2% of GDP will have much less impact on living standards than 1.2% would today.
nice collection of straw men you've got lined up there. Have fun knocking them over. As an actual, real life denier, I'm not remotely threatened or challenged by this list.
ReplyDeleteDenialists sometimes dismiss science as corrupt / unreliable then proceed to use cherry-picked science to prove their point!
ReplyDeletePlimer tried the 'science is unreliable' trick at least twice with Tony Jones and George Monbiot regarding:
a)Volcanoes producing 130 times CO2 from human sources. Plimer never cited a source for this figure, while dissing the USGS.
b)Temperature measurements are unreliable myth. This was just a smoke screen.
It didn't work.
http://tinyurl.com/ycemftl
Video accessible from same page
The asymmetry of pseudo-scepticism would be bizarre, were it not for the reality of the Denial Industry. Denialists [which is what pseudo-sceptics are] dismiss the CRU because of some emails with no evidence AFAIK of malfeasance and yet they swallow hook line and sinker the scientific gems such as are published in Energy & Environment. It must be worth subscribing, if only for the laughs!
ReplyDeleteThe obvious question is if a study was truly as good as is often claimed [ground-breaking study], why would the authors not publish it in a decent science citation index journal?
Some denialists claim that warming will be good because it will result in bumper crops in high latitude countries.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there are some huge problems with this idea / scam.
The heart of the deception is this: AFAIK in most people's minds the classic wall-chart world map uses a Mercator's projection. But unless I am very mistaken, the the Earth is roughly a sphere, not a cylinder. Therefore the huge Boreal lands are nothing like as extensive as they might superficially seem. Undoubtedly a proportion of these lands will be encroached upon by SLR.
Clearly as one goes North, the peak sunlight diminishes as a function of latitude. The growing season is affected. Although I don't know how this might work-out in such an elevated CO2 world.
Then there is the problem of crop-plant toxicity and reduced growt & nutritional value as CO2 levels increase.
Taub, Daniel R.; *Miller, Brian and *Allen, Holly (2008). Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis.
Global Change Biology 14: 565-575.
Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown in elevated CO2
RoslynM.Gleadow 1, John R. Evans2, Stephanie McCaffery2 & Timothy R. Cavagnaro2,3 Plant Biology ISSN 1435-8603http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/gleadow-2009-cassava-online.pdf
Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repens Grown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2
RoslynM.Gleadow & Everard J.Edwards & John R. Evans J Chem Ecol (2009) 35:476–478 DOI 10.1007/s10886-009-9617-5http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdf
Stanford University (2002, December 6). Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals.ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm
Denialists will believe any garbage that floats their way. Anyone remember the denialists crowing over the 'climate science' of 15-year old Kristen / Kirsten Byrnes?
ReplyDeleteYet they will do anything to discredit hard working and established scientists. In-fact the more established, the better.
Look at the quote-mining; libel, bile & venom directed at Mann; Hansen; Briffa and any other scientist who dares publish a paper that impinges in some way upon the hallowed ground of denialism.
Confirmation bias anyone?
They argue against strawmen to prove their case, yet castigate their opponents for doing the same.
ReplyDeleteOh wait. Sorry. That's the pro-AGW crowd's preferred hypocrisy. My bad. Please carry on with your sickening, self-congratulatory circle-jerk.
Insist that they believe in the greenhouse effect but refuse to accept the radiative forcing calculations that underpin both global warming theory and the grenhouse effect theory.
ReplyDeleteHey bit_pattern, I accept the radiative forcing calculations, but I only get 1C of warming out of them from a doubling of CO2 (water-vapor feedback is not part of the radiative forcing equations).
ReplyDeleteWhat do you get dumbass?
They claim that computer models are junk science (when used to identify warming from atmospheric CO2), yet overlook that computer models helped show that CO2 levels lagged warming in icecores and showed when land masses like North America were net carbon sinks.
ReplyDelete(reposting this because I think my last one didn't go through)
Amoeba - you point out something interesting with the mention of the 15-year old. I actually think this is evidence of the one area on which climate deniers are consistent: devaluing the importance of expertise. Deniers believe in the democracy of truth: that anyone, regardless of how dumb or smart they are, has an equally valid opinion. So a 15-year old's opinion has equal weight as a scientist's.
ReplyDeleteTo the "straw men" comment - can you name a single example of scientists using a straw man to criticize deniers? oh wait, there are none.
And the 1C warming comment - that is roughly correct. However, as you point out, water vapor feedback is not part of the forcing equations. So if you do in fact accept the forcing calculations, the only way you can't believe there will be 2-5 degrees C of warming is if you believe that water vapor has zero or negative feedback. This requires faith in Lindzen's counterintuitive and convoluted Iris theory. It could be true, but there's little evidence.
This is great!
ReplyDelete- They claim the peer review process is broken and yet cite peer reviewed studies as proof when it suits them.
- They claim any error in studies showing evidence of global warming means the whole theory is wrong and yet when thier own lines of evidence collapse, that does not impact thier theory.
- They claim to be stopping a push to a big brother state ignoring the risk that is they are wrong, then collasing states almost always fall into extremist governments.
- They claim that they are sticking up for liberty and against big government while opposing the development of markets and technologies that would lead to micro-generation and so free us from the existing state control of energy.
- They claim to be about 'good' science while quoting people who don't belive in evolution and an expert in the made-up field of 'Orgone Energy' (this is energy from your libedo! As seen in the Cato Institure Ad featuring 'Dr' James DeMeo
- They claim scientists are fabricating global warming for the research money while ignoring the $1120 million PER DAY the fossil feul industry stands to loose if controls are put in place.
- Uber-denliast and oil-funded Senator Inhofe uses arguments from paleoclimate to 'disprove' global warming yet is also a Young-Earth creationist who belives the earth was created around 6000BC - well before the data he cites.
Ooo! Another one:
ReplyDelete- They claim there are '100s of scientists' who disagree with the consensus on global warming yet cite the same tiny handful of paid denialists (like Singer) and non-scientists (like Monkton) over and over.
Anarchist - good one pointing out Inhofe being a young earth creationist. e.g. "Over the last 400,000 years, CO2 lags warming" + "the earth is only 6000 years old"
ReplyDeleteI'm a 1st time visiter on this blog and I'd like to thank the writer for putting up this pretty funny list. I have one suggestion for the list:
ReplyDeleteThey say that humans can't be the cause of observed rising CO2 levels, because CO2 rise always lags temperature rise. On the other hand, they tell us that the temperature hasn't risen at all, because of urban heat island effects etc.
How about:
ReplyDelete"Contrarians say we can't draw reliable conclusions from the 130-year, global surface temperature record, but are happy to conclude that Mars is warming from a handful of climate observations."
And also:
“Many contrarians refuse to accept that there is an international scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming, even though it is endorsed by a long list of prestigious scientific organizations and (surveys suggest) the majority of climate scientists; but base their claims of a mid-1970s consensus that the next ice age was coming, on a handful of sensational media reports.”
new one added:
ReplyDeleteThey have no problems judging with absolute certainty a body of work in which they have no hands on experience, and yet accuse climate scientists of arrogance and elitism.