Arguments
Who Are the Most Prominent Advocates of Global Warming?
Posted on 20 May 2012 by Rob Honeycutt
Last week, as many know, the Heartland Institute put up a billboard with a picture of Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) with the caption, "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" The outrage was instantaneous from people on all sides of the issue and the billboard was taken down within a day.
Heartland, though, has chosen not to apologize for making such an outrageous association. They have instead chosen to double down on their position and maintain a statement on their website where they include the statement...
"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."
The statement defies all logic. It is a clear and fundmental logical fallacy like saying, "Hitler liked cats, so the most prominent cat-lovers are murdering fascists."
The insanity of the Heartland's statements have brought upon them a rash of companies pulling funding and an exodus of the people they had once listed as experts on their website.
Peter Sinclair has just produced a new video for the Yale Forum channel that takes a look at who the most prominent advocates of global warming science really are...
Also check out the Yale Forum for Climate Change and the Media website.
Because the implicit message of Heartland is "Those who advocate science are ..."
I'm a cat person, too, so photos like this:
LINK
Make me feel good about myself :) :) :)
Napolean disliked cats, too? Maybe cats are too independent-minded for your average dictator type ...
If you want to find out how good the U.K. accident and emergency services are, go into a bar in what used to be a Welsh mining village and say out loud that you think Mrs Thatcher is a lovely person. Mind you, it is doubtful that anyone would actually call an ambulance for you.
Remembering the Falklands War, I don't have a high opinion of Thatcher myself. That too, is a separate issue.
Margret Thatcher is being presented because she, like Reagan, was a staunch conservative but still understood the threat of global warming.
The amount of energy released in Hiroshima is a standard reference used is all kinds of contexts, not just this. It's an accurate measure of how much energy is being retained by the planet through a change in radiative balance. Hansen is not reducing his stature at all. He is showing his concern for the consequences we face.
Measuring the energy budget imbalance in Hiroshimas is also sensational, but the comparison is not meant to suggest that the energy will end up destroying whole cities, leaving us with a radioactive nightmare. It's simply a way to put the size of the energy imbalance into perspective. A few extra Wm2? What's the big deal? And what's a Wm2? Oh, throughout the whole system it's that much? Ok then.
I really must take strong exception to some of the assertions that you made in your post.
While Heartland did remove the billboard, they did so under duress and have remained unapologetic for their actions. In fact, Joe Bast has been bending over backwards to try and justify what they did (see here) and in the process Bast refers to Mike Mann as a "madman". Also, Heartland still stands by its assertion that "....the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."
You mention Thatcher, while you are entitled to your opinions of her (I am not a particular fan, but what we think of her is irrelevant), it does not change the fact that what she says in the video is supported by the science and in present day by observations. People who have watched the video will not that it also features such greats as Hawking, Sagan and Schneider.
It is very unfortunate that you tried to dismiss the Hiroshima analogy as "sensationalism". Ever since the Hiroshoma bomb scientists have been using that analogy to help readers comprehend and understand the huge amounts of energy involved or released during certain processes, and certainly not to engage in sensationalism or appeal to emotion. Telling someone that the earthquake off Japan last March released about 2x10^17 Joules of energy means nothing at all to most people. But they can very much appreciate the huge amounts of energy involved when told that the quake released the energy equivalent to 600 million A-bombs.
Similarly, during the Thunderstorm Project, Dr. Braham and his colleagues determined that the amount of energy released in the lifteime of a sing-celled thunderstorm is equivalent to 50 A-bombs. Those are but two of many examples.
So when Hansen is trying to convey to a lay audience how much energy is being accumulated each year in the climate system on account of the planetary energy imbalance being imposed by us emitting GHGs, telling them that the increase on the order of 10^22 J/yr would not be helpful. Hence, he like his colleagues, uses the A-bomb analogy, and there is nothing wrong with that.
You trying to claim that his stature as a scientist is being reduced for standing up for what is right is not only demonstrably false, but a form of ad hominem argument and possibly in violation of the comments policy. Regardless, that he is an activist (it is sad that some people consider others standing up for what is right to be a bad thing) has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity or value of his findings appearing in his scientific publications. Hansen continues to publish prolifically in prestigious peer-reviewed journals and is very much respected by his peers.
Most answers to the Haertland-hate-Billboard either took the type of argument to ridiculousness, or answered the science.
I propose something other, show people Heartlands own history of industy-paid, fake expertise:
A picture of e.g. Fred Singer, withe the subtitle "tabacco-industry paid fake expert from Heartland" (if this seems to harsh, one could just omit the "fake", but I go with tamino on this). Main text: "I still believe smoking does not cause cancer. Do you? Heartland.org" (Haertland.org can be replaced with a source of real information either about Heartlands role in the smoking-debate or with information about the dangers of smoking)
Its mirroring the attack; but not with the same logical fallacy, but known facts about the paid lobyying of Heartland.
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/margaret-thatcher-hailed-as-champion-for-climate-skeptics.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton
Sadly, Mrs Thatcher has suffered a severe decline in her health, including dementia, since the year 2000, so it would be impossible now to challenge her on her reversal of opinion.
I actually don't see much problem using her earlier speeches. They demonstrate that a scientifically informed political leader with an indisputable conservative world-view can say sensible things about the climate crisis.Even if she later changed her mind, her earlier views prove that concern about climate change is not linked to left-wing politics.
The Heartland Institute would have us believe that anyone alarmed about climate change is mad or bad. Peter Sinclair's excellent video demonstrates that such a view is totally and utterly false.
Thatcher as a "prominent advocate" has some concerns and needs to be ascribed the status of politician for accuracy.
Such units come in all shapes and sizes. Brits often use units of "Wales" or "London Bus". Other units of measurement, including the Hiroshima Bomb, can be seen in this fun list of 10 unusual measurement units. Hiroshima has been used regularly by geologists and astronomers for indicating the energy involved in asteroid strikes and volcanic eruptions, so it's hardly odd to use it here. Wikipedia uses it for the Tunguska event a recent large meteoroid impact/explosion.
You strike me as playing the role of 'concern troll'. Try checking google scholar for Jim Hansen's scientific publication record....and then consider this question:
There is a strain of global warming deniers who promote the following substitution judgemement:
"If Global Warming were real and really a problem, scientists would be out demonstrating in the streets about it".
How sure are you that demonstrating **really** reduces someones scientific stature...as opposed to simply providing fodder for the never-ending rhetorical games that the fake skeptics engage in having no facts or reasoning to support their case?
Everyone else: Here's a counter billboard for Heartland-
"Heartland created a phony billboard about who prominent advocates for the consensus global warming view are. We'd like to show you who the prominent deniers of global warming are-
The rest of the billboard is blank, except for a footnote- "Drawing a blank? So did we... the denial of global warming is lead from a faceless backroom."
And then let Inhofe, or Limbaugh, or Christy, Spencer etc complain.
John Cook
Dana Nuccitelli
Rob Painting
Doug Mackie
Ari Jokimaki
Andy Skuce
Daniel Bailey
James Wight
Robert Way
Glenn Tamblyn
Riccardo
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Steve Brown
Michael Sweet
Barbel Winkler
Neal J. King
Hoskuldur Bui Jonsson
and lets not forget,
Tom Curtis
Skeptical Science is the back bone of the Climate Change movement. Science today cant reach the community like skeptical science does. It is only early days for this website, but I see a noble prize on the table if everyone including all the great commenters, keep up this fantastic work.