Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 Next
Comments 55001 to 55050:
-
dana1981 at 11:01 AM on 25 August 2012Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
Andrew Revkin just featured The Escalator at the NY Times Dot Earth blog. -
Dale at 09:20 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I want to point out that I fully agreed with GW increasing the amount of pre-cursors ages ago. I also now accept that heat will increase the rate of the cycle. I'm going to write down how I understand it this morning, and feel free to comment, denigrate whatever. In the cycle of formation/destruction of ozone, heat speeds it up. However heat can't result in more ozone in this process (as in can't create more of something than the building blocks to make them). What heat does do however, is increase pre-cursors. But increasing pre-cursors doesn't translate literally to increased ozone. There's numerous conditions required for the ozone cycle to work which must be in place for the cycle to operate. Is that about right? -
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Composer99 @73, the word "denier" has been used in the English language since at least 1532 to mean "one who denies". It has never had any other meaning than that, either as to specific doctrine, belief or facts denied; or as to the psychological processes involved in the denial. It certainly does not derive its meaning form pop-psychology, nor from its very recent use to describe a particular form of denial. "Denialist" is a recent construction which I would consider far more offensive than denier, suggesting as it does that denial is some form of professional activity on the denier's behalf. My view on the use of the word "denier" is that: 1) Once you let a small group declare words off limits for political reasons, you have lost the battle with that group already, as they control the allowable forms of expression; 2) If somebody finds a word offensive, it is up to them to find a suitably descriptive, and non-tendentious substitute. I spent considerable time at WUWT at one stage encouraging them to do that, and it became quite clear that they generally insisted that the only acceptable word to describe them was "skeptic", with the implication that they held a virtue they patently fail to practice. 3) Finally, if a word is offensive because of the behaviour it describes (which appears to be the case), then the behaviour is itself far more offensive; so people who indulge in that behaviour have no grounds for complaint when it is accurately described. -
Tom Curtis at 08:07 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David Lewis @11, in Moore's own words, he was not a member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee until April 1971, after he had read about their planning "to sail a boat from Vancouver across the North Pacific to protest U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska". That is his description of his joining of Greenpeace from his book, "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout". The relevant extract is reproduced below for your convenience:
Now, as a matter of logic, Moore did not found an organization he read about in the Vancouver Sun. For him to become aware of it by reading about it, it needed to exist already.
Moore did become a member of that committee very early in its existence (within 5-16 months of its formation), and did sail on the first protest voyage organized by the Don't Make a Wave Committee. He was also present the meeting of that committee when the vote was taken to change its name to Greenpeace, none of which makes him a co-founder of Greenpeace, whose organization existed before he joined.
Your evidence to the contrary consists only of a quote which states:
"In 1970, the Don't Make A Wave Committee was established; its sole objective was to stop a second nuclear weapons test at Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. The committee's founders and first members included: • Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia • Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy • Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer • Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia • Bill Darnell, a social worker"
(My emphasis) That quote is entirely consistent with Moore not being a co-founder of the Committee, but a first member (so long as that is interpreted as a member who joined within the first one or possibly two calendar years of formation). The dates however, make it entirely clear that he is the latter, not the former. If you object to revisionist history, then what you should object to is that which exaggerates Moore's role by claiming him as a co-founder. If Moore wanted to emphasize his early connection to Greenpeace accurately he would describe himself as a crew member of Greenpeace's first protest voyage, and as an early president of Greenpeace. But that would not give him an apparent right and authority to claim that Greenpeace has lost its way in the same way that claiming to be a co-founder does. -
Riduna at 07:24 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I am surprised that my blog has attracted on-going comment and little if any of it related to the subject matter – effects of AGW on health. Commentary largely relates to the following statement: “If global temperatures rise more than 2°C, ozone concentration in the lower atmosphere is likely to rise above 100 ppb”. However this should be read in context. I am not asserting that ozone concentration near the surface will rise to >100 ppb but that if ambient temperature rises by more than 2°C, such an increase is likely. I accept that this claim is imprecise – deliberately so since I do not fully understand the complex photochemistry associated with formation (and destruction) of ozone in the lower troposphere. At comment 17, I tried to clarify that I was referring to regional concentration of ozone, noting that highest levels of O3 were to be expected where the precursors for it were highest. Elsewhere the blog refers to the harmful effects on health as a result of exposure for periods of 8 hours or more, so I am not talking about a persistent increase in O3 but a regional increase resulting in human exposure having adverse health effects. In some major cities there has been a trend to reduction in tropospheric O3 presumably as a result of public policy aimed at reducing the presence of precursors. In other major cities and surrounding areas, tropospheric O3 has been increasing and in some cases has exceeded 100 ppb. One should not be looking for a trend in the global concentration of tropospheric O3 but in the incidence of regional increase for periods of 8 hours or more. The IPCC reports (1) that there is a trend of regional increase in the incidence and frequency of dangerous levels of O3. Claims that It hasn’t happened yet despite an increase in temperature over recent decades (~0.6°C) does not appear to be a valid argument since (a) recent increases in temperature are still a long way from more than 2°C globally and (b) as noted above there have been regional increases for short periods where O3 concentrations have exceeded 100 ppb, levels that are harmful to human and some plant health, including food crops. An assertion made is that temperature does not affect O3 formation but given that the precursors include volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) the claim appears to be that temperature does not affect those substances. Yet VOC’s increasingly enter the atmosphere as ambient temperature rises(2). Rising temperature increases availability and reaction of O3 precursors to sunlight and both the volume and speed with which O3 is formed according to the Technical Appendix of Climate Change and Your Health(2). This is confirmed by the IPCC (3) and has been shown to produce harmful concentrations(4) of O3 in some regions. The chemistry involved is explained with admirable clarity by EliRabett at comment 53. 1. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=572 2. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-and-ozone-pollution-tech-appendix.pdf 3. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=356 4. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=572 -
Daniel Bailey at 06:29 AM on 25 August 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
vrooomie, James has not posted in this forum since January 14th, so it might be quite some time before you get a response... -
EliRabett at 06:27 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Ah yes, FWIW since the 50s there have been numerous laws passed to limit surface ozone, and great technical progress in doing so. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might say that had something to do with the fact that ground level ozone has leveled off. Counterexamples can be found in any Chinese city. See Fallows, James. -
vrooomie at 06:14 AM on 25 August 2012Quantifying Extreme Heat Events
James@25, this silly shibboleth of science-one-does-like being called "religion" is a particualy bothersome one to me. Definition, from Dictionary.com: "re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith" Please point out to me *which* of these generally-accepted definitions ANYTHING in the above referenced paper approaches "religion." When you do that, we can then discuss what, for me, is a matter of simple and purposefully-inflammatory rhetoric. Said another way; science not understood is not religion: it is just science that is beyond your pay grade, as many areas of science are to me. I don't accuse the watchmaker of sorcery or gbeing a religionist, just because I haven't an idea how a watch works: I trust in his/her ability to make watches, which is, last I checked, based on science, no? -
vrooomie at 05:53 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
DL@15: "At this point it is hard for me to understand why it isn't a criminal offense to attempt to undermine climate science in the way Moore does, because of what is at stake." Perhaps it may be, if Michael Mann is successful in his lawsuit against the publication which publically, and with no shame, libeled and defamed him. I would welcome case law to that end, and then let Messrs. Monckton, Moore, McI, Watts, et al--the list is well known--be called into account for the damage they have done to legititmate climate scientists. -
David Lewis at 05:29 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
Nothing excuses Moore's gibberish on climate science in my books. At this point it is hard for me to understand why it isn't a criminal offense to attempt to undermine climate science in the way Moore does, because of what is at stake. Just as it is a crime in some jurisdictions, i.e. Germany, to advocate hatred toward identifiable groups such as the Jews, because of the Holocaust, it will one day be a crime to encourage people to believe lies about what is happening to the planet. It took the deaths of millions for people to understand that such laws were necessary. There is only one planet. -
vrooomie at 05:28 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Composer@73, as long as the book, "Denialism" is out there, I have *no compunction* whatso-[self-snipped]-ever, using the term when I see someone comporting to the the well-defined actions that identify such behavior. Not speaking to their *character*, but rather, to their ~actions~. Fair deal. -
John Mason at 04:54 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
numerobis #10, If it rains from time to time.... -
John Mason at 04:53 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David, I agree that revisionism is not good and I accept that people move on from one thing to another. Nevertheless, none of that excuses Moore's streaming invective of inaccurate to plain wrong long-debunked talking-points. A Gish-gallop it remains, period. -
Composer99 at 04:44 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
To be fair, Philippe, a term can have both descriptive and deprecative content. Certainly it is no compliment to refer to someone as a 'denier' or even a 'denialist' in the context of climate science; however to call someone the former is to describe someone undergoing the psychological process of denial, and the use of the latter term is to describe someone who is engaging in the rhetorical techniques common to the various forms of denialism, without reference to what is being denied. But as long as the terms are being applied accurately, I do not think it reasonable for observers to focus on the deprecative element of terms such as these or such as 'fake skeptic' and attempt to dismiss the use of the terms on those grounds alone. -
Greg Dalton at 03:33 AM on 25 August 2012Science and Distortion - Stephen Schneider
As the producer of this video the comments here are constructive and useful. Thank you all. I just stumbled on this string. @hank 3 and jyyh 7 The video was intended as a tribute to Steve and not as a climate science primer for general public on the fence. @JohnRussell 12 I see how this could be shortened and voice over and text sometimes fight each other. Audio of Richard Alley accepting the 2011 Stephen Schneider Award for Climate Science Communication and discussing climate communication is in iTunes here. http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-climate/id296762605 It is podcast #21 "Richard Alley" He talks about listening to skeptics and deniers, and meeting them where they are (I don't claim this video does that). Thanks again for all your thoughtful comments. @ Citizenschallenge 48 the transcription is useful. -
David Lewis at 03:07 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I lived in Vancouver, British Columbia where Greenpeace was formed, at the time it was formed. The "Don't Make a Wave Committee" was the talk of the fishing fleet I worked on in the summers because they rented a boat of the type I worked on. My grandfather knew the owner of the boat. The Amchitka protest the Don't Make a Wave Committee came up with was the talk of the town. Later on I worked with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Jim Bohlen, when I was a Speaker of the BC Green Party. That doesn't say I'm a Patrick Moore, or Greenpeace expert. I was an ozone campaigner and a climate activist starting around 1987 and found I had little in common with the Green types of the time who were more interested in forest preservation. I didn't happen to run into Moore or interact with him anywhere. What I cited wasn't a wikipedia reference. It was an archived no longer available on the Greenpeace website, "The Founders of Greenpeace" webpage, published by Greenpeace and which existed on the Greenpeace website up to at least February 2007. It was created and displayed by Greenpeace to clear up any doubts about their early history, and to answer questions about who, exactly, founded Greenpeace. If you go to the current Greenpeace website and take a look at the politically correct and shiny brand new, "The Founders of Greenpeace" revised webpage you will see what they've done with the page. The name Patrick Moore does not appear anywhere. I don't go in for revisionist history. I can't keep the lies straight. I don't see where it serves anyone's interest, for example, to be seen to be pretending Patrick Moore was not generally known in BC, Canada, and the world as one of the founders of Greenpeace for decades, while attacking, for instance, climate science deniers for their pretense that climate science is a hoax. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:55 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
And Dale, if you hac actually done more work before coming here and saying everybody else has it wrong, you'd meet a different attitude. Then again, if you had done the homework and applied true skepticism, your own attitude would be different... -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:52 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
"Fake-skeptic" is truly the best generic name. It is entirely accurate and faithfully descriptive. Considering that it is accurate, it is not pejorative. A pejorative is used to deride, not to describe. Fake skepticism is exactly what is at work here. Considering also the kind of appeal to torture and murder seen on certain blogs (such as Judith Curry's), I would say that even calling someone denier is rather mild... -
Estiben at 02:28 AM on 25 August 2012Renewable energy is too expensive
JagadeeshA, I had to google CSP. I assume you meant Concentrated Solar Power, and not Convenience Store Petroleum. Not all of us are familiar with all the acronyms. The question of how to implement policies that make perfect sense but don't match the party line is a political one, unique to each nation. Ones hopes that the politics will become more favorable as the climate becomes more unstable. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:59 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I could of course use the term "denier," but that is deemed distasteful in some circles, what with the possible confusion with that Holo thing, so I'm trying to mend my ways. -
vrooomie at 01:45 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
"It is important to point out and note here that Dale is objecting to the usage of the term climate ostrich, which he apparently feels is a pejorative. It is being used as an alternative to fake-skeptic or "skeptic" or climate-denier, and is used to describe someone adhering to agenda over science and evidence to the contrary." Yep...got it. To that, I say...we calls'em as we sees'em. Similar to many of the earlier SkS threads, back in 2007/2008, when moderation was a bit more lax, this thread stands as a testament to the time--*now*--when it is important to use a bit more--ah, how to say this?--forcefulness, in calling out....*ostriches*. Personally, I use the term NOT as an ad hom, per se, but a clearly-understood, useful allusion to the exact behavior seen here, and in so many of the early threads. I think it is WAY past time to do so, and with that, I'll not go further OT. After having done a few days' intensive reading, it's pretty darned clear to me that: -Heat does contribute to O3 production, and; -Heat that stems from GW counts as heat, inconvenient as that fact may be to....ostriches. -
vrooomie at 01:24 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
To all.. Related to this latest in multitudinous references to ostriches burying their heads in sand (which they don't) and why it's such a useful metaphor, despite its inaccuracy, I'd *highly recommend a book, "Standardization or Error," by Vilhjalmer Stefasson. It speaks not only to the usefulness of untrue allusions such as the ostrich meme, but *directly* speaks to how ostriches, like Dale et al, cloud up otherwise clear issues. Standardization of Error -
monkeyorchid at 01:14 AM on 25 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I would have thought that the amount of organic material vaporised by nuclear explosions would be more significant than energy released, as it would all convert to CO2. This would still be small on a global scale. -
vrooomie at 01:13 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale@65: You wonder why the insults? Dale@65: "Also vroomie just to clarify, the article talks of tropospheric ozone, and so have I through this discussion." Dale, on your first thread comment: "I've just spent the last hour looking into ozone counts around the world (as I'd heard it was a non-issue in relation to GW). I have to question Agnostic where that information comes from because there are plenty of papers out there showing no trend in ozone in various locations around the world (or a conclusion that no trend is detectable) for decades. Europe especially shows some regions where surface ozone has decreased over the last decade. The only conclusion I can make from looking at numerous papers is that since the mid-70's (when accurate recordings began around the world) it's clear there's no increasing or decreasing trend in surface ozone." What was the queestion, again? -
r.pauli at 01:09 AM on 25 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
#5 Peter - agreed. The Role of Atmospheric Nuclear Explosions on the tagnation of Global Warming in the Mid 20th Century Yoshiaki Fujii Abstract This study suggests that the cause of the stagnation in global warming in the mid 20th century was the atmospheric nuclear explosions detonated between 1945 and 1980. The estimated GST drop due to fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions based on the published simulation results by other researchers (a single column model and Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model) has served to explain the stagnation in global warming. Atmospheric nuclear explosions can be regarded as full-scale in situ tests for nuclear winter. The non-negligible amount of GST drop from the actual atmospheric explosions suggests that nuclear winter is not just a theory but has actually occurred, albeit on a small scale. The accuracy of the simulations of GST by IPCC would also be improved significantly by introducing the influence of fine dust from the actual atmospheric nuclear explosions into their climate models; thus, global warming behavior could be more accurately predicted. http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/42589/1/fujii.pdf So atmospheric tests inject aerosols into the stratosphere like a thousand mini-volcanoes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_nuclear_test_exposure.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/US_nuclear_test_exposure.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg -
Bob Lacatena at 00:38 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, Because at comment 20 you disingenuously presented yourself as someone who was "just curious" when you clearly have an agenda and an unwavering position. Because at comment 27 you authoritatively presented incorrect information on chemistry in order to support your own beliefs, when you are clearly not qualified to do so. Because at comment 27 you used the exceptionally annoying and childish tactic of saying "I'm glad you agree" when I clearly did not. Because at comment 36 you resorted to the Gish Gallop technique (see today's post), again in an area where you really have no knowledge, just copying what you could from Google, just to continue to support a position which was by that point clearly wrong. Because at comment 39 you flat out lied about the content of the links I had provided for you, proving that your position was 100% completely and totally wrong. Because at comment 49 you used an amateur's interpretation of a Wikipedia definition to try to claim that NASA, the EPA, the IPCC, and all of science was wrong. Because at comment 65 you continue to distract and dodge and weave (now the problem isn't that the quotes don't say temperature, it's that they don't explain how, as if that makes all of those statements false and inconsequential), despite all of the proof that has been presented to you. Because after 4 days of discussing this, after having been decisively proven wrong, you still refuse to fess up. Because you are a climate ostrich, and climate ostriches are contributing to turning a seriously bad but manageable situation into a catastrophic and unmanageable situation through disinformation and delay. -
numerobis at 00:34 AM on 25 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
A nit: Greenland was inhabited not only in the middle ages, but also long before -- just not by Europeans. I've rarely seen any discussion of how well the Maya and Anasazi did during the MWP. Seems like intellectual honesty would impel climate Pollyannas the resulting resurgence of sagebrush in the southwest US and jungle in the Yucatan. Proof that natural ecosystems thrive in a warmed climate! -
Dale at 00:26 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
EliRabett & sphaerica Thanks for the links. I will look when I get a chance. But one question, why the continuous insults? Seriously, is it warranted or mature? Why do you do that? I missed it at 46, but just to point out none of those quotes actually say how temperature ends up causing more ozone. Is it the O2 + O process, then NOx process, other process or even simply because more air conditioners on. They discuss a relationship, but not what that relationship is. That is the question, does GW increase the O3 creation rate, or just it lead to more pre-cursors being available to potentially become O3. Also vroomie just to clarify, the article talks of tropospheric ozone, and so have I through this discussion. I've been very clear on that I thought. I will also state I've learnt a bit more too. I will return when I have done some light reading. (Excuse any spelling errors, its the tablet I'm on currently)Moderator Response: [DB] It is important to point out and note here that Dale is objecting to the usage of the term climate ostrich, which he apparently feels is a pejorative. It is being used as an alternative to fake-skeptic or "skeptic" or climate-denier, and is used to describe someone adhering to agenda over science and evidence to the contrary. -
vrooomie at 00:11 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I second the PRATT..... -
Daniel Bailey at 00:07 AM on 25 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Sounds like we need to declare PRATT and move on... -
vrooomie at 23:56 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
"Ostrichosity".....scribblin' like mad, in my notebook..;) I also nominate the term, "ostrichoid,' for those who, even though they begin by sounding vaguely like true skeptics, start to lapse into full-on ostrichitis, when backed into a logic corner. I suppose it could also be for those who are beginning to get a clue as to the untenebility of their denialatti views, too. The lexicon grows.... -
Bob Lacatena at 23:48 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, By the way, please do not take the next logical climate ostrich step, which would be to comb through those papers looking for statements that you can take out of context to make it look like this is not an issue. Please drop this. You are wrong. I don't expect you to admit to that, because it would change your level of ostrichosity, and I know climate ostriches hate to lose their very ostrichness. But the information is there. It's science. It is irrefutable. This debate is over. -
vrooomie at 23:35 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
I also would like to point out--not that the regulars here didn't notice it--that there's been a goalpost shift? Dale, we were talking *primarily* about the formation of ground level ozone (GLO), *not* tropospheric ozone. In any case, temperature there still is an impotant, if slightly less so, factor in its formation. -
vrooomie at 23:32 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, in the face of the *mountains* of PR'd articles, cited references, and ~150 years of understanding of this subject, perhaps you might just do the right thing, and admit that *maybe*, juuust *maybe* you're incorrect about the stand you've taken? The hallmark of a *good* skeptic (nee scientist) is to know when they've been shown to be utterly wrong, and then "man up" and admit that mistake. We all do it, we all will continue to do it (Pauling eventually did it), and, at this point, it seems a bit--pointless--to keep answering your questions, when they've been addressed ad nauseum in this very thread. Just an idea... -
vrooomie at 23:22 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
DB@11: I *like* it! Now, who's gonna write it up on Wikipedia? The birth of a new definition is something I'm not sure I've ever witnessed, before! -
Tom Curtis at 23:13 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David Lewis @1, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in 1970. Patrick Moore joined the committee in 1971. Given that we have not yet developed time travel, that means Moore was not a foundation member of the Don't Make a Wave Committee, and hence not a foundation member of Greenpeace (which was formed by a name change of the "Don't Make a Wave Committee"). This is quite consistent with his being one of the first members of Greenpeace, which is all that is claimed in the link you provide. I think no purpose is gained in inflating Moore's credentials, especially as he is using those credentials to destroy what he once stood for. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:06 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Dale, Climate Change, Tropospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter, and Health Impacts (Kristie L. Ebi1 and Glenn McGregor, 2008) Climate change and allergic disease (Katherine M. Shea, MD, MPHa, et al, 2008) Climate change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities (Michelle L. Bell et al, 2007) A review of surface ozone background levels and trends (Roxanne Vingarzan, 2004) Is that enough (for now)? There are lots more. Lots. -
Byron Smith at 22:38 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
Thanks for the patience work it takes to unpick a GG like this. I started the task on a comment thread elsewhere and offer my comment there (lightly edited) as it contains a few extra pieces of information not covered above. ________________________ This quote [the one with which this post started and which was also quoted on the other thread] is a piece alarmist strawman scaremongering from a paid industry lobbyist with a long history of misinformation on behalf of the mining, logging and pharmaceutical industries. I don't have any particular desire to defend Al Gore, but even in the quote you've included there is an easily demonstrated falsehood. Gore has *not* called for cessation of all fossil fuel use by 2020. Nor has McKibben (who is mentioned immediately before this quote), so the 3.5 billion deaths claim (which itself is highly contestable) is a classic strawman. Gore's proposal was for the USA (not the world) to cease all fossil-fuelled electricity generation (not all fuel use) by 2020 - a very different and more modest goal. The immediately preceding paragraph has a quote attributed to a man who died in 2005 that is not found anywhere else on the web except in this interview and its mirrors. Perhaps he said it in private musings, but we only have Moore's word for it and apparently he has never mentioned this quote before this interview in any forum that has ended up on the web. [The above post doesn't mention the alleged quote from Greenpeace founder Bob Hunter, in which he said that Greenpeace would have to be based on ideology "because not everyone can be a PhD ecologist".] "Oil is responsible for 36% of global energy and is therefore the most important source of energy to support our civilization." Methinks he's forgetting one energy source slightly more critical to our, and all previous, civilisations. [i.e. the sun, especially as mediated by photosynthesis.] "as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change" He's got a PhD in environmental law. "Yet they provide no opinion as to what did cause the warming between 1910-1940." He has clearly not read IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html "the IPCC does not speak of "catastrophe"" Nope, just of >50% of all species committed to extinction, >20% suppression of crop yields, the end of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise sufficient to cause trillions in damages, millions of refugees, and so on. Oh, and this... https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html "The causes of climate change are first the sun, as it is responsible for the existence of climate." This is much like saying that the cause of most deaths during the Battle of Britain is the iron core of the earth, whose gravity sucked downed pilots to their demise. Almost trivially true, but basically irrelevant to any causal analysis with ethical significance. "global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years" The heat content of the earth continues to rise, with most of the energy continuing to go into the largest heat sink (the oceans) and a tiny percentage going into the atmosphere in non-linear ways. "I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more that a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet (14.5 C global average temperature today compared with 25C during the Greenhouse Ages." Ah yes, those wonderful times when there were forests across Antarctica, crocodiles in the Arctic and almost no life in the tropics. I can't see any problem heading back there with a world of ten billion people with trillions and trillions of sunk costs in infrastructure built on the assumption of a 14.5ºC world... -
EliRabett at 22:18 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Try B. P. E. Clapeyron, “Mémoire sur la puissance motrice de la chaleur,” in Journal de l’École polytechnique, 14 (1834), 153–190. If you have an open container of VOCs they evaporate exponentially faster when it is warmer. The original reference Eli gave IS refereed BTW and has many citations about the role VOCs play in forming ozone near the surface. Enjoy your reading assignment. -
Alexandre at 21:52 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I've met people who say the free-market economy can withstand anything: climate disasters, natural resource collapses, overpopulation, you name it - freedom, liberty and private property will take care of everything, even if we don't know how. The one thing the free-market economy cannot survive is low carbon - that's certain doom. Half of the people in a world would die within a year, as we now learn. -
Jonas at 20:29 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
I once had to debunk a similar thing: that time it was microwave radiation. As in the calculation above, the estimation (in favor of the hypothesis by overestimating sender density and strength and handy strength and usage) showed a difference of several orders of magnitude compared to the energy needed to heat the globe as is observed. -- Some arguments can easily be checked ad hoc for validity, but the more advanced biasing, tweaking, cherry picking, falsifying, etc. of science is not so easy to get for me - despite my regular reading on climate here and elsewhere - and I am very thankful to all people here contributing to this fact oriented work. I personally am not a (semi-)professional on the subject, so I only con contribute a little money to the web site each year: one of the best investments I can make in a livable future, I think. -
chriskoz at 19:56 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
Looking of nuke test influence over the climate is a joke, however a related topic: the natural radioactive decay in Earth's mantle is not. This wikipedia article provides the real, somewhat signifficant number of 0.1W/m2 as the geo-radiative heat escaping to space currently. It used to be twice higher 2Ga. So, some (within just one order of magnitude-10) portion of this heat, diminishing as the Earth ages, can be attriubuted for recent cooling from hothouse of ancient history. I cannot find any more info about that in climate studies that I've looked at, which IMO cannot be ignored, because 0.1W/m2 should be taken into account if taking about total radiative balance. Or, maybe less geo-heat in recent times can mean that simply plate techtonics are not as fast as they used to be with no change to radiative balance, hopefully some geologist would explain it to me? Thanks. -
John Mason at 17:16 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
#5 - indeed, a very Moncktonian approach. It takes a certain and not particularly common skill-set to bluster in this way. When people like this demand that one debates them live, read, "I challenge you to sit next to me in public whilst I gush for however long I can get away with it for. You can't catch me". Written ones are much more fun, though, as they're easy to demolish even if it's a bit time-consuming. -
Dale at 17:12 PM on 24 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
(-Snip-) EliRabett: Thanks for the info. Can you please describe the role of temperature (heat not light obviously) in the formation/destruction of tropospheric ozone? Sphaerica: Please point me to an actual peer-reviewed paper which supports the premise that GW increases tropospheric ozone formation.Moderator Response: [DB] Moderation complaints snipped. -
chriskoz at 16:25 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David Lewis@4, our quote: the incoherent rambling of Moore, proves the point of the article that Moore is a classical Gish-Galloper. However, it does not say anything bad about his intelligence. I'd guess rather opposite: good rhetoric and public speaking skills mean Moore be possibly as skilled as lord Monckton. I haven't seen Moore in action but I see his tactics are very similar to Monckton's. -
David Lewis at 15:17 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
He doesn't know anything about climate change. [-snip-] Eg: When he appeared alongside Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Lindzen, Tim Ball, etc., in the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore explained to the world why climate change became a major issue: "The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid-'80s the majority of people now agreed with all the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now, when a majority of people agree with you, it's pretty hard to remain confrontational with them. And so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace, it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. Like I said, 'You guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table, you know. I mean, I'm not sure that's within our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because Communism fell, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and communists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them, and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than anything with ecology or science"Moderator Response: [RH] Tone it down a bit please. -
macoles at 15:10 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
I had a different interpretation of Moore's statement [2] "The cause of the onset of Ice-Ages, one of which we are presently experiencing, is a puzzle we don't fully understand." I see it as a self-conflicting double whammy: A) that we don't fully understand the onsets of Ice-Ages. B) that we are currently experiencing such an onset into the next Ice-Age. How can he assure us that we are at such an onset while also insisting we don't fully understand them? -
John Mason at 15:01 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
David, thanks for the RS link, within which I found this little gem: "Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident." He's 'buried' the Little Ice-Age! -
David Lewis at 14:54 PM on 24 August 2012Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
There's no sense trying to minimize his early role at Greenpeace. George Monbiot in the article you link to identifies Moore as one of the founders of Greenpeace. He was said by Greenpeace itself to be one of its founders for many years, until he became an apostate. See: archived Greenpeace webpage Moore's been at this a long time. He isn't "back". He never goes away. Eg: When the U.K. Royal Society publicly excoriated ExxonMobil's U.K subsidiary Esso because they had broken the promise they made to the Royal Society that they would stop funding climate science denial, Patrick Moore charged to the rescue by writing a letter in support of ExxonMobil. Moore challenged the scientific qualifications of the representative of the Royal Society he was writing to and told them they did not understand what science was. [-snip-]Moderator Response: [RH] Snipped inflammatory. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:23 PM on 24 August 2012How much has nuclear testing contributed to global warming?
"Chemtrails," not contrails! How can we enact a conspiracy if we can't keep our terms straight? No "Agenda 21 Decoder Ring" for you guys, sorry.
Prev 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 Next
