Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 Next
Comments 63851 to 63900:
-
elsa at 01:05 AM on 16 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
CBDunkerson: The "denialists" described here use a selected period (or several) to "prove" that warming has stopped or gone into reverse. The escalator starting at a convenient point in time from its own perspective does likewise to "prove" that there is an irreversible rising trend. Nothing you say above contradicts this view, and I note that you do not question my statement that the trend has been flat over the last decade although the graph with this post shows an increase (this was really my question/criticism in this blog and potentially a good example of the statistical chicanery to which you refer, having been "adjusted" in an unspecified way to produce the desired result and without displaying the unadjusted graph that might cause the outsider to question the validity of the adjusted one.) -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:50 AM on 16 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Elsa, climatology is chiefly interested in the response of the climate to changes in the forcings, and is less interested in the unforced response of the climate (i.e. weather) as the former is useful for making projections and the latter is not (as it averages out in the long term - e.g. 30 years or so). The levelling off from the 40s to early 70s is highly likely to be due to an identifiable change in the forcings (in this case suphate aerosols) so it is not comparable with the current decade, where there is no good evidence that there has been a change in forcings that could be responsible. Instead the explanation is likely to be the same unforced climate variability that allows an escalator to be drawn. Now as it happens there isn't even statistically significant evidence that the underlying trend has actually fallen. This suggests it is likely to be merely an artifact of the noise. So, if you want to argue that the most recent decadal trend is meaningful you need to do two things: (i) demonstrate that there has been a statistically significant change in the trend (remember your null hypothesis always should be what you want to disprove) and (ii) that it is the result of a change in the focings and hence likely to persist or (iii) show that there is a physical mechanism by which some long term cycle is not merely correlated, but can also explain the strength of effect. The bottom line is that decadal trends tell you very very little about how the climate is behaving and are essentially meaningless sorry about the shouting -
Mikemcc at 00:38 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
It's being reported by the Guardian newspaper in the UK now: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate -
John Brookes at 00:35 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
This is funny. I mean we all knew what was happening, but details make it much more interesting. Is there anything connecting Heartland with Australian skeptical bloggers? Maybe through the Institute of Public Affairs... -
CBDunkerson at 00:26 AM on 16 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
Ken #34: "Problem is that for other experts such as Dr Trenberth - neither exist!" Ken #36: "Dr Trenberth has commented that the Asian aerosols *effect* is insignificant" Do I need to explain the difference between insignificant (which may also be an exaggeration Trenberth's position) and non existant? -
CBDunkerson at 00:17 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Update: Up to 16 articles now, and the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Carter had confirmed he is receiving payments from Heartland. Lloyd, you are correct in terms of pure philosophy... but in real world applicability the difference between 'prejudice' and 'insight' is highly subjective. In most cases our only guide to judging the inner mind of others comes down to end results. -
dr2chase at 00:13 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@62/Pete Dunkelberg - non-profits are not completely barred from political activity, if the term is broadly defined. I'm on the board of a local non-profit, the issue comes up. One does have to be careful, however -- there's stuff you can't do. Some of what you cannot do depends on how the non-profit was incorporated (as in, actual word choices made by lawyers on the paperwork when you apply for your 501c(3)). Without knowing all the details (and I haven't read anything beyond what's here) it could easily be legit-enough. -
Ken Lambert at 00:12 AM on 16 February 2012The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
CBD #35 Forgive my shorthand. Would 'Jim Hansen's Asian aerosols *effect*' as with his 'delayed Pinitubo rebound effect' explain it better? Dr Trenberth has commented that the Asian aerosols *effect* is insignificant in explaining the stasis in surface temperatures and the discrepancy in warming imbalance. There is such a quotation on this site which I have had no time to find - might be in the 'Trenberth on tracking Earth's energ...' or similar thread. As for the Pinitubo rebound effect - that is a Hansen special (maybe an idea of his brainy grandchild) upon which no one will comment fearing it will diminish Hansen's credibility. -
Lloyd Flack at 00:11 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
CBDunkerson, I think recklessness is still culpable even if you luck out. If you suspect someone of wrongdoing but you have little real evidence for it, and you do something that is an invasion of privacy and happen to expose actual wrondoing I think you should still be punisheed for a reckless invasion of privacy. It's like the idea of probable cause when law enforcement seeks a search warrant. The intrusion of the search is inherently undesirable and can only be justified by strong suspicion with objective justification. The CRU email affar would still have been culpable even if they had turned up evidence of wrongdoing since the only thing that they had to justify the hack was their prejudices. -
CBDunkerson at 00:09 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
dorlomin, well... it becomes somewhat difficult for Revkin to continue claiming that suggestions of a degree of 'skeptic' bias on his part are all in the minds of 'AGW extremists' (not his terminology, but the implication) when even Heartland agrees he is somewhat 'on their side'. Hey, look at that... 'deniers' and 'alarmists' find common ground. Peace on Earth. Good will to all. :] -
CBDunkerson at 00:06 AM on 16 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
elsa wrote: "While they can be criticised for picking flat periods to suit themselves the escalator itself picks a rather suitable start from its own point of view and conveniently leaves out the years from say 1940 to 1970." This is, obviously, nonsense. The point of the escalator graphic is to show that various 'no warming for the pastyears' claims are statistical chicanery. Extending the graphic back before the start of significant GHG warming (as you suggest) would in no way change that fact. Indeed, additional 'flat' or 'cooling' periods of ~10 years could be added and the trend line of the total period would still be upwards. Ditto if we went back to 1900 and included the early 20th century (mostly) solar warming. Those two 'pre significant GHG warming' periods do not change the statistical facts being demonstrated by the escalator. Put another way... there is not any year in the thermometer temperature records which shows a statistically significant 'flat' or 'cooling' trend up to present. The only way you can get such a claim of 'warming has stopped' is by using a period too short to reach 95% statistical significance. -
dorlomin at 00:04 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I dont think Revkin has anything he needs to address. -
nealjking at 00:02 AM on 16 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I would think that it would be important to Revkin to address this right away. -
CBDunkerson at 23:47 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
As of now Google news is showing a grand total of 11 articles on this subject... most of them on clearly 'left wing' sites and/or blogs. This lackluster reaction might be put down to the authenticity of the documents not being proven (which is probably the most important thing to get nailed down at this point), but then there were hundreds of articles, including in the mainstream news sections of major papers, before the CRU e-mails were verified. It is still possible that this count will grow and word of these issues reach beyond the realm of people who closely follow the 'climate wars' to the general public, but I think the fact that it hasn't already shows that we are up against more than 'just' a 'false balance' problem with much of the global media. As to the ethical hand-wringing... frankly I always found the 'but it was hacking' angle on the CRU e-mails somewhat over-wrought. Had the e-mails shown actual wrongdoing I'd have had no problem with them being hacked and released. Any law which makes it illegal to expose unethical, immoral, or illegal behavior by someone else is inherently flawed and should be ignored when necessary. That said, if you only think someone is doing bad things and turn out to be wrong it is then perfectly appropriate to be arrested for it. In this case we have the Heartland Institute receiving 501(c)(3) tax exempt status while possibly violating the limitations against political activity and lobbying required for that status. Even if they managed to stay within the law there (which seems unlikely to me if the documents are authentic) the documents still show clear ethical and moral lapses which more than validate action by any internal whistleblower or (IMO) external hacker. The law is a blunt instrument. In order to protect legitimate privacy concerns we establish laws worded so broadly that they end up also preventing the exposure of corruption. If that flawed structure is not challenged then the corruption is allowed to flourish and grow unchecked... a harm potentially as great as the one the law was meant to protect. This is an eternal conflict which has usually been solved by allowing exceptions or minimizing penalties for violations of the law which expose such corruption. -
nealjking at 23:36 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
On a side note, I am not a fan of the leakage of the internal communications of the US State Department by Manning, through WikiLeaks: - I don't see that we learned anything important - It did expose confidential positions that embarrassed US negotiations with other countries - It did expose US operations and personnel -
elsa at 23:36 PM on 15 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
DSL, the decade I picked was simply the most recent one (and the reason for this was that it was the one under debate in the other blog). My point in mentioning it here is that the temperature record for that decade, which seems flat, does not fit with the one shown here which shows an increase. I have not spent much time looking at the various data but I suspect the temperature record was flat for the period because the group defending the AGW position in the other blog worded their comment very carefully so as not to be specific about what had actually happened in the decade. It would have been easy enough for them to say that "the" temperature increased in the period as well as the obvious thing to say, but they did not do so, probably because they would have been incorrect if they had. So the question remains as to how the graph here shows an increase in the last ten years which, at least as far as the surface temperature is concerned, did not take place. The explanation offered here seems to be that the data on this blog has been "adjusted" that is to say it is not the actual mean global temperature as recorded but a graph of what the global temperature might have been if certain volcanic and other events had not happened. Now that may well be an interesting series to look at and the events may well provide an explanation for the lack of warming at a time when the basic AGW view suggests that the world should have been warming at an accelerating rate. But the fact that it is an adjusted series perhaps should be emphasised and perhaps the unadjusted figures should be there too so that disinterested observers could form a balanced view. -
nealjking at 23:30 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
On the ethics of using leaked documents: - I believe that what broke the back of the "cigarettes don't cause lung cancer" denialism was the leakage of papers from the Tobacco Institute by an employee of Brown & Williamson. - What blew the covers off the Vietnam War was the leakage of the "Pentagon papers" of the RAND Corporation by Daniel Ellsberg. If validated, I believe that these "denialgate" papers are a worthy modern example of the genre. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 23:23 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I just have time for a quick note this morning. A comment on the first page says Heartland is doing nothing illegal. This is in doubt, due to their political activity and tax exempt status. -
Lloyd Flack at 23:15 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Tom, I think they are so self righteous that it never occured to them that they might be the target of whistleblowing. From most of the accounts that I have seen, the typical whistleblower is not a radical or a rebel but a principled supporter of the system trying to force the system to live up to its claimed ideals. I would expect this to be so here. -
Tom Curtis at 22:59 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Curiously, if you google search [site:heartland.org whistleblower] you get 173 hits, many of them dealing with EPA whistleblowing, so there is not question that they support whistleblowing , so long as they are not the targets. On the other hand, google searching [site:heartland.org "whistleblower policy"] brings up nothing, so it appears they don't want their whistleblower policy known. -
Lloyd Flack at 22:37 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I had some reservations about this, centering about betrayal of trust. Buth then I realized, they have implicitly given permission for this. They laud whistleblowers. They want to see the CRU hack as being whistleblowing by a disgusted insider. While this does seem to be at variance with reality it does mean that I don't think they can justifiably complain if they are made to look bad by a whistleblower. I am as susceptible to rationalization as anyone else but I do do try hard to fight this. I think I suicceed most of the time. I am trying to fight the temptation to rationalize right now but I do believe that the argument that I just gave is valid. -
AndrewMF at 22:18 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
As far as Whistleblowing is concerned, I would refer you to the included "2010_IRS_Form_990.pdf" Page 9 of the PDF, but page 6 of the 990: 13: Does the Organization have a written Whistleblower Policy. X (Yes) I think that would suggest the whistleblower is protected by law, and is aware of the contents of the policy. Agree that this does not appear to be theft from outside the organisation which differentiates it from the CRU hack. Andrew. -
chek at 22:15 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I can't see any moral quandary with leaked documents, paticularly when those documents detail the efforts to promote short-term gain for already privileged interests at the expense of the common good. And when those efforts include a planned and financed program to subvert the teaching of children and students in service to those interests, that's beyond reprehensible. Heartland and the whole rancid, well-financed underbelly of denialism needs to be investigated by the DoJ or a similar high powered agency with real teeth. -
Lloyd Flack at 22:03 PM on 15 February 2012Climate mythbusting at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28
I'll be at this presentation. I can usefully help John answer any statistical questions. -
bill at 21:42 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
People, people! Did the Watts crowd tie themselves in knots agonising over the CRU Hack? This is a political fight, fer Chrissakes, not Philosophy Club! You didn't do anything wrong, the information is irretrievably in the Public Domain; now get to work! Try beating up your opponents, and not your allies, eh? There's, um, rather a lot at stake, after all. Imagine if Julian Assange had carried on like this... -
Paul D at 21:33 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Follow the money? Well if you are motivated only by money, then I guess this is the result. There are millions of teachers and other professionals write materials about climate change for average wages. But I guess fat cats need an incentive to do the same for the market interfering Heartland Institute. -
logicman at 20:55 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
macoles #50 I agree that whistleblowing is lawful. The laws of the US, UK and many other common law jurisdictions specify that the unveiling of wrongdoing is in the public interest. The US statute law on whistleblowing can be traced back to the civil war when unscrupulous merchants sold bad powder to the Union army. There is a vast body of case law in common law jurisdictions which permits governments to recover any losses suffered by 'the people' as a result of false claims which have caused the people financial losses. In the US a whistleblower is guaranteed 15 - 25 percent of funds recovered plus legitimate costs. A procedure at law known as qui tam permits any citizen to sue on behalf of the government. It is a suit by an informer on behalf of the government claiming that a wrong has been committed against the people according to a specified statute. There can be no argument of wrongdoing against any person who acts within the law, provided only that the Nuremberg principle does not apply. The Nuremberg principle specifies that obedience to law is no defence against a breach of the fundamental human rights recognised by all civilised nations. The Heartland whistleblower acted lawfully, q.e.d. - and I would add: ethically. -
dorlomin at 20:23 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Man Desmogged are goiong to need some lawyers. I can predict a load of legal action over this. From those docs Heartland could be in hot water with the tax people over their non lobbying status. Well I think the gloves will be coming off. If these are legit then its going to really hurt the disinformers. Good stuff. -
Doug Hutcheson at 20:17 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
The argument that we (I) have used ill-gotten documents has merit, as far as it goes. I personally have no knowledge of how the documents came to be exposed and accept that there may have been misbehaviour in their release. I considered that situation before posting my comments here. Having said that, I regard some of the content of the documents as being objectionable to a reasonable person. The objectionable information requires no spin, no quoting out of context, no contorted lying about what is said. I am satisfied that exposure of the activities of the Heartland Institute is in the interests of the public, both in the USA and world-wide. Action - or more accurately, inaction - on Climate Change by legislators in the USA has repercussions for all the world's citizens. We all lose when systematic and well-funded misinformation affects the quality and impact of education and political ideologies. So, have I compounded a possible misdemeanour by reading and commenting upon the leaked documents? In my own little way, yes. Do I claim the moral high ground? No. Have I scolded deniers for the theft of the Climategate emails? No, I have always attacked the misinformation spun from the stolen material, just as I am now attacking the information in the Heartland Institute documents. The leaks on both sides are a fait accompli and I am only interested in exposing what passes for the Truth in each case. Do I have any regrets? No. Do I place the future of mankind higher than the rights of the Heartland Institute to pervert the education system? Yes - unequivocally. Does that make me a bad person? Not for me to judge. -
Tom Curtis at 20:15 PM on 15 February 2012NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice
Norman @64, where you have a shallow water table, you can dig a hole, and when you get to the point where the bottom of the hole fills with water, you have reached the water table. Above that point the soil may well be moist, and water from that soil will evaporate, or be taken up by roots and transpirated. Where the water table is shallow enough, the water in the soil will be replenished by capillary action, thus allowing some of the water in the water table to escape by a combination of wicking and evaporation/transpiration. Likewise, if the water table is very shallow and breaks the surface in a low lying area, it can form a lake or soak, from which evaporation will escape directly. Finally, a deep penetrating cave or mine shaft can penetrate the water table such as at Weebubbie Cave, thus allowing evaporation to escape:Cave Diving in Australia - Weebubbie Cave from oxy-doc on Vimeo.
However, the total evaporation from these effects is small in relation to the total amount of ground water, and escape by these mechanisms is small relative to both the total land surface evaporation and relative to total artificial and natural withdrawals from the water tables (although for some shallow water tables it may be a major or dominant form of water loss). The extent of evaporative loss of ground water is certainly not sufficient for you to use total land surface evaporation as a proxy for natural ground water losses, still less identifying them as you did @54. This response is not an invitation to continue the conversation, but merely to clarify a point on which I was insufficiently clear. If you would like me to think well of you, stop cherry picking. It is your most persistent and unendearing feature in post after post and topic after topic on this site. -
GreenCooling at 20:09 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Come on folks, it's not that hard, there is a very clear moral imperative at work here. If someone working at Heritage could see that what they were up to was wrong, and thought spreading false information is deceptive and misleading (here in Australia these are crimes for those engaged in commerce under our trade practices law, now known as the Competition and Consumer Act), and/or endangering the public interest, it is entirely proper for them to arrive at a decision that their obligation to tell the truth to the world is greater than any contractual duty of confidentiality they may owe to their employer. Perhaps the most honourable thing for them to do would be to quietly resign, but for all our sakes I hope we see a lot more from them... -
macoles at 20:03 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
AT@45 and PC@46 Many countries have Whistleblowing laws designed to protect people who provide information exactly like this. No country has laws to protect hackers gaining similar information. A commonly accepted definition specifies that 'whistleblowing’ is: … the disclosure by organisation members (former or current) of illegal, immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers to persons that may be able to effect action. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn31.pdf -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:01 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
@Actually thoughtful I am not convinced that the distinction between illegal and immoral is the point where whistleblowing moves from acceptable to unacceptable. It seems to me that plenty goes on in the world of business that is technically legal, but unethical and/or immoral and not in the public interest. I suspect that the action of whistleblowers in such circumstances has occasionally resulted in changes in legislation to close loop-holes in the law that are being exploited to the detriment of society, which suggests that simple legality is not the best criterion as the law is sometimes inadequate and needs patching. The point is that the ethics of whistleblowing are not clear cut. It would be nice if we could all just stick to the science and act in a rational manner in accordance with our best understanding of the relevant issues. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen any time soon :-( -
GreenCooling at 19:58 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw@31 &20 - I have to join with the other above who've correctly pointed out that leaking is a fine and legitimate tradition in Western democracies, or do you think Wikipedia and Julian Assange have been barking up the wrong tree too? In the late 1990's the world had a remarkable insight into the world of anti-environmental in a book written by New Zealander Nicky Hager based on the leaking of a literal filing cabinet of documents called "PR spin Secrets and Lies: The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign", which was co-authored with Bob Burton and published in 1999. It documents the public relations information put out by Timberlands West Coast Limited in order to win public support for logging of native forests on the West Coast of New Zealand. It broke new ground in the understanding by progressive movements of the forces ranged against them. It would never have happened if some courageous office junior hadn't said to themselves "this is wrong, and the world needs to know about it" - and then was smart enough to go to Nicky, who has since written several other high impact exposes of injustice and political skull-duggery. Leaks and whistle-blowing happen all the time and are an important check on the abuse of power in open societies. I can only speculate about what motives anyone would have for opposing this, but naivety is certainly the most generous. -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:53 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
AF, I do see what your point is, however (posted a little too fast) and it is valid. The political battle is indeed dirty business. I won't go to the "they started it" argument. It is unfortunate that it came to this. Tobacco harmed in more ways than just COPD, heart disease and cancer. It brought the bullshit wars to the point where most regular people can't tell what's real anymore. That the media is no more qualified than the public and feels obligated to always present "both sides" does not help. We live in a time when there is no reality, only opinions to be manipulated. Reality always catches up of course. For smokers, it takes some years and manifests most of the time as COPD, of which an exacerbation combined with pneumonia will usually lead to the end. For GW, we'll see. -
Philippe Chantreau at 19:40 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Actually thoughtful, there is a major difference here. Someone who was involved at a level deep enough to have access to these documents found it necessary to have them exposed. Someone with a conscience thought about it and made the decision. It is not at all like a hack who certainly was paid for his/her performance. That is why whistleblowing is so unlike hacking. Nobody leaked the UEA e-mails because nobody believed that there was really anything to leak, anything that was objectionable enough to be revealed. The e-mails were stolen then carefully cherry-picked and misrepresented to ensure maximum effect. Someone involved with Heartland believed these were bad enough that everybody should be aware of their existence. I guess there is hope after all. -
actually thoughtful at 19:33 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Dikran Marsupial - I agree. I was using Tom Curtis's analogy regarding embezzlement and burglary. As much as I abhor, detest what the Heritage Foundation does, and consider the Heritage Foundation to be evil, I am not aware of anything they were doing that is, in fact, illegal. Whistle blowing would seem to require an illegal activity that is exposed through the action of the whistle blower. If I missed that then I apologize. Without an illegal activity, we have a group actively working against the future of mankind, but not doing things that are explicitly illegal (some would say a synonym of this is "Congress"). Heritage has rights. They were violated. It wouldn't be a moral dilemma except for the fact that the violation of their rights benefits mankind (possibly - it depends if the media grabs onto this like they did the climategate thing - that is unknowable at the moment). After all, these budgets and memos aren't warming the planet and melting the glaciers - excessive CO2 emissions are - and that was established scientifically long before this, long before climategate. There is no scientific battle - there is only the political battle left. Lots of fantastic science left to do, but none that will change our actionable understanding of the problem. And winning political battles appears to be a dirty business. I think acknowledging the moral conflict is honest, and serves us well. This genie isn't going back in the bottle, but to stridently claim that this is remarkably different that the theft of the emails rings hollow and shrill, and is going to interfere with the real story. Always disarm your opponents strongest argument at the outset. Acknowledge the source was stolen documents. Then talk about what is IN those stolen documents. Win the political battle. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:08 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
actually thoughfull wrote "indeed I would take embezzlement as a worse crime because of the betrayal of trust" The whole point of being a whistle blower is that the person concerned realizes that their trust was misplaced. While employers should feel they have a right to rely on the trust of their employees, they have a responsibility to be worthy of their trust. It is a two way street, with rights come responsibilities. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:02 PM on 15 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
I suspect the Jasper Kirkby talk was this one. N.B. If he is right, it makes the "its the sun" argument rather interesting if more solar irradiance makes surface temperatures fall! -
actually thoughtful at 19:01 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
I am glad Daneel Olivaw raises the point that these are ill-gotten documents. It at least introduces a moral quandary, and realize the first line of defense from the deniers will be "what happened to your pious, sanctimonious drivel about stolen documents". This is a moment that we will learn something about ourselves (and indeed at the current ratio of 17:1 we now know). Using the term "whistleblower" makes us feel better. Rationalizing that this is for the good of humanity (which I happen to agree with) makes us feel better. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that I make no moral distinction between burglary and embezzlement (indeed I would take embezzlement as a worse crime because of the betrayal of trust). Just as freedom of speech necessarily implies tolerance for hate speech, claiming the moral high ground in terms of how information is obtained necessarily implies not getting some potentially damaging information (say the budget and internal operating memos of the Heritage Foundation). At a minimum, it would behoove us to acknowledge we are ceding that portion of the high ground. Self awareness is a valuable asset. Would knowing the identity of the "whistle blower" make this any more morally palatable? I don't think so - as the core issue is that these documents were obtained against the will of the document owners, and while I completely agree with Tom Curtis that the funding information SHOULD be public knowledge, the fact is it is NOT public knowledge, and this document cache is much larger than just who the funder are. I wonder if the Heritage Foundation will claim they are just forged documents? -
Bernard J. at 19:01 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Lloyd Flack's comment at #7 pre-empted my thoughts after reading the Anticlimategate* material, but it bears repeating... The Denialati are not interested in science, they are intent on the promulgation of propaganda. This says everything about the veracity of their 'case'. And what's the story with almost $100k for another surface stations project for Watts? Have they forgotten already that both Menne et al 2010 and their own sanctioned BEST [sic] project confirmed that there is no story there, other than what the professional scientists had said all along? I almost hesitate to use the word, but 'whitewash' anyone? Another thing: there has always been a clamour from the contrarians for various scientists to release their emails because they are public servants. Well, if the denialist lobby is intending to become involved in pushing curriculum units in public schools, doesn't that make them liable to the same requirement for public scrutiny? Can we now expect their all of email exchanges to be released? Geese and ganders, after all... Finally, Stevo, I wouldn't call you pessimistic, but realistic. The difference between smoking and global warming is that the whole of humanity and the biosphere is involved in the latter, most with no choice in the matter, and the warming/change is a juggernaut that can't be stopped once the momentum has significantly started. The smoking/harm relationship may be thought of as an arithmetic one and reversible except for the direct (usually voluntary) victims, where the emissions/harm relationship is geometric and irreversible even for people/species that have/had no involvement. [* Sorry, Lloyd, but the -gate is too juicy to resist.] -
Rob Painting at 18:45 PM on 15 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
jimb - "Climate models may have the wrong sign for solar irradiance forcing" What??? Do you have a link to the video? -
GreenCooling at 18:32 PM on 15 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Many, many thanks Dana for this dissection of Dr Vahrenholt's deceptive drivel, I've been having a very robust debate with a pack of redneck deniers on a LinkedIn "HVAC Professionals" topic ("Is R410a WORSE for the environment than R22?") now approaching 650 comments, quite a record I understand! A couple of them have got excited that Vahrenholt is some kind of conclusive proof that they are right, and the "climaterrorists" and "ecoscammers" have finally been proved wrong, so it's been great to serve this back at them in response. I'm sure it won't change the minds of the chief protagonists, but many looking on will hopefully find it persuasive. Just wanted to express my thanks for all the work that goes into SkS and let you know how useful it is, all power to your efforts. -
jimb at 18:17 PM on 15 February 2012Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change
Just watched video of Dr. Jasper Kirkby (of recent CERN fame) giving a presentation at Simon Fraser University in 2011, where he set out his position that GCR levels/Solar levels were very closely correlated with temperature records for the past 9,000 years. He notes that correlation does not equal causation, and that his experiments at CERN are designed to test his hypothesis re causation. (i.e. CLOUD) He concludes his presentation with a summary slide, a portion of which states; 1.Solar contributions for 20th Century climate change are poorly understood, 2. Climate models may have the wrong sign for solar irradiance forcing and 3.there is possible unaccounted solar indirect forcing. This seems contrary to most of what I understand from this site, but it is probably due to my limited science background. -
Sascha Tavere at 18:15 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
Well, I shall be writing two e-mails today: One to Naomi Oreskes wishing her a very happy day and one to Microsoft. -
Lloyd Flack at 18:06 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
One thing, no more "gate" please. I'm not the only person who find suffixing every claimed scandal with "gate" to be irritaing. Something else please! Now, what does this actually reveal? Well, nothing that we didn't suspect. They are talking about raising money but there is no indicatation that money is their primary motivation. Everything that they say supports claims of a primarily ideological rather than pecuniary motive for their actions. There is little talk about scientific reasons. Granted, I would not expect to fing a lot about the science in the plans of a political body. They have already sold themselves on the science and believe themselves. But they only talk about attacking the science of others and do not talk about any attempts to understand the climate themselves. This is, I think, revealing about the mindset. What would be a bad idea is to force these revelations into a pattern that maximises how righteous it feels to oppose them. I am talking about focussing on the money and ignoring the blindness that ideology can bring. -
owl905 at 17:48 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
"The environmental movement needs voices devoted to sound science ... " http://heartland.org/issues/environment -
Brian Purdue at 17:45 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
DaneelOlivaw@31 - Naivety will not save the planet. Whistle blowing is a legitimate and necessary way of exposing things against the public interest. In this case, the interests of the planet we call home. If you recollect, deniers first blamed someone within the East Anglia CRU because it added to their “claim” of a cover-up but it was illegal hacking of emails that went through the public airwaves that were used to try to discredit these scientists. You can be pretty positive these documents never got outside the confines of the Heartland Institute, so whistle blowing was the only way this was going to get out. -
Bert from Eltham at 17:43 PM on 15 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
So now the truth is out. It is not interpolation or extrapolation but projection! Bert -
Steve L at 15:52 PM on 15 February 2012New research from last week 6/2012
Thanks Ari. I think the Classic of the Week is really a great idea, too.
Prev 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 Next
