Well, it seems that chillbill has taken the mantle of global warming denialism from jackbenimble. In his usual style he nitpicks several points. After reading them carefully, I have divided the nitpicks into two categories ... (1) allusions to common global warming denialist tactics, and (2) attacks focused mainly at me and less at the issue of global warming. In the first group I find six common global warming canards:
(1) Global warming denialists present data that debunks mainstream climatologists. (see here and here)
(2) The cooling trend over the past decade shows that either there is no global warming or the warming has stopped. (see here and here
(3) Global temperatures are not really rising (or rising less than reported) because the published data do not take urban heat islands into effect. (see here)
(4) Any rise in global temperatures that may be seen is more likely to be due to increased solar activity than to greenhouse gas emissions. (see here)
(5) Global warming is not associated with extinctions nor does it threaten to cause extinctions in the near future. (see here)
(6) Sea ice is not in danger of disappearing any time soon. (see here)
These canards are worth exploring closer as they reveal the anti-science nature of global warming denialism. The rest of this blog will be devoted to addressing chillbill's less scientific and more personal attacks.
In this comment chillbill accuses me of using the phrase "global warming denialist" in an intentionally misleading manner. He seems to be especially upset when I used it to refer to the recently deceased author, Michael Crichton. He evidently thinks the phrase amounts to an ad hominem attack. I suppose that he will think that even more so since I refer to him as a global warming denialist as well, while it doesn't seem to occur to him that some may consider his labelling me as being "intentionally misleading" without justifying it could be considered ad hominem on his part.
What is a global warming denialist? I would say that the answer is obvious. It is one who denies the science of mainstream climatologists that are claiming that anthropogenic global warming is real. That is just what everybody I have labelled a global warming denialist does. It is not ad hominem to accurately describe what a person does.
Chillbill says that Michael Crichton doesn't deny the greenhouse gas efficacy of CO2 just the "lies and hype that have been perpetrated in the politicalization of the theory". To back up his assertion he gives two links to Crichton speeches (here and here). Normally when one makes an argument and includes a link, one expects that link to support one's argument. That is certainly not the case here.
(1) According to mainstream climatologists, the greenhouse gas efficacy of CO2 is sufficient to account for almost ALL the global warming that we see. Crichton certainly denies this. And (2) unfortunately Crichton is the one that is responsible for much of the "lies and hype that have been perpetrated in the politicalization of the theory". No one in their right mind can read these speeches as "supportive" of global warming. He is bashing global warming scientists about as badly as anyone I have ever read. But that is not surprising for someone who wrote a book in which he characterizes the entire field as being composed of MURDEROUS scientists out to protect their grant money. Why is it that chillbill doesn't seem upset with that ad hominem attack? Does he not believe it qualifies as one?
Having had many "discussions" with chillbill, I suspect he will deny being a denialist. He has a tendency to make comments in which he can maintain plausible deniability no matter how one describes his position. He'll claim that there may very well be something to global warming there just isn't enough evidence to be sure. Sorry chilly ... won't work. That's the point. Mainstream science says there IS ENOUGH evidence to be as sure enough to act on it. ... and you are denying that. That makes you a global warming denialist and it is readily apparent to anybody has read your responses. Live with it.
In this comment chillbill accuses me of lying and hyping a theory -- certainly no ad hominem there. He links to several well-known global warming denialist websites. I have already well documented several lies and hypes from these types of websites and I will continue to do so. I'll let the reader of these blogs determine where the hype is coming from. Since lying is an intentional misrepresentation of the data, I'll only accuse chillbill of ignorance of the real evidence ... and a little bit of hypocrisy by engaging in ad hominem attacks himself.
He also takes me to task for saying the following:
At some point we will reach a tipping point in which nothing we can do with present day technology will prevent a rapid increase in global temperatures. What is to keep us from going extinct?
He calls the statement BS and wonders how I can justify it. This is a classic chillbill technique. Find a sentence or two that when taken out of context is easy to attack, attack it and ignore everything else.
The easiest way to justify it, is the way I did in my blog ... by putting the remark in context:
One other thing to note here is that akes88 confidently says anthropogenic global warming is "not a dire situation". I certainly hope he is right, but how does he know that? The earth is undergoing a warming trend that is at least 20 times faster than any naturally-occurring one. This cannot help but stress the environment. We are already undergoing species extinction at a rate that geologically equals that of the 5 other great mass extinctions found in the fossil record. The earth did not recover its species diversity from those for a period of 10 million years or more. Virtually all species that lived during those times have gone extinct and no one doubts that climate change is a major factor in extinctions.
Global warming is already causing extinctions. Global warming has already caused a shift in the map of plant hardiness zones. That means that the environment does not support the same plants that it had before. Plants migrate only by seed dispersal which is not normally a rapid process. Some plants will face extinction as global warming persists. As the warming trends heat up we will begin releasing more and more CO2 from what has been up to now storage sites ... the oceans, arctic tundra, etc. At some point we will reach a tipping point in which nothing we can do with present day technology will prevent a rapid increase in global temperatures. What is to keep us from going extinct? Our wishful thinking??? I doubt it. I want knowledge based on evidence. [part quoted by chillbill is in bold]
From just looking at the text that chillbill quoted, one would get the impression that I was saying that human extinction is a likely outcome of global warming. Once you put the quote in context it becomes apparent that is NOT what I said. I was responding to akes88 assertion that global warming is not a dire situation. Akes88 could not possibly know that. It is conceivable that it could cause human extinction. All species eventually go extinct. Climate change is probably the major cause of extinctions through out geological time. That alone makes human extinction conceivable. It doesn't make it likely, and I never said it was. What I was saying is that dismissing global warming as not a serious problem is not a defensible statement. The fact that chillbill presents it as something otherwise is telling.
In my original global warming canards blog I wrote about something I felt like I had noticed concerning science denialism and the modern conservative movement. I said:
Furthermore, there seems to be another factor. I have noticed is that they all the canards come from conservative sources. Indeed both commenters who propagate them here are conservative as well. Conservatives also tend to be more likely to be evolution denialists, HIV denialists, and holocaust denialists. These are all things that deny the scientific evidence for well established theories. While there is nothing inherently wrong with being conservative, I tend to think modern conservatism has set up an environment which is more accepting of SCIENCE DENIALISM in general. If this is so then it is a dangerous precedent. Scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have. That is not to say that it is always right. But science is what it is. If the evidence points one direction then reason tells us that is most likely the way things really are. And if that is the most likely the way things are, then it is probably best to act as though it is the way things are, even if it points in a way we don't want to believe.
In this comment chillbill makes a response specifically addressed to the above paragraph.
Liberals seem to be the people most likely to be suckered in by each wave of alarmist fads. While there is nothing inherently wrong with being liberal it should be noted that liberals tend to be young and inexperienced with the real world, and especially the history of fashionable beliefs which have in hind sight been repeatedly discredited. Each generation sees itself as the brightest, most educated, and ready to 'save the world' as it reaches young adulthood. What they do not see is that every generation before them had the same feeling, often with disastrous results.
I have been trying to determine if it is a parody of my paragraph or whether or not chillbill is actually claiming the above things ... and for the life of me, I can't do it. He somewhat imitates my style of writing so perhaps it is a parody. But if it is a parody one might expect him to say something like ... "I tend to think modern liberalism has set up an environment which is more accepting of ALARMISM in general." But he doesn't. He says things that have no parallel in my writing. Therefore I'm guessing that he REALLY BELIEVES that:
(1) liberals are more likely to be SUCKERED IN [emphasis added] by each wave of alarmist fads.
(2) liberals tend to be young and inexperienced in the real world, and especially the history of fashionable beliefs which have in hind sight been repeatedly discredited.
(3) each generation sees itself as the brightest, most educated, and ready to 'save the world' as it reaches young adulthood.
(4) each generation fails to see that every other generation had the same feeling with disastrous results.
If so then it is a poor response to me. I am soon to be 58 years old and long past being young. I will put my experience in the real world up against chillbill's any day. Unlike chillbill I can recognize beliefs that have been repeatedly discredited. I think it is pretty self-evident that each succeeding generation IS BETTER EDUCATED than the previous ones simply because our knowledge grows. I think we are all have about the same intelligence. I don't think anybody is ready to "save the world" ... we are likely to stumble along like we always have. I find that the disastrous results in history never come from leadership of the young adult generation, it come from leaders who are "old farts" (like me). As for as being SUCKERED IN by alarmist fads, he is going to have to specify which ones (as I did with the global warming, evolution, HIV, and holocaust denials). I find conservatives tend to be easily suckered into what could be labelled the alarmist fad of liberals trying to destroy the American way of life by demanding we do something about global warming.
Next up will be Global Warming Canards: The Reliability of Global Warming Denialists
"(1) Global warming denialists present data that debunks mainstream climatologists."
Same data W/O projections. Just the facts without conclusions.
---
"(2) The cooling trend over the past decade shows that either there is no global warming or the warming has stopped."
Yes we are in a cooling trend. When will ANY doubt about the CATASTROPHE aspect of global warming enter your head?
---
"(3) Global temperatures are not really rising (or rising less than reported) because the published data do not take urban heat islands into effect."
Do YOU think so? I think the source I mentioned simply thinks the models underestimate the effect.
---
"(4) Any rise in global temperatures that may be seen is more likely to be due to increased solar activity than to greenhouse gas emissions."
Try 'solar activity is a major factor as well' if you ever choose to be more honest about what I actually said (quoting experts). Do you think solar activity is insignificant? Do you think it is predictable?
---
"(5) Global warming is not associated with extinctions nor does it threaten to cause extinctions in the near future."
Actually I was very specific about the actual HYPED LIE you linked to. Go into detail about how 0.4C average temperature has actually killed a single living creature if you can. 'the future' is uncertain, but open to SPECULATION.
---
"(6) Sea ice is not in danger of disappearing any time soon."
Obviously not. Actually I didn't 'say' anything about sea ice. I linked to some facts and posted a chart. Draw your own conclusions.
---
"What is a global warming denialist? I would say that the answer is obvious. It is one who denies the science of mainstream climatologists that are claiming that anthropogenic global warming is real."
Yet you use the term to describe EVERYONE that is skeptical of PROJECTIONS that thus far have ALWAYS been wrong. Calling skeptics prejudicial names is VERY scientific. Show me ONE computer model that has any accuracy (except backwards) over a period of five or more years (IPCC admits they do not have one).
---
RE M.Chrichton
"No one in their right mind can read these speeches as "supportive" of global warming. He is bashing global warming scientists about as badly as anyone I have ever read."
I read it as bashing their science, never any individual. If he mentions any particular scientist is is only in reference to a specific paper with specific dubious claims.
Is being 'supportive' of a theory scientific or biased? Isn't the tendency of researchers to be 'supportive' of their own theories the reason for double blind studies?
---
"It is conceivable that it could cause human extinction. All species eventually go extinct. Climate change is probably the major cause of extinctions through out geological time. That alone makes human extinction conceivable. It doesn't make it likely, and I never said it was. What I was saying is that dismissing global warming as not a serious problem is not a defensible statement."
Hype involves taking a far fetched, in this case almost impossible (human extinction due to CO2 induced Global Warming) , possibility and acting as though it is inevitable. Another technique you and others use to hype this is taking a possible eventual outcome and pretending it is already happening as you have with extinctions.
Your consensus (actually a few computer models) have projected 2 to 8 degrees of warming in the next century. Any impartial observer can easily see that we are already far below the most conservative trend line. Once again I ask; when will you allow that data to be a factor in what you believe? Will actual lowering temperatures EVER make you admit you were wrong? Will you continue to evade the question, and pretend that the facts themselves are 'canards'?
---
"I have been trying to determine if it is a parody of my paragraph or whether or not chillbill is actually claiming the above things ... and for the life of me, I can't do it."
Your paragraph was one sided aimed at conservatism in this context and I was trying to provide a mirror of the comment in the same context to illustrate the prejudice. The truth and science is neither conservative or liberal and should not even be political. Such one sided characterizations are by their nature opinions intended to inflame the opposition. Useful to inspire hostility, useless when discussing facts or trying to reach agreement on possible policy alternatives. Illustrative of prejudice not objectivity.
"I find that the disastrous results in history never come from leadership of the young adult generation, it come from leaders who are "old farts" (like me). As for as being SUCKERED IN by alarmist fads, he is going to have to specify which ones (as I did with the global warming, evolution, HIV, and holocaust denials)."
Communism, National Socialism (fascism), Prohibition, Hippies, Welfare, Free Love, Sexual Revolution(the reason for the AIDS epidemic), Socialism, Dietary Fads, etc.
---
"I suspect he will deny being a denialist."
Thereby proving I am one? ;-)
I have not disputed any fact you have provided, nor do I wish to. I do deny the reliability of computer models until they have been tested, but since they have been wrong every time so far, that should be obvious to everyone.
I differentiate between things that are speculation and the ones that are fact. I am suspicious of ALL human motives, especially when lies are used to support an argument.
I support more research to find ways to control our climate, but know they are all unproven as of now. Generating more electricity without CO2 emissions(currently nuclear is the only large scale practical way), expanding the use of fuel cell and electric transportation, planting barren areas to sequester CO2. Protecting threatened species, and managing non-threatened ones, OK too.
I am against drastic action (hard emission limits on CO2) that will result in suffering among the worlds poor. Taxing and regulating carbon based fuels to RAISE THE PRICE of energy impacts the poor far more than it does the rich who actually cause most of the CO2 emissions.
Carbon offsets are a con. Most Kyoto signatories have failed to live up to their commitments.
In general I favor any effort to increase development of clean technologies, but I oppose any restriction on development that will impoverish people. Many proponents of this theory seem to be motivated by a hatred of human advancement.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
"I am soon to be 58 years old and long past being young. I will put my experience in the real world up against chillbill's any day."
You are older than I am. Congratulations, I hope you make it much longer.
Why not actually respond to any specific? It seems that any experience either of us has is not data relevant to the question at hand.
We had a much more thorough discussion about a year and a half ago:
http://www.progressiveu.org/102413-impending-natural-disaster#comment-21...
We failed to communicate very effectively there as well, but both of us put forth a better effort than it seems either of us is currently willing to. Our respective attitudes can be seen to harden post by post during that exchange. I apologize for my contribution to that dysfunction.
Do you dispute any of these datum since that first exchange(14 months ago)?
1) Global temperatures have declined.
2) Sea Ice has increased.
3) CO2 emissions have exceeded projections (at least until the sudden economic contraction in Oct '08).
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide