Is this the best argument Bolt has?
May. 28th, 2007 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheAndrew Bolt quotes all the usual suspects in his latest froth about how The Great Global Warming Swindle is Right And True And Good, All Other (Mis)information Is Alarmist Propaganda Spread By The Biased Leftist Stalinist Stronghold the ABC.
Ooh, ooh, let's have a look at his examples, eh?
> Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama’s Earth System Science Centre
Well, actually he has also said that there is definitely Global Warming — as he should know, as he is one of the people who measured it — and has also said that there cannot but be an anthropogenic cause, but his theory is that it is not through Greenhouse Effect.
So he has said that Global Warming is real, but isn't why most people think it is.
Oh, and he's a Southern Baptist with a degree in Divinity. That means nothing in itself, but kep reading.
> Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist
Hrm. That almost seems like a legitimate example. A professional Climatologist who doesn't belong to a paid-up Denier Association, saying “There isn’t a consensus among scientists.” Seems straightforward enough. Only... ‘consensus’ about what? What were the circumstances? Well, the quote was to a Rotary Meeting, those noted left-wing provocateurs. And his message was, again, the Climate is changing, we just don't know why.
Apropos of nothing, “He serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Starkville First United Methodist Church”. Means nothing, of course. That is, of itself, completely irrelevent.
> Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA’s senior climate scientist
Well, he also believes in Intelligent Design... No, no, he is a Reputable Scientist, and that other stuff is irrelevent. He was, after all, awarded a prize for measuring that very warming. He, again, says that the current effect is real, but counters that it is less relevent over an extended period, ie., that the measurements cannot be relied on more than 400 years ago.
He also “is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute.” Those are only two right-wing Climate-Change-Denying organisations, one funded by car companies, the other by ExxonMobil [pdf]. But don't let that get in the way of the Science! And even then, the second isn't denying Climate Change, they're just saying that it isn'toil's humanity's fault.
> Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Well, apart from his being a organic chemist, and a noted contrarian (he has a bee in his bonnet about pretty all of accepted medical practice, which is what he is really known for), why should having no background whatsoever in a field necessarily disqualify you from being an expert in it?
> Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman
Finally, a credible counter-argument. Which is to say, ‘Climate Change is real, but the effects won't be as bad as is being claimed.’ We'll put this one on the unquestionably credible pile. For a total of... well, one, so far.
> Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer
One of the designated experts at the Heartland Institute of Climate Change Denial. But don't put that against him, look at the science!
> Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert
Who resigned from the IPCC, citing concerns over politicisation. He also says that there is an anthropocentric Global Warming effect, but questions the effects on hurricane formation (which is, after all, his speciality).
That makes two credibles. Out of seven so far. Still looking.
... you know what? Fuck it. Unlike Bolt, I have a real job.
Of all the arguments from all of the people Bolt has trotted out &mdash many of them straight from the Heartland Institute — the only common argument is that “Everyone else is wrong”. If only, if only any of them agreed with any of the others.
As far as his beloved Fair and Balanced documentary goes, I'll just point you at a couple of counter-counter arguments. Namely, that The Documentary is simply wrong, and the documentary maker is full of shit.
Ooh, ooh, let's have a look at his examples, eh?
> Prof John Christy, IPCC lead author and head of Alabama’s Earth System Science Centre
Well, actually he has also said that there is definitely Global Warming — as he should know, as he is one of the people who measured it — and has also said that there cannot but be an anthropogenic cause, but his theory is that it is not through Greenhouse Effect.
So he has said that Global Warming is real, but isn't why most people think it is.
Oh, and he's a Southern Baptist with a degree in Divinity. That means nothing in itself, but kep reading.
> Prof Charles Wax, Mississippi state climatologist
Hrm. That almost seems like a legitimate example. A professional Climatologist who doesn't belong to a paid-up Denier Association, saying “There isn’t a consensus among scientists.” Seems straightforward enough. Only... ‘consensus’ about what? What were the circumstances? Well, the quote was to a Rotary Meeting, those noted left-wing provocateurs. And his message was, again, the Climate is changing, we just don't know why.
Apropos of nothing, “He serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Starkville First United Methodist Church”. Means nothing, of course. That is, of itself, completely irrelevent.
> Dr Roy Spencer, formerly NASA’s senior climate scientist
Well, he also believes in Intelligent Design... No, no, he is a Reputable Scientist, and that other stuff is irrelevent. He was, after all, awarded a prize for measuring that very warming. He, again, says that the current effect is real, but counters that it is less relevent over an extended period, ie., that the measurements cannot be relied on more than 400 years ago.
He also “is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute.” Those are only two right-wing Climate-Change-Denying organisations, one funded by car companies, the other by ExxonMobil [pdf]. But don't let that get in the way of the Science! And even then, the second isn't denying Climate Change, they're just saying that it isn't
> Prof emeritus Joel Kauffman, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Well, apart from his being a organic chemist, and a noted contrarian (he has a bee in his bonnet about pretty all of accepted medical practice, which is what he is really known for), why should having no background whatsoever in a field necessarily disqualify you from being an expert in it?
> Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman
Finally, a credible counter-argument. Which is to say, ‘Climate Change is real, but the effects won't be as bad as is being claimed.’ We'll put this one on the unquestionably credible pile. For a total of... well, one, so far.
> Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer
One of the designated experts at the Heartland Institute of Climate Change Denial. But don't put that against him, look at the science!
> Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert
Who resigned from the IPCC, citing concerns over politicisation. He also says that there is an anthropocentric Global Warming effect, but questions the effects on hurricane formation (which is, after all, his speciality).
That makes two credibles. Out of seven so far. Still looking.
... you know what? Fuck it. Unlike Bolt, I have a real job.
Of all the arguments from all of the people Bolt has trotted out &mdash many of them straight from the Heartland Institute — the only common argument is that “Everyone else is wrong”. If only, if only any of them agreed with any of the others.
As far as his beloved Fair and Balanced documentary goes, I'll just point you at a couple of counter-counter arguments. Namely, that The Documentary is simply wrong, and the documentary maker is full of shit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-28 04:32 am (UTC)I've long ago learnt to ignore Bolt. Even when he's correct, it's by luck rather than research. (Then again, has he ever been correct? This could be a good research project ...)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-28 05:26 am (UTC)Well, I do know one guy who isn't funded by EXXON.....
Date: 2007-05-28 01:04 pm (UTC)and all I can say is.... I REALLY hope Gerrit, and even the sainted Bolta, are right. Because if they're not, we're probably in a fair bit of trouble.
The thng which constantly amazes me is that the corollary seems to be:
'Hey, it's therefore OK to waste fossil fuels and not bother about renewable energy. Not to mention funding the Wahhabite lunatics to bomb our cities.'
To which I can only say.... WHAT??????
But I guess my team (Greenhouse Sceptics For Renewable Energy) would currently be a very small team. Pity, really.
Re: Well, I do know one guy who isn't funded by EXXON.....
Date: 2007-05-28 11:32 pm (UTC)Re: Well, I do know one guy who isn't funded by EXXON.....
Date: 2007-05-29 09:13 am (UTC)Peak Oil a myth????
Um.... I'm sorry, but I teach calculus and the thing about turning points is that they exist. Now maybe we haven't passed Peak Oil yet after all. Oil extraction is something at which we are getting progressively better. But if it hasn't already gone, then it's on the way, boys.... REAL soon.
Demand is rising faster than production can possibly increase. Oddly enough, the only way they could be right about the non-existence of Peak Oil is if the price rises a little higher, all the alternatives get cheaper and bingo: demand falls, production drops off again, pricesw go up again, demand falls again and so on.
HMMMM....
Catsidhe = Ad Hominem arguments. No meat in his position.
Date: 2007-07-09 05:43 am (UTC)Re: Catsidhe = Ad Hominem arguments. No meat in his position.
Date: 2007-07-09 08:05 am (UTC)When it comes to people who are funded by Exxon/Mobile via the Heartlands Institute, they have made themselves un-credible. I just point out that this is what they have done.
More of the comments being used to ‘prove‘ a widespread dissenting mainstream within Climate Science are actually nothing of the sort, being either irrelevant asides to random groups, and not themselves a scientific position, or else random contrarians with no qualifications in the field making statements with more-or-less lucidity and no scientific back-up, or else people saying ‘well, there is Global Warming, and it is Anthropogenic, but as far as my field goes I disagree with some technical aspects of the IPCC (or whatever)’, which somehow ‘this part of the model is, in my view, inaccurate’ turns into ‘THERZ N0 GLoBL WRM!NG’ when people like Bolt quote them, or else they are perfectly valid political statements, which have of themselves no scientific content. They also are saying ‘GCC is real and Anthropogenic, but I don't like this committee.’
There is very little actual dissenting Science to look at, as far as I can see. And where it exists, in the scientific literature, it is quite adequately dealt with there. Hm, maybe not ‘dealt with’, that sounds too confrontational. Instead, say that it is subjected to the usual scientific rigour, and either refuted, or is added to the models to improve the predictions.
What we have listed above is not ‘science’. What we have above is opinion, with more or less — usually less — credibility behind it, but opinion nonetheless.
And when deniers do try to present ‘scientific argument’ (which is a strange name for it, because it is usually un-peer-reviewed polemic), it tends to backfire when people who know what they're talking about read it.
But thank you for participating. Might I ask, out of purely prurient curiosity, how you stumbled over my little attempt to make the world a more rational place?