Politics of Global Warming

In other words, he is absolutely not to be trusted because he is behaving almost as badly, amorally and unethically as the corporate whores shilling for the anti-AGW side.

I'm not really convinced by your argument.

Or is this the absurdum to which you have been reductio-ing ad?

In other words, he is absolutely not to be trusted because he is behaving almost as badly, amorally and unethically as the corporate whores shilling for the anti-AGW side.

Name one and quote them.

I think your biases are causing you to read something into it that is not there.

And I think that your bias has caused you to ignore the obvious intent of Schneider's statement. This is the same Steven Schneider who stated:

"We need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

It might be a good idea if people saw a little more of the quote.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996)

http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf

Now for the comment in the APS Newsletter.

They also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty (pg. xi of Ref. 3) and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author’s views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn.3,4,5 What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a sound bite communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues (e.g. p. 213 of Ref. 3). I also urge that scientists, when they offer probabilities, work hard to distinguish which are objective and which are subjective, as well as what is the scientific basis for any probability offered.

It is so shocking to see climate change denialists engaging in quote mining and excerpting to invert the meaning of a climate scientists words. [/sarc]

In other words, he is absolutely not to be trusted because he is behaving almost as badly, amorally and unethically as the corporate whores shilling for the anti-AGW side.

Name one and quote them.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science is a most interesting read on the topic. Yes, some energy companies are openly and consciously copying big tobacco's fairly successful campaign to deceive the public.

William JR Alexander argues there has been a total collapse of modern climate science, and that there is "no scientifically believable evidence" to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ ... ne2010.pdf

Pretty much anybody from the "Heartland Institute" (Tim Ball, Jay Lehr, Dennis Avery, et al), some doozies from there including:

"There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavourable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape..."

That would be Lehr...

Stephen (Steven) Schneider is a Climate Change whore cheerleader, willing to spread his legs for whichever quarterback theory hypothesis is popular at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko (scroll to 4:05)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds (scroll to 6:05)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvUz0mtrOk (from the beginning)

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9lySME-kwY ("Dammit Jim. I'm a Climatologist, not an Economist!")

In the early 1970s climate scientists knew of both the cooling effect from aerosols and the warming effect from greenhouse gases. And they didn't know which would win out in the short to medium term. And at that time Schneider apparently overestimated the cooling effect and understimated the warming effect.

Note that there was no prediction of an ice age. The possibility of one was raised under certain conditions. That was a scenario, not a prediction.

And you know what, we actually know more now than we did then. And because of the new information Schneider modified his estimates. A scientist actually revising his opinions, how exactly what he is supposed to do. An ice age could not be ruled out then. It can now. And I would need more than these quotes to know Scneider's actual position. Look at my previous post for the reasons why.

In other words, he is absolutely not to be trusted because he is behaving almost as badly, amorally and unethically as the corporate whores shilling for the anti-AGW side.

Name one and quote them.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science is a most interesting read on the topic. Yes, some energy companies are openly and consciously copying big tobacco's fairly successful campaign to deceive the public.

Oh boy, a smear piece by the Union of Commie Concerned Scientists. How hard-left of you. This is the group that was founded as an anti-Vietnam War group, and now lends their "scientific credibility" to railing against the Iraq War, non-organic foods, genetically modified crops (including making false claims that GM corn is a threat to the Monarch butterfly), opposing urban sprawl, and advocating abortion, right?

This is the group that claimed that "It is now abundantly clear that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” -- back in 1980...
http://activistcash.com/organization_ov ... scientists
And now they attack Exxon-Mobil. Who could have predicted that? Let's look for their agenda in the hit-piece you waved around, shall we? From page 25-26:

Lawmakers and candidates should reject campaign contributions from ExxonMobil and its executives
until [...] the corporation ends its opposition to mandatory regulation of global warming emissions from fossil fuels.
[...]
The true signal that ExxonMobil’s disinformation campaign has been defeated will come when Congress passes policies that ensure global warming emission reductions. Congress should bring stakeholders—including ExxonMobil—to the table, as lawmakers develop and enact a set of policies to achieve mandatory global warming emission reductions
[...]
In addition, Congress should shift government energy support and incentives away from conventional coal, oil, and gas and toward clean, renewable energy sources.
[...]
These actions will not only reduce global warming emissions [at massive expense and damage to the economy -- Ich.], but will help address national security concerns about our growing oil dependence, reduce demand pressures that are driving up natural gas prices, save energy consumers billions of dollars [unless you're a taxpayer shelling out the billions of dollars on the green "incentives" -- Ich.], and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs producing clean energy and vehicle technologies [while destroying jobs for millions of others -- Ich.].
[Funny how these "concerned scientists" are bypassing science and banging the drum about economic, political, and social goals, eh? -- Ich.]
None of the top 100 U.S. mutual funds support climate change resolutions. For example, the three largest mutual fund companies: American Funds, Fidelity, and Vanguard all have major holdings in ExxonMobil, but have not yet committed to support future climate resolutions. More pressure from investors is needed to influence these and other mutual fund companies.

Non-scientific, hard-left, activist political agenda -- who, us?

I haven't read the whole thing, but the hit piece seems heavy on innuendo and short on hard evidence of "amoral", "unethical" "corporate whoring". Yeah, ExxonMobil supports groups that oppose insanity like the Kyoto Protocol, and some of those groups aren't always accurate or reliable, but welcome to the real world. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" are major fuck-ups, liars, and scaremongers on the other side, so they're great ones to talk, aren't they? But I guess on your planet, it's only "amoral" and "unethical" and "whoring" when there's a corporation involved that can be self-righteously denounced as Evil(tm).

And all the histrionics about trying to make this equal to the tobacco propaganda is inexcusable -- carbon dioxide is not cancer, and going cold-turkey on petroleum has negative side effects far more serious and far-reaching that quitting smoking.

ExxonMobil costs a bit more than the gas stations I've been filling up at, but if you and the Union of Concerned Scientists are against them, I think I may have to start giving them all my business, especially now that you've informed me of the yeoman's work they're doing to offset the insanity of the environmentalist leftists. Thanks for letting me know.

William JR Alexander argues there has been a total collapse of modern climate science, and that there is "no scientifically believable evidence" to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ ... ne2010.pdf

That's nice. What does that have to do with your claim, and the challenged I posed to you? WJR Alexander appears to be a "true believer" on this topic, and it's not like he's in a position to know better (he's not a climate scientist, he's a freaking civil engineer), so he's probably just overestimating his competence on this subject. He may be an idiot, but how do you count this as support for your assertion of "amoral", "unethical", and "whoring" (especially since his paper declares that he accepts no money for his opinion). Do you know something about him that you have not yet presented, or do you just always assume the worst about people (wait, don't answer that). Not even your own favorite hit-piece links WJR Alexander to ExxonMobil or any other oil company, so if you had a relevant point here, what was it?

Pretty much anybody from the "Heartland Institute" (Tim Ball, Jay Lehr, Dennis Avery, et al), some doozies from there including:

"There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavourable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape..."

That would be Lehr...

Again, that's nice, where's the evidence of "amoral", "unethical", "coporate whoring"? Yes, ExxonMobil throws a small amount of money (relatively speaking) to the Heartland Institute, which is understandable, but are you alleging that the Heartland Institute is simply lying for cash and that Lehr et al don't actually believe what they write (wrong or not)? On what do you base this accusation?

This reminds me of the despicable hit piece CNN did a number of years back, "exposing" the shocking truth that the NRA gives contributions to politicians who later (*gasp*) voted in ways that the NRA desired (all presented with charts and graphs and statistics). CNN's breathless "reporting" tried mightily to imply that this "proved" that the politicians' votes were "bought". It never seemed to have occurred to the brilliant minds at CNN that most people and groups (including the NRA) tend to choose to throw their money behind candidates that *already* hold the same positions they do, and thus will (surprise surprise) vote the same way the contributors would like them to.

...And I think that your bias has caused you to ignore the obvious intent of Schneider's statement. This is the same Steven Schneider who stated:

"We need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

In other words, he is absolutely not to be trusted because he is behaving almost as badly, amorally and unethically as the corporate whores shilling for the anti-AGW side.

The entities making the most off the AGW controversy are those very corporations. You noticed the profits the oil companies have made recently? Making profits from not drilling is a lot more fun than making profits from drilling, and they get to brag to their leftist friends how smart they are to save the planet and make bank at the same time.

There are some whores out there all right, but the folks fighting the AGW meme so that the little people can fuel their lives aren't them.

Talking about companies making money from artificial scarcity reminds me of things I read when I was an employee of Southern California Edison about 20 years ago.

They were claiming they could make money by closing power plants. And that they could also make money by paying customers cash to buy more efficient appliances, so that they used less electricity.

I didn't get it then. Now I do, now that California pays one of the highest prices for electricity.

I don't know how SCE has done financially, but I suspect it would have been a good stock to hold.

If you are a major energy user or producer, being green pays green. If you are a consumer, not so much.

Talking about companies making money from artificial scarcity reminds me of things I read when I was an employee of Southern California Edison about 20 years ago.

They were claiming they could make money by closing power plants. And that they could also make money by paying customers cash to buy more efficient appliances, so that they used less electricity.

I didn't get it then. Now I do, now that California pays one of the highest prices for electricity.

I don't know how SCE has done financially, but I suspect it would have been a good stock to hold.

If you are a major energy user or producer, being green pays green. If you are a consumer, not so much.

Sooner or later, California will run out of border states willing to generate electricity for them. Things may get interesting.

This is what fascinates me about the whole CAGW Hoax. All of the proponents have the players mixed up. Cap and Trade was an Enron idea. All of the oil and power companies make out like bandits.

If the CAGW hoax wasn't invented by the government and the power companies they are certainly the ones benefiting.

I learned long ago that money never lies.

This is what fascinates me about the whole CAGW Hoax. All of the proponents have the players mixed up. Cap and Trade was an Enron idea. All of the oil and power companies make out like bandits.

If the CAGW hoax wasn't invented by the government and the power companies they are certainly the ones benefiting.

I learned long ago that money never lies.

Usually they aren't this blatant ...

GM CEO: Hey’s who’s up for a one-dollar hike in federal gas tax?

They don’t call it Government Motors for nothing, you know:

General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he’s confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker. …

And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.

A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.

“There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits,” he said. “What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs.”

By taxing production, Akerson refers to the effort to raise the CAFE standards for average fuel efficiency. The Obama administration wants to push US automakers to stop producing so-called gas guzzlers, pushing the average efficiency to as high as 62 MPG by 2025. Akerson says that will add $3500 to the average price of cars, which will put US automakers in poor competitive position against their imported competition. ...

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/08/g ... l-gas-tax/

A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.

Great idea. And people who are struggling financially and having trouble affording fuel at $4/gal will just throw up their hands when the government raises the taxes on gasoline and go out and spend thousands (which I'm sure they can afford) on a new or newer car. If not, I guess they can just get around on bicycles. That could help with the obesity epidemic. It's win-win!

... That could help with the obesity epidemic. It's win-win!

Sure did wonders for this dude ...

Climate Change and Confirmation Bias
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.

The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate. ...

The researchers report that people whose values are located in Individualist/Hierarchy spaces “can be expected to be skeptical of claims of environmental and technological risks. Such people, according to the theory, intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such claims would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behavior that Hierarchical/Individualists value.” On the other hand Egalitarian/Communitarians “tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as the source of unjust disparities in wealth and power. They therefore find it congenial, the theory posits, to see those forms of behavior as dangerous and thus worthy of restriction.” On this view, then, Egalitarian/Communitarians would be more worried about climate change risks than would be Hierarchical/Individualists.

On a scale in which 1 means no risk and 10 means extreme risk of climate change, the average for the overall sample was a score of 5.7. Hierarchical/Individualists averaged 3.15 points on climate change risk, whereas Egalitarian/Communitarians scored 7.4 on average. The public irrationality thesis predicts that as scientific literacy and numeracy increases the gap between Hierarchical/Individualists and Egalitarian/Communitarians should lessen. Instead, the Yale researchers found that “among Hierarchical/Individualists science/numeracy is negatively (emphasis theirs) correlated with such concern. Hence, cultural polarization actually gets bigger, not smaller as science literacy and numeracy increase.” ...

Climate Change and Confirmation Bias
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.

The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.

Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate. ...

The researchers report that people whose values are located in Individualist/Hierarchy spaces “can be expected to be skeptical of claims of environmental and technological risks. Such people, according to the theory, intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such claims would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behavior that Hierarchical/Individualists value.” On the other hand Egalitarian/Communitarians “tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as the source of unjust disparities in wealth and power. They therefore find it congenial, the theory posits, to see those forms of behavior as dangerous and thus worthy of restriction.” On this view, then, Egalitarian/Communitarians would be more worried about climate change risks than would be Hierarchical/Individualists.

On a scale in which 1 means no risk and 10 means extreme risk of climate change, the average for the overall sample was a score of 5.7. Hierarchical/Individualists averaged 3.15 points on climate change risk, whereas Egalitarian/Communitarians scored 7.4 on average. The public irrationality thesis predicts that as scientific literacy and numeracy increases the gap between Hierarchical/Individualists and Egalitarian/Communitarians should lessen. Instead, the Yale researchers found that “among Hierarchical/Individualists science/numeracy is negatively (emphasis theirs) correlated with such concern. Hence, cultural polarization actually gets bigger, not smaller as science literacy and numeracy increase.” ...

So, lefties are scientifically and numerically illiterate.

I knew it.

So, lefties are scientifically and numerically illiterate.

I knew it.

But well educated.

So, lefties are scientifically and numerically illiterate.

I knew it.

But well educated.

Well credentialed. I wouldn't call it "education".

So, lefties are scientifically and numerically illiterate.

I knew it.

But well educated.

Well credentialed. I wouldn't call it "education".

An important distinction.

Climate Change and Confirmation Bias
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.

Surprise! The more educated you are the better you are at finding reasons to believe what you want to believe. And many progressives' reasons for accepting AGW are as bad as the reasons that many conservatives and libertarians have for denying it. In other words, the progressives are right and their opponents wrong in this case mostly by accident.

And I have seen progressives who argued thay AGW was a plot against the underdeveloped countries and couldn't be real. Not many, but they exist. Their arguments were srikingly similar to those of conservative denialists.

Climate Change and Confirmation Bias
A new study suggests that your values, not science, determine your views about climate change.

Surprise! The more educated you are the better you are at finding reasons to believe what you want to believe. And many progressives' reasons for accepting AGW are as bad as the reasons that many conservatives and libertarians have for denying it. In other words, the progressives are right and their opponents wrong in this case mostly by accident.

And I have seen progressives who argued thay AGW was a plot against the underdeveloped countries and couldn't be real. Not many, but they exist. Their arguments were srikingly similar to those of conservative denialists.

Belief, acceptance, indifference, skepticism, or outright denial are all irrelevant attitudes when there is no rational plan to deal with it in the first place.

Pshaw, you Deniers will next start saying things like the Earth's climate has changed in the past, the Sun is the major driver of the climate and there were animal extinctions before the invention of the SUV

All lies!

Really, considering their knowledge of the history of the planet, not the human portion on it, how are the Climate Change types much different in ignorance than the Young Earthers of bible-thumping fame?

For us all to die of cancer next year would certainly be very dramatic but cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

Now, if anyone claims that this means that Bozo predicted that everyone will die of cancer next year, that person would be a rotten liar. Bozo was clearly just mentioning the possibility of everyone dying of cancer next year, with the obvious intent to frighten people. (And Bozo just happens also to be pushing everyone to drink his snake oil.)

- - - - - - -

Heartland Institute's NIPCC reports draw conclusions only from published scientific literature. They are actually doing the job that the IPCC claims to be doing.

Really, considering their knowledge of the history of the planet, not the human portion on it, how are the Climate Change types much different in ignorance than the Young Earthers of bible-thumping fame?

Huh.... Huh.... I'm thinking, I'm thinking.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.

The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

So, resignation is a typical response when questionable papers are published?