Coyote Blog highlights more global warming hysteria. I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment.
Former Federal Election Commission header Bradley Smith has a good take on the Citizens United decision.
Hugo Chavez hates video games and Barbie dolls -- that is to say, capitalism. Just another reason why embargoes against totalitarian regimes are so counter-productive.
TGRIG: "Coyote Blog highlights more global warming hysteria. I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
Really? Have you educated yourself in climate science or just the media debate?
Yes, I've read a fair amount about climate science. Am I any kind of expert? No. But I do think that more than a few global warming doom-mongers are motivated by a desire to advance an anti-capitalist agenda under the guise of environmental concern.
In any case, check out this story from a leading climate scientist who admits presenting false data in an effort to place political pressure to act on global warming:
I guess it's ironic that you answered my question by sourcing a press release. I take you haven't read any actual published science papers on the subject.
So let me get this straight. You're of the opinion that there's an international conspiracy ("more than a few") of scientists who want to destroy capitalism, amiright?
In support of this "theory" you summon a news article that dramatizes a barely mentioned statement in chapter 10 of the IPCC Working Group 2 report,* a claim which did not make it into the summary for policy makers, and which completely ignores the fact that Himalayan glaciers are in fact not doing fine.
A more rational way to view this non-conspiracy would be to judge the IPCC not on the bases of a few errors in their report, but how the IPCC handles those errors. Are they covering them up or denying they exist? Additionally, this in no way disproves AGW.
A link with some of that boring science stuff you hated in high school, satisfactorily addressing the Himalayan glacier confusion.
"First, in the IPCC Fourth Assessment of 2007, Working Group II stated: Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
This statement is in error.
To clarify the actual situation:
1.Himalayan rates of recession are not exceptional.b
2.The first “2035” is from WWF 2005, which cites a news story about an unpublished study that does not estimate a date for disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.
3.The second “2035”, an apparent typographic error, is not in WWF 2005, but can be traced circumstantially to a rough estimatee of the shrinkage of all extra polar glaciers (excluding those in basins of internal drainage) between the present and 2350.
4.In conflict with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, disappearance by 2035 would require a 25-fold acceleration during 1999–2035 from the loss rate estimated for 1960–1999.
5.This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC’s review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate."
*Working group 2 concentrates on studying climate impacts. Working group 1 looks at the actual science behind climate change. WG1 analysis is what most people use when they reference IPCC.
So let me get this straight. You're of the opinion that there's an international conspiracy ("more than a few") of scientists who want to destroy capitalism, amiright?
No, you're wrong. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I said that I suspect a lot of global warming worriers are "more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
Do I think there is a grand conspiracy? No. Do I think a majority of climate scientists think like this? No. It's not a conspiracy, it's a sloppiness which results from being blinded by ideology.
Once you understand that my accusation is not of a conspiracy, the rest of your post become irrelevant.
That said, I always appreciate thoughtful comments, even when they are in disagreement.
Backpeddle? "A lot" is what I said in my initial post. I chose my words deliberately, had meant to say a majority I would have said "most". There are at least 20,000 climate scientists, 1,000 of which would constitute "a lot" and yet only 5% of the total.
I know it's more fun to argue with what you wish I said than what I actually said, but I'm not going to let you.
"A lot" by all accounts means to a very great extent. Look it up.
To put it in terms you might better appreciate, one Lincoln to the Benjamin is not a lot of money.
Wouldn't it just have been easier to say you oversold your position a little? Especially considering that your opinion is based on not a lot of evidence?
Or in other words, you're trying to make an argument based on newspapers and magazine articles. Unless you are prepared to discuss a primary literature paper you’ve failed.
means "a large number or amount or extent". "Extent" is one definition, as is "large number" as I employed the term. As previously stated, a thousand scientists is a large number but is not a majority.
Did I oversell my position based on little evidence? Well, I never said my opinion was based on that piece of evidence alone -- yet another example of you reading too much into what I said. If you must know, I have that position for a number of reasons. One is that the solutions preferred by global warming activists seem to dovetail nicely with restrictions on capitalism and expanded government control. I am also mindful of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore's quote:
"The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed: the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them; and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than they do anything with ecology or science.
You've consistently misrepresented me in this debate. You accused me of alleging a conspiracy, when I said no such thing. You accused me of thinking that a majority of scientists are anti-capitalist when I said no such thing. You said I was referring to "scientists" when I said no such thing (I said "these people" -- a reference not to scientists but global warming hysterics, as not all who promote such a view are scientists -- Al Gore being the most prominent example). You also implied that I based my opinions on the one link I provided, which is not true.
Maybe you should quit trying to refute arguments I never made.
TGRIG: "Coyote Blog highlights more global warming hysteria. I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
The Coyote Blog post was about James Hansen, a scientist. The link you sent about Himilayan glaciers was work done by a scientist. It also discusses members of the IPCC review board, again scientists.
Later on you say:
TGRIG: "You said I was referring to "scientists" when I said no such thing (I said "these people" -- a reference not to scientists but global warming hysterics,"
We can either chalk it up to sloppy writing or a misleading statement. You decide.
Here's the problem I have with your argument, which is looking less like an actual argument and more like uninformed opinion. If the science behind AGW is broken or unreliable it means the whole scientific process is unreliable/broken because AGW research spans many diverse fields of science from geology to ecology to climate to meteorology to glaciology to paleobotony to anthropology, etc., and they all publish in the very same or similar peer-reviewed journals every other scientist publishes in.
Are you just as much in denial of the scientific consensus on evolution?
The Coyote Blog post was about James Hansen, a scientist.
The link was partially about Hansen and partially about Keith Farnish, who was actually the focus of my anti-capitalist comment for rhetoric such as "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization."
Farnish is not a scientist at all, but an environmental activist whose professional background is in IT security.
The link you sent about Himilayan glaciers was work done by a scientist. It also discusses members of the IPCC review board, again scientists.
Yes, and in the same comment that I included the link I also referenced "global warming doom-mongers," not scientists.
We can either chalk it up to sloppy writing or a misleading statement. You decide.
I'd chalk it up to your consistent desire to argue with things I never said.
Here's the problem I have with your argument, which is looking less like an actual argument and more like uninformed opinion. If the science behind AGW is broken or unreliable it means the whole scientific process is unreliable/broken because AGW research spans many diverse fields of science from geology to ecology to climate to meteorology to glaciology to paleobotony to anthropology, etc., and they all publish in the very same or similar peer-reviewed journals every other scientist publishes in.
Well, yes, it was an opinion. I don't see how "I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment" could be construed as an argument.
Well, your refusal to actually engage with what I said has been maddening as well. It is perfectly obvious that you read my blog post and made some unsubstantiated assumptions -- mainly that I think a majority of scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to advance an anti-capitalist agenda.
You saw what you wanted to see and wanted to have an argument along those lines. I have refused to play that game and, instead of walking back your criticisms, you have thrown up your hands in frustration and headed for the exit. Just as well I suppose.
I have a BA in International Affairs and MA in International Trade and Investment Policy. I live in Washington, DC and work for a Fortune Global 500 company as a public policy analyst. I can be contacted at 2getrichisglorious-at-gmail.com.
Feared by socialist dictators.
15 comments:
TGRIG: "Coyote Blog highlights more global warming hysteria. I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
Really? Have you educated yourself in climate science or just the media debate?
Yes, I've read a fair amount about climate science. Am I any kind of expert? No. But I do think that more than a few global warming doom-mongers are motivated by a desire to advance an anti-capitalist agenda under the guise of environmental concern.
In any case, check out this story from a leading climate scientist who admits presenting false data in an effort to place political pressure to act on global warming:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
I guess it's ironic that you answered my question by sourcing a press release. I take you haven't read any actual published science papers on the subject.
So let me get this straight. You're of the opinion that there's an international conspiracy ("more than a few") of scientists who want to destroy capitalism, amiright?
In support of this "theory" you summon a news article that dramatizes a barely mentioned statement in chapter 10 of the IPCC Working Group 2 report,* a claim which did not make it into the summary for policy makers, and which completely ignores the fact that Himalayan glaciers are in fact not doing fine.
A more rational way to view this non-conspiracy would be to judge the IPCC not on the bases of a few errors in their report, but how the IPCC handles those errors. Are they covering them up or denying they exist? Additionally, this in no way disproves AGW.
A link with some of that boring science stuff you hated in high school, satisfactorily addressing the Himalayan glacier confusion.
http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf
Let me draw your attention to pg40.
"First, in the IPCC Fourth Assessment of 2007, Working Group II stated: Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).
This statement is in error.
To clarify the actual situation:
1.Himalayan rates of recession are not exceptional.b
2.The first “2035” is from WWF 2005, which cites a news story about an unpublished study that does not estimate a date for disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.
3.The second “2035”, an apparent typographic error, is not in WWF 2005, but can be traced circumstantially to a rough estimatee of the shrinkage of all extra polar glaciers (excluding those in basins of internal drainage) between the present and 2350.
4.In conflict with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, disappearance by 2035 would require a 25-fold acceleration during 1999–2035 from the loss rate estimated for 1960–1999.
5.This was a bad error. It was a really bad paragraph, and poses a legitimate question about how to improve IPCC’s review process. It was not a conspiracy. The error does not compromise the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which for the most part was well reviewed and is highly accurate."
*Working group 2 concentrates on studying climate impacts. Working group 1 looks at the actual science behind climate change. WG1 analysis is what most people use when they reference IPCC.
So let me get this straight. You're of the opinion that there's an international conspiracy ("more than a few") of scientists who want to destroy capitalism, amiright?
No, you're wrong. I never said anything about a conspiracy. I said that I suspect a lot of global warming worriers are "more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
Do I think there is a grand conspiracy? No. Do I think a majority of climate scientists think like this? No. It's not a conspiracy, it's a sloppiness which results from being blinded by ideology.
Once you understand that my accusation is not of a conspiracy, the rest of your post become irrelevant.
That said, I always appreciate thoughtful comments, even when they are in disagreement.
TGRIG: "I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism (snip)"
TGRIG: "Do I think a majority of climate scientists think like this? No."
heh
Not really sure I understand your response. "A lot" and "majority" are not the same.
You're right, you're using "a lot" as a weasel word to backpeddle.
So how about a CONSENSUS of climate scientists conclude AGW.
Backpeddle? "A lot" is what I said in my initial post. I chose my words deliberately, had meant to say a majority I would have said "most". There are at least 20,000 climate scientists, 1,000 of which would constitute "a lot" and yet only 5% of the total.
I know it's more fun to argue with what you wish I said than what I actually said, but I'm not going to let you.
"A lot" by all accounts means to a very great extent. Look it up.
To put it in terms you might better appreciate, one Lincoln to the Benjamin is not a lot of money.
Wouldn't it just have been easier to say you oversold your position a little? Especially considering that your opinion is based on not a lot of evidence?
Or in other words, you're trying to make an argument based on newspapers and magazine articles. Unless you are prepared to discuss a primary literature paper you’ve failed.
Well, if you want to get into semantics, "a lot" according to this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=RAo&defl=en&q=define:lot&ei=bw5fS7TAJI7ClAfcrO3gCw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
means "a large number or amount or extent". "Extent" is one definition, as is "large number" as I employed the term. As previously stated, a thousand scientists is a large number but is not a majority.
Did I oversell my position based on little evidence? Well, I never said my opinion was based on that piece of evidence alone -- yet another example of you reading too much into what I said. If you must know, I have that position for a number of reasons. One is that the solutions preferred by global warming activists seem to dovetail nicely with restrictions on capitalism and expanded government control. I am also mindful of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore's quote:
"The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed: the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement, bringing their neo-Marxism with them; and learnt to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation than they do anything with ecology or science.
You've consistently misrepresented me in this debate. You accused me of alleging a conspiracy, when I said no such thing. You accused me of thinking that a majority of scientists are anti-capitalist when I said no such thing. You said I was referring to "scientists" when I said no such thing (I said "these people" -- a reference not to scientists but global warming hysterics, as not all who promote such a view are scientists -- Al Gore being the most prominent example). You also implied that I based my opinions on the one link I provided, which is not true.
Maybe you should quit trying to refute arguments I never made.
Actually here's what you said:
TGRIG: "Coyote Blog highlights more global warming hysteria. I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment."
The Coyote Blog post was about James Hansen, a scientist. The link you sent about Himilayan glaciers was work done by a scientist. It also discusses members of the IPCC review board, again scientists.
Later on you say:
TGRIG: "You said I was referring to "scientists" when I said no such thing (I said "these people" -- a reference not to scientists but global warming hysterics,"
We can either chalk it up to sloppy writing or a misleading statement. You decide.
Here's the problem I have with your argument, which is looking less like an actual argument and more like uninformed opinion. If the science behind AGW is broken or unreliable it means the whole scientific process is unreliable/broken because AGW research spans many diverse fields of science from geology to ecology to climate to meteorology to glaciology to paleobotony to anthropology, etc., and they all publish in the very same or similar peer-reviewed journals every other scientist publishes in.
Are you just as much in denial of the scientific consensus on evolution?
The Coyote Blog post was about James Hansen, a scientist.
The link was partially about Hansen and partially about Keith Farnish, who was actually the focus of my anti-capitalist comment for rhetoric such as "The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization."
Farnish is not a scientist at all, but an environmental activist whose professional background is in IT security.
The link you sent about Himilayan glaciers was work done by a scientist. It also discusses members of the IPCC review board, again scientists.
Yes, and in the same comment that I included the link I also referenced "global warming doom-mongers," not scientists.
We can either chalk it up to sloppy writing or a misleading statement. You decide.
I'd chalk it up to your consistent desire to argue with things I never said.
Here's the problem I have with your argument, which is looking less like an actual argument and more like uninformed opinion. If the science behind AGW is broken or unreliable it means the whole scientific process is unreliable/broken because AGW research spans many diverse fields of science from geology to ecology to climate to meteorology to glaciology to paleobotony to anthropology, etc., and they all publish in the very same or similar peer-reviewed journals every other scientist publishes in.
Well, yes, it was an opinion. I don't see how "I genuinely think a lot of these people are more motivated by a hatred of capitalism than concern for the environment" could be construed as an argument.
That's it for me. Your refusal to engage with anything substantial is breathtaking.
Well, your refusal to actually engage with what I said has been maddening as well. It is perfectly obvious that you read my blog post and made some unsubstantiated assumptions -- mainly that I think a majority of scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy to advance an anti-capitalist agenda.
You saw what you wanted to see and wanted to have an argument along those lines. I have refused to play that game and, instead of walking back your criticisms, you have thrown up your hands in frustration and headed for the exit. Just as well I suppose.
Post a Comment