Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus continue their pushback against “Climate McCarthyism,” with a particular focus on efforts to equate unorthodox climate views with Holocaust denial, guilt-by-association, and lead Climate McCarthyite Joseph Romm. Roger Pielke Jr. chimes in here.
I posted earlier on Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ first fusillade.
UPDATE: Ron Bailey chimes in.
Steve says:
So, the anti-McCarthyists are the ones AGAINST using inappropriate and overwrought historical analogies to demonize the other side of the debate. Gotcha.
November 10, 2009, 2:06 pmHouston Lawyer says:
At least McCarthy identified a real threat. The threat in the current circumstance is to lower our standard of living to address an imaginary problem.
Threats that suppress a dissenting viewpoint have very real consequences. Must not point out that some Muslims in our armed forces have extremist Islamist views. That would be a threat against diversity, our most recently discovered and overriding constitutional principle.
November 10, 2009, 2:21 pmSteve says:
As I noted in the last thread, there are some people who never shut up about how they are supposedly silenced. The anti-Israel types on the left and the anti-Islam types on the right are the most noteworthy examples.
This sort of thing is the usual last resort of people who can’t win the argument on the merits. If the anti-climate change folks had actual science on their side, they wouldn’t have to play on emotional sympathy with the “oh no, I’m being repressed” schtick.
November 10, 2009, 2:26 pmbailey says:
I’m an outsider to this whole climate change debate and had never heard of the Breakthrough Institute until I read your previous post two days ago, but from what I’ve seen they are singularly unimpressive.
Their complaint in this post seems to be that Joe Romm (who I had also never heard of until two days ago) does not use the terms “global warming denier” and “global warming skeptic” in the way Wikipedia uses them. This, to them, is a sign of McCarthyism. Seriously? That is some weak sauce.
Moreover, they seem to be engaging in the very tactics they decry. Their post is titled “Climate McCarthyism Part 2: Equate Your Political Opponents with Holocaust Deniers.” But they cite no examples of anyone equating political opponents with Holocaust deniers. From what I can tell, their argument is that simply using the term “global warming denier” “conjures an association with Holocaust deniers.” Their source? Wikipedia.
What’s shocking about this is that these people are apparently not pajama-clad bloggers. It’s apparently their full time jobs to think and write about these issues. You’d think they’d be better at it.
November 10, 2009, 2:30 pmcookiemonsta says:
It’s sad Adler brings up the Holocaust while at the same time accusing a prominent Jewish scientist of being a McCarthyite.
- monsta
November 10, 2009, 3:06 pmArrowSmith says:
I think you are projecting a bit, no? What’s wrong with Pajamas Media? Not White-House approved media for your liking? Go slurp on Barry a bit more.
November 10, 2009, 3:07 pmrarango says:
As Houston Lawyer points out, McCarthy was pretty much on target about communists in key postions in the US government, most notably the state department eg, Alger Hiss. McCarthy’s tactics were reprehensible as were, I believe, his motivations, but he was quite correct.
November 10, 2009, 3:10 pmyankee says:
And yet they are completely unable to point to any examples of anyone equating climate change denial with Holocaust denial. Apparently every time someone uses the word “denial” it’s intended to equate it with Holocaust denial.
November 10, 2009, 3:11 pmyankee says:
So he really did have a list of 205 known communists in the state department?
November 10, 2009, 3:13 pmbailey says:
Arrowsmith: What are you talking about? Pajamas Media has nothing to do with Wikipedia. And what does Obama have to do with this?
November 10, 2009, 3:15 pmMark Field says:
Brad DeLong’s response to the first post is here.
Hiss had already been arrested and convicted before McCarthy’s first speech in WV.
November 10, 2009, 3:19 pmRyan Waxx says:
Yes, the reason they didn’t include an example is because like you, they were unable to figure out how to do a simple google search. That MUST be the reason.
November 10, 2009, 3:27 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
bailey, et al –
When people first began using the phrase “denier” in place of “skeptic” there was an extensive debate within the environmental blogosphere over whether such rhetoric was appropriate, and it was never disputed that the intent was to equate global warming skepticism with Holocaust denial. Further, there are numerous examples of folks equating climate change denial with Holocaust denial. For instance, see here, here, here, here, and here, here. This is fueled by the regular comparison of climate change to the Holocaust, ranging from Al Gore’s warning of an “Ecological Kristallnacht” in Earth in the Balance to Dave Roberts’ (since retracted) call for a “climate Nuremberg” for the climate change “denial industry.” For earlier posts on this, see these posts from 2006.
JHA
November 10, 2009, 3:40 pmCrust says:
There’s no question in my mind that the word “denier” has a pejorative or polemical connotation, unlike “skeptic” which is fairly neutral. But I don’t think it’s right to link the term exclusively to Holocaust denial. Adler compiles a list of pieces comparing AGW skepticism to Holocaust denial; point taken. But I have also seen AGW skeptics compared to people who deny 1. evolution 2. that smoking causes cancer 3. that the Atlantic cod fishery was collapsing and 4. that CFC’s damage the ozone layer.
November 10, 2009, 3:49 pmAnthony says:
Gee, there are people on the internet who use loaded and overheated language? Color me surprised. So what if Joe Romm is a jerk? The problem with McCarthy wasn’t just what he said, it’s what he said and did from a position of power.
In any case, Wikipedia is not the end-all be-all; the term ‘denialist’ is routinely used to describe AGW ‘skeptics’, whether or not they are arguing in good faith (though arguing in good faith essentially requires you to be ignorant or incompetent in basic physics).
November 10, 2009, 3:53 pmArrowSmith says:
http://newsbusters.org/node/10730
Busted.
November 10, 2009, 4:00 pmChrisTS says:
I suggest people look at the links provided b Adler before assuming these are evidence of equating Holocaust denial and climate change denial.
To the extent that the language of ‘Holocaust denial’ is used by most of the linked authors and quoted speakers, the point is pretty clearly made that they think climate change denial is dangerous and stupid; they think the same is true of Holocaust denial. Theye are not equating those who are ‘skeptics’ about climate change with the kinds of people who deny the Holocaust.
November 10, 2009, 4:01 pmRyan Waxx says:
Not the first time I’ve been hit by friendly fire in a blog discussion, but thank you for proving my point, that anyone who seriously thinks that “denier” has nothing to do with “Holocaust Denier” is five googleseconds away from enlightenment, if they bothered to expend that tiny effort.
What YOU think is irrelevant, given that the people who are actually using the term appear to agree that that’s exactly what they mean by the term. Sorry if that makes them sound like nutjobs and you don’t want to think of them that way, but that’s reality for ya.
November 10, 2009, 4:08 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
This 74 year old PRO-Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist Sez:
1. The Communist Witch Hunt hysteria created by the idiot McCarthy IS the MAIN reason we now have this ‘god” CRAP IN OUR Pledge and ON our Paper money!
FYI Neither of them were there when I graduated from High School.
This and many other things makes me (a former Christian as are most American Atheists)) wonder why most Christians are so inconsiderate and selfish by their constant pushing their superstitious MYTH on the over eighty million who believe in other, different myths and the over twenty million of us who know they are just really childish myths the psychologically weak need to cope with life!
(Lance Armstrong, Chris Reeve and Pat Tillman did not need religion and’or gods
to face danger.)
FYI The reason MOST people are religious in the first place is simply because their parents PROGRAMMED them into whatever religion they were.
2. Those who say there is NO Global Warming need to get off their tails and go do sufficient research as it IS a FACT! Anyone who disagrees can email me at:
religionsucks@webtv.net
and I shall EDUCATE them with enough evidence the vast majority of intelligent, rational & informed people would accept
as sufficient proof!
It IS also A FACT that while we humans are NOT responsible for ALL the Global Warming we certainly ARE responsible of some of it.
And the last FACT is in spite of costing a little more to do it, “Going Green” IS the INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL and RATIONAL course of action to follow as it:
A. Puts you and your loved ons IN a healthier and safer environment.
B. Enhances your life style.
C. Increases the value of your property.
D. SAVES YOU money in the long run. (And for some, in the short run.)
E. Creates both industries and JOBS.
F. Helps our earth prolong it’s existence for OUR children, grand children, etc.
November 10, 2009, 4:17 pmbailey says:
JHA,
Like I said, I’m a bystander in this debate and the word “denier” does not conjure those connotations for me. But your posts, and the posts they link to, and the posts that they criticize involve a lot of inside baseball, so maybe people who have been involved in this debate. (I, frankly, don’t care very much about this issue, but find it odd that so much energy is being devoted to policing the debate rather than talking about what to do about global warming.)
Likewise, I agree that the word “denier” is more pejorative than “skeptic,” but the charge here is not that they’re being pejorative it’s that they’re equating global warming deniers with Holocaust deniers.
Now you have provided some examples of people explicitly making that comparison, but the argument in the post is that simply using the word “denier” (a) is intended to and (b) does in fact conjure that comparison. That seems pretty far-fetched to me and you would think that a post accusing people of McCarthyism and guilt-by-association would supply some actual evidence for that assertion.
I
November 10, 2009, 4:17 pmBirdman says:
Many of the commenters are missing the forest for the trees. Does anyone really think that the term “deniers” isn’t used at least in part, quite deliberately, to bring to mind Holocaust deniers? More importantly, can anyone really deny that much of the dispute is moral/theological rather than scientific?
When Levitt appeared on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart ventured the view that Levitt had committed “heresy” against a “secular religion.” It’s dangerous if and when people become relucant to voice their honest views because of a fear of being branded a heretic (or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier). That’s not the way scientific problems get solved — in fact, that’s not the way any problems get solved. But the PCizing of the climate change issue almost certainly is having that effect, and the fact that some people are pushing back doesn’t negate that fact.
November 10, 2009, 4:19 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
HEY “rarango” et al
Were YOU Alive and OLD enough to know what was going on then?
I doubt it.
I WAS:
Well Child, the FACTS are there were VERY, VERY DAMN FEW
“communists in key postions in the US government”
The whole mess is a BLIGHT on the US and the son of bitch (McCarthy) should have been SHOT as he screwed up many hundreds, if not many thousands of GOOD Americans lives!
November 10, 2009, 4:24 pmSteve says:
It’s dangerous if and when people become relucant to voice their honest views because of a fear of being branded a heretic (or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier).
For people who are reluctant to voice their views, they sure are loud about it.
November 10, 2009, 4:25 pmEric S. says:
It’s good to know that Yankee doesn’t associate “eeny meeny miny moe” with racism, because of course the next line is “catch a tiger by his toe.”
November 10, 2009, 4:32 pmNeil C. Reinhardt says:
This 74 year old PRO-Iraq War Agnostic Atheist Activist Sez:
1. HEY “rarango” et al
Were YOU Alive and OLD enough to know what was going on then?
I doubt it.
I WAS:
Well Child, the FACTS are there were VERY, VERY DAMN FEW
“communists in key positions in the US government”
The whole mess is a BLIGHT on the US and the son of bitch (McCarthy) should have been SHOT as he really, really screwed up hundreds, if not thousands of GOOD Americans lives!
2. Knock Knock! HELLO? The denial of the Holocaust was going on long BEFORE MOST Americans had even head of Islam!
November 10, 2009, 4:32 pmgeokstr says:
Yeah, Ryan, it’s almost as believable that all those on the left, including certain commenters here (you know who you are), democratic politicians, and supposedly professional media types, don’t really mean anything derogatory or disgusting when they refer to certain of those on the right willing to stand up to them as “tea baggers” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, snicker, snicker.)
November 10, 2009, 4:38 pmJSinAZ says:
Neil C. Reinhardt says:
I want someone to explain to me how Cap And Trade will save me money over any time period. This is strictly a cost, with no return on investment over any time period.
November 10, 2009, 4:45 pmBrett says:
I don’t think they are comparing them to Holocaust deniers. The actual point of reference that most of those who understand the science of climate change and want action to be done to ameliorate it compare denialists to are creationists.
That’s because it’s apparently become fashionable to act as if a highly significant and portentous scientific conclusion is somehow a “joke” or “over-estimated”. I blame it on a combination of Ad Hominem attacks (notice all the attacks and mockery of Al Gore, even though he’s not a climate scientist and doesn’t represent the scientific community in any official way) and fear-mongering by the “skeptic” crowd.
November 10, 2009, 4:47 pmBirdman says:
Steve –
Me:
“It’s dangerous if and when people become relucant to voice their honest views because of a fear of being branded a heretic (or the equivalent of a Holocaust denier).”
You:
“For people who are reluctant to voice their views, they sure are loud about it.”
Did you deliberately or carelessly fail to reference my last sentence? — “But the PCizing of the climate change issue almost certainly is having that effect, and the fact that some people are pushing back doesn’t negate that fact.”
Do you really think the fact that some people (Nordhaus, Schellenberger, Pielke) are willing to put up a fight means that no one says “It’s not worth it” and is effectively silenced? That logic has a huge hole in it: Solzhenitsyn spoke out, so nobody in the Soviet Union was cowed into silence. Right?
Branding folks who differ from the conventional wisdom on climate change as heretics stifles speech and therefore impedes progress.
November 10, 2009, 5:07 pmrj says:
Birdman – lemmie get this straight. Just because there are plenty of people screaming at the top of their lungs about it (and others using their inside voice) doesn’t mean that people aren’t being silenced.
That’s pretty much impossible to disprove, isn’t it?
In that case, can you disprove it when someone claims that they have been silenced because they believe the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW? Chamber of Commerce functionaries, perhaps? The guy who answers the phone for Sen. Inhofe? Prove it, sucka!
November 10, 2009, 5:33 pmSteve says:
Do you really think the fact that some people (Nordhaus, Schellenberger, Pielke) are willing to put up a fight means that no one says “It’s not worth it” and is effectively silenced?
Yes, I really think so. I think they are whining about being “silenced” because they have no argument on the merits, so they have to try to make it into a conspiracy theory about how powerful people don’t want you to know the truth.
You might be able to imagine that there are dozens of climate scientists who would be producing peer-reviewed studies conclusively demonstrating that climate change is a myth, if only they weren’t afraid that Joseph Romm might call them a name. But my imagination is not as vivid as yours.
November 10, 2009, 5:37 pmAnthony says:
There are, in fact, plenty of debates that are wastes of time: at a certain point, the burden of proof is on critics of the consensus. Don’t just attack the existing theory, come up with an alternative theory, and provide evidence that supports your theory and is inconsistent with existing theory.
November 10, 2009, 5:46 pmlucia says:
Brett’s comments and a number of others seem to be based on a few misconceptions about the beliefs of those who p Joe Romm is attacking. Specifically, readers here seem to assume Joe is attacking people who don’t believe in AGW or who oppose action. This is not true.
1) Pielke JR. not only believes in AGW but also advocates for action. It appears Romm is attacking Pielke JR. because Romm doesn’t like many of Pielke Jr.’s specific positions on which actions are best, and/or Joe doesn’t like Roger’s ideas about the mechanics of how society should collective make decisions.
2) To include as many as possible in his screeds, Romm uses the phrase ‘denier/delayer’. The two words appear to be perpetually co-joined so as not to distinguish any difference. As far as I can tell, delayers seem to be those who don’t advocate the specific actions Joe wants. So, for example, if Joe currently likes cap and trade, but you advocate against it, preferring a carbon tax, then, as far as I can tell, to Romm, you are a “denier/delayer”. So, even if you believe in the most catastrophic of climate change predictions, if you are against cap and trade, you are a “denier/delayer” and rhetorically indistinguishable from someone who believes the earth’s climate is about to plunge into a glacial period.
I’m not going to delve into whether Joe’s retention of “denier” in his “denier/delayer” label is intended to evoke the holocaust. I will observe this interesting choice of labels cause a fair number of people to assume he is criticizing people who actually deny the science underlying the enhanced greenhouse effect or deny that man has caused greenhouse gases to increase. While I’m sure Joe would criticize those people his most venomous posts attach those who accept both the enhanced greenhouse effect and man’s role in increasing greenhouse gases.
3) Recently, Joe added Keith Kloor to his list of people to be criticized in long winded venomous screeds. Keith Kloor also believes in AGW; in fact, Keith appears to be a climate activist. I’m not sure how Keith got sideways with Joe, but my impression is the difficulty is that Keith criticized ‘the Freaks’ but did not call for them to be disemboweled as punishment for the sin of suggesting that geo-engineering might be a useful way to buy time while we develop better ways to reduce emissions and possibly absolute levels of greenhouse gases.
Ordinarily, I would say I’m not sure why anyone bothers complain about Romm’s vitriol laden screeds. I don’t know if Joe’s readers actually accept the contents of Joe Romm’s overblown prose as representing the truth about anything really. But the fact is, Romm is interviewed by the press and gets a good deal of traffic. So, I guess it sort of matters what Joe writes.
November 10, 2009, 5:52 pmBirdman says:
RJ –
1. No, I can’t “prove” that some people are silenced by having persons of their persuasion compared to Holocaust deniers or portrayed, to use Jon Stewart’s term, as “heretics.” (Wasn’t aware I had to “prove” anything in a blog comment.)
But that’s my belief, and it’s supported by my review of relevant posts, by my understanding of human nature, and by the furor over Levitt and Dubner’s book. Next guy to say what they said had better watch his back.
What’s absolutely clear is that anybody with any prominence who deviates in any degree from the “consensus” gets vilified. See the Adler, Nordhaus/Schellenberger, and Pielke posts. And it goes well beyond saying, “You’re wrong.”
Are you seriously suggesting that some people who embrace the conventional climate change theology have been “silenced because they believe the mainstream scientific consensus on AGW”? If so, the assertion needs no disproof beyond being even slightly familiar with the public discussion of climate change issues. The consensus folks get criticized on grounds like, “you haven’t fully thought through the economic costs of your recommendations” — not by being called evil or immoral.
November 10, 2009, 5:56 pmHouston Lawyer says:
The fact that a lot of people believe in manmade global warming doesn’t make it true. This “consensus” has all of the markings of a cult.
The “proof” consists of computer models, the real-world effects of which cannot be falsified.
We all know that sometimes the earth cools and at other times it heats up. Those who choose to believe that it is currently warming primarily because of the actions of men just happen to coincide with those who believe our wasteful habits should be limited by government coercion.
If you want to live in a tiny apartment and walk to work, feel free to do so. But don’t try to enforce that on me and mine in the name of science.
November 10, 2009, 6:22 pmAnon321 says:
As others have already suggested, it exhibits a poorly calibrated irony-detector to say (1) that critics of climate skeptics have crossed the line by using inflammatory rhetoric associated with Holocaust denial to unfairly tar climate skeptics, and (2) to brand such criticism “McCarthyism.” The “McCarthyism” label sort of undermines any criticism based in part on rhetorical excess, no?
November 10, 2009, 6:34 pmwfjag says:
.
Houston, there you go being a skeptic again. For myself, what I found to be the most convincing evidence in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was where it included the special effects footage from a SciFi movie to show melting of the artic. Who can deny Hollywood Fx? I mean, call that into question, and next you call “The Force” into question.
November 10, 2009, 6:45 pmA. Zarkov says:
Are you asserting that people like Richard Lindzen are ignorant of basic physics or arguing in bad faith? How about Professor Nir J. Shaviv of the Racah Institute of Physics. Is he ignorant of basic physics? I suggest you read some of his physics papers at his blog site ScienceBits. In particular look at his discussion of the Climate Sensitivity Factor. I would really like to hear your scientific objections to what he presents.
November 10, 2009, 7:00 pmJSinAZ says:
Well, the fact that even AGW “acceptors” such as Bjorn Lomborg (sp?) are pilloried for suggesting that we have finite resources that would be better spent on addressable problems (such as clean drinking water, education, pre-natal health, etc.) indicates just how fanatical the AGW proponents are. You might agree, but unless you heel to the notion of reducing CO2 emissions as a way to address the problem, well – you are just the worst kind of person in the world. That is a pretty clear demonstration of fanatical intolerance.
November 10, 2009, 7:06 pmA. Zarkov says:
Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), compared Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, to Adolf Hitler in a recent media interview.
November 10, 2009, 7:41 pmA. Zarkov says:
From the UK Telegraph: Climate change belief given same legal status as religion. This might be more sinister than funny because the EU and the UK now have laws against making anti-religious statements.
November 10, 2009, 7:45 pmAnthony says:
Actually, neither of them is actually arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming; they’re arguing the magnitude of the effect, which is a justifiable (if likely incorrect) stand. As you provide a link, it’s easier for me to prove this for Shaviv:
Shaviv is, as it happens, an astrophysicist; it’s rather natural for him to look for astronomical sources. His estimation of the effects of cosmic rays are disputed and probably too high; even a factor of two error (and, given no well understood mechanism, a factor of ten error would not be surprising) would make anthropogenic causes dominant.
Looking now at Lindzen, I find:
So, again, he’s not arguing the theory. Furthermore, I consider the statement and remaining essentially flat since 1998. to be dishonest use of statistics; 1998 was a local peak on a noisy function.
November 10, 2009, 7:51 pmJohn Moore says:
Hey, those special effects are generated by computer models. They must be real!
(and yes, they do in fact rely on physical modeling)
November 10, 2009, 8:20 pmTim Lambert says:
Adler is wildly wrong to say that there is no dispute that “denier” is meant to equate global warming denial with Holocaust denial. For example, Chris Mooney
Count me in as one of those opposed to Adler’s McCarthyite tactics.
November 10, 2009, 8:32 pmBruce Hayden says:
Let’s start with the fact that the models make drastic assumptions about feedback, that are appearing more and more questionable. That the Earth actually seems to have cooled this decade, as opposed to warming in the previous one. That the models tend to specifically ignore the effects of solar activity, while that is (obviously – and here is some physics for you) the almost exclusive source of heat in our climate.
And, what, pray tell is the basic physics that you are so enamored with? That CO2 is a green house gas? Is that the basis for your belief in this religion of yours?
Let me suggest in a time of thickening of Arctic ice over the last couple of years, that the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we are all doomed, school of climate change is extraordinarily simplified, and that the Earth’s climate is far more complex than that, by orders of magnitude. For one thing, there are numerous types and routes for feedback involved here, most of which are not understood, or are just becoming understood. And, it is in assuming the direction and magnitude of that feedback that those global climate models are most questionable.
Besides, even if the climate actually were warming (and best actual real evidence right now is that it isn’t), so what? Maybe the optimal climatic temperature is a bit warmer. After all, by past records, man seems to do better with a slightly warmer global climate. For one thing, there is much more land that can be farmed (even taking into account that New Orleans may be underwater – oh, wait, it already is below sea level).
November 10, 2009, 8:56 pmFrancis says:
Bruce Hayden:
As a matter of curiosity, what expertise do you bring to this issue? I’m curious about your claim the climate is “by orders of magnitude” more complex than that being modeled. While I’m no physicist, it appears to me that the fine folks at the IPCC and RealClimate, among others, have a pretty high degree of confidence in the amount of error in their models. The principal weaknesses (as I understand it) are that the models underestimate the feedback loops in the system, in areas such as ice loss in Greenland and the Antarctic West Ice Sheet and methane releases from the warming of permafrost.
November 10, 2009, 9:39 pmTom Riley says:
I think the salient point on Romm is not really a criticism of Romm, but those in the public sphere that enable a certified nutbag like Romm. Those enablers are not some small, insignificant names in the blogosphere, but the public intellectuals and politicians from whom many in the environmental movement take their direction, e.g. Friedman, Krugman….. Romm gives them permission to ignore alternative viewpoints and gives them intellectual shortcuts on many global warming issues.
To quote Ted and Michael of Breakthrough,
“There will always be bullies like Joe Romm — they are not the problem. It is the the establishment figures who goad them on, and the bystanders who could speak up but do not, fearing the consequences of doing so. If we are to move to real solutions to global warming, and protect some level of basic human decency, Joe Romm and his enablers must be challenged. For Climate McCarthyism isn’t just bad for climate policy, it’s anathema to liberal and democratic values.”
November 10, 2009, 10:38 pmA. Zarkov says:
The principle weakness lies in the cloud physics, which they cannot model with GCMs. It’s worth noting that the uncertainty range for the Climate Sensitivity Factor, 1.5C to 4.5C, is essentially unchanged for the past 30 years. That’s not a good sign. Now as to the IPCC and RealClimate, they have a vested interested in the whole enterprise don’t they?
It’s worth noting that Svante Arrhenius published what’s probably the first paper on global warming by greenhouse gases in 1896 here. Note the following from the Wikipedia entry on him:
He got pretty close to the IPCC! All that in the 19th century without an army of scientists, super computers and billions in funding.
November 10, 2009, 10:41 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Against Climate McCarthyism, Part Deux -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DriveTimeHappyHour and Jordan, Rosezell James. Rosezell James said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Against Climate McCarthyism …: And the last FACT is in spite of costin.. http://bit.ly/CF0pa [...]
November 10, 2009, 10:44 pmRicardo says:
The very next line is “An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.” I don’t agree with laws like this but this judge is simply saying that someone who feels very strongly that he shouldn’t fly in airplanes because of the effects of CO2 should have his views given the same legal protection as some want to give to pharmacists who don’t want to dispense “morning-after pills,” for instance.
November 10, 2009, 11:46 pmBruce Hayden says:
First, the IPCC is a political organization, with, in my view scant real scientific credibility. It apparently doesn’t do any original research, and its main activity is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. In short, you have a UN agency whose purpose is to agitate for AGW. Oh, and your RealClimate? Somewhat suspicious that their web hosting is by Environmental Media Services, a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is “dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues”. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s. As Glenn Beck would say, Hmm. Looks to me somewhat suspiciously like two advocacy groups, both with a lot to gain with AGW scare mongering.
Oh, and, I am sure that their models are still underestimating ice loss.
Let me add though, that there is a big difference between confidence in a model, and confidence that that model will accurately predict what is going to happen in the real world. I am willing to look at any papers that you think fit the later category, but as to the former, my view is GIGO. So, by all means, please give us links to peer reviewed papers that state that the seas are going to rise by 20 feet in the next decade or so, or that all the ice in Greenland and/or the Antarctic will melt within the next century. Not that such will happen if A, B, C, and D are true, but that regardless, that these events will transpire with a quantifiably high degree of likelihood.
And if we are talking expertise, what do you bring to the issue? Besides blind devotion to AGW advocacy groups?
November 11, 2009, 12:28 amwlpeak says:
I must say that I think the better term here would be Inquisition. Perhaps we can submit the term to the Committee of Public Safety for consideration? But then they prefer french terminology don’t they?
November 11, 2009, 12:51 amzuch says:
I think it fair to say that some AGW “skeptics” are in the same boat as ID people are in the evolution ‘debate’. Scratch the surface, and underneath the equivocation, you’ll find someone who ‘knows the truth’. But sometimes it’s not politic to say so.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 1:11 amzuch says:
The fact that 100% of mathematicians (give or take a few) say that 1 + 1 = 2 shows similar signs. This abnormal consensus has all the trappings of coercion and brain-washing. Let’s hear it for freedom of thought, and refuse to let this cabal shove this down our throat. From now on, I declare that 1 + 1 = 42. Or just maybe it does. Sometimes. When my paycheck depends on it….
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 1:21 amzuch says:
Nice “straw man” you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it….
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 1:28 amFrancis says:
Mr. Hayden:
so the answer to my question would be “none”?
the IPCC is, as two seconds of googling would show, a scientific organization established by the UN. It publishes peer reviewed papers. Your publication history is …?
The resumes of the people who write at realclimate is here. Your professional qualifications on climate modeling are …?
And as to your little insult about “blind devotion”, go f***k yourself you ignorant twit.
November 11, 2009, 1:30 amRicardo says:
This argument gets brought up a lot but it is a red herring. Actuarial models that predict lifespan have a high degree of error for any given person. That doesn’t mean we can’t say smoking will likely shorten your lifespan. The real issue is not predicting the rise in temperature to within a certain number of decimal places over the next 100 years. It is that CO2 is a significant risk factor for surface temperature increase and all the bad side effects that may have. Every climate model has a margin of error in it which is to say in reality things could be either much better or much worse than the predictions of the model.
November 11, 2009, 3:28 amA. Zarkov says:
It isn’t so much CO2 as the water vapor and other feedbacks– that’s where the uncertainty lies, and the uncertainty is big– nearly a factor of 3. The models also do not include the cosmic ray effects. Of course the cosmic ray issue is controversial and some climate scientists think they have refuted Nir’s results, but a careful reading of his reply to critics shows he still had a strong case. The easist thing is to ignore him and they do that.
November 11, 2009, 5:15 amA. Zarkov says:
They don’t just say that. In Principia Mathematica Russel and Whitehead say
So it takes nearly 400 pages to prove 1+1= 2, and Principia itself is on shaky ground.
November 11, 2009, 5:23 amegd says:
For those who dispute this, see the following quote:
I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
Actually, mathematicians don’t just say this, it is a proof. If you start with certain assumptions about numbers, sets of numbers, and mathematical operations, then you can prove that 1+1=2. And, as long as you stick to those assumptions, the math works.
The problem with AGW is that it is not a proof about how the world works, it’s a theory. As long as the theory stands, we can accept it as true. The problem is, the last few years of climate data don’t conform to the AGW theory. Most models failed to predict the recent cooling cycle, indicating that there’s something wrong with current models. It’s as if a mathematician proved that 1+1=2, but individuals who solved 1+1 started getting answers like 1, 3, 5, 18, -4, and -11.
There are two ways that this problem can be addressed. The first is to argue that cooling is proof that global warming is happening, and that the models aren’t perfect in the short term. The second is to admit that the underlying models were wrong and attempt to correct them. A mathematician seeing the results above would try to improve his proof to account for these different results, he wouldn’t staunchly defend it on the basis that the average of the results equals 2.
November 11, 2009, 9:10 amJSinAZ says:
Zuch, for all your fulminating about “deniers” – suppose I were to accept unconditionally the the theory that AGW exists. Suppose also that I were an economist who, through analysis of the costs of supporting a CO2 abatement program in the first world to the tune of many, many billions of dollars finds that spending that money on actually directly helping people was more cost effective? That is, for every dollar given to a “carbon exchange” could be better spent on a desalination plant to provide clean water. Would I be as bad as Hitler in my policy desires, as suggested by the IPCC? (BTW, thank you for the link, A. Zarkov!) No rational person would make that awful claim – and yet this is precisely the tactic used against Lomborg.
That sort of reaction from the folks you laud as science-driven is anything but – it is the hysterical reaction of the true believer when confronted by an apostate. Apostates are worse than deniers; they must be destroyed since they dilute the orthodoxy of the establishment. This very much smells like a religous movement, and those kinds of things do not end well for the minority, since the orthodox majority _just_has_to_ exterpate the non-belivers in order to acheive true purity.
If you wish to engage in a cost/benefit analysis on the subject with the assumption that the worst-case scenario of AGW proponents holds, go ahead. The money wasted on dealing with generated CO2 would be much better spent on actually helping those who would be directly affected by the parade of horribles, instead of making investors in Carbon Swap Exchanges (read A. Gore) exceedingly rich.
November 11, 2009, 9:56 amMark Buehner says:
For the record:
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Ellen Goodman Boston Globe
Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.
Joel Connely Seattle PI
“In January 2007, Pelley was asked why he refused to include global warming skeptics in his reporting. He responded, “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”"
November 11, 2009, 10:22 amScott Pelley, CBS News
zuch says:
For those that quibbled with my mathematical example (and missed the bigger point), I could have said that 100% of biologists agree that DNA is the genetic material in eukaryotes. This is not a “proof”. But nonetheless, it shows the same cult-like following as does that “1 + 1 = 2″ business.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 10:51 amzuch says:
Stuff and nonsense. There is no “last few years” of a “cooling cycle” (unless you get your ‘science’ from insHannity and FauxSnooze). You can cherry-pick individual years all you want, but things ain’t cooling off.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 11:09 amzuch says:
Who ever said you’d be “as bad as Hitler [...] as suggested by the IPCC”?!?!? Not the IPCC, I can assure you. It’s probably better form to argue against positions that are actually taken (and defended) by your forensic opponents.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 11:18 amzuch says:
Just a FYI: Hitler is not tops on the list of Holocaust deniers, either, even assuming arguendo that anyone’s trying to say that AGW deniers are substantially [and morally] the same as Holocaust deniers.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 11:22 amzuch says:
Oh, I think instead that such funds would be better served buying me 200 ft. yachts, Beluga caviar, and a nice 1000hp Bugatti, along with other creature comfort sundries. Who cares if the whole world goes to hell after I die? I’ll be frickin’ dead, and why not enjoy myself to the max while I’m still around? Now where’s my Yangtze river dolphin skin jacket….
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 11:27 amDan Weber says:
Isn’t it possible for someone to think that AGW is very likely, yet Joe Romm does no service to national discourse? That attack on Keith Kloor was just bizarre.
November 11, 2009, 11:34 amMark Buehner says:
Oooooh, the hockey stick makes its triumphant return! Wouldn’t want to hold your breath on that one.
What is FACT is that temps haven’t been rising over the last 10 years, which (if i’m not mistaken) is the point of Global Warming. More importantly, nobody predicted that, which makes all the post-facto rationalizing suspect. Whether the earth has cooled or not relative to this or any other epoch (that you wish to cherrypick!) is immaterial. All the models of the late 90s predicted warming in the 2000s. That warming didn’t occur. Hence, the predictions failed. If i’m not mistaken, the point of science is to reexamine your hypothesis when experiment contradicts your hypothesis. Or in laymans terms- you told us the earth was going to get hotter this decade and it didn’t, why should we believe what you say about the next decade? And if (contrary to the scare tactics) none of this really becomes material for many decades or centuries, why the hell is it priority one right now?
November 11, 2009, 11:38 amAnthony says:
What is FACT is that temps haven’t been rising over the last 10 years, which (if i’m not mistaken) is the point of Global Warming.
November 11, 2009, 12:45 pmWhat is a FACT is that 1998 was a spike year on a high-noise function. If you compare to 1996, 1999, or 2000 temperature has risen quite a lot, if you compare to 1997 temperature has risen modestly (see here. It would be nice if NOAA actually explained how they generated the curve for the multi-year data, but the pattern is obvious enough from the single year data).
Mark Buehner says:
“What is a FACT is that 1998 was a spike year on a high-noise function.”
Funny I don’t recall hearing from the AGW industry in 98 that it was a spike year. Quite the opposite as I recall.
November 11, 2009, 1:22 pmJSinAZ says:
Zuch:
Since you did not bother to RTFL thoughtfully provided by A. Zarkov, here is the quote from Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Short version for you, Zuch – you were wrong. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. Care to recant on any closely-held religious views regarding the treatment given to even AGW supporters, (who depart from the orthodoxy) such as Lomborg? Or for that matter, with respect to the quotes provided above from Mark Buehner?
I suspect you will double down on the shrill tone, and execute some of the other time-honored tactics employed by those in messianic cults – obfuscate, ignore, insult…
November 11, 2009, 2:16 pmJSinAZ says:
Zuch said:
I agree with you Zuch. It is far worse to be compared to a Holocaust denier than to be compared to someone who perpetrated the same! Or maybe not.
Honestly, I have to ask: are you always this tendencious, or is this reserved for occasions when the cult requires an ardent defense?
November 11, 2009, 2:27 pmzuch says:
He is not “the IPCC”. Nor did he say that someone like that would be “as bad as Hitler”.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 4:59 pmzuch says:
The history of forced relocation is not, to say the least, a pretty one. Sure, you could say that they don’t have to move because of your carbon appetite … as long as they ignore Bill Cosby’s admonition: “How long can you tread water?”
And a show of hands here: How many people who applaud Lomborg’s “practicality” here are also of the opinion that Kelo was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever?
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 6:07 pmMark Buehner says:
What a crock. They have a right to starve to death in Africa, or die of Aids because they cant afford modern drugs. Or die of Malaria like their forefathers did.
What a total complete load of BS. Lomborg is a grown up. He is simply acknowledging the OBVIOUS fact that in a world of billions of lives and limited resources, choices have to be made. At least he has the nuts to discuss and even make those tough decisions. All he is saying is that the billions of dollars we KNOW its going to cost us to wreck our economies is a lot of money that can’t be spent doing other things like saving lives NOW.
November 11, 2009, 7:07 pmA. Zarkov says:
As chairman of the IPCC does he not speak for it? As for his Hitler comment– it speaks for itself. I don’t know why you think you have to spin the matter for him. You’re not his lawyer are you?
November 11, 2009, 7:55 pmJSinAZ says:
Zuch – wow. Just wow. You are just one big ball of mendacity and obtuseness, aren’t you?
November 11, 2009, 9:04 pmzuch says:
Well, the place some people live might not meet your high standards, but I don’t see you inviting them over to your place to live. But that doesn’t mean you have a right to make the place they’re living uninhabitable through your neglect or indifference. At least Lomborg thinks that we would owe them at the very least relocation when their own lands are made uninhabitable. Not nice enough to say they deserve a say as to whether they should even have to do this, but at least a nice “relocation package” (see, e.g., “Cherokee strip”). You, OTOH … “f**k ‘em, they were gonna die anyways….”
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 9:41 pmzuch says:
A. Zarkov:
As chairman of the IPCC does he not speak for it?…
AAMOF, no. Not in this instance. Why do you think so?
Yes it does. But as I pointed out, he did not say what you [and JSinAZ] insinuate he said:
Because he didn’t say that, this claim about what he said is false, “speak[ing] for itself”, rather that saying what you want him to say.
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 9:50 pmzuch says:
JSinAZ:
Care for me to comment ignerrently on your lack of personal grooming skill? Doubt it. So why don’t you address the actual comments I make, rather than engage in one-line unsupported personal attacks?
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 9:53 pmJSinAZ says:
No, Zuch – your repeated and quite blatant efforts to ignore any sembalance of argument has reduced you to churl status. Enjoy it, you’ve earned it. Any cretin who could read a quote from the chairman of the IPCC analogizing Bjorn Lomborgs’ economic analysis of CO2 gas emissions as being indistinguishable from those of Hitler – and claim that:
after reading the chairmans’ quote:
has shown more than enough intellectual dishonesty to be called both obtuse and mendacious.
As for personal grooming, I can take a shower. The cleaning you require would first have to start with a session of trephining…
November 11, 2009, 10:28 pmJSinAZ says:
And with that, Zuch is added to the list of those with whom there is no need to engage. The religous zealot is a tedious thing, and the victory they have in coversation is the exhaustion of the other. Feh.
November 11, 2009, 10:32 pmzuch says:
JSinAZ:
Hitler was a vegetarian. Does the fact that he had similar views on eating meat to your most ardent PETA follower make PETA “as bad as Hitler”? Does it, ferinstance, mean that PETA are megalomaniac genocidal dictators?
You get it now?
Now: As I pointed out, Dr. Pachauri’s comment on the lack of concern of Lomborg for others is not all that unfair. I will not argue that it makes Lomborg like Hitler in every way (nor do I think that Dr. Pachauri meant that), but I’d note that Lomborg’s ‘concern’ for others is tainted, and perhaps somewhat in the same was as Hitler’s cares about ‘others’ were. I’d note further that the comments of some here seem to go beyond Lomborg:
Lebensraum, if you know what I mean. “[L]imited resources. I’ve got mine [and with enough tanks and planes, yours as well] and f**k you and hope you die.”
This is the “tragedy of the commons” writ large, as I hinted above. Which is where libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism go to die.
So are you, JS, one of those staunch libertarians that infest these boards, or a run-of-the-mill ‘Merkun-exceptionalism RWer? The reason I ask is that I’d like one of the libertarians that got their panties in a bunch about Kelo to defend Lomborg’s approach here. Can we fairly say to the Maldivians and Tongans, “sorry if we ruin your country, but you know we just gotta do what we gotta do to be rich ourselves, and maybe if you don’t complain too much, we’ll find some nice land in Oklahoma for you.” How does that play out under Kelo? How under libertarian philosophy? They’re not trashing the commons; they’re trashing someone else’s back yard. And I haven’t seen a twinge of conscience here on this thread about that; just complaints that Lomborg, who suggests that philosophy with some regal [and unspecified] ‘benevolence’ [a/k/a "white man's burder'] tossed in towards the little people, is being unfairly maligned for his ‘realism’….
Cheers,
November 11, 2009, 11:06 pmegd says:
Hitler isn’t broadly considered to be an evil person (at least by most people) because of his dietary choices. He is broadly considered to be an evil person because of his beliefs in the inferiority of other human beings.
I would suggest that there is a difference between saying someone is “as vegetarian as Hitler” and saying someone’s thinking leads to the conclusion that “what Hitler did was the right thing,” essentially saying someone “thinks like Hitler.” While the first may be accurate, it is unnecessarily inflammatory. The second is a direct comparison.
November 12, 2009, 9:14 amzuch says:
He isn’t the arch-villain of history because he thought that non-Aryans were lower that whalesh*t (because we’d have to put William Butler, Orval Faubas, George Wallace, etc. up there as well in the pantheon then). Note that this is the position that Dr. Pachauri seems to have been alluding to). Hitler is the arch-villain of history because he then proceeded to intentionally and systematically kill millions of people.
Dr. Pachauri points out that Lomborg’s indifference to the plight of any people affected (ameliorated, as I point out, by his suggestion we just “relocate” them … see my “Cherokee Strip” comment above) is reminiscent of Hitler. Perhaps a more accurate analogy might have been Stalin, who left the Kulaks to starve rather than methodically kill them as Hitler did.
Care to comment on what Kelo brings to the table WRT Lomborg’s humanitarian inclinations?
Cheers,
November 12, 2009, 11:26 amJSinAZ says:
Ironic, is it not, that in a thread that starts by discussing McCarthyite tactics used against non-believers (and after many, many quotes specifically analogizing various flavors of heretical disbelief to Hitler himself) that certain cephalically-challenged commenters have reduced themselves to arguing wether an analogy to Hitler is really all that bad?
He did love dogs too. Clearly references to Hitler were meant as compliments! Not as a McCarthyite tactic to shut up dissent. Nope, not at all.
As Bugs would say, what a maroon!
November 12, 2009, 2:35 pmzuch says:
You know, I’m not trying to shut down “dissent” here. I’d appreciate serious responses to the points I’ve brought up. Instead we get this vapid ad hominem. What a disappointment.
Cheers,
November 12, 2009, 3:55 pm