Comments benp has made

Just goes to show...

That Gristians and Christians speak the same language...On File under Epitaphs for Humanity posted 1 year, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Catastrophism is Surrogate Politics

George says something interesting here.

'Some of us who speculate about the possibility of catastrophe do so because we began to question the received wisdom of economists and politicians in the first place.'

This seems to me to be a fairly bold indication that George's catastrophism is both political, and prior to scientific observation. Curiously, he then says,

'You assume we have a priori assumptions and biases (perhaps because you do yourself, I don't know).'

I don't think I have assumed it. It is there in black and white.

There are problems with politics and economics, of course. But it seems that you're looking to science to fill the vacuum that's been left by abandoning them. The problem is that now "science" is a stand-in for morals, values, principles, and politics and economics; it is being asked to determine a direction in the way that those things previously did. But it can't do it. That's why the science you seem to be offering needs catastrophe for currency and legitimacy. Without the narrative of catastrophe, questions about how to live, or what to live for, that go beyond mere survival emerge, but cannot be answered by scientism. Without "science" underscoring the catastrophic narrative with superficial plausibility, there are no moral imperatives, no emergency measures, and no urgency driving collective purpose.

Similarly, the only way you seem able to challenge economists and politicians is by appealing to disaster. But this does not reveal a sophisticated, principled objection to what politicians or economists are saying, or offering a way that things might reasonably improved. Environmentalists, for example, do not challenge the excesses of capitalism on the basis of fundamental moral problems with organising society according to the principles of lassez faire, but because "it doesn't work", according to "scientific" observations of the climate. And interestingly, the things which are regarded as failures, are in fact its successes - it's ability to deliver innovation, and cheaper products, and so on. In other words, the reason that capitalism is "bad" is because of all the things that are in fact otherwise morally good. The understanding of what is good and bad in environmentalism is determined not by the quality of human relationships, but by environmental "science".

George says that I need to show a 'plausible counter argument ... and further demonstrate the vector by which people panicking will do more harm'. But I'm not making an argument about the difference between two harms. He also says, "One climatologist on one subject does not an argument make", seemingly asking me to provide the names of some more researchers who have evidence that counters Rees and Lovelock, etc. The IPCC, AR4 report does not talk about catastrophe, as Hulme indicated it wouldn't. The language used in the blog post above, such as catastrophe, and "a very grim fate for our children", isn't in any of the IPCC reports, and so to legitimise their use, Romm has to say instead that the IPCC "understates how dire things are", and asks us instead to look at the work of just Hansen instead of the "thousands of scientists" that elsewhere on the blog, we're being asked to invest our confidence in, against the paid-off mavericks in the sceptical camp. Similarly, the language used by the alarmists you cite is not matched by the IPCC. The "consensus" position provided by the IPCC is different to the scenarios given by alarmists. That's not to hold the IPCC beyind challenge - I believe the reports are very changeable. It does however, show that the matter is much less clear than you, or Romm claim it is, and that the alarmists - Romm included - are as 'out there' as the wacky denialists. In this respect, it is the IPCC versus the alarmists, not Hulme versus Rees and Lovelock.On Please stop calling them 'skeptics' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 40 Responses

Hypocrite

David Roberts February 25 2008 :

[Greenpeace's] effortless breach of security at one of the world's biggest and busiest airports was a huge embarrassment for its administrators, obviously -- a "major investigation" has been launched. But it also did a brilliant job of attracting attention to the protest, and to the fact that aviation is a major culprit in climate change, aided and abetted by subsidies from the same governments that are publicly proclaiming concern over climate. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/25/17413/6266

David Roberts March 12 2008 :

I'm at the airport, using a painfully slow wi-fi connection, boarding in about 20 min.

__________

David Roberts, climate criminal and hypocrite. On Lots of important news on climate policy, hastily summarized posted 1 year, 8 months ago 1 Response

Dooooooom...

'According to benp, "The language of catastrophe is not the language of science."'

Nope, according to Professor Mike Hulme, founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research @ UEA. The text was from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

And mathematical catastrophe is distinct from human catastrophe.

"Oh yes. Martin Rees, James Lovelock, Jared Diamond, and more than I can name (or should have to) are going to be disappointed that they are no longer talking the language of science."

Martin Rees is a doomsayer like no other. "Our Final Century" is simple scare-mongering. They shouldn't simply feel disappointed, they should feel thoroughly ashamed. On Please stop calling them 'skeptics' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 40 Responses

Romm is Wrong about the RS

'All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world's oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: "Take nobody's word."'

The Royal Society recently dropped that interpretation of the motto, seemingly in order that they could issue statements about climate change, and "deniers". If they're asking us to take the word of the IPCC, then they aren't asking us to take things on the "word of no one". "on the word of no one" and "respect the facts" are mutually exclusive.

And as it happens, it's quite easy to find problems with the "science" issued by scientific authorities such as the Royal Society.

---------------------------------
from http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/04/on-word-of-no-o ...

Nullius in Verba, the motto of the UK's Royal Society, usually gets translated as 'on the word of no one'. That's a pretty good motto for a scientific body, the message being that knowledge about the material universe should be based on appeals to experimental evidence rather than authority.

However, in the TLS, Robert May, erstwhile President of the Royal Society (and ex-Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government), offers a different translation. Nullius in Verba 'roughly translates', he says, as 'respect the facts'. Indeed, 'Respect the facts' is the title of May's cover-story review of seven recent publications on climate change (although it is called 'The world's problem' in the online version). This also seems to be the translation preferred these days by the Royal Society itself.

[Continues]
On Please stop calling them 'skeptics' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 40 Responses

This argument is extinct

"Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

How many species were assessed, and how were they selected? How many studies?

This stat is trotted out a lot, as one of the IPCC's more alarming factoids. But it is meaningless and not quantified.  

As far as I can tell, the statements refer to just one study. That's not enough to warrant the degree of alarmism that it has generated.
On What if the MSM simply can't cover humanity's self-destruction? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

Miles is miles out.

Miles asks  us to consider how much money Exxon has spent on bankrolling the 'deniers'.

"The one thing everyone here agrees on is that we must not do anything to reduce our carbon-dioxide emissions. Quite convenient for the oil industry, which has provided major funding to the conference's sponsors."

We follow the link, and we discover that the "major funding" is half a million dollars:

"ExxonSecrets lists Heartland as having received $561,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005."

If we want to be fair, we should have a look at how much has been spent on advancing the other side of the propaganda war. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-wel ...

It turns out that in the period 1994-2005, Greenpeace (perhaps the highest profile campaigning organisation) took roughly $2,190,752,550. That's nearly 4,500 times more than Exxon gave to Heartland.

Miles lacks a sense of proportion. On Do Big Oil and Big Tobacco share a similar smokescreen? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 26 Responses

The Arrogance of Andrew

Andrew says that other people's lack of understanding is not his problem.

It is.

He wants to reorganise the world - a political aim. And anyone who objects hasn't done enough physics.

It is a fundamental inability to explain which lies at the core of his approach to the debate. He is infantile - he doesn't feel he ought to have to explain himself, or answer to anyone, but he wants it his way.

A previous argument of Andrew's was the one about the IPCC being the equivalent of doctors to the "sick child" which is the earth.

Very "scientific".

It turned out that the IPCC authors weren't in fact all climate scientists, but economists and social scientists - the very people Andrew thinks should be excluded from the debate.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Dizzy Dessler

I find it very interesting that Andrew says things like, "Read the IPCC more carefully."

If Andrew were to read AR4 IPCC WGI, and the AGU's statement on climate change more carefully, he would find a disparity, as explained above.

Yet he believes that that they 'prove' a consensus.

Physician, heal thyself. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...

The fact is that it's all too easy to show that what Andrew says the IPCC say, and what the IPCC actually say (or actually are) are different. And that's before any science has even been discussed.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Atreyger wonders...

"... if twenty years down the line, when the climate shifts to an obviously different pattern, people like benp will still be disputing the idea"

What makes Atreyger believe that I am disputing the idea that climate shifts, or has shifted? I haven't discussed it.

What I have discussed is the disparity between statements about the shift which are supposed to represent a consensus, and what is the best way to respond to climate shifts based on that "consensus".
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Andrew Complains...

About Lindzen getting $10K a talk...

Do you know how much Al Gore gets? And he's not even a scientist. You're missing a trick.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Andrew would shoot himself in a third foot...

... ( if he could even aim.)

Andrew says "it makes no sense for a scientist whose primary interest is increasing funding to argue that the science is settled".

And yet...

We can see that climate scientists are still engaged in climate research. So, if, as Andrew also maintains, the science is settled, and [almost all?] scientists are of the consensus position, then [almost all?] scientists are also frauds, for accepting money where there is no need of further research. On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Steve lacks "balance"

Steve Bloom asks me to learn to read.

I can assure him that it is because I can read that I have been able to identify the inconsistent use of the expressions "balance", "natural rates of change", and the allusion to "tipping points" across the AGU statement, IPCC AR4 Assessment Reports, and his and Andrew Dessler's posts here. Steve does nothing to address that inconsistency, other than to further it.

Steve now tells me, for example, something about the speeds at which ice sheets can respond to warming "of any sort". He refers to the BBC article, which discusses a rise in sea levels of 25cm in just 'decades' as a consequence of geology. Let me ask Steve again, what is a "natural rate of change" if natural processes can outpace anthropogenic rates of change by an order (or two) of magnitude? What is natural "balance" if natural processes can disturb it?

If I want "formal definitions" to resolve this inconsistency, he says, I must "manage on [my] own". But I want Andrew Dessler and Steve Bloom to address the inconsistencies in their own arguments. This is, after all, a debate. They do seem to be fans of inconsistency, but I would rather not do their debating for them, by making sense of their nonsense.

I am not surprised Steve is frustrated, but he ought to take responsibility for his own emotions. And if he wants to change the world, he ought to provide a consistent argument, not expect to be treated as a planet-saving superhero, just because he believes his intentions to be pure. It's the world he needs to convince, not himself.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

It's about inconsistent "defintions"

"It's just a matter of definitions", Steve tells us. Well, of course it is! I was rather hoping Andrew would be kind enough to tell us more precisely what "balance" and "natural" rates of change are. But instead, Steve - who reminds us that he is not a scientist - now tells us that "balance" refers to some kind of 'tipping point'.

Again, what is the "balance" (or tipping point) which the AGU says has been observed, "clearly"? What is a "natural" rate of change?

An interesting thing to notice is that Steve's "key concept", and his fear about the imminent collapse of GIS and WAIS are not reflected in the IPCC literature.

IPCC WGI AR4 (FAQs, pg 123) is relatively clear about this. "Abrupt climate changes, such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the rapid loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet or large-scale changes of ocean circulation systems, are not considered likely to occur in the 21st century, based on currently available model results."

and

IPCC WGI AR4 (Synthesis SPM pg 13) also says: "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. {3.4}"

Century, times scales - never mind millennial - give us a great deal of time to deal with the problem of sea level rise as it affects human society, yet Steve worries that our "transition into a new warmer climate state that will not quickly recover". The transition to these states isn't quick either, according to the IPCC. There is little confidence in the IPCC reports about Steve's fears, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion of tipping points, other than to imply no more than that they "cannot be ruled out".

The difference between what the IPCC say, and what Steve says the AGU say indicates that there is a disparity between the outputs of the two groups of scientists. Yet to highlight this inconsistency is to identify oneself as a "denier" - in Andrew's language. If one can maintain the IPCC position against the AGU's statement, and be a denier, what does that make the AGU, who now seem to be as far away from the IPCC as are many sceptics? What does it make Andrew, who seems to be happy to assume any position on AGW, just as long as it is against the deniers, and damn the inconsistency?

The alarmists and anti-sceptics have allowed their arguments to become inconsistent and unscientific. They depend on a consensus position, but the more they do to attempt to explain what that position is, the more it reveals that they themselves are "out of range" of the consensus argument. This has given rise to the dark and weird moral crusade that the other Steve wants us to join, and which the rest of the movement to act on climate change is impotent to challenge. That makes it so much easier for sceptics to attack the positions here on Gristmill. Andrew recently wrote that his colleague was "surprised that how little substantive criticism the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had received since its release just about one year ago". That's because the IPCC reports do not tally with the reports about what the IPCC have said. As we say on our blog, "the 'denial machine' is way behind the warmers - media, politicians and the IPCC itself - when it comes to misrepresenting what the IPCC reports have to say... Dessler is doing the trolls' work for them". http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist- ...
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

What does Andrew say?

This isn't the place for a discussion on the wrongs and wrongs of "optimum population", Steve, so I will not challenge you about it here and now. Nor on the way you appear to have confused virtue with the scientific method. I will gladly and enthusiastically discuss these matters with you where it would be 'on-topic'.  

My point was intended just to illustrate that the unscientific and political statements given by science academies lead to some dark and nasty ideas... Get into bed with the AGU under the pretext of "good science", and wake up with a misanthropic population cult.

Dessler and his ilk do not seem to understand why that is problem from the point of view of advancing the idea of a "consensus" position on the science and politics of global warming, which unifies all people who would agree that "global warming is happening". While there may be some sound science going on, that "consensus" includes a variety of perspectives - many of which are quite distasteful according to genuinely liberal values.

Or maybe it's not a problem for him. Andrew, what do you think? Is it a logical consequence of "climate science" that the number of people on the planet needs to be reduced? Should people themselves be rationed? It's all well and good telling us that the science is settled, what does it actually mean?
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Xchopp Xchops and Xchanges the AGU statement

If Xchopp is right that the AGU's statement must be true, because otherwise its membership would abandon it, then it is only because the membership give a toss. Dessler and Xchopp imagine that the entire geo-science world is as committed to political projects as they are, and would leave an organisation that didn't reflect their political views.  

Does the fact of the 'democratic' organisational structure of the AGU mean that its statements reflect the views of its membership? Only to the extent that the President of the USA reflects the views of the American people. So, all Americans are Republicans and "deniers". Naturally, non-republicans remain in the USA, because staying is preferable to leaving. Or, according to Xchopp - they are too lazy/distracted.

Curiously, Xchopp tells me that the extension of my argument is that "most of the AGU members are mistaken in their view that global warming is a serious and unusual problem".

I have no opinion on what the view of the majority of the AGU membership is- I'm not the one pretending it's important, or that it can be detected from the non-migration of its membership. All I was attempting to explain was that if the statement is reflective of the membership, it would be interesting to know exactly what the climate is supposed to be "balanced" on (sky-hooks, perhaps?), such that it produces "natural" "patterns" and rates of change. They are clearly terms with zero scientific meaning, and it surprises me that 50,000 scientists would get behind what appears to be pseudo-science.

What is more interesting is that Xchopp would defend such terms, not by explaining them, but by transforming the statement so that it reads (in his head), "global warming is a serious and unusual problem". Xchopp is defending a different statement - one that the AGU did not make.

Xchopp continues, what planet am I on? Well, obviously a different one to the earth scientists who would get behind the idea that the climate is "balanced". I call my planet "Earth". I am very interested in hearing more about the planet that the AGU membership inhabit. It sounds very different to my own, which is far more chaotic. They ought to spend some time here, explaining how a 'balanced' climate developed on whatever distant planet they hail from, and to see how different our own climate is.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Shame on you.

Andrew, I agree that social scientists have a part to play. As we say on our blog:

"That is not to say that social scientists and computer programmers have nothing to offer the world, or the IPCC process. They are crucial in fact. What it is to say, however, is that, when social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world's top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true." http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...

What is emerging is that (if the US/UK contributors are representative samples) climate scientists in WGII and WGIII are only a minority.

Furthermore, as well you know, there are some contributors to WGII who lack the expertise you demand of sceptics, even in the social sciences.

Lastly, you worry that "The "Inhofe 400" use economists to comment on climate physics." Well, do you complain when physical scientists make shrill, alarmist noises about the future that society faces? If it takes social scientists to make that kind of prediction, climate scientists are speaking outside their area of expertise.

And so who are you - as a climate scientist - to be passing comment on how policymakers use science? On your own terms, Andrew, you should be keeping your mouth shut.

Of course, it's better that you don't, because there is a debate to be had. It's just that you seem keener to shut the debate down by making statements about the 400 than actually have it by answering their criticisms. Shame on you.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Grey misses the point.

Grey, they aren't doing either.

Administration assistants do things like send mail out, and organise meetings. Website designers design websites. Network administrators plug computers together.

Yet these people are listed as IPCC contributing authors. On Today: Thomas Ring posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Physician, Heal Thyself!

Andrew claims that only expertise in climate science qualifies legitimate opinion on the future the world faces. He also appears to be promising to reveal the expertise (or lack of it) of the 400. But if he is so intent on defending the reputation of the IPCC, might I suggest he starts by checking his own facts, by auditing the expertise at the IPCC?

Looking at the 51 contributors to WGII AR4 from the UK, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in geography. And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

And expertise? One contributing professor (Abigail Bristow) wasn't what you'd call a climate scientist, but a professor of Transport Studies at Newcastle University. Hardly climate science. Another Professor - Diana Liverman at Oxford University - specialises in "human dimensions of global environmental change" - Geography is a social science too. Another - John Morton of the University of Greenwich, specialises in "development Anthropology". Johanna Wolf, is an IPCC contributor from the University of East Anglia, who works in the department for "development studies". Does that make her a climate scientist? Anna Taylor, of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Oxford has no PhD at all, her research focuses on "stakeholder engagement in adapting to multiple stresses, including climate variability and change, water scarcity, food insecurity and health concerns" - not climate science. Similarly, Susanne Rupp-Armstrong, listed as a member of Southampton University only appears to have ever contributed to one academic paper. Research Associate at the University of East Anglia, Maureen Agnew does not focus her research on climate science, but on such things as "Public perceptions of unusually warm weather in the UK: impacts, responses and adaptations", and "Potential impacts of climate change on international tourism." Katherine Vincent specialising in "Social Capital and Climate change" at the UEA, only began her PhD thesis in October 2003. How can she be cited as a specialist in climate science?

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn't clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

And are they more expert? Well, included as contributors are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. Their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would you take your sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is MartaVicarelli , who is a PhD candidate in "sustainable development". Can she be the amongst the world's leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?

The IPCC contributors are simply neither the experts Andrew claims, nor are they mostly climate scientists - but in fact are made up of specialisms that he would exclude as not being qualified. Andrew is an activist, who urges us to beleive that the IPCC ismade up of climate experts, yet investigation reveals that this is not the case. But Andrew is also a climate scientist, who either has not investigated the IPCC, in which he invests so much faith (and if we can't trust climate scientists to check the IPCC, who can we trust?) or he is deliberately misleading the public. Andrew is living proof of the confusion of politics and science, and yet asks us to believe him that the earth is "sick".

Physician, heal thyself!

Read more at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses