My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« 9/11 Video Doesn't Hold Water | Main | U.S. Media Too Slow in Judging Marines »

Comments

Ali Ali Ali

OK, obviously JannyMae is totally snowed by the vast right wing rethuglican brownshirts. Human activity isn’t causing climate change? Next you’re going to tell me global warming isn’t the heating up of the earth from burning fossil fuels??!!1

Everybody knows global warming is fact. Period.
I mean everybody knows global warming is happening. There’s a consensus. Are you going to tell me empirical science is better than consensus reasoning?

Jonathan Abbey

To take this comedic laugh fest yet one bit more seriously than I should, I'll just say that the consensus is the consensus (to the degree and extent that it is) *because* it is backed by converging lines of emipirical evidence, Ali.

Liberals may be more willing to believe that there are negative consequences to the whole scale transformation of the planet that humans are engendering than are conservatives, but that doesn't mean that it's all a political plot, or that
Rush and Steve Milloy are crusading heroes of empiricism, rather than the ideological skeptics (Rush), or corporate-paid spin-meisters (Milloy) that they are.

Gore's movie is a polemic, yes, but it's also an introduction and illustration of the evidence that is motivating concern over this.

Ali Ali Ali

"To take this comedic laugh fest yet one bit more seriously than I should, I'll just say that the consensus is the consensus (to the degree and extent that it is) *because* it is backed by converging lines of emipirical evidence, Ali.

Liberals may be more willing to believe that there are negative consequences to the whole scale transformation of the planet that humans are engendering than are conservatives, but that doesn't mean that it's all a political plot, or that
Rush and Steve Milloy are crusading heroes of empiricism, rather than the ideological skeptics (Rush), or corporate-paid spin-meisters (Milloy) that they are.

Gore's movie is a polemic, yes, but it's also an introduction and illustration of the evidence that is motivating concern over this.
"

Absolutely… a pox on that Milloy- he’s obviously a haliburton lackey when he buys into the definition of 'global warming' as:

“the theory that increased levels of carbon
dioxide and certain other gases are causing an increase in the average
temperature of the earth's atmosphere because of the so-called
'greenhouse effect.' “

Everybody knows that, first- it’s a fact, not a theory, because there’s a CONSENSUS in the mainstream media.

It’s not like I’m acting intellectually superior, when I discredit somebody’s argument by claiming disingenuous motives, either. But seriously, everybody knows these people are raging skeptics and corporate spin-meisters.

I mean, where does he get off disseminating data like

“most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before
CO2 emissions could have been a major factor”

Or

“temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased”

Or

"full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia,
Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former
president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that
global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy"

or

Antarctica "as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting
thicker"

or

“James Hansen's predictions of global warming during a Congressional
committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare,
were wrong by 300 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years
versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said
long-term predictions of climate are impossible”

or

“there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods,
tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years;
computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more
extreme weather”

or

“increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and
contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert”

or

“sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the
160,000 glaciers in the world”

Or

“change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global
climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than
anything humans do”

and finally,

“computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on
to produce reliable forecasts”

Jonathan Abbey

Well, it's not like I'm making up Milloy's status as a stealth PR man.

Steven J. Milloy - SourceWatch

Mother Jones on Exxon PR Funding

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

Mother Jones - Some Like It Hot

Desmog Blog

CLEAR PROFILE: STEVEN MILLOY AND JUNKSCIENCE.COM

ES&T Online News: The Junkman Climbs To The Top

But the problem with Milloy is not his status as professional corporate advocate (though it were better if he were up front about it, rather than trying to cloak himself in disinterested advocacy), the problem is that he cherry picks facts and arguments, selectively quoting out of context and willfully ignoring lines of evidence and reasoning that points in a direction that is unwelcome by his employers.

Well founded factual skepticism is essential to any debate such as this, but people like Milloy are not well founded skeptics, rather they are paid to advocate an argument, whatever the science says.

Take his quotation of Hansen. From Gavin Schmidt, climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York:

"Dr. Hansen is further quoted (a little out-of-context) saying: “The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." Given the discussion above it is clear that without good estimates of the actual forcings, the differences in the model projections can be large. It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible. Much of the future is of course unknowable. A new energy source could replace fossil fuels, governments could control emissions, or maybe a series of huge volcanoes will erupt.

Therefore it is much more sensible to ask, what would climate be like if you doubled CO2? or if this or that scenario occured. There are much better defined questions. Hansen’s quote is often taken to imply that models are so unreliable they are useless in helping assess the issue. In fact it is the opposite - Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections)."

Think Milloy meant you to understand that when he gave you that quote?

Jonathan Abbey

Also, as to Milloy's claim that

"James Hansen's predictions of global warming during a Congressional
committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare,
were wrong by 300 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years
versus the actual increase of .11 degrees);
"

In fact, Milloy is distorting what Hansen presented. Hansen presented a set of possible scenarios, and called out a midline prediction for primary focus.

Again from Gavin Schmidt, speaking of this issue in the context of a review of State of Fear:

"The claim of a "300 percent" error comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels, who in testimony before Congress in 1998 deleted scenarios B and C from the chart he used in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable. Thus a significant success for climate modeling was presented as a complete failure -- a willful distortion that Crichton adopts uncritically."

So, yeah, cry me a river about empirical science as you cite Milloy.

Ali Ali Ali

Amen Mother Gaia!!111
Outstanding website sources!!!!1111
I’ve bookmarked them right next to moveon.org and wildnesswithin.com/impeachhim.html

Speak truth to power!!1111

Gavin Schmidt’s quote was pure paralogical goodness! I can’t tell you how true his statement rings: “…what would climate be like if you double CO2 or if this or that scenario occurred…”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt exactly the same.

For instance, what would happen if the chemicals in my body became unstable and I suddenly, and spontaneously burst into flames! Or how the retreating Iraqi armies torched the Burgan Kuwaiti oil fields- BILLIONS OF BARRELS OF OIL burned into our precious sky. I wept for Mother Gaia and retreated to my moms basement for months to ride out the ensuing ‘nuclear winter’, with only my glaucoma medicine to console me.

Jonathan Abbey

Heh

tommy

whoever posted a comment about global warming than said thank god my hummer has a/c is a fucking idiot

Keith Demko

I finally got to see Mr. Gore's movie yesterday, and I'm glad I did .. it's as entertaining as it is informative and simply frightening

 An Inconvenient Truth Sountarck

Thank you for movie reviewing. I was something related this movie from long time. I didn't anything. After reading movie reviews, I felt that movie is good one. Still I have no plan but might be watch it tonight.

home theater seating

Inconvenient movie is more like it. I can't find the thing anywhere. I drove all over town, from cineplex to cineplex, trying locate one that was showing it, but all I could find was that bio on how TomKat got together (Cruise plays himself but Holmes is portrayed by the wildly miscasted Philip Seymour Hoffman).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From