tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post6377500305610146413..comments2024-01-24T18:56:58.635-08:00Comments on EXPLORING CULTURES: A Global Blog (all languages): How Climate Denialists Like Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, among others, Jeff Jacoby, too, see Climate Change Evidence Yet continue to deny it is realUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-81008763362844980912009-10-24T19:34:13.665-07:002009-10-24T19:34:13.665-07:00Cartoonasaurus, try this on for size. I got a job ...Cartoonasaurus, try this on for size. I got a job this October doing tours for big groups of five year olds on a pumpkin farm. October is supposed to be cool sunny days, perfect for hay rides and corn mazes. No dice. We're getting cold rain almost every day. And it doesn't come from the south, like usual, it comes from the north. Why would that be? I suspect melting of the arctic ice pack. More open water, more evaporation, instead of "cool dry arctic air" we are getting "cold wet arctic air." Its also damaging a lot of crops. Not pretty.<br /><br />You might also consider that while LIFE will adapt to any climate change, WE might not be around to enjoy it. I'm not so dispassionate and objective as to consider that acceptable.Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-91681208358743913412009-09-19T08:20:08.543-07:002009-09-19T08:20:08.543-07:00What you need to realize is that the alarmists hav...What you need to realize is that the alarmists have overplayed their hand. <br /><br />On average we have 1.6 doom and gloom predictions per day from those who are trying to convince the populace that we must do something about global warming today. But this constant drum beat rather than make people more worried, eventually makes them more skeptical. <br /><br />I especially enjoy the news reports when a group or a study says global warming is happening "even faster or even worse than we thought." <br /><br />At the same time we see no increase in global temperatures and no real increase in sea temperatures it certainly rings hollow. Again the man on the street is being asked are you going to believe us scientists or your lying eyes? <br /><br />We were told in 2005 that AGW was causing worse and worse hurricane seasons with more and stronger hurricanes. We then had the next four years with very mild hurricanes with this year being unbelieveable mild. <br /><br />And many of the predictions contradict each other. AGW means draughts in the west or is if floods. Every natural disaster is blamed on AGW, yet people aren't stupid and they know fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. happened before mankind started pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere. <br /><br />And Joe Romm and Michael Mann are disasters for the AGW crowd. Romm's chief reply to anything that doesn't support AGW is call the person a liar (maybe that's a characteristic of people named Joe). Mann seems to be involved in studies that are quickly discredited. When I see a new study I look to see if Mann was one of the authors to see if I can simply disregard it because it will quickly be shown to be seriously flawed. <br /><br />And most AGW supporters refuse to debate with skeptics. In fact, when Al Gore testified before congress, the democrats wouldn't even allow a skeptic to testify opposite him. This indicates that the arguments the alarmist raise won't hold up to scrutiny.goodspkrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524908558414111267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-77571298471928240712009-09-18T07:56:16.653-07:002009-09-18T07:56:16.653-07:00Climte Depot webmaster Marc Morano took down my cr...Climte Depot webmaster Marc Morano took down my criticism of climate denialists after less than a day, showing that he is in denial himself. Gotcha!DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-35087035284905099552009-09-18T04:56:08.471-07:002009-09-18T04:56:08.471-07:00http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2908/Climate-Depot-c...http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2908/Climate-Depot-compared-to-Holocaust-deniers-What-Jews-What-Final-Solution-What-death-camps-Thats-all-leftwing-propaganda-its-not-happening-periodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-16995655766915904752009-09-17T22:43:26.677-07:002009-09-17T22:43:26.677-07:00Neven (Comment#20178)
September 17th, 2009 at 2:2...Neven (Comment#20178) <br />September 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm <br /><br />“Nazi Germany could have used a few more courageous skeptics.”<br /><br />That’s a nice one too, though more subtle. :-B<br /><br />Look, you have to understand the state of mind of these people. I think they are genuinely worried that AGW will have catastrophic consequences for a large part of the global population. They are a certain type of person with a certain psychological make up and background that makes them prone to worry about abstract things like ‘the planet’ or ‘humanity’.<br /><br />And in a sense it’s true that if CAGW does come about there are quite a few persons out there at the moment that are in a bit of an ethical predicament. Someone like Anthony Watts or Fred Singer or Ian Plimer (though they probably wouldn’t be around anymore if and when the catastrophe hit) would perhaps have reason to feel a bit guilty for their delaying tactics.<br /><br />In that sense it’s not so strange for someone like Danny Bloom to fringe the law of Godwin, so to speak, out of sheer frustration. Because you have to admit: If AGW is happening, there is not much action being undertaken (lots of plans, lots of promises, lots of theory, lots of political spinning) to get to the core of the problem and do something about it. If you really believe as a warmist that time is running out, it’s no wonder that you get frustrated .<br /><br />Imagine that you think your mother is showing symptoms of a terminal disease that can be cured if treated on time, but everyone else in the family convinces her it’s not true, she should wait a few weeks more before going to the doctor, etc. Some people can go nuts over that and shout at everyone at a birthday party that they’re all &#$*@ who don’t love their mother. Danny Bloom does. It’s not a good way to change things, even if they can be changed. But that’s what he did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-14365280551773057552009-09-17T22:42:53.203-07:002009-09-17T22:42:53.203-07:00Sleeper on another board wrote
(Comment#20171)
S...Sleeper on another board wrote<br /><br />(Comment#20171) <br />September 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pm <br /><br />''Nazi Germany could have used a few more courageous skeptics.''<br /><br />THIS is what I am talking about!DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-87062379852539550622009-09-17T21:11:39.707-07:002009-09-17T21:11:39.707-07:00anon at 6:03 am, above, very well said. I could no...anon at 6:03 am, above, very well said. I could not have said it better myself. I am going to save this and keep for a rainy day. Well said. If I need a speechwriter someday, I would love to hire you. You make better sense than I do!<br /><br />cheers,<br /><br />Danny<br /><br />re<br /><br />"Good post, I like this comparison. I'm not sure these are *all* good-but-misguided people, some of them probably are callously putting their own short-term profit ahead of preserving a livable climate. But most of them probably do believe that everything is fine and us Al-Gore-worshippers are overreacting...<br /><br />Predictably, of course, the comments are immediately swarmed by denialists frothing with outrage at being compared to holocaust revisionists, even though they haven't been.<br /><br />Plus several dozen writing in 'lecture' style about how you've got it all wrong - with the assumption that the only reason you still believe in AGW is that you haven't heard a proper rebuttal of it. Also suspiciously similar to another type of denialist - the creationist."DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-66607418830408633072009-09-17T06:03:19.057-07:002009-09-17T06:03:19.057-07:00Good post, I like this comparison. I'm not sur...Good post, I like this comparison. I'm not sure these are *all* good-but-misguided people, some of them probably are callously putting their own short-term profit ahead of preserving a livable climate. But most of them probably do believe that everything is fine and us Al-Gore-worshippers are overreacting...<br /><br />Predictably, of course, the comments are immediately swarmed by denialists frothing with outrage at being compared to holocaust revisionists, even though they haven't been.<br /><br />Plus several dozen writing in 'lecture' style about how you've got it all wrong - with the assumption that the only reason you still believe in AGW is that you haven't heard a proper rebuttal of it. Also suspiciously similar to another type of denialist - the creationist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-62446145809775221942009-09-16T21:14:08.733-07:002009-09-16T21:14:08.733-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-33937658778685282862009-09-16T20:24:42.386-07:002009-09-16T20:24:42.386-07:00Regarding CO2 and warming at the end of glacial er...Regarding CO2 and warming at the end of glacial eras: it is true that CO2 lags the onset of warming. This does not mean that CO2 does not contribute to the warming once released.<br /><br />The sequence of events is as follows: Once a massive ice-sheet has built on North America and the ice-age climate has set in for good, comes a time when for orbital reasons northern summers become hotter. This happens due to Earth's orbital precession aligning northern summer with perihelion - Earth's closest approach to the sun. The sun's excess radiation in northern summer at this time starts to melt the ice-sheet which mostly drains into the North Atlantic and kills the deep ocean current that draws heat north via the Gulf Stream. Paradoxically this causes the Northern Hemisphere to cool substantially at this time, even though this cooling is really a symptom of the end of the ice-age. The heat that would normally get to the North Atlantic region is now redistributed to the Southern Hemisphere causing a warming there. This warming causes sea ice to melt back around Antarctica, and the southern westerlies to shift southward closer to Antarctica. These westerly winds now because of their more southerly position drive upwelling of deep waters from the deep Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and it is these waters that are saturated in CO2 because they've been isolated in the deep sea for 1000s of years, that bring the CO2 to the surface and release it to the air. Thus CO2 rises and boosts the warming that finishes off the ice-age.<br /><br />It is a fallacy to claim that CO2 does not cause warming simply because it lags the onset of the warming. There isn't a single source for the warming. There are many. CO2 comes in later in the deglaciation but that does not mean it plays no role.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-49627731631338892552009-09-16T16:20:16.203-07:002009-09-16T16:20:16.203-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Albertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-13034129213347127222009-09-16T13:33:34.487-07:002009-09-16T13:33:34.487-07:00Jim Peden says,
"On high resolution examina...Jim Peden says, <br /><br />"On high resolution examination of the CO2/temperature data, we see that CO2 follows, not leads temperature changes, thus changing CO2 levels are a result of, not a cause of temperature excursions.<br /><br />Peden has it only half right. True, 10,000 years ago the rise in temp preceded the rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 didn't cause the beginning of deglaciation. Instead, the cause was orbital factors, as explained in 1941 by Milutan Milankovitch).<br /><br />But here's the point: in the last 200 years, the rise in CO2 has preceded the increase in temp. This suggests that the increase in CO2 has caused the increase in temp that we're experiencing. For 1000 years or more the CO2 concentration varied within a narrow range between 200 and 300 ppm (averaged about 280 ppm) but beginning about 1800, especially since 1950, it has increased greatly. In other words, in the modern era, first came the rise in CO2 then the rise in temp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-82163642339626280732009-09-16T09:43:34.955-07:002009-09-16T09:43:34.955-07:00When it comes to making scientists better communic...When it comes to making scientists better communicators, Greg Craven’s book “What’s the worst that can happen?” demonstrates how it can actually be done. Craven is a science teacher and is very upfront about his lack of climate science credentials but equally upfront about his role in helping normal people think about the issue in a rational way. Craven started off making YouTube videos explaining his points and this book is a further development of those including responses to many of the critiques he got originally. <br /><br />Craven’s excellent use of video to discuss the implications of the science is neatly paired with the work that Peter Sinclair is doing with his “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series. Both use arresting graphics and straightforward explanations to point out what the science really says, how the contrarians distort and misinform and take some pleasure in pointing out the frequent incoherence that passes for commentary at sites like WUWT. <br /><br />Crucially, neither Craven nor Sinclair are scientists, but they are excellent communicators of science. Which brings up a point raised by both Mooney & Kirshenbaum and Olsen – what role should working scientists play in improving communications to the public? Video editing and scriptwriting (and even website design!) is probably best left to people who know how to do these things effectively, while content and context needs to be informed directly by the scientists themselves. To our mind this points to enhanced cooperation among communicators and scientists as the dominant model we should be following. We don’t all need to become film directors to make a difference!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-80715449102537706072009-09-16T09:43:08.221-07:002009-09-16T09:43:08.221-07:00Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt say
Communicating ...Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt say<br /><br />Communicating Science: Not Just Talking the Talk<br /><br /><br />''The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’. <br /><br />Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!<br /><br /><br /><br />The issues involved in science communication are complex and often seem intractable. We’ve seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (An Inconvenient Truth, Field Notes from a Catastrophe) and which won’t (The Eleventh Hour) is a tricky call. Mostly this is because we aren’t the target audience and so tend to rate popularizations by different criteria than lay people. Often, we just don’t ‘get it’. <br /><br />Into this void has stepped Randy Olsen with his new book “Don’t be such a scientist”. For those who don’t know Randy, he’s a rather extraordinary individual – one of the few individuals who has run the gamut from hard-core scientist to Hollywood film maker. He’s walked the walk, and can talk the talk–and when he does talk, we should be listening!''DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-71658848400406471592009-09-16T09:42:12.194-07:002009-09-16T09:42:12.194-07:00It’s such a treat to see Greg Craven getting the a...It’s such a treat to see Greg Craven getting the attention that he deserves. I’m pursuing a doctorate in marketing and take it from me, there are a lot of scientists that should read his book. The basic thing that most scientists tend to overlook is that if you teach people HOW to think instead of WHAT to think (eg. “Don’t drive big trucks…”) they will figure things out for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-88275484589895817612009-09-16T09:05:55.154-07:002009-09-16T09:05:55.154-07:00Albert, re:
''Sorry, kid, but Bloom defi...Albert, re:<br /><br /><br />''Sorry, kid, but Bloom definitely is a Jewish name: think Bloomingdales, Blum or Blumenthal.''<br /><br />RELY: But Albert, those names are spelled with a U, as in Blume, Blum, Blumenthal. BLOOM itself is not a Jewish name, never was. You must not be an American, am I right?<br /><br />RE:<br />"It's noteworthy that HIV-AIDS sceptics are also routinely called denialists and compared to Holocaust revisionists."<br /><br />Albert, listen carefully and read again. I was not comparing climate denialists to Holocaust revisionists at all, I never once said that. Nor was I comparing climate denialists to Holocausts deniers of TODAY. I was and am comparing you and other climate denialists to the good people of the world back in the 1939-1945 period of history when very few people believed reports and photos that were coming out of nazi Germany at that time that something terrible was happening to the Jews in Europe and especially in Germany! Those people then were in denial. Just like you are in denial NOW about climate change. That is all I was saying read this UPDATE One more time and then comment. All POVs welcome as always:<br /><br /><br />UPDATE: I need to make this very clear, not everyone saw this at first. I am not saying Holocaust deniers of today are similar to climate denialsts. I wrote in the post below that just as MANY people AT THAT TIME, during WWWII, 1939- 1945, refused to "SEE" what was happening to the Jews in Europe, despite govt reports and photos and documents, MOST PEOPLE at that time DID NOT BELIEVE any Holocaust was HAPPENING. This is what my post is about. Just in the same way that TODAY, MANY PEOPLE like our friends in the denialist/skeptic camps DO NOT BELIEVE that AGW is real or that climate change is happening, despite govt reports and photos and scientific docs. This is about DENIAL at the time. It is not about Holocaust deniers of today. They are insane crazy people. The climate denialists are sane, good people. But they are in denial. THAT IS MY POINT HERE. READ IT AGAIN.DANIELBLOOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130493903696077379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-6546651886558862202009-09-16T09:04:46.031-07:002009-09-16T09:04:46.031-07:00It seems to me that the original causes of global ...<i>It seems to me that the original causes of global warming are not our concern so much as the ongoing causes of global warming.</i><br /><br />Hey, kid, talk to me about the ongoing causes of global cooling.<br /><br />And, above all, quit worrying. There ain't nothing (short of stop breathing out all the CO2) that you can do about it anyway.Serener Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-68553567979343473952009-09-16T08:59:23.780-07:002009-09-16T08:59:23.780-07:00I wouldn't worry about Fat Man SJ Gould's ...I wouldn't worry about Fat Man SJ Gould's opinion - he's dead, that's how much he knows.<br /><br />And the very notion that sceptics would be susceptible to an appeal to authority to the editor of a magazine called <i>Skeptic</i> [sic] is too ridiculous to even contemplate.Lulu Montana IVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-87324887856778448382009-09-16T08:49:34.226-07:002009-09-16T08:49:34.226-07:00Sorry, kid, but Bloom definitely is a Jewish name:...Sorry, kid, but Bloom definitely is a Jewish name: think Bloomingdales, Blum or Blumenthal. But I'm sorry if I offended you by calling you a Jew if you're not. On the other hand, given the current rates of Jewish intermarriage, almost everyone can claim a little bit of Jewish ancestry.<br /><br />It's noteworthy that HIV-AIDS sceptics are also routinely called <i>denialists</i> and compared to Holocaust revisionists.<br /><br />Why are these people soooooooo unoriginal?Albertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-8625530327453183302009-09-16T08:45:41.294-07:002009-09-16T08:45:41.294-07:00I thought it would be a cold day in hell when Evan...I thought it would be a cold day in hell when Evangelical Christians piqued global warming awareness. Maybe it's just been too many warm days on earth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-22682598128852923932009-09-16T08:45:20.776-07:002009-09-16T08:45:20.776-07:00It seems to me that the original causes of global ...It seems to me that the original causes of global warming are not our concern so much as the ongoing causes of global warming. Regardless of man's future changes, warming already begun is melting permafrost, and melting permafrost releases more carbons into the air, which creates more warming, and on and on in a vicious cycle. We could stop all manmade carbon emissions tomorrow, and global warming would go on as a natural process very difficult to stop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-86500705008669269252009-09-16T08:44:55.914-07:002009-09-16T08:44:55.914-07:00I find it surprising that Shermer would change his...I find it surprising that Shermer would change his position because he saw some glaciers melting. One wonders if he ever knew enough to be a <br />crdible skeptic in the first place. Theproblem with globall warming theories and models is that they're all over the place in their predictions and, what's infinitely worse, they make predictions on the basis of no change in energy technology during the coming, an idiotic assumption given the massive changes that<br />$3 a gallon gasoline has prompted during the past year.<br />I'm afraid we will repeat the<br />foolish measures that were taken during the 60's with auto exhaust pollution, when the technology was not up<br />to the task. Right now we are researchig various renewables and evaluating and implementing such things as wind, etc. It would be folly to allow ourselves to be stampeded by a rabble rousing moron like Al Gore into making idiotic rushed decisions. No one would ever claim Al Gore was a scientist, let alone a person driven by rational thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-53306407604829978982009-09-16T08:44:19.350-07:002009-09-16T08:44:19.350-07:00Michael Shermer was a well known global warming sk...Michael Shermer was a well known global warming skeptic until he publicly changed his position in the June 2006 issue of Scientific American. He says: "Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for 'national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions' in carbon emissions."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-87065327088163984882009-09-16T08:42:12.517-07:002009-09-16T08:42:12.517-07:00About Michael
Michael Shermer, as head of one of A...About Michael<br />Michael Shermer, as head of one of America’s leading skeptic organizations, and as a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason, is an important figure in American public life. <br /><br />— Stephen Jay Gould <br /><br />Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University. <br /><br />Dr. Shermer’s latest book is The Mind of the Market, on evolutionary economics. His last book was Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design, and he is the author of Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown, about how the mind works and how thinking goes wrong. His book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share Care, and Follow the Golden Rule, is on the evolutionary origins of morality and how to be good without God. He wrote a biography, In Darwin’s Shadow, about the life and science of the co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace. He also wrote The Borderlands of Science, about the fuzzy land between science and pseudoscience, and Denying History, on Holocaust denial and other forms of pseudohistory. His book How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God, presents his theory on the origins of religion and why people believe in God. He is also the author of Why People Believe Weird Things on pseudoscience, superstitions, and other confusions of our time. <br /><br />Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991). He was a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College (1989–1998), California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College. Since his creation of the Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, and the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, he has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Larry King Live, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Lezza, Unsolved Mysteries (but, proudly, never Jerry Springer!), and other shows as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims, as well as interviews in countless documentaries aired on PBS, A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and The Learning Channel. Shermer was the co-host and co-producer of the 13-hour Family Channel television series, Exploring the Unknown.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-949421001644904537.post-28945262781285258792009-09-16T08:41:52.798-07:002009-09-16T08:41:52.798-07:00http://www.michaelshermer.com/http://www.michaelshermer.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com