Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy

October 25, 2011

It ain’t pretty.

Willis (“I have no scientific credentials”) Eschenbach at WUWT:

Me, I’ve had it up to here with being lied to by Muller, I’m fed up to my eye-teeth with his tricks and his whoring for the media. Sure, I could pretend Muller is an honest and honorable man like you recommend. But his actions have shown him to be a cunning snake. It is not my habit to address snakes as though they were honorable men.

Stephen (“not a scientist, not my real name”) Goddard:

“Newsweek from 1975 refutes you, you, you…bad graph maker man…”

Mark (“hey, wait a minute, I’m not a scientist either, is this a pattern?”) Morano:

The promoters of man-made climate fears are now reduced to claiming — as University of California, Berkeley, professor Richard Muller did last week — that any warming trend equals some sort of “proof” of man-made warming.

News (‘your baby’s rights end where the smoke from my cigarette begins..”)Busters

WaPo’s “skeptic” actually has backed global warming for 30 years

… physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley — embraced the theory of man-made global warming 30 years ago. An online search easily disproved his claim of skepticism. He co-authored a book, “Physics For Future Presidents,” that explained climate change among other things. Now he has re-branded himself a former skeptic — the better to sell global warming.

… Richard Muller is not who he says he is. He is an advocate of the theory of man-made global warming.

Junk (“would you like some oil on your tobacco?”)Science:

About Berkeley’s Richard Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chroniclereported in 2006:

… Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming…

James (“I’ve been intellectually raped”) Delingpole:

“The planet has been warming,” says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he’ll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go “baaaa”?

Richard (‘cheez and crackers, I’m reduced to publishing in a sleezy blog no one reads. Oh well, beats nothing”) Lindzen 

The summary sentence completely misrepresents ‘climategate.’ This refers to the release of thousands of emails, commented code, etc. from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The land based instrumental temperature record was not the primary focus of the problems revealed in these documents. Rather, the explicit evidence of the manipulation of proxy records used in paleoclimate reconstructions, suppression of other viewpoints, manipulation of the IPCC process, and intimidation of journal editors were all evidence of serious breaches of ethics. Muller’s findings hardly alters these findings.

18 Responses to “Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy”

  1. alexsisxela Says:

    Each time the evidence fails fails to conform to the belief, there’s an opportunity to grow… and an opportunity to shrink.

    This is a sorry sight.

  2. Michael Barone had two inane posts- one at the National Review and the other at the Heartland Institute. Does this man have no understanding of science?

  3. Jean Mcmahon Says:

    I am goinng to start trying to get my favorite news groups to give much more info re global warming in their news(ieDemocracy Now)..Op Ed News had an Article entitled …The Debate over Global Warming is Over…Did they not know there has been no debate for a long time???

  4. […] Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy « Climate Denial Crock of the Week […]

  5. Greenfrye had an interetsing post on why deniers have to deny. I think a lot of us realised it was coming.

    I have to admit, though, I didn’t expect some of these vitriolic posts. James “I’ve been intellectually raped” Delingpole’s post was just mind boggling! Circular reasoning and goalpost shifting abound with him.

    • atoieno Says:

      WRT Delingpole’s post.

      Delingpole says:

      “Let me explain what is going on here. And you can trust me: I’m not a climate scientist. What I am is someone eminently more qualified to deconstruct the semantic skullduggery going on here: a student of language, rhetoric and grade one bullshit.”

      He has moved beyond student and proficiently practices what he criticises….to no constructive end.

  6. Thanks for letting me know that Lindzen had commented on BEST. The crucial two sentences coming much earlier on:

    “While Muller carefully avoided any claims concerning attribution, even attribution is not the main issue. What was left unsaid was that the observed warming is entirely consistent with there being very little problem.”

    Left unsaid by everyone else I’ve read on BEST so far. If the general public and legislators fully understood this it would be game over as far as global warming alarm was concerned.

    If you wish to attack Richard Lindzen that is your right in a free country. But it’s his argument here that needs to be addressed. Thanks again for drawing this to my attention.

    • sinchiroca Says:

      Mr. Lindzen does not provide support for his opinion. Indeed, his expression is so vague as to be logically useless and so subjective as to be scientifically invalid. What does he mean by “very little problem”? The scientific questions are two:

      1. Is overall surface temperature rising?
      2. If so, how much of this increase is anthropogenic?

      After years of obfuscatory rhetoric from the denialosphere, we now have now settled the science on Question #1 to the satisfaction of all true skeptics — the only people who deny that resolution are the truly obstinate die-hards.

      Mr. Lindzen does not address Question #2. Instead, he presents us with a completely subjective political opinion that it will be “very little problem”. He is welcome to his opinion, but on this particular matter, it is likely that my opinion is better informed than his. And MY opinion is that these rising surface temperatures have already presented us with substantial problems and will present us with huge problems in the not too distant future. So there, Mr. Lindzen! (sticking tongue out).

  7. neilrieck Says:

    I do not understand why some boneheads can’t understand this problem. Despite being the most violent century on record, humanity managed to quadruple from 1.5 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 1999. Humanity now grows at a fairly constant rate of 1 billion every 11 years. We will cross 7 billion on October 31, 2011. Seven billion people require/desire a lot of energy and unlike the age of horses when the waste went into the streets and could be seen and smelt, today’s waste goes into the atmosphere. It is bad enough that CO2 level are rising, but atmospheric oxygen has been falling since measurements began in 1989. This is proof to most people that Earth’s biosphere can no longer keep up with humanity’s activities. <<< Oxygen is falling

  8. “I do not understand why some boneheads can’t understand this problem.”

    We can all understand that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere might be a problem. What we fail to see is the clear evidence that it’s a catastrophic problem.

    I also fail to understand why those who back controls on emissions very rarely say that increased CO2 is a blessing as a plant food, helping to increase crop yields. This is part of the scientific picture for which there is clear evidence. Why do only sceptics mention it?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      probably because the “co2 is plant food” crock has been completely discredited – as the real world demonstrates that having more co2 is useless if your field is bone dry, or flooded with 2 feet of water.
      co2 is good for plants in a greenhouse, where water and temp are well controlled — the idea breaks down in the real world.

    • sinchiroca Says:

      Richard, I agree that there is no clear evidence that ACC presents us with a catastrophic problem. The scale of the problem we’re talking about is not catastrophic; it is on the order of tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars. What we’re talking about here is easily presented as an investment to prevent future losses: a stitch in time saves nine.

      Peter has already dispensed with the point about CO2 increasing plant growth.

  9. “The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.”

    That’s the last sentence of the ‘Advanced’ section of the page you reference and I heartily agree. I don’t accept there is no benefit in plant growth and I don’t accept that there is no benefit in the mild rise in global temperatures we’ve seen so far, as confirmed by BEST. The net effect of the increase in CO2 may be positive or negative. That is well said. We simply don’t know enough to say anything with certainty. That being the case hugely expensive controls on emissions would be a joke if they weren’t so damaging on the world’s poorest. On that biofuel subsidies are just the start. Pain and death for millions now for very uncertain benefit way into the future.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      “hugely expensive controls” is BS to those that know where the technology is.
      We need to spend (in the US) trillions of dollars to upgrade our transmission and energy production facilities over coming decades – simply to avoid being relegated to third world infrastructure status.
      We can spend that money on 19th century technology, or we can do it right and lead the new industrial revolution, the one that will make the internet seem like a small speed bump.
      As far as the (predictable) fake compassion for third world people, — the merciful and benificient
      practices of the giant oil companies and extractive industries in developing countries, as well as the continued salutory effects of endless wars for oil by great powers, are, I think, well known.
      Ask the folks in Somalia how that increased Co2 is working for them, now that the monsoons that have supported their agriculture predictably for millenia, are now becoming unpredictable and destructive —
      What third world people need, and are now taking for themselves, are appropriate scale renewable technologies and agricultural practices, many of which have been documented on this blog. Look for the phrase “leapfrog technology” to become a part of everyone’s vocabulary, as developing economies get it that it’s cheaper to do technology right, than repeat the mistakes of the older economies.

    • sinchiroca Says:

      Richard, your argument is completely out of consonance with the nature of policymaking in all areas. Governments must make thousands of decisions regarding a huge range of issues, and oftentimes are forced to make decisions in absence of solid information. Consider, for example, that the USA expended 4,000 of its citizens’ lives, over a trillion of its dollars, and over 100,000 Iraqi lives because it judged the thread from Mr. Hussein’s WMD to be serious — even though the best available information from the UN commission contradicted that belief. It’s easy with 20-20 hindsight to dismiss that as a poor decision, but hindsight doesn’t solve problems: foresight does. The USA ignored the best available information and paid a high price for its folly. Now we face a similar situation, except that this time we have a tremendous amount of information that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that surface temperatures are rising, will rise even faster in the future, and that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are a major cause of this increase.

      Sure, we don’t have proof — we NEVER have proof! Did we have proof that fighting the Nazis would be a worthwhile effort? Did we have proof that the Apollo Project would succeed and be worth the money? Did we ever have proof that any scientific research will lead to any economically useful results? Your requirement for certainty is inconsistent with the way we work.

      Finally, you must realize that our decision is not between action with consequences and inaction with no consequences. It’s a simple two column, two row matrix depending upon two factors: 1) ACC presents a serious problem, and 2) we take serious action to combat ACC.

      1. If ACC does not present a serious problem, and we take serious action to combat ACC, then we will have wasted money. How much? The best estimates I’ve seen are on the order of a few trillion dollars over the course of this century.

      2. If ACC does not present a serious problem, and we do not take serious action to combat ACC, then there’s no gain and no loss.

      3. If ACC presents a serious problem, and we take do not serious action to combat ACC, then we will suffer losses on the order of tens of trillions of dollars over the course of this century.

      4. If ACC presents a serious problem, and we take serious action to combat ACC, then we will lose a few trillion dollars in our preventative actions, and save tens of trillions of dollars in averted losses.

      That’s the logic matrix. You can quibble over the numbers, but the ratios are pretty solid: the losses of #3 far outweigh the costs of #4.

  10. “As far as the (predictable) fake compassion for third world people …”

    Am I intended to take that personally?

    “… the merciful and benificient practices of the giant oil companies and extractive industries …”

    Would your argument be invalidated if I had taken less than $500 in revenue from oil companies in my commercial activities in the last 20 years? (I think that’s about right.)

    Does your argument claim that nobody who opposes emission controls cares for those in the bottom billion of the world’s poorest? Aren’t their interests important enough to be discussed in this context? Haven’t biofuels been a disaster for them? Who is now taking responsibility for this?

    • greenman3610 Says:

      The history of oil company activities internationally are what they are. It’s sad that we have a political faction that blindly supports giving them even more power, more free rein, in addition to the multi billions of dollars that they extract from taxpayers annually.
      And yes, generally, people who don’t give a damn about polluting emissions, don’t give a damn about the life forms, human or otherwise, that are harmed by those emissions.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: