Dilbert Defenders Double Down

May 31, 2017

I get some of my best compliments from climate deniers, actually.

Last year it was Neo-nazi not-so Breitbart, taking exception to my vid that fried Senator Cruz’s climate denial.  Writer James Delingpole allowed  “..The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable”-
I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is my process, Jimmy.

Now comes the right-wing fossil fuel shill Cato Institute, who apparently thought it made sense to leap to the defense of a cartoon with a comically bad piece by long discredited denialist for hire Ross McKitrick, a right wing boob and purported economist with no climate science background. Good choice!

supportdarksnow

On the plus side, Mckitrick gives the devil (me) his due:
“The video is full of impressive-looking scientists talking about charts and data and whatnot. It probably cost a lot to make and certainly involved a lot of time and effort.”

Well, I’ll just say, cleverly designed to look like it cost a lot.

If you haven’t seen the video, the very first line, from atmospheric expert Andrew Dessler, is “….the people who know the least about climate science are the ones most fixated on models.”  Cato/McKitrick set about to prove just that, once again.

Ross McKitrick for Cato Institute:

Fine, let’s go to the 2:38 mark and watch someone named Sarah Myhre tell us what this inarguable science says.

“It’s irrefutable evidence that there are major consequences that come with climate warming, and that we take these Earth systems to be very stable, we take them for granted, and they’re not stable, they’re deeply unstable when you perturb the carbon system in the atmosphere.”

How does she know this? From models of course.

Well, yeah, that, and 200 years of physics, plus 4 billion years of earth history that tells us most of what we know about how the earth responds to greenhouse gases.

myhrethum2a

By the way, “..someone named Sarah Myhre” is a PhD paleoecologist/paleoclimatologist
– in other words, someone with a PhD’s worth more training in the field than Mr. McKitrick, but who, because she’s a woman, he feels he can diss. Classy.

Mckitrick’s point seems to be that saying deniers are overly fixated on models is a “straw man”. He then goes on paragraph after paragraph fixating on … models.

Key point of the video comes when Ben Santer explains that the observations we now have are unexplainable by natural causes.  Most notably, tho not in the scope of this vid due to time constraints, are the changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere, i.e. warming low down, cooling up high, which are ONLY possible in a world where human released greenhouse gases are changing the atmospheres radiative profile.

(Anyone with any doubts about how well the models have performed should watch another piece from a few months ago.)

Bottom line, if Cato Institute is reduced to defending climate denial comic strips, it’s an indicator of how little ground they have left to defend.

Advertisements

29 Responses to “Dilbert Defenders Double Down”

  1. edbarbar Says:

    The comic strip doesn’t deny the IPCC approach at all. Some models or specifically model parameters are chosen over others because they better seem to match 20th c warming Does anyone deny this?

    Economic models are in fact used to determine the costs of trying to lower global warming, as well as to determine the cost to mitigate them.

    Scott used to create economic models for a living. He doesn’t trust economic models.

    Isn’t Bjorn Lomborg, who to my knowledge accepts the IPCC warming results, but thinks mitigation is cheaper than addressing the CO2 output, called a denier often?

    So what is it exactly you disagree with in the comic strip? it seems straight-forward to me.

  2. Lionel Smith Says:

    The Cook Wrote:

    When you guys say there is a well-financed, well-organized disinformation campaign going on, that is yet another example of sheer psychological projection on your side’s part.

    There you are revealing your nakedness again (I guess you don’t understand a play on words, which also included the context of a cartoon strip in one up-thread). Here something you are hiding from yourself:

    Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort

    additional:

    Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort – See more at: http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/#sthash.68V743rQ.dpuf

    not only but also:

    The work of John Mashey

    When the ship sinks! You are absurd. What you don’t get is that nature gives not a flying fart about Trump’s farts or your imitations for farts it does what it does. Ocean warm, ice melts, seas rise and weather patterns change. You have to be some kinda idiot to attempt to eschew all that, and you are most definitely in that frame.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      The Cook Wrote:

      When you guys say there is a well-financed, well-organized disinformation campaign going on, that is yet another example of sheer psychological projection on your side’s part.

      There you are revealing your nakedness again (I guess you don’t understand a play on words, which also included the context of a cartoon strip in one up-thread). Here something you are hiding from yourself:

      Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort

      not only but also:

      The work of John Mashey

      When the ship sinks! You are absurd. What you don’t get is that nature gives not a flying fart about Trump’s farts or your imitations for farts it does what it does. Ocean warm, ice melts, seas rise and weather patterns change. You have to be some kinda idiot to attempt to eschew all that, and you are most definitely in that frame.


  3. ” How does she know this? From models of course.”

    Well, yeah, that, and 200 years of physics, plus 4 billion years of earth history

    => physics to design models, and earth history to feed them – as opposed to direct evidence. Can’t work any other way as long as you’re working on a prediction ability – so nothing abnormal here apart of the fact that it’s a point still discussed instead of a common admission. I am no expert but it looks to me like the reason it’s debated is because we don’t have reasonable evidence of a working prediction ability from climate science. It has been claimed before to be here but ultimately wasn’t. It’s possible it’s there now but it needs more time to gain credibility. By comparison, no one discussed models well proven to work. Hence the amount of people saying “meh”.

    Now for people convinced global scale destruction is happening right now it’s understandable that such lack of adhesion is sickening. But those people have to be sensible and remember they’re asking everyone for a global political drive unprecedented, asking all mankind for a huge effort only main religions were ever able to produce so far – and on a way longer time scale. Each times facts happen to cast doubt on their claims – like a pointed corelation (more CO2 => more greenhouse => more warming) not happening (the so called hiatus) or simply the dozens of forecast disproven it sets their agenda back. They can blame everyone but them (Hillary did that today, so they’re in good company) but seing from a distance, in political terms, that’s how it is. Come with working predictions – no cherry picked in retrospect, and with results solid enough for decision making – and people are likely to be more convinced.

    In the meantime IMO the wise priority to pick is to focus on not saying more things today that may become a burden tomorrow if proven wrong. Realcilmatescience is full of ridiculous quotes (in retrospect) from the past and it certainly discredit badly anything said today. The story “the boys who cried the wolf” has been written 2660 years ago for a reason. Ignoring that pitfall of persuasion would be madness.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: