6 ms·

A conservative think tank shill serving vested interests by spreading FUD about climate change. How quaint. All over the world, glaciers are receding rapidly,

by brazzy 17y ago

A conservative think tank shill serving vested interests by spreading FUD about climate change. How quaint. All over the world, glaciers are receding rapidly, the arctic ice cap is disappearing during summer - changes that are very, very measurable and visible to anyone who cares to look. Satellite measuring does not reach back that far, but shows clear, undeniable upwards trends. And this guy says measures taken to combat this should be reconsidered because one particular set of historical data may have been cooked? I guess he didn't get the memo that denying the existence of global warning has become untenable and the methods of choice are now denying that humans caused it, or claiming that reducing CO2 emission is less cost-effective than protecting against the symptoms.

randallsquared 17y ago
How is it that people who want to see and check data on a subject of concern have been tarred with the brush of holocaust deniers? I'm starting to assume that anyone using the word "deny" or "denier" in the context of a question of science is trying to shut down research in favor of politics.
- brazzy 17y ago
  The thing is: he's not saying "this particular piece of research seems questionable" - he's saying "because this particular piece of research seems questionable, measures based on it and lots of other, better sources should be reconsidered". It is in fact quite similar in style to holocaust deniers (you brought that up, not I): look through the other side's data carefully, find the weakest parts and make a big show of proving those false and conclude that therefore it must all be lies. (And yes, the holocaust deniers often go one step further and just make stuff up) In real science, you try to disprove the other side's strongest arguments, not their weakest ones.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Actually, from what I remember, holocaust deniers tend to make up stuff out of whole cloth, both for their arguments and against (for easier demolishing, see). Maybe they look at actual evidence now, but I haven't paid attention in years. In any case, I really have no idea whether the data in question was critical to the argument that climate is warming faster than it was earlier (since pretty much everyone accepts that significant global warming has been going on since at least the 1700s; the arguments are in the causes and details), but I just object to the hammering of the "deny", "denial", "denier" refrain.
- antipaganda 17y ago
  The Cato Institute is not participating in the worthy, rigorous, hard-nosed scrutiny that underpins any real science. They are a PR firm disguised as a think tank. They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry. They are called deniers, and derided alongside Holocaust deniers, because their actions are base and foul. They, and others like them, will cause millions of deaths from environmental upheaval in the 21st Century. Millions of deaths that could have been avoided had we worked together and put aside our political differences. Climate skeptics are the ones to laud for their bravery in the face of scientific consensus. They are the ones that evaluate every result, every harebrained theory, every scientific paper on climate change, and shoot it down in flames if it doesn't add up right. They are invaluable. However, unlike the deniers, they accept results that go against what they previously believed. They are quite willing to change their minds if they see good evidence to do so, like any intelligent human adult. Deniers, though, have no reasons beyond self-interest or madness. They simply deny everything, based on lies, speculation, half-truths, false appeals to common sense, and any more underhanded methods. They don't care, or they delude themselves that they don't care (which is worse) about the fact that if we don't fix the world in time, millions of people (at least) will die early. The holocaust deniers merely insult the memory of the victims of the worst crimes in modern history. Climate change deniers will cause millions of early deaths. They are WORSE.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    Downvoted. This post is completely ad hominem. It's also easily shown wrong by a quick perusal of Cato's web site. The statement "They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry" is obviously false, because they clearly publish about all sorts of regulation, foreign policy, etc. One couldn't even say they're Conservative shills (not that this post did), because they also seem to favor gay rights and decriminalization of marijuana. But none of this says anything, one way or the other, about the veracity of the OP, or the utility of its thesis.
    - Confusion 17y ago
      I don't think the content of the Cato's website is going to be a convincing argument to someone that thinks they are a PR firm. ;)
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  In this case, the fact is that they have arrived at questioning the availability and integrity of one dataset (which is not the entire basis for theories of climate change) only after years of empty rhetorical or scientifically absurdist arguments. It's like being told that 'true scientists are open to new information, you are too close-minded' by an astrology advocate. Astrology buffs love using this argument, for the same reason they love the poster of Einstein with his tongue sticking out and the caption 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. That does not mean they like science.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    I counter your "astrology" analogy with my shiny "polywater" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater ) analogy. :) More seriously, it seems clear that a well-informed layman might have any of the following opinions: global warming is both happening and is greatly exacerbated by human production of carbon dioxide, global warming is (or was until very recently) happening but is not greatly affected (so far) by human production of carbon dioxide, or global warming is happening (or was until very recently) but it's unclear to what degree humans have exacerbated it. Some opinions which do not appear to be well-informed are: global warming is happening and humans caused it all, global warming hasn't happened in historical times, global warming has already produced temperatures which are higher than any in history, or global warming is unstoppable unless we act this month, year, or decade. Neither of those are exhaustive lists, of course. Part of the problem here is that this discussion has become so politicized that facts that don't fit the positive assertions of the various factions are simply ignored or assumed to be unproven (or even fabricated). Additionally, everyone pushing for a viewpoint seems to have something to gain from their preferred viewpoint, from skeptical geologists funded by oil companies to academics who want grants to study climate from the government under the approved legislation-supporting view. Faced with this, what are we to make of these choices?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
chasingsparks 17y ago
Cato is a (classic) liberal or libertarian think tank, not a conservative think tank. Furthermore, arguments against global warming are normally 1) there is a warming trend, but we cannot assert it is anthropomorphic, 2) there is evidence of a warming trend, but due to poorly chosen temperature locations (e.g. cities), it may be overstated, or 3) there is no evidence of CO2 related global warming. Saying glaciers are receding does not refute any of these hypotheses. I agree with randallsquared: people who do not buy global warming hook-line-and-sinker are likened to holocaust deniers. Bias notice: I fall into an odd category on the debate. I don't know whether global warming is anthropomorphic, and I don't really care. I believe there are benefits to "clean"(er) energy sources that will lead them to dominate, regardless of environmental views or policy.
- brazzy 17y ago
  Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" - which is what this article is intended to make people believe (successfully so, look at ars' comment). It states no hypothesis of its own, questions the veracity of one set of data, asserts that this data is the only basis for global warming and concludes that all policy concerning global warming is therefore flawed. All in all, a very nice piece of classic FUD.
  - nkurz 17y ago
    Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" This statement isn't as obvious at you make it seem. A large part of the controversy is what constitutes Global Warming, as opposed to regional. Oddly, by making the statement that receding glaciers are incontrovertible evidence of global warming, you are challenging the current consensus. Much of the question about Climate Change is whether the current climate change is 'unprecedented', and therefore more likely to be correlated with human activity. The current consensus says that the Medieval Warming Period, a period where all parties agree that there was glacial retreat, was only a regional event. Differentiating global warming from regional warming is very difficult, and is focus of this piece. Anecdotal evidence about retreating glaciers doesn't help to clear it up --- what's needed are global datasets as referred to in the article. I believe this is actually why McIntyre started researching the datasets in the first place: he was wondering why the graphs of global warming had 'erased' the MWP. (And while the piece is certainly biased, I wouldn't call it FUD. Etymologically, this makes no sense. If anything, rather than spreading Fear, it's encouraging complacency in the face of what might be a true catastrophe. CUD maybe?)
vixen99 17y ago
I don't want to see environmental catastrophe any more than you do so why haven't you convinced me? Because as ever I'm offered a litany of highly questionable statements supposedly adding up to something so obvious that only an idiot could fail to recognize it but when as here, I (proxy 'I' at least) ask to look at the data, I get Dr. Phil Jones from the UK Met Office saying "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" As a doctoral student impressed by Karl Popper's views on science I thought the idea was indeed to try to discover any flaws in theories and the data supposedly supporting them with the goal of making genuine progress in understanding the world. And of course trillions of dollars are linked to the veracity of that and analogous data. This is indeed a scandal.
- brazzy 17y ago
  Are you actually willing to be convinced? Yes, if this Dr. Phil Jones said that, it's totally against everything science stands for. But it says absolutely nothing about all the other sources of data that confirm the existence of global warming.
- roc 17y ago
  Are there really trillions of dollars at stake? I find absolutely no reason to believe any set of arm-waved statistics. And estimates of global growth decades into the future, from industry groups that can barely predict the fluctuations of their own business from one year to the next are at least as dubious as the most questionable of direct evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    > Are there really trillions of dollars at stake? One way or the other, yes. Either trillions in avoidable costs due to rising seas, high power bills due to air conditioning, rebuilding infrastructure wiped by superstorms, etc, or trillions in avoidable costs due to legislating carbon scrubbing and energy rationing. The stakes are very high. We'll see how it shakes out.
- deleted 17y ago

by brazzy 17y ago

randallsquared 17y ago

How is it that people who want to see and check data on a subject of concern have been tarred with the brush of holocaust deniers? I'm starting to assume that anyone using the word "deny" or "denier" in the context of a question of science is trying to shut down research in favor of politics.

brazzy 17y ago
The thing is: he's not saying "this particular piece of research seems questionable" - he's saying "because this particular piece of research seems questionable, measures based on it and lots of other, better sources should be reconsidered". It is in fact quite similar in style to holocaust deniers (you brought that up, not I): look through the other side's data carefully, find the weakest parts and make a big show of proving those false and conclude that therefore it must all be lies. (And yes, the holocaust deniers often go one step further and just make stuff up) In real science, you try to disprove the other side's strongest arguments, not their weakest ones.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Actually, from what I remember, holocaust deniers tend to make up stuff out of whole cloth, both for their arguments and against (for easier demolishing, see). Maybe they look at actual evidence now, but I haven't paid attention in years. In any case, I really have no idea whether the data in question was critical to the argument that climate is warming faster than it was earlier (since pretty much everyone accepts that significant global warming has been going on since at least the 1700s; the arguments are in the causes and details), but I just object to the hammering of the "deny", "denial", "denier" refrain.
antipaganda 17y ago
The Cato Institute is not participating in the worthy, rigorous, hard-nosed scrutiny that underpins any real science. They are a PR firm disguised as a think tank. They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry. They are called deniers, and derided alongside Holocaust deniers, because their actions are base and foul. They, and others like them, will cause millions of deaths from environmental upheaval in the 21st Century. Millions of deaths that could have been avoided had we worked together and put aside our political differences. Climate skeptics are the ones to laud for their bravery in the face of scientific consensus. They are the ones that evaluate every result, every harebrained theory, every scientific paper on climate change, and shoot it down in flames if it doesn't add up right. They are invaluable. However, unlike the deniers, they accept results that go against what they previously believed. They are quite willing to change their minds if they see good evidence to do so, like any intelligent human adult. Deniers, though, have no reasons beyond self-interest or madness. They simply deny everything, based on lies, speculation, half-truths, false appeals to common sense, and any more underhanded methods. They don't care, or they delude themselves that they don't care (which is worse) about the fact that if we don't fix the world in time, millions of people (at least) will die early. The holocaust deniers merely insult the memory of the victims of the worst crimes in modern history. Climate change deniers will cause millions of early deaths. They are WORSE.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  Downvoted. This post is completely ad hominem. It's also easily shown wrong by a quick perusal of Cato's web site. The statement "They exist to serve the interests of the energy industry" is obviously false, because they clearly publish about all sorts of regulation, foreign policy, etc. One couldn't even say they're Conservative shills (not that this post did), because they also seem to favor gay rights and decriminalization of marijuana. But none of this says anything, one way or the other, about the veracity of the OP, or the utility of its thesis.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    I don't think the content of the Cato's website is going to be a convincing argument to someone that thinks they are a PR firm. ;)
anigbrowl 17y ago
In this case, the fact is that they have arrived at questioning the availability and integrity of one dataset (which is not the entire basis for theories of climate change) only after years of empty rhetorical or scientifically absurdist arguments. It's like being told that 'true scientists are open to new information, you are too close-minded' by an astrology advocate. Astrology buffs love using this argument, for the same reason they love the poster of Einstein with his tongue sticking out and the caption 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. That does not mean they like science.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  I counter your "astrology" analogy with my shiny "polywater" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater ) analogy. :) More seriously, it seems clear that a well-informed layman might have any of the following opinions: global warming is both happening and is greatly exacerbated by human production of carbon dioxide, global warming is (or was until very recently) happening but is not greatly affected (so far) by human production of carbon dioxide, or global warming is happening (or was until very recently) but it's unclear to what degree humans have exacerbated it. Some opinions which do not appear to be well-informed are: global warming is happening and humans caused it all, global warming hasn't happened in historical times, global warming has already produced temperatures which are higher than any in history, or global warming is unstoppable unless we act this month, year, or decade. Neither of those are exhaustive lists, of course. Part of the problem here is that this discussion has become so politicized that facts that don't fit the positive assertions of the various factions are simply ignored or assumed to be unproven (or even fabricated). Additionally, everyone pushing for a viewpoint seems to have something to gain from their preferred viewpoint, from skeptical geologists funded by oil companies to academics who want grants to study climate from the government under the approved legislation-supporting view. Faced with this, what are we to make of these choices?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

chasingsparks 17y ago

Cato is a (classic) liberal or libertarian think tank, not a conservative think tank. Furthermore, arguments against global warming are normally 1) there is a warming trend, but we cannot assert it is anthropomorphic, 2) there is evidence of a warming trend, but due to poorly chosen temperature locations (e.g. cities), it may be overstated, or 3) there is no evidence of CO2 related global warming. Saying glaciers are receding does not refute any of these hypotheses. I agree with randallsquared: people who do not buy global warming hook-line-and-sinker are likened to holocaust deniers. Bias notice: I fall into an odd category on the debate. I don't know whether global warming is anthropomorphic, and I don't really care. I believe there are benefits to "clean"(er) energy sources that will lead them to dominate, regardless of environmental views or policy.

brazzy 17y ago
Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" - which is what this article is intended to make people believe (successfully so, look at ars' comment). It states no hypothesis of its own, questions the veracity of one set of data, asserts that this data is the only basis for global warming and concludes that all policy concerning global warming is therefore flawed. All in all, a very nice piece of classic FUD.
- nkurz 17y ago
  Receding glaciers refute the hypothesis that "there is no global warming" This statement isn't as obvious at you make it seem. A large part of the controversy is what constitutes Global Warming, as opposed to regional. Oddly, by making the statement that receding glaciers are incontrovertible evidence of global warming, you are challenging the current consensus. Much of the question about Climate Change is whether the current climate change is 'unprecedented', and therefore more likely to be correlated with human activity. The current consensus says that the Medieval Warming Period, a period where all parties agree that there was glacial retreat, was only a regional event. Differentiating global warming from regional warming is very difficult, and is focus of this piece. Anecdotal evidence about retreating glaciers doesn't help to clear it up --- what's needed are global datasets as referred to in the article. I believe this is actually why McIntyre started researching the datasets in the first place: he was wondering why the graphs of global warming had 'erased' the MWP. (And while the piece is certainly biased, I wouldn't call it FUD. Etymologically, this makes no sense. If anything, rather than spreading Fear, it's encouraging complacency in the face of what might be a true catastrophe. CUD maybe?)

vixen99 17y ago

I don't want to see environmental catastrophe any more than you do so why haven't you convinced me? Because as ever I'm offered a litany of highly questionable statements supposedly adding up to something so obvious that only an idiot could fail to recognize it but when as here, I (proxy 'I' at least) ask to look at the data, I get Dr. Phil Jones from the UK Met Office saying "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" As a doctoral student impressed by Karl Popper's views on science I thought the idea was indeed to try to discover any flaws in theories and the data supposedly supporting them with the goal of making genuine progress in understanding the world. And of course trillions of dollars are linked to the veracity of that and analogous data. This is indeed a scandal.

brazzy 17y ago
Are you actually willing to be convinced? Yes, if this Dr. Phil Jones said that, it's totally against everything science stands for. But it says absolutely nothing about all the other sources of data that confirm the existence of global warming.
roc 17y ago
Are there really trillions of dollars at stake? I find absolutely no reason to believe any set of arm-waved statistics. And estimates of global growth decades into the future, from industry groups that can barely predict the fluctuations of their own business from one year to the next are at least as dubious as the most questionable of direct evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  > Are there really trillions of dollars at stake? One way or the other, yes. Either trillions in avoidable costs due to rising seas, high power bills due to air conditioning, rebuilding infrastructure wiped by superstorms, etc, or trillions in avoidable costs due to legislating carbon scrubbing and energy rationing. The stakes are very high. We'll see how it shakes out.
deleted 17y ago