Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bailey Bacterial Global Warming Hoax Update
Eschewing decorous and abashed silence, I continue to air my dirty laundry in public. As H&R readers know, I was successfully hoaxed for ten minutes (actually more like three minutes, but who's counting?) by a fake scientific report on bacteria and global warming last week. Naturally, the fact that I was duped has drawn media attention--as it should. However, one of the hoax perpertrators, David Thorpe, reports in his write up of the incident that reason "tore down" the post.
I alone was responsible for its deletion. I immediately deleted the post, chiefly in an attempt to avoid the embarassment of having been successfully duped in public, but also because I was anxious not to pass along misinformation to H&R readers. In addition, Thorpe states that I wrote up the fake report in "glowing terms."
I invite Mr. Thorpe and H&R readers to look at my post again. My actual comments were:
This is a rather sweeping conclusion from research published in a minor journal and will likely produce howls of outrage from defenders of the consensus. Only further research and time will tell if these guys are on to something significant or if they have somehow misinterpreted what they believe they have discovered.
Disturbingly, the article suggests that efforts were made to suppress their findings. Of course, what they are interpreting as suppression might be well-intended advice by colleagues telling them not to make fools of themselves. Or it might be something worse?
Of course, I prefer New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's characterization of my blog comments. To wit:
Ronald Bailey, a libertarian commentator for Reason Magazine who had quickly posted on the study (he included strong caveats about its merits), withdrew the piece within minutes. A day later he republished his original post, with an apology.
The irony for Mr. Thorpe and his crew of merry pranksters is that, in my case, their hoax "caught" someone who has not been a global warming "skeptic" for some time now. See my online columns, "We're All Global Warmers Now," "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore," "Global Warming-Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough," and my proposal for carbon taxes as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur low-carbon energy development, "Carbon Taxes Versus Carbon Markets."
Full disclosure: My face is still very red.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#
I seem to recall certain posters on your "I got punk'd" thread gloating, even though you are no longer what they term a "denier". Which seemed strange to me, but in character with "I wish for all dissenters to be crushed, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women".
Brett|11.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Alleged Whore,
I agree, those were not "glowing terms" in the original post.
Hopefully Mr. Thorpe did not dislocate a shoulder trying to pat
himself on the back.
|11.14.07 @ 12:24PM|#
I was successfully hoaxed for ten minutes (actually more
like three minutes, but who's counting?)
You? ;-)
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 12:26PM|#
The pranksters seem to be in a fairbanksing compitition with the rest of the fabricating world.
|11.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#
The purple prose about the evil cabal of scientists trying to
squash their research to advance a political agenda should have
been a giant red flag that this was not a serious piece by reliable
researchers. Real scientists doing real research let their work
speak for itself.
Instead, it served to make the piece appear MORE reliable in the
eyes of the "skeptics."
|11.14.07 @ 12:28PM|#
The irony for Mr. Thorpe and his crew of merry pranksters is
that, in my case, their hoax "caught" someone who has not been a
global warming "skeptic" for some time now.
You're "not a skeptic" the way Intelligent Design proponents are
not creationists.
It's a fallback position for people who want to argue the
anti-science position but claim the mantle of scientific
legitimacy.
|11.14.07 @ 12:30PM|#
It's a fallback position for people who want to argue the
anti-science position but claim the mantle of scientific
legitimacy.
Because the science only allows one to agree with everything
posited about Global Warming?
fyodor|11.14.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Harsh words, joe.
The non-scientific approach of ID'ers is reflected in the fact that
nothing can change their mind, unlike...
squarooticus|11.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Even for a minarchist, coercion in the form of taxation should
be employed only for those things that absolutely, positively MUST
be paid for collectively... and this of course ignores all the
problems inherent in granting some authority a monopoly on the
force required to collect the taxes and use them for the purpose
for which they were intended.
Ron, how can you call yourself a libertarian? You support carbon
taxation when private action would take care of the problem when
people actually decide it is a real problem?
Even if humans are contributing to climate change, calling for
action now is unquestionably channeling Chicken Little.
|11.14.07 @ 12:36PM|#
fyodor,
But IDers HAVE changed their minds. Why, they freely admit that
evolution happens within species. They just don't believe the
"phoney consensus" about the evolution of species, assert that it
is the product of a political conspiracy, and just want to keep an
open mind. Unlike those university biologists and paleontologists,
who are trying to shut down debate.
So they keep telling us.
|11.14.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Holy flaming pile of straw, gaijin!
Glad you liked ;-)
I merely meant to (quite ineloquently I guess) suggest that one can
exist somewhere between being a denier and a truther. Fyodor said
more clearly what I was thinking.
|11.14.07 @ 12:40PM|#
squarooticus,
The tragedy of the commons, e.g. the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Is
this SOOO goddam hard to understand?
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#
And here is joe again, Ron. That you now believe in AGW is irrelevant--you have been a "denier" and aren't a full-blown believer (in joe's definition)--and are therefore a heretic. joe will not rest until you are burned at the stake.
R C Dean|11.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#
Real scientists doing real research let their work speak for
itself.
So the guys who pimped their bogus hockey stick chart all over the
planet are not "real scientists doing real research"?
Good to know.
lunchstealer|11.14.07 @ 12:45PM|#
You're "not a skeptic" the way Intelligent Design proponents
are not creationists.
It's a fallback position for people who want to argue the
anti-science position but claim the mantle of scientific
legitimacy.
Umm, joe, I don't think that's a fair characterization.
It's hardly antisciency to have remained unconvinced by early data
and versions of the theory, but to come around later. Scientists do
this all the time.
There are paleontologists still skeptical of the asteroid impact
theory of the KT extinction. They don't deny that there was a
serious bolide impact event at Chicxulub site very near the time of
the KT extinction. But they point to other evidence that the
extinction began gradually some time before that.
ID is still fundamentally antiscientific in that it accepts a
theory which is inherently untestable. At this point, Ron is merely
skeptical of some of the most over-the-top predictions, and even
those he admits may be correct.
|11.14.07 @ 12:47PM|#
squarooticus: You ask (along with a bunch of my
colleagues):
Ron, how can you call yourself a libertarian? You support
carbon taxation when private action would take care of the problem
when people actually decide it is a real problem?
In my best judgment the problem of man-made global warming is
developing faster than private property institutions can develop to
respond to it. It's an open access commons problem in which the
transactions costs are too high to encourage private solution in a
relevant time frame. I could be wrong, but that's how I see
it.
I must admit that I am still uneasy when I contemplate the question
of whether what the government decides to do about global warming
will be worse than global warming itself? But why should I worry
about possible government failure--after all, the US government has
shown itself brilliantly competent at running the current war,
right?
For those who want to pile on me some more, see my pro-war stuff
here. For
my fairy tale about government war competence, look here. Mea
culpa.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#
So, since the bacteria thingie is a hoax does that mean that a yogert powered Segway really is impossible?
|11.14.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Overpopulation, global cooling, global famine, the ozone hole,
the raiforest, the whales ect....
Jesus man, your such a smart guy but you had to fall for it.
VM|11.14.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Actually, Ron, the main thing we want to pile on for is that you
were spotted wearing white after Labor
Day, and you mixed plaid with stripes and
seersucker.
:)
|11.14.07 @ 12:51PM|#
RC Dean,
So the guys who pimped their bogus hockey stick chart all over
the planet are not "real scientists doing real
research"?
Yes. See, the hockey stick graph is a set of data and the
conclusions that they drew from this data.
On the other hand, a narrative about scheming scientists, political
conspiracies, and non-scientific agendas is not science.
How very telling that you didn't recognize this difference on your
own.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 12:52PM|#
In my best judgment the problem of man-made global warming
is developing faster than private property institutions can develop
to respond to it. It's an open access commons problem in which the
transactions costs are too high to encourage private solution in a
relevant time frame. I could be wrong, but that's how I see
it.
Ron, I found a solution.
Just toss the carbon into the air and what G_d wants back in the
ground he can bury Himself!
Timothy|11.14.07 @ 12:54PM|#
RC, joe: Why don't you guys just fuck already and get the tension out of the air?
VM|11.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Ron - have you posted on Mr. Thorp's site, inviting him to see
your posts?
joe - how about accepting the science, but doubting some of the
political solutions advanced by non scientists (not the need for a
political solution, but an actually-proposed solution - I'm trying
to find a Danish suggestion put forth by the SF party in the
mid-to-late 90s that illustrates this)?
|11.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#
SugarFree,
Hategasm? Let's go to the tape:
But the findings presented in this paper could not be more damaging
to manmade global warming theory or to the thousands of climate
scientists who have overlooked - sometimes, we fear, deliberately -
the anomaly...By contrast we note what must be obvious to all those
who have studied the figures with an open mind: a very poor
match between carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and
recent global temperature records.
We have no choice but to conclude that the recent increase in
global temperatures, which has caused so much disquiet among policy
makers, bears no relation to industrial emissions, but is in fact a
natural phenomenom...
These findings place us in a difficult position. We feel an
obligation to publish, both in the cause of scientific objectivity
and to prevent a terrible mistake - with extremely costly
implications - from being made by the world's governments. But
we recognise that in doing so, we lay our careers on the line.
As we have found in seeking to broach this issue gently with
colleagues, and in attempting to publish these findings in other
peer-reviewed journals, the "consensus" on climate change is
enforced not by fact but by fear. We have been warned, collectively
and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention
we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of
funding, but that we also jeopardise the funding of the departments
for which we work.
We believe that academic intimidation of this kind
contradicts the spirit of open enquiry in which scientific
investigations should be conducted. We deplore the aggressive
responses we encountered before our findings were published, and
fear the reaction this paper might provoke.
I trust you took the authors to task for their politicized
hatemongering.
Just kiddin'!
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 12:55PM|#
So, it looks like Ron is a stooge for Big Punk
More like a shill for Big Mea Culpa. We're on to you, Ron.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Whoa, it looks like joe had his hategasm and ejaculated all over the post. Was it as good for you as it wasn't for anyone else, joe?
|11.14.07 @ 12:59PM|#
lunchstealer,
The way the "reformed" Ron Bailey jumps on every piece of global
warming denial leads me to conclude that his alleged change of
heart is just for show.
Does a just-the-facts reporter on global warming science run a
glowing review of the CEI's "They call it pollution, we call it
life" ads? Does he fall for and pass on a story about a cabal of
evil scientists suppressing research?
|11.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Episiarch,
It's comforting to me know that that I can count on you to
appreciate that every poltical debate is actually about me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me.
Some people get confused, and write comments that deal with the
subject of the post, or the issues surrounding it.
|11.14.07 @ 1:04PM|#
VM,
joe - how about accepting the science, but doubting some of the
political solutions advanced by non scientists (not the need for a
political solution, but an actually-proposed solution - I'm trying
to find a Danish suggestion put forth by the SF party in the
mid-to-late 90s that illustrates this)?
How about it? Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, there are also
those who hide behind such a stance in order to make their
denialism seem more scienfitically defensible.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:08PM|#
It's comforting to me know that that I can count on you to
appreciate that every poltical debate is actually about me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me
Uh, yeah, joe, that's sort of my point. I know you can't get that
but that's your problem, not mine.
You do realize that even attempting to argue the tiniest facet of
AGW with you results in 1) insults, 2) insults, 3) insults, and 4)
ad hominems? Any deviation from the line you hew is "denial"--no
matter how small.
Why would anyone engage you on the facts when you are so absolutely
rabidly close-minded and completely, religiously unwilling to hear
the tiniest argument?
You are stunningly incapable of self-reflection, but give it a shot
for once, on this most holy of topics of yours.
VM|11.14.07 @ 1:11PM|#
joe - too true. too true. and you're totally right - and I can
totally see a parallel with the IDers in hiding behind a certain
stance.
it's just a shame that yelling DEMAND KURV won't "solve" this
issue! :)
|11.14.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"Arguing AGW," Episiarch definition:
I seem to recall certain posters on your "I got punk'd" thread
gloating, even though you are no longer what they term a "denier".
Which seemed strange to me, but in character with "I wish for all
dissenters to be crushed, see them driven before me, and hear the
lamentations of their women".
And here is joe again, Ron. That you now believe in AGW is
irrelevant--you have been a "denier" and aren't a full-blown
believer (in joe's definition)--and are therefore a heretic. joe
will not rest until you are burned at the stake.
Whoa, it looks like joe had his hategasm and ejaculated all over
the post. Was it as good for you as it wasn't for anyone else,
joe?
Please, tell us more about decorum, personal insults, and focusing
on the science, you brainless hypocrite.
Guy Montag|11.14.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Can we get some more "global warming" so I can turn off the heater in my 2nd story single-wide?
|11.14.07 @ 1:14PM|#
In case it wasn't clear, the three paragraphs in the middle of my last comment represent the sum total of Episiarch's "contribution" to the discussion, prior to accusing me of personal attacks and an unwillingness to tolerate dissenting opionions.
lunchstealer|11.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Well, accuse him of disingenuitousness... er disingenuosity ... being faulty, but it's still not really the same as ID.
|11.14.07 @ 1:17PM|#
joe will not rest until you are burned at the stake.
I would certainly hope joe wouldn't actually want to burn someone
at the stake. No doubt it would have a negative impact on his
carbon footprint.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Please, tell us more about decorum, personal insults, and
focusing on the science, you brainless
hypocrite.
joe, your capacity for unintentional irony plus projection never
fails to impress me.
You're "not a skeptic" the way Intelligent Design
proponents are not creationists.
It's a fallback position for people who want to argue the
anti-science position but claim the mantle of scientific
legitimacy.
The way the "reformed" Ron Bailey jumps on every
piece of global warming denial leads me to conclude that
his alleged change of heart is just for
show.
On the other hand, a narrative about scheming scientists, political
conspiracies, and non-scientific agendas is not science.
How very telling that you didn't recognize this difference
on your own.
You are just the epitome of polite discussion, right? Please
continue, Ironyman.
|11.14.07 @ 1:21PM|#
I thought NBC's "Green Week" finally put an end to this whole global warming kerfuffle.
|11.14.07 @ 1:22PM|#
"The way the "reformed" Ron Bailey jumps on every piece of
global warming denial leads me to conclude that his alleged change
of heart is just for show."
I can hear him now (words to this effect):
"Oh sure, you say you're no longer a heretic, but I know better."
-- Tomás de Torquemada
In the words of Monty Python "No one expects the Spanish
Inquisition," but maybe Ron Bailey should.
|11.14.07 @ 1:22PM|#
I remember some guys in junior high school who liked to make up
semi-plausible lies that people were likely to find compelling.
When people entertained the possibility that the lies might be
true, they started laughing and pointing and saying, "I can't
believe you fell for that?!!!"
Yeah, we called them 'dicks'.
|11.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I wouldn't to argue about politics, science, or reality either,
Episiarch.
Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me
me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:24PM|#
joe, I say again:
You do realize that even attempting to argue the tiniest facet
of AGW with you results in 1) insults, 2) insults, 3) insults, and
4) ad hominems? Any deviation from the line you hew is "denial"--no
matter how small.
Why would anyone engage you on the facts when you are so absolutely
rabidly close-minded and completely, religiously unwilling to hear
the tiniest argument?
|11.14.07 @ 1:27PM|#
So, joe, when some uber-Green Levellers bite onto a fake story about how Lomborg made up all of the data for his book, you'll be here to tell us how anti-science and biased they are, right?
|11.14.07 @ 1:30PM|#
If Reason runs a biased story attacking the work of legitimate climate scientists, I'll criticize that bias, too, Rimfax. Somehow, I feel confident that I won't be called on to do so.
|11.14.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Episiarch, have you ever seen me attack Ron Bailey for arguing
that a carbon tax is a better response to the problem than
regulations?
No. No, you have not.
But you JUST KNOW that I MUST be completely unwilling to consider
and debate any position other than my own.
You manage to JUST KNOW a lot of things about me. Too bad they
don't ever manage to be true.
R C Dean|11.14.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Of course, for joe, the test fro whether you are a "legitimate climate scientist" is adherence to the AGW orthodoxy. Much simpler that way.
|11.14.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Joe, what exactly is your position? I'm not baiting you, I'm just curious. Do you have a position and solution for global warming that can be summed up in a post?
|11.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
mediageek,
When I'm treated with a modicum of respect and fairness for arguing
an unpopular position, I am as polite and magnanimous when I'm
ultimately proven correct as you could hope.
When I get a dumptruck full of shit dumped on me for not agreeing
with the herd, yeah, I do a little end zone dance.
Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Sorry to throw your own posts back at you, joe, just like you
did to me. I mean, when you do it it proves things, but when I do
it shows I "just know" things?
Keep it up--you've built up some serious joementum today and it
would be a shame for you to slow down now.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I do a little end zone dance
Yes! Victory claim! Doesn't it upset you that you are utterly
predictable, joe?
|11.14.07 @ 1:42PM|#
All right, that's the last response I'm writing to a "joe yoor
mean" comment.
Pinette,
I agree with the recent Nobel Prize winners about the cause and
severity of global warming. I believe we need to start taking
action immediately - should have been taking action for a decade at
least.
We should start with the lowest-hanging fruit - building standards,
fuel economy, solar-wind-geothermal plants - and work our way up to
a comprehensive change in how our society functions. This
represents a major society-wide change, and will have to unfold
over a generation. Nuclear energy is probably going to have to be a
part of the solution, at least for the immediate future.
I'm neither a climatologist nor a policy expert, so I can't draw
you an exact road map.
ed|11.14.07 @ 1:45PM|#
"Alas, blogging can be a treacherous activity."
-Bailey
That's what still separates it from real journalism.
|11.14.07 @ 1:46PM|#
ID is still fundamentally antiscientific in that it accepts a theory which is inherently untestable.
@lunchstealer,
I don't know that untestable is the most sound definition of
antiscientific (ascientific?). Consider string theory. That theory
is currently untestable given today's tools. What makes intelligent
design so antiscientific is that they simply fabricate stories to
fit their needs.
"Hmm, let's see, evidence for evolution looks pretty good, but we
still need to push our agenda... Got it! God created
evolution!"
Whereas string theory has some pretty rigorous arguments
underpinning it.
Just saying.
Episiarch|11.14.07 @ 1:46PM|#
All right, that's the last response I'm writing to a "joe
yoor mean" comment.
Mm-kay. Anybody want to place a bet on this?
|11.14.07 @ 1:49PM|#
joe,
What I'd be curious to hear is what you think the difference is,
for a journalist and not a climate scientist, between adopting the
consensus because it's the agreed position of experts and adopting
a consensus because you personally were convinced by a piece of
information - bearing in mind the difficulty, especially for
laymen, of obtaining a complete and unbiased picture of a
scientific subject.
I would argue that whatever your definition of disingenuous is,
there's a huge difference between people who regard anthropic
climate change as a consensus (even if one in need of critical
treatment) and proper deniers, who are constitutionally unable to
admit that the science establishment is largely against them. It's
an even further step to ID'ers, who will argue that the science
establishment are motivated by politics first and foremost, and
have united against them precisely because of repressed awareness
of their - science's - own inherent wrongness.
|11.14.07 @ 1:50PM|#
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need more trees
in the ground. Old Growth trees should no longer be considered
sacred for environmental purposes - their rate of carbon
sequestration has slowed to a crawl. Newer trees remove carbon
dioxide at a much faster rate because they are actually growing and
the process of photosynthesis is what actually produces twigs and
leaves.
We should be using less concrete and steel, and more wood.
This increased demand for wood will signal the marketplace to grow
more trees and produce more wood.
In addition, responsible forest mamgagement is imperative since
forest fires run counter to all parties involved - both
"envirowackos" and "evil capitalists." This means actively removing
dead trees and debris from the forest floor, as well as thinning
overly crowded forest areas.
Paul|11.14.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Holy flaming pile of straw, joe.
The fact that you even begin to compare something like the
evolution/intelligent design debate to the debate on global warming
is in and of itself a straw man argument.
Let me try:
In pre-world war II Germany, there was a scientific "concensus" on
Eugenics. There was an economic "concensus" on the damage being
done to the german people by the capitalist jewry. For someone who
claims to be the blog 'ump' on cheapshots, you're getting the ten
yard penalty on this one.
Being skeptical of global warming as caused by increasing CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere related to human industrial
activity is a far different thing than a bunch of people that claim
"god did it" when it comes to the evolution of species.
If anything, the global warming industry has created its own
"intelligent design" in that the immediate response to any weather
anomaly, any observed change in the migration patterns of species,
any change in timeline for the egg-laying patterns of the New
England nuthatch is immediately explained as "humans did it".
|11.14.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Joe-
Good luck with your endzone dance.
In the meantime, I'm off to vacation.
Cheerio All!
|11.14.07 @ 1:55PM|#
hale,
In my experience, deniers don't deny that the scientific community
is against them. They just claim that the scientific community are
dishonest, politicized conspirators in a scheme to dupe humanity.
See James Inhofe echoing Joe McCarthy when he calls global warming
"the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity."
Look at the bit I quoted from the hoax study - the claims of
politicized scientific oppression that Bailey found so
compelling.
In theory, it's possible for someone to simply be unconvinced by
the science, after approaching the issue from a scientific point of
view in good faith and educated himself about the evidence. In
practice, that ship sailed years ago.
|11.14.07 @ 1:55PM|#
And here is joe again, Ron. That you now believe in AGW is
irrelevant--you have been a "denier" and aren't a full-blown
believer (in joe's definition)--and are therefore a heretic. joe
will not rest until you are burned at the stake.
Said stake-burning by global ice age deniers, of course, causing
CO2 emissions ...
;)
|11.14.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Saw the topic. Saw the author. Saw the number of comments. Said
to self: "joe!"*
in much the same way Jerry Seinfeld said "Newman!"
|11.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
joe,
My benchmark for climate change deniers comes from National
Review, where the standard line is that "there remain many
scientists unconvinced that global warming is caused by human
activity" and "global warming is far from a consensus."
Syloson of Samos|11.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
joe,
It is pretty clear that Bailey, whatever else he is doing, is not
denying that there is a current warming trend. Indeed, that he
appears to be ready to advocate some sort of tax on the matter is
further evidence of how serious he views the issue. Remember that
the imposition of taxes is generally a pretty big deal to
libertarians.
|11.14.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Episiarch, joe -
Let's talk about something less contentious. Maybe we should
restart the crusades. or All women are whores. Something like
that.
|11.14.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Paul,
The problem with your Godwinesque examples is that none of them
were created through the rigorous, scientific pursuit of evidence
by scientists working in conditions of strict peer review,
resulting in an evidence-based case so strong that scientists
independently came to similar conclusions.
Being skeptical of global warming as caused by increasing CO2
concentrations in the atmosphere related to human industrial
activity is a far different thing than a bunch of people that claim
"god did it" when it comes to the evolution of species. Yes,
but that's not what IDers claim. They argue that the scientific
consensus is based on weak evidence by politicized scientists, and
that they are NOT arguing that God Did It. What you just described
is called Creationism, not ID.
I don't know what you're calling "the global warming community,"
but among client scientists, there are vigorous and ongoing debates
over what can and cannot be said to be thte consequence of global
warming. Just this year, for example, the belief that the retreated
glaciers on Kiliminjaro were caused by global warming was
revisited, and found wanting.
|11.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#
At least you were honest about it, Ron.
Still, I was a little disappointed that the boys at NATIONAL REVIEW
sniffed it out immediately but that it made it throw (however
briefly) the blog-sensors here at REASON.
|11.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#
In theory, it's possible for someone to simply be
unconvinced by the science, after approaching the issue from a
scientific point of view in good faith and educated himself about
the evidence. In practice, that ship sailed years ago.
That ship sailed roughly around 1980, when the scientists grubbing
for grants forcibly funded by taxes extracted from the citizenry
switched from claiming they needed more funds to study the
calamitous impending ice age, to claiming they needed more funds to
study the calamitous impending heat wave ...
What happened around 1980, of course, was that the scientists
realized that the slight global cooling trend from the late 30s to
the 70s had switched to a slight warming trend.
Only a green quasi-religious zealot, or someone with a short
attention span for the recent scientific past, can ignore this
perverse history and claim "the science is all in, nobody is
allowed to argue our utterly proven thesis that the government MUST
assume huge new powers over industry."
|11.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Newer trees remove carbon dioxide at a much faster rate because they are actually growing and the process of photosynthesis is what actually produces twigs and leaves.
In addition, responsible forest mamgagement is imperative...actively removing dead trees and debris from the forest floor, as well as thinning overly crowded forest areas.
@sage,
It turns out trees are not the
answer.
And the response from Ron Bailey:
KingHarvest: You are right. There are differences in the effects of boreal, temperate and tropical forests on temperature. In this case, forest protection generally refers to protecting and expanding tropical forests which models suggest cool the planet.
lunchstealer|11.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Kingharvest, fair enough.
I still think that joe's 12:28 comment is a bogus analogy. Then
again, I may be sensitive because I used the
EXACT same analogy about 8 minutes before him WRT some of the
bozos who were getting their collective panties in a wad over
Bailey's use of the sentence "Burning fossil fuels loads the
atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and that's raising the earth's
average temperature," to open his alternative transportation energy
article.
|11.14.07 @ 2:05PM|#
hale,
National Review has clearly decided that a more sophisticated
expression of their denial will be more effective. I don't think
they are even remotely in the dark about the degree of consensus
that exists among client scientists, but are just being flat-out
dishonest.
They also run Creationist and ID articles, too.
|11.14.07 @ 2:06PM|#
All this bullshit arguing is fucking stupid.
Joe, i agree with you on all of that except for the severity part.
I don't think the consequences of global warming will be all that
severe, IE i don't think the ocean levels will rise 20 feet in a
single season, etc.
That said, I see nothing wrong with your solutions, advocating a
fundamental change in the way our industries operate, even if just
for the sake of air quality. I don't see these changes as
inherently anti-capitalist or liberal.
And I am a libertarian.
GILMORE|11.14.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Rimfax | November 14, 2007, 1:22pm | #
I remember some guys in junior high school who liked to make up
semi-plausible lies that people were likely to find compelling.
When people entertained the possibility that the lies might be
true, they started laughing and pointing and saying, "I can't
believe you fell for that?!!!"
Yeah, we called them 'dicks'.
He he he.
I was one of those people. :) I still often (especially in bars)
present ludicrous 'facts' to people in hope that they will spread
the disinformation, and one day someone will circulate the
information back to me. I think my favorite was one night when I
told 3 different people false explanations of how 'corned beef' is
made.
One I think involved the young beef being hung by bungee cords and
force-fed liquid corn, to make their muscles loose, flabby, sweet
and tasty. I think i came up with that because the person opposed
'inhumane' food processing. I tried to 'feed' him as many false
cases of animal abuse as possible. "You think fois gras is bad!?
Man, you should look into how they're trying to create 6 legged
mutant chickens in Buffalo"
|11.14.07 @ 2:07PM|#
carrick | November 14, 2007, 2:03pm | #
I'm beginning to miss the civility of the joe vs. John war
debates.
At least John would actually discuss the war, present an argument,
and sometimes point to bits of data to make a case.
Sure, he could be counted to start off with an insult about how
stupid I was, and end with a paragraph about how stupid I am, but
there is generally some substance in the middle that relates to the
topic.
|11.14.07 @ 2:09PM|#
jkp | November 14, 2007, 2:04pm | #
At least you were honest about it, Ron.
Let's not rewrite history here. Bailey took deleted the post
without a word, and only put it back up and copped to his error
AFTER he discovered that other bloggers were writing about it.
|11.14.07 @ 2:09PM|#
joe - you kind of dug yourself into this one. All you had to say
was "Ha ha Ron! You dope! They got you good!" But instead you made
it some conspiracy about what Ron does or does not believe.
Reporting a hoax is a price of the real-time blogging world, not
necessarily some method of using bogus science to support a
position, although it could be used for that purpose.
|11.14.07 @ 2:12PM|#
joe,
I'm sure you're right about NR. That's kind of my point, actually.
I maintain that emotions underlie 100% of politics; the only thing
about political expression that can even pretend to objectivity of
factuality is how specific positions are stated and argued. For
this reason, I believe that strictly speaking, "disingenuous" is an
unimportant charge when it concerns a pundit, someone whose only
role is advocacy.
Now, if there is an issue with how a disingenuous person
frames their discussion of an issue, in order to advocate
a point separate to or opposite from the one they claim to, then
that's another thing entirely. Do you think Bailey is engaged in
that sort of sleight-of-hand with regard to climate?
Syloson of Samos|11.14.07 @ 2:14PM|#
joe,
If Bailey had gone full-tilt in favor of the hoax you might have a
point. He didn't so you don't.
|11.14.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Pinette,
Neither the IPCC nor Al Gore have stated that sea levels will rise
20 feet in a single season. They've both described it as a
low-probability worst-case scenario.
prolefeed,
There was never a consensus about "global cooling," or anything
even close to a majority of scientists who found the evidence
compelling. The tiny number of theoretical articles that appeared
in peer-reviewed journals regarding "global cooling" in the late
70s (pluse Time Magazine, back before the fad about angels), vs the
thousands of articles about global warming that have appeared since
then, would cause an objective person to see the two situations
quite differently.
Do you know HOW the theory of global cooling was refuted? By
thousands of independent scientists reviewing the articles, looking
at the data therein, and taking their own measurements and running
their own models. Exactly the same process has been, and continues
to be, carried out regarding global warming, but the outcome has
been quite different. Whereas the earlier studies refuted the
theory, the more recent ones have served to back it up. Hence,
there is now a consensus.
Jennifer|11.14.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"The way the "reformed" Ron Bailey jumps on every piece of
global warming denial leads me to conclude that his alleged change
of heart is just for show."
Denying global warming is the political equivalent of exposure to
secondhand smoke. As we all know (thanks to our wise government),
secondhand smoke is so dangerous that if you ever so much as stand
30 yards downwind of someone smoking a Camel, your lungs will
shrivel and turn black and you'll die a horrible cancerous death 40
years earlier than God would have otherwise called you home.
Therefore, if you've ever smoked in your life, there is absolutely
no reason you should bother to quit, since you're well and truly
fucked no matter what you do.
So smoke if you got 'em, Ron, and to hell with the atmosphere.
|11.14.07 @ 2:21PM|#
mike,
I've seen bloggers caught by hoaxes and bad information before.
They add an update at the end, and maybe change their original
language into a "strikethrough" font. Bailey, on the other hand,
acted guilty. He tried to cover up his error, and only copped to it
once he got caught.
Opportunity, motive, a longstanding pattern of behavior, and
efforts to cover his tracks.
I'll stand pat.
Syloson of Samos|11.14.07 @ 2:22PM|#
joe,
In a paragraph or so can you describe what that "consensus" looks
like?
From my POV it looks like even the most skeptical climatologists
agree that there is a long-term warming trend underway. There also
seems to be a consensus that man is in part responsible for this.
That's where the consensus tends to stop however. How significant
it is, what future effects it will have, etc. are still all pretty
hotly contested.
Syloson of Samos|11.14.07 @ 2:25PM|#
joe,
Bailey, on the other hand, acted guilty.
Guilty of what pray reveal? At best the most you can claim here is
that Bailey was fooled by a hoax.
|11.14.07 @ 2:29PM|#
KingHarvest,
I didn't RTWFA but I wonder if it has more to do with the length of
the days. During the summer, when daylight is almost constant
around the artic circle, I bet CO2 is removed at a much higher
rate.
|11.14.07 @ 2:32PM|#
S.o.S.,
I'm sure you can find far better sources for descriptions of the
current state of the science than I.
As for what Bailey is guilty of, I think I've laid my cards pretty
openly on the table.
Paul|11.14.07 @ 2:33PM|#
The problem with your Godwinesque examples is that none of
them were created through the
Joe, my example was not Godwinesque, it was an example about
Godwinism. There's a difference. Like the difference between a
racist joke, and a joke about racism. A subtlety often missed.
Anyhoo, unimportant.
Yes, but that's not what IDers claim. They argue that the
scientific consensus is based on weak evidence by politicized
scientists, and that they are NOT arguing that God Did
It.
I think what you've made here, joe, is a distinction without a
difference. Creationists claim that God did everything
ID'ers claim that God has a hand in evolution. To claim that
Creationists and the Intelligent Design community are distinct and
different camps is a bit of an obfuscation. To wit:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3][4] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be God
So, in summary: god did it.
I say again, using Intelligent Design as a segue to counter an
argument about the skepticism of a scientific theory of human
induced global warming is a cheapshot. I stand by that.
Syloson of Samos|11.14.07 @ 2:34PM|#
joe,
I'm looking for your opinion on the subject. You talk about the
"consensus" a lot and I'd like to know what you mean by that. I
mean, you have to mean something by it.
Paul|11.14.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Let's not rewrite history here. Bailey took deleted the post
without a word, and only put it back up and copped to his error
AFTER he discovered that other bloggers were writing about
it.
Joe, I don't see the dark consipiracy here that even really
justifies this blogger tit-for-tat.
Had Bailey made a blog post that was up for several hours, or days,
then took it down quietly and never responded to any questions or
comments about it, that would elicit some chin-scratching.
Yes, I understand we have this here newfangled innernets thing and
stuff travels really quick blah blah blah. Ok, fine. Ron made a
post, was duped for a few minutes, and pulled it down thinking that
it hadn't been up long enough to travel through the blogosphere.
But when he found out it did travel through said sphere, he
copped.
I'm beginning to think you'd be happier had Ron fought this
tooth-and-nail. Then you'd have a leg to stand on.
|11.14.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Paul,
I undertand, and you understand, that the IDers are talking about
God. But THEY phrase their arguments in a manner intended to make a
distinction between Creationism, which they pretend not to endorse,
and Intelligent Design. I agree, it's a distinction without a
difference, but it's not mine - it's theirs.
And it is exactly the lack of a meaningful difference between the
two positions that makes the comparison beteen global warming
denialism and global warming "skepticism" so appropriate.
lunchstealer|11.14.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Yes, but that's not what IDers claim. They argue that the
scientific consensus is based on weak evidence by politicized
scientists, and that they are NOT arguing that God Did It. What you
just described is called Creationism, not ID.
Sort of, but they also argue that the only possible explanation for
some of the complex systems found in nature is design by an
intelligent designer. The "Intelligent" in ID is precisely a
creator, not natural processes. They do not argue against the
long-earth-history hypothesis, but they do argue against the
simple-forms-evolve-to-more-complex-forms which is central to
evolutionary theory, and they do so by replacing natural selection
with an intentional creator.
I think maybe the problem isn't that you're giving Bailey too much
shit, but that you're giving ID too much credit.
|11.14.07 @ 2:51PM|#
I say again, using Intelligent Design as a segue to counter
an argument about the skepticism of a scientific theory of human
induced global warming is a cheapshot. I stand by that.
Skepticism that's only brought to bear against the arguments one
doesn't wish to hear, when joined with a gullible belief in
arguments that back up one's pre-determined position, is not
skepticism - and that is the defining characteristic of both the
global warming "skeptic" and the IDer.
|11.14.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Ronald, this is insane. The article was certainly written by an actual scientist, the style and minor technical points are too good to be chance. You included caveats about its believability, but if this were a real article, it would be of interest to your readers. I must say that on its surface the article appears ridiculous, but then I'm not a climatologist. I would expect that C02 emissions from bacteria on continental shelves would be incredibly stable over geological time, but science sometimes has surprises. This is the stupidest scientific "gotcha" since the Alan Sokal incident. I can just imagine the author of the article laughing "ha! These people will believe anything if they believe there is significant variation in CO2 emissions from these bacteria over timescales as small as 140 years. Unbelievable." Ha ha.
x,y|11.14.07 @ 3:15PM|#
I agree with the recent Nobel Prize winners about the cause and severity of global warming. I believe we need to start taking action immediately - should have been taking action for a decade at least.
We should start with the lowest-hanging fruit - building standards, fuel economy, solar-wind-geothermal plants - and work our way up to a comprehensive change in how our society functions. This represents a major society-wide change, and will have to unfold over a generation. Nuclear energy is probably going to have to be a part of the solution, at least for the immediate future.
I'm neither a climatologist nor a policy expert, so I can't draw you an exact road map.
I'm neither a climatologist nor a policy expert, so I can't
draw you an exact road map but I did stay at a Holiday Inn
Express last night.
|11.14.07 @ 3:23PM|#
joe,
So, I should expect to find a letter from you at the Scientific
American editorial office, then? I expect that it really takes them
to task for letting their biases get the better of them in their
unscientific roast of Lomborg. I'll bet that's a really good
letter.
Jennifer|11.14.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Joe, what CAN Ron Bailey do to earn absolution if not forgiveness, do you think?
|11.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Lucas Wiman,
This is the stupidest scientific "gotcha" since the Alan Sokal incident. I can just imagine the author of the article laughing "ha! These people will believe anything if they believe there is significant variation in CO2 emissions from these bacteria over timescales as small as 140 years. Unbelievable." Ha ha.
Like I said, 'dicks'.
cls|11.14.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Well, of course these alarmist wrote up a hoax. They have lots of practice at it. These types were hoaxing the world on Kilimanjaor, hoaxing the world about increased hurricanes, hoaxing the world that the wild fires in CA were the result of warming. When it comes to warming and hoaxes these kinds of people are experts.
Pussy who posts as others anon|11.14.07 @ 3:56PM|#
I'm late to the party, not funny, and I'm a coward!
|11.14.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Jennifer,
Ron-ah BAILEY is AH SINN-AH! He MUST PAY for his-ah Sins! I have
WOVEN a HAIRSHIRT for him to WEAR!
|11.14.07 @ 4:05PM|#
"Joe, what CAN Ron Bailey do to earn absolution if not
forgiveness, do you think?"
Cutting out the disingenuousness about his previous skepticism
would be a good start.
ed|11.14.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Mankind has always been able to deal with whatever nature throws at it. The freer and richer will deal with it better than the po' folk. It has always been thus. I am not afraid. The end.
|11.14.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Scientists are more easily duped by hoaxsters than others,
probably because they are trained to go tête-á-tête with Nature,
which, as Einstein said, is "subtle, but not malicious".
Nature doesn't lie, but people often do.
Sean W. Malone|11.14.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Most comments on here seem pretty reasonable, but for those who
are whining about Bailey's credibility and suggesting he be fired
over posting something mistakenly, then 10 minutes later (!!!)
retracting the mistake, apologizing for it and owning his biases -
that's insane.
How many of you have made a minor mistake in your jobs which you
immediately corrected? Should you be fired for that? Furthermore,
calling people who are skeptical of the doom-and-gloom,
end-of-the-world catastrophe nonsense that is "man-made global
warming" deniers!? Give me a freakin' break. There are plenty of
very prominent scientists who don't support the Al Gore position.
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently completed an exhaustive study of
the ISI Web of Science database (covering over 8,700 peer-reviewed
journals in science)from 2004-2007 and found that of 538 papers
specifically on climate change, only 7% gave an explicit
endorsement of the view that "man has at least some effect on
global climage change". According to Schulte, if you add to that
figure all those who gave an implicit endorsement of that opinion,
the figure rises only to 45%. Most scientists have not taken a
position and an almost equal percentage (6%) explicitly
disagree.
There is PLENTY of debate to go around, so calling people who are
legitimately skeptical "deniers" is to equate those people with
fools at best and at worst seeks to draw an insipid connection with
those who deny things like the Holocaust. That is nothing but
ridiculous fear-mongering.
Furthermore, is it really all that hard to believe that
environmentalists & politicians would use hyperbole,
exaggerations or outright falsified evidence to provide support for
their power-grabbing plans of action? They've done it countless
times in the past afterall!!
Hell, I had a biology teacher in college who told a lecture class
of 50 or so students that the forests of the Earth were
disappearing at a rate that (which I later decided to check on)
would have meant that there would be no forests anywhere on earth
by about 20 years AGO! (I can't remember the number offhand and I'm
not even sure I have the handwritten notes anymore, but it was so
staggering that I was forced to conclude the only way it could have
been possible is if forests accounted for more than the surface
area of the entire planet.)
Bias is not new to science, and when you consider that the vast
majority of scientists interviewed by either Al Gore & his
documentary or the IPCC (a bureaucrat written paper by the way!)
were not even climatologists but rather various types of biologists
and ecologists, it shouldn't come as too much of a shock that they
are people who are passionate about changes to their field. If I
were a scientist studying Polar Bears, I'd be distressed if I
thought the population was dying off too... and if I was so
predisposed to thinking that mankind is unnatural or some kind of
harbringer of ecological destruction (as many biologists are wont
to think), I might be looking for a man-made cause to that
problem.
One might also be compelled to note that the hoax was perpetrated
by someone seeking to discredit skeptical viewpoints by attempting
to discredit the people who hold them, which is essentially an ad
hominem fallacy - and something which doesn't usually need to be
done by people who have true security in their views.
This whole thing has been much ado about nothing - I say KUDOS to
Bailey who acted with responsibility and integrity. (And for that
matter, to Rush Limbaugh and everyone else who did the same
thing.)
Neu Mejican|11.14.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Rimfax | November 14, 2007, 3:23pm | #
joe,
So, I should expect to find a letter from you at the Scientific
American editorial office, then? I expect that it really takes them
to task for letting their biases get the better of them in their
unscientific roast of Lomborg. I'll bet that's a really good
letter.
I didn't see SciAm providing a forum for some of the scientists
that Lomborg criticized to respond in detail, then providing
Lomborg with a forum to respond in detail to their response, then
responding to Lomborg's response with a detailed critical review as
an "unscientific roast."
They are not a peer-reviewed journal, but publishing a scientific
back and forth is better than most science journalism. The whole
thing is still up on their website for review by those that want to
take sides on it.
R C Dean|11.14.07 @ 4:49PM|#
From my POV it looks like even the most skeptical
climatologists agree that there is a long-term warming trend
underway.
Not sure what "long-term" means in this context, but I would agree
that we've cleaned up the data enough to confirm that there is some
kind of warming trend underway.
I thought the long-term picture was that we are just about due for
another ice age.
There also seems to be a consensus that man is in part
responsible for this.
Good one, joe. This is what I mean when I say that, for joe,
adherence to AGW is how you identify a "real" climatologist. Its
tautological for him.
The challenges to this view are so many and so varied, the lack of
any plausible and testable hypothesis for the mechanism by which
anthro CO2 drives the climate is so apparent, and the lack of
explanatory power of the AGW hypothesis so blatant, that I simply
cannot comprehend how anyone could call it settled science.
R C Dean|11.14.07 @ 4:54PM|#
If anything, I think the IDers have more in common with your AGW
true believers than with AGW skeptics.
Both IDers and AGW true believers would have you think that there
is an agency that controls natural processes, after all. They only
differ on the nature of the agency. IDers call it God, and AGWers
call it people.
|11.14.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Mr. B:
You just gave these jerkoffs even more publicity. Just stop. If
they call you a poopyface, just let it go.
|11.14.07 @ 7:05PM|#
The body of comments here, in which a lot of people still assert
no scientific consensus on global warming thanks to the chaff still
being thrown up by the denial machine which, until recently, Bailey
was gleefully part of, shows the whole problem.
Hint: Real climatologists have not been debating AGW for many
years. It's been settled for a long time. What you're seeing now
are the same kinds of shenanigans that the tobacco companies pulled
in the decades after serious researchers had already settled the
lung cancer issue.
Sean W. Malone|11.14.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Hey Not Joe; why don't you check out Dr. Reid Bryson's comments
on the subject - considering he is one of the first people in the
world to acheive a Ph.D in climatology and he doesn't support the
"consensus" opinion at all...
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Anyone who thinks that this is simply a closed issue is deluding
themselves.
Neu Mejican|11.14.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Sean,
Your comment makes me think of Einstein and quantum theory for some
reason...I wonder why...it'll come to me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
|11.14.07 @ 8:41PM|#
Sean,
Likewise, in the 1970s (maybe even the 1980s), you could still find
a handful of old coots who would say smoking had no relationship
whatsoever to lung cancer. A few of them even believed it (weren't
being paid by tobacco companies).
You need to look up the definition of "consensus".
People wondering why Ron should never be let off the hook: this is
why. Ten years from now, there will still be people here who were
fooled.
|11.14.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Jennifer,
At this point, I'd say the best thing would be for Bailey to stop
trying to the cover the issue of global warming, and stick to
philosophical pieces about immortality and transhumanism.
Actually, when you look back at how long he flogged the silly
"Rachel Carson killed a billion Africans" nonsense, he should
probably stay away from any scientific or environmental issue that
has a left/right divide.
He either will not or cannot cover these issued in an accurate,
reliable, responsible manner.
Sean W. Malone|11.14.07 @ 10:44PM|#
I know exactly what the consensus opinion is, and I might note
that what the term "consensus" means in science IS NOT the same as
how that term is used colloquially - in this case, the "consensus
opinion" is that man has "at least some effect" on climate change.
I don't know about you, but that seems pretty open-ended to me. And
as I already discussed in my first post, support for it isn't even
very strong!
The Klaus-Martin Schulte study is widely available - the first time
I read it it was on the US Senate webpage.
So, it's not just one or two "old coots", it's a wide and diverse
community of scientists. And pushing a bunch of "there is no
debate" nonsense as if this is gospel is ridiculous and insults my
intelligence. And now that you mention smoking, the correlation of
second-hand smoke and cancer is pretty nebulous - yet that hasn't
stopped bureaucrats of all stripes from running wild with private
property rights, nor has it stopped anti-smoking campaigners from
exaggerating the claims to ridiculous proportions.
(I don't smoke by the way).
OH, and ALSO while on the topic of the 70s and "old coots", people
around then were claiming a catastrophic ice age! There were some
"old coots" who were saying that wasn't a big deal too, and guess
what - I'm not seeing any glaciers out my window.
You can call people names all you want, but there are hundreds of
very serious climatologists who disagree with the consensus, and as
I stated with respect to the Schulte paper, less than half of
published, peer-reviewed scientists even IMPLICITLY accept that the
consensus opinion is true and a mere 7% explicitly state that
humans have caused global warming.
There's plenty of debate to be had yet on the subject before we go
off and destroy what little freedom we all have left over something
that probably isn't that big a deal. And frankly, I'd appreciate it
if people like you stopped trying to stifle the debate with name
calling and fear-mongering long enough to actually listen for a
change.
The default position of science is and SHOULD BE skepticism - you
want to claim that we're all going to die in 30 years unless we all
radically change our ways, then you'd better have some solid
evidence of that. Hyperbole and sensationalism are simply not
enough... at least not for me.
P.S. if anyone's reading this I hope it's not enough for you
either!
Sean W. Malone|11.14.07 @ 10:57PM|#
oh.... and as for Einstein - yes, he was wrong about particle
physics, but that really has no bearing on anything considering
that argument works both ways. Some people will be wrong about this
issue. In fact, given the poor state of knowledge on the subject of
global climate, MOST people are probably going to be wrong on some
level. That's just part of the deal...
I think something more valuable to quote from Einstein is, "It just
takes one", in reference to having 100 scientists prove him
wrong.
Proof will come. Science isn't a democratic process and I'm
incredibly thankful for that. Quit stifling the debate and proof
will come much faster.
|11.14.07 @ 11:16PM|#
I thought this article was about how Ron got hoaxed, pretty
awesomely i might add, total burn, and not about joe.
Ron could you retitle the post to reflect that it is all about joe
and not about how you got hoaxed.
|11.14.07 @ 11:28PM|#
If anything, I think the IDers have more in common with your
AGW true believers than with AGW skeptics.
Could not agree more.
I am more then willing to look at evidence and methods and
data...claims of consensus always sound like priests holding some
gnostic mystery and i should rely upon their good judgment rather
then look for myself.
I college I saw excellent proofs for the the function of genes,
evolution, growth and many more. Why doesn't AGW have any good
proofs?
Paul|11.14.07 @ 11:49PM|#
when joined with a gullible belief in arguments that back up
one's pre-determined position, is not skepticism -
joe, you've lost touch with the whole debate of this thread. Bailey
didn't have a gullible belief of the argument (hoax). If he had, we
wouldn't be engaged in this thread discussion. It was precisely
Bailey's "hey look at...waaaait a minute" reaction to this article
that has created this whole discussion. If Bailey were still
pushing the article's basic thesis, with a sort of "yeah, but they
have point" this would be a major issue.
Oh, and back on the ID vs. Creationism thing (thread-jack
matierial, I know) I'd like to point out some personal reflection
on this matter. I have a brother-in-law who is an ID'er. But
interestingly, he's also a creationist. When discussing evolution,
genetic mutation, evolution and its requisite "holes", he argues
from an ID perspective. If the conversation becomes about The
Bible, he becomes a creationist. I strongly believe that you'll
find this phenomenon very common amongst proponents of ID.
Lost in Paradise|11.14.07 @ 11:51PM|#
Something is wrong when it is this easy to stage a hoax.
Remember back when activists stated that there were something like
30,000,000 homeless, 20,000,000 kidnapped children, 1-in-3 women
raped-battered-murdered. After a little thought, it became apparent
that these so-called statistics were not possible.
With Global Warming / Climate Change, there is no common sense to
use as a measure. Yes, the weather and climate change all the time,
can't disagree with that. But, once you believe in 20m flooding and
mass extinctions, including humans, it is easy to slip a hoax in
and belive all stories that come down the pike.
|11.15.07 @ 2:05AM|#
Full disclosure: My face is still very red.
RB, no need for continued embarassment. We all make little blunders
on occasion. You should be man enough to admit that you left the
post up for a full ten minutes (without the three minute
disclaimer) though :-).
Actually, the fact that you put the post back up and admitted your
mistake puts you miles ahead of most writers, all evangelists, some
college professors, and a few girl scouts.
|11.15.07 @ 8:07AM|#
Something is wrong when it is this easy to stage a hoax.
Remember back when activists stated that there were something like
30,000,000 homeless, 20,000,000 kidnapped children, 1-in-3 women
raped-battered-murdered.
Don't forget the 600,000 Iraqis killed by Americans.
Egghead|11.15.07 @ 8:45AM|#
Proclaimeth joe:
"At this point, I'd say the best thing would be for Bailey to
stop trying to the cover the issue of global warming...he should
probably stay away from any scientific or environmental issue that
has a left/right divide. He either will not or cannot cover these
issued in an accurate, reliable, responsible manner."
I'm sure Mr. Bailey will take your advice, joe. Probably a better
alternative would be for you to stop reading him altogether. You'll
sleep better, live longer, and as an added benefit, spare humanity
from your incessant narcissism.
Love always,
Egg
|11.15.07 @ 9:11AM|#
He either will not or cannot cover these issued in an
accurate, reliable, responsible
manner.
joe, if you scroll up, you'll see that I linked to a 'Culture War
on Facts'. Bailey wrote the article. I correspondingly believe that
he's now going to notice when he reacts to an alliance of
'really awful people with really awful plans' and 'a factual
assertion'. I daresay in the magazine that coined the perceptive
term 'bootlegger and baptist coalition' that he'll think to drive a
wedge into such alliances when he reports on them.
So the events you damn him for, I regard as additive. Ah,
but you know, even if Bailey were some other less reflective person
who is more deserving of your criticism, I'd still prefer that he
covers these issues: I have a whole not-reason.com universe of news
sources who are just twitching in eagerness to take the
journalistic fall, ring the doom bells, and endlessly repeat the
one true solution: expanded state power.
If you're deeply concerned about this, then pipe up when you detect
inaccurate, unreliable, irresponsible reporting. And fucking stop
trying to run people out of town.
|11.15.07 @ 9:44AM|#
I guess accurate and reliable reporting on this issue just isn't
something you people care a great deal about, if you find criticism
of biased writing to be so out-of-bounds.
I agree, joshua, it would be much better for certain people to
stick to the topic instead of writing "joe you BASTARD!" comments
every time I express a dissenting opinion. Whaddya gonna do, some
people just don't have much tolerance for dissent.
But I need to clear something up for you - there was no "Hey, wait
a minute" reaction from Bailey. He ran the story, took it down when
warned about it (without a word), then reposted it and a defense
when he realized he'd been caught by other bloggers. There's
absolutely no indication that, on his own, he saw anything in the
too-perfect-by-half graphs or the purple prose about political
conspiracies that caused him to doubt the study. That the first
slipped by is evidence of a lack of knowledge about science; the
latter, a demonstration of his politicized approach to this
issue.
Really, is that what you want out of your science reportinig.
But, once you believe in 20m flooding and mass extinctions,
including humans, it is easy to slip a hoax in and belive all
stories that come down the pike. Except it was the deniers who
bought into the hoax. Once you accept that there's a global
conspiracy among scientist, THAT'S when it becomes easy to fall for
hoaxes that play to your pre-determined beliefs.
|11.15.07 @ 9:46AM|#
If anything, I think the IDers have more in common with your
AGW true believers than with AGW skeptics.
Really? The IDers' beliefs line up with the overwhelming majority
of scientists who've looked at the issue of evolution? I did not
know that.
|11.15.07 @ 11:12AM|#
joe,
if "if you find criticism of biased writing to be so
out-of-bounds." was to me: read more carefully.
Oh, and duh: I've no problem with biased writing. I come here for
the bias. Certainly I appeciate it that reason.com doesn't print
every single sports factoid that comes it way, to pick a
politically neutral bias. The actually bad things I quoted you
worrying about are actually bad -- but that I say I'd find value in
fantasyBailey doesn't suggest that I don't hold assumedBailey in
higher regard.
|11.15.07 @ 11:46AM|#
"in this case, the "consensus opinion" is that man has "at least
some effect" on climate change"
Yes, which is what your old coot example disputed. Nice try
backpedalling after that one. And the consensus opinion is that the
"at least some effect" and the climate change itself are both large
enough to be of great concern, in direct opposition to your
implication.
I also appreciated the conflation of the lung cancer v
first-hand-smoking example with the second-hand-smoking problem.
That's exactly the kind of misrepresentation which will get you a
job someday at the National Review. Keep up the good work!
Again, this is why Bailey needs to be held to the fire. His
(deliberate or not) misrepresentation of the science for years
can't be overcome quickly by a minor mea culpa, given ideological
inertia.
Sean W. Malone|11.15.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Ok... this is the last amount of time I'm going to waste on this
because it's starting to feel like the special olympics
here...
1. Dr. Reid Bryson DOES disagree with the "consensus" but you are
still misusing the term! Consensus in science does NOT mean
everyone agrees with it - in fact, according to one of the studies
I mentioned, MOST CLIMATOLOGISTS DON'T even agree with it outright
(unless your warped mind has figured out how to make 45% a
majority).
Do you know anything about science at all Joe? Global warming and
especially its causes are still in the hypothesis stage and if
you'd read my post you'd have noted that I've actually linked and
recommended articles to back up what I'm talking about. Strangely
enough... you haven't. Shocking...
2. Re: Lung cancer/Smoking - The point is, you brought up smoking
as an example of scientists who disagreed and left yourself wide
open for a valid point to be made about over-dramatization and
sensationalized reporting in order to scare people into "doing
something" with government policy. It's not misrepresentation -
it's exactly what's going on now. Unless you honestly believe that
global temperatures are going to go up 6 degrees in the next 25
years like the IPCC report says and that will lead to flooding,
natural disasters and mass extinctions of animals which apparently
aren't a part of the evolutionary process anymore.
3. "agree, joshua, it would be much better for certain people to
stick to the topic instead of writing "joe you BASTARD!" comments
every time I express a dissenting opinion. Whaddya gonna do, some
people just don't have much tolerance for dissent."
You're the only one on here calling people names man! I certainly
haven't called you a bastard, I haven't seen anyone else call you a
bastard... but I guess I would say you're a bit delusional. You're
taking a position on this issue that you can't back up, refusing to
look at opposing research, calling those who might think other than
you "old coots" and dismissing the idea that the world isn't all
going to end in 20 years.
Quite frankly, this is all starting to feel like we've generated a
world of tin-foil hat, shopping cart crazies.
Oh, and
4. Bailey posted this thing for 10 Minutes! I doubt there is anyone
in the world who hasn't been misled by something for 10 minutes or
made a mistake at their job and corrected it 10 minutes later,
including you Joe. That hardly qualifies as being "hoaxed" and if
you want to claim that because a couple people were misled for
under a half an hour as being evidence of extreme blinded bias on
this topic, perhaps you need a control group.
Go throw out some figures to the pro-man made side of the argument
and see how quickly they jump on them. And see if anyone runs a
retraction there...
If I had to guess, I'd imagine you'd REALLY be able to hoax someone
like Joe because he's 100% convinced of his correctness about this
issue, and because he could never be convinced otherwise, even if
he did realize the figures were exaggerated (a la my biology prof
in college), he would probably just say "well, whatever, the
overall idea is right anyway so what if this one thing was
wrong?"
That's just my guess though based on Joe's apparent belief in his
own personal infallibility and that of his view point.
Ben|11.28.07 @ 6:08AM|#
Both sides of the debate regarding global warming -- and ludicrous acts like the publishing of this idiotic fake paper. Convince me that people should do everything in their power to speed up global warming... might take care of this whole human-race problem that the earth has been having for the past 100,000 years or so.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245