Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 04:59 GMT le 09 Mars 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.

In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?

When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.

I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.

One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.

Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?

Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?

So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.

Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?

Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?

There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.

If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

That’s how I would look at that discussion.

r



Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.

If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).

PDF

PPS


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 50 - 1

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I didn't say you were making the statements with pejoratives. Did I?

From your comment #16:

"Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog."

So yeah, you kinda did say that Dr. Rood was making statements with pejoratives.


Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Last, the very suggestion that we can compute a global average temperature defies any sort of logic. We don't have temperature readings for the entire globe. How can we compute global temperature, especially to an accuracy of tenths of a degree?


You're right about this but, of course, nobody is really claiming that we can measure a global surface temperature. See The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature on the GISS site. You also might want to check out GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. From the second link:


Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Warmists are fond of stating that urban heat effect doesn't not increase average temperature nor affect the temperature record. Tell that to the plants that bloom earlier in urban areas.

Link
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Patrap:
Write Sen. "R" Inhofe's Office in Oklahoma, he will send yas one free, save for a Donation to his Campaign chest.


Oh, and he will include a copy of His new Book, signed for a fee as well.

; )


fwiw, I had already contacted Sen. James Inhofe and he told me those stickers are reserved for the 1-ton dually trucks farmers and ranchers use for pulling the trailers they need to haul feed and hay and take cattle to market.

Point being. What "We the People" need is less political posturing, fewer arguments over global warming and more real, creative solutions aimed at ways to keep the economy and food supply going while reducing dependence on petroleum. Oh, and that includes replacing the jobs that will be lost when the oil does goes away. For now, I'll leave out issues of public transportation and loss of our independent way of life.

The lucky ones may be those off the grid in an area with good soil and rainfall. Oh, and a couple a horses and a wagon.

Enjoy dem shrimp.
;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I didn't say you were making the statements with pejoratives. Did I? You must be feeling guilty. I did say that many people in the forefront of the AGW "movement" were guilty of using such words. After reading the Climategate email, the people involved had nothing but disdain (and worse) for anyone who would question the "science." Recently, people such as Trenberth et al don't hesitate to use words such as "denier" and the like, even in public statements.
Last, the very suggestion that we can compute a global average temperature defies any sort of logic. We don't have temperature readings for the entire globe. How can we compute global temperature, especially to an accuracy of tenths of a degree?


Look up thermocouple!
Member Since: 2 janvier 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Pavlov?




...gee, this group mentality has mo Bones and cerebellum dan I originally thought.

Mobile comes to mind,, and Rush, "the Band", not the "Buffoon"..


Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
Global warming hoax!

Of course, we skeptics know that globe warming is a hoax, orchestrated by Jim Hansen and Al Gore to establish the World Socialist Collective. But how did it all come to pass, given that the basic physics of the greenhouse effect have been known for centuries? Now, for the first time, heroic skeptic bloggers led by yours truly have acquired diaries and other documents that allow the story to finally be told. The truth is even darken than you ever imagined:

The year was 1824. Jean Baptiste Fourier sat stooped over in his study, when he felt a thrill of fear at the approach of a rasping, metal-on-metal sound. All too soon, the Grand Wizard appeared before him.

"Sir Newton" Fourier asked with a slight shiver of fear, wondering if he would ever get used to the unnatural steam-powered apparatus that prolonged the life of Isaac, the greatest of the European Illuminata. "How may your humble servant assist you?"

"Fourier, we need you to fabricate something called a "greenhouse effect" saying that CO2 warms the planet."

"CO2!" Fourier was shocked. "But it's a harmless trace gas!"

"I know, Fourier, and of course, all clear-thinking minds know intuitively that a large and important effect cannot proceed from a small cause. To maintain this deception, we will have the falsify vast amount of scientific data for the next two centuries. But we must convince the ignorant that this is so."

"But my master, why?"

"Wheels within wheels, my son. Wheels within wheels."

Flash forward to 1989. James Hansen is in his lab, working on Vensuvian climatology. Steven Hawking enters, making use, far from the prying eyes of the public, of the cybernetic body suit designed for him by Robert Noyce in Atlantis.

"It's time, James. All our work with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and thousands of lesser scientists in about to bear fruit. You – you will have the honor of unveiling to the public the theory of anthropogenic global warming!"

"I still don't understand, Hawk. Why must we go forward with this deception? What will it achieve?"

"Don't you understand yet, James? All our preparations and planning has been for this – to give the world no choice but to raise taxes!"

"But why?"

"To destroy the Earth! After which I will return to the use of my family name, Darvos, and be free to design a race of pitiless cyborgs to enslave the galaxy! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"


Credit: The Tracker

Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting Patrap:
The last post, reinforces the Last by me.

Easily.

"LoL"

Is dat Shrimp's I smell burling?

Umm, hmmm


Ignorance is bliss. You prove it every day.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
The last post, reinforces the Last by me.

Easily.

"LoL"

Is dat Shrimp's I smell burling?

Umm, hmmm



Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
If the official temperature record doesn't comport with the facts, then just change (adjust and smooth) it. If the record doesn't exist, just invent it. Voila!

Link

Link
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting RickyRood:


I have an idea of how accurate our measuring devices are.

And I have read several studies on sampling strategies and investigation of the impact of unsampled areas.

Hence, I believe the cited ability to measure temperature.

(Would you like to discuss the form of question where you line up a set of qualifying statements that serve to guide the answer?)

-----

Theory is a collection of testable hypothesis and part of science.

In science it is often true that scientists come to different conclusions looking at the same data. That is purpose of independent reproducibility in the scientific method - to substantiate the claims of scientists.

-----

On our differences in understanding English language, after that introductory statement (which you quote) mentioning Rutan to anchor the statements that follow,

do I make any personal statements about any person?

Do I make any sweeping statements about alarmists and denialists? Do I even use these words?

Do I say that one group makes arguments of one type and another group makes arguments of another type?


I didn't say you were making the statements with pejoratives. Did I? You must be feeling guilty. I did say that many people in the forefront of the AGW "movement" were guilty of using such words. After reading the Climategate email, the people involved had nothing but disdain (and worse) for anyone who would question the "science." Recently, people such as Trenberth et al don't hesitate to use words such as "denier" and the like, even in public statements.
Last, the very suggestion that we can compute a global average temperature defies any sort of logic. We don't have temperature readings for the entire globe. How can we compute global temperature, especially to an accuracy of tenths of a degree?
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Well perhaps you and I understand the English language differently. While I have your attention, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

First, do you truly believe that we have the technology to accurately average global temperature to an accuracy of less than one degree when we have no idea how accurate our measuring instruments are and we don't have measuring devices in place in several areas?

Second, how can two scientists with the same education, the same credentials and the same experience have positions on "science" that are polar opposites? In my opinion, if that is the case, the science is no longer science -- it's theory.





I have an idea of how accurate our measuring devices are.

And I have read several studies on sampling strategies and investigation of the impact of unsampled areas.

Hence, I believe the cited ability to measure temperature.

(Would you like to discuss the form of question where you line up a set of qualifying statements that serve to guide the answer?)

-----

Theory is a collection of testable hypothesis and part of science.

In science it is often true that scientists come to different conclusions looking at the same data. That is purpose of independent reproducibility in the scientific method - to substantiate the claims of scientists.

-----

On our differences in understanding English language, after that introductory statement (which you quote) mentioning Rutan to anchor the statements that follow,

do I make any personal statements about any person?

Do I make any sweeping statements about alarmists and denialists? Do I even use these words?

Do I say that one group makes arguments of one type and another group makes arguments of another type?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Never argue with a fool, as it is to his advantage, always


That's about the tenth time you've posted that. Alzheimers? I'll respond the same way -- that's why no one argues with you.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Xandra:

"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics


I'm not talking about any temperature record. I'm talking about the inherent (in)accuracy of the measuring instruments. We know that thermometers in the US are not calibrated according to the manufacturer specifications and many are much to old to be accurate. If that's the case in the US, who knows what's going on in Third World Countries. We have almost no measuring instruments in the extreme latitudes. Jim Hansen just makes the Arctic temperatures up. How can you have an accurate GLOBAL average when we have no coverage or inaccurate thermometers? Warmists talk about warming in tenths of a degree. We don't have the capability of such accuracy. Simple logic.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Never argue with a fool, as it is to his advantage, always
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
Finally! AGW alarmism correlated with Obsessive-compulsive disorder. Although I think the alarmism is brought on by the OCD, not the other way around:

Link
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Well perhaps you and I understand the English language differently. While I have your attention, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. First, do you truly believe that we have the technology to accurately average global temperature to an accuracy of less than one degree when we have no idea how accurate our measuring instruments are and we don't have measuring devices in place in several areas?

"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics
Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting RickyRood:
I did and I stand by my statement ...




Well perhaps you and I understand the English language differently. While I have your attention, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. First, do you truly believe that we have the technology to accurately average global temperature to an accuracy of less than one degree when we have no idea how accurate our measuring instruments are and we don't have measuring devices in place in several areas? Second, how can two scientists with the same education, the same credentials and the same experience have positions on "science" that are polar opposites? In my opinion, if that is the case, the science is no longer science -- it's theory.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
I did and I stand by my statement ...


Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I quote, "When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks." Perhaps you should have re-read your post.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
The sophomoric picture above with he 3 monkeys is meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state, if anything just further proves the point of the blogger you're responding to. Is Dr. Rood actually implying that TPTB are incapable of lying and all have halos on their heads, and that conspiracies(by definition is simply the act of plotting or conspiring between 2 or more people)never happen? I understand that multi-generational Pavlovian conditioning has been successful in getting the masses to immediately envision tinfoil hats at even the first utterance of the word "conspiracy", like a dog salivating when it's bell has been rung- this conditioning that has all of the trendies rolling their eyes at the mere mention of the word to keep the trendiness cred- has only made it easier for TPTB to engage in said conspiracies.

The open conspiracy isn't even really about swindling the government out of money for research grants, the AGW pushing scientists that are in the loop on this have aims at something much greater-in the post-government age where bureacrats no longer have to pretend to care about what their constituents think.

They refer to it as the technocracy, where a tiny group of elite 'experts' unaccountable to the ignorant plebs run things- that Dr. Rood himself in a previous entry has admitted he looks forward to-can't label hat a conspiracy "theory", it is an openly admitted conspiracy, for example, we're already seeing the so-called economic expert technocrats that created the crisis to begin with openly running Greece and Italy, with their parliaments relegated to holding nothing but ceremonial power, there's not even a pretense of sovereignty left for Italy and Greece, technocratic dictatorships run by he "experts" that caused the crises.

It's not about getting that little bit of research grant money for these climate scientists,the ones that are in he loop either, in the pending post representative-government technocratic dictatorship age we're about to enter, they want to have a seat at the table of the ruling class of "experts" and bureaucrats running society in the scientific dictatorship, hence the continued effort to marginalize those who ever say anything could ever possibly be a conspiracy, as if conspiracies never happen- as kooks and tinfoilhat wearing nutjobs, it is smart on their part to do so, engaging with those onto the plan will always be to the advantage of the one doing the exposing. I don't blame them for saying that either, they can never win by engaging with the truth tellers, therefore marginalization is the only effective tactic. I would do the same if I were in their position.


Yo bro, get the facts straight. Most of what you posted simply doesn't fit with even the most cursory statement of facts. The 'technocrats' running Greece are not the boldholders, the bondholder got pasted with a 75% loss in the debt/equity swap. The equity is not running anything.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog. I suppose ideology makes one blind to facts.

As an aside, look what happens when government inserts itself into the "green" energy movement. They want us to revert to the stone age where we will be using candles for light because we can't afford light bulbs:

Link


Hi Cricket!
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting misanthrope:

You can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner.



Apologies, I didn't mean you. I meant all the posters that post some piece of junk and then never respond when their junk link/article/diagram/graph is trashed.

I really thought you stated well what was going on.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RickyRood:
I would argue that Rood states to look at the form of argument, and that no matter who is making the argument, if the argument uses these tactics then it is not, first and foremost, a knowledge-based argument.

After the introduction, I make no mention to either Rutan or Angliss. I make no statements about "the denialist," or "the alarmist." I don't state that one group's form or argument is more virtuous than the other.

And in that framing .... "every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud," I will take my leave.

r



I quote, "When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks." Perhaps you should have re-read your post.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
www.solarham.com
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog. I suppose ideology makes one blind to facts.

As an aside, look what happens when government inserts itself into the "green" energy movement. They want us to revert to the stone age where we will be using candles for light because we can't afford light bulbs:

Link


Actually, the Phillips bulb looks like a great deal at $60. You get the same output as a 60-watt bulb for only 10 watts and the bulb is rated to last for 30,000 hours. That would be a savings of 1500 kWh of electricity over the life of the bulb - $180 at $0.12 per kWh.

BTW - I've never seen Dr. Rood use a pejorative in reference to anyone.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Bravo, r,

Bravo.


The truth, be it what it is, makes Man tremble, for he and His "Thought" are the Destroyer of Gaia.

Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
I would argue that Rood states to look at the form of argument, and that no matter who is making the argument, if the argument uses these tactics then it is not, first and foremost, a knowledge-based argument.

After the introduction, I make no mention to either Rutan or Angliss. I make no statements about "the denialist," or "the alarmist." I don't state that one group's form or argument is more virtuous than the other.

And in that framing .... "every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud," I will take my leave.

r

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog. I suppose ideology makes one blind to facts.

As an aside, look what happens when government inserts itself into the "green" energy movement. They want us to revert to the stone age where we will be using candles for light because we can't afford light bulbs:

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I suppose ideology makes one blind to facts.

Member Since: 22 novembre 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Write Sen. "R" Inhofe's Office in Oklahoma, he will send yas one free, save for a Donation to his Campaign chest.


Oh, and he will include a copy of His new Book, signed for a fee as well.

; )
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129342
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, my, but that's incredibly lame even by WUWT standards--and that's saying a lot. It's the written equivalent of a pre-adolescent's tantrum after being told they need to clean their room; they can't bear the thought of being made to clean up a mess they've made, so it's far easier for them to simply cry and scream and throw themselves to the ground and complain "It's not fair!!!!!".

There's obviously not a single shred of anything new in that post. It's just another rehash of debunked garbage. And for that reason, I award it the seal:



Hi Neo and everyone,
Neo,
Please tell me where can I get one of these labels you post.

I'd like to put it on the bumper of my H1.
:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Rood writes that Burt Rutan uses pejoratives when referring to warmists, but neglects to mention that every alarmist currently at the forefront of the AGW fraud prefaces any comment about skeptics with just as many or more of the same types of pejoratives, including every warmist on this blog. I suppose ideology makes one blind to facts.

As an aside, look what happens when government inserts itself into the "green" energy movement. They want us to revert to the stone age where we will be using candles for light because we can't afford light bulbs:

Link
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
What exactly is a climatologist. What degrees does it take to become one. I believe the term is very subjective like Medical Doctor or Construction Worker, or Engineer these terms are general.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


This was posted on Ricky Rood's March 9th Blog. Just so I can remember it for cutting and pa/osting purposes. From now on, I'm calling you and two or three others "crickets"


You can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:


Here's my problem. You guys slap these links up without substantive comment, having made little or no effort to research, understand or likely even read the material linked. You then issue a snarky challenge for someone to prove this wrong. If someone, like Neapolitan, does take the time to compose a cogent response debunking the usually dubious arguments in your link, what we hear in response is --crickets--. That is until one of you dredges up another piece of drek and the process repeats. And you wonder why nobody wants to play your game.

Here's an idea for you. Pick one point from that WUWT thing that you linked and make your best case for it. Explain your position, present some legitimate evidence to support your position and let's discuss some science. But enough with the drive-bys.





This was posted on Ricky Rood's March 9th Blog. Just so I can remember it for cutting and pa/osting purposes. From now on, I'm calling you and two or three others "crickets"

Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


You're right. There's something funny going on.


Here's my problem. You guys slap these links up without substantive comment, having made little or no effort to research, understand or likely even read the material linked. You then issue a snarky challenge for someone to prove this wrong. If someone, like Neapolitan, does take the time to compose a cogent response debunking the usually dubious arguments in your link, what we hear in response is --crickets--. That is until one of you dredges up another piece of drek and the process repeats. And you wonder why nobody wants to play your game.

Here's an idea for you. Pick one point from that WUWT thing that you linked and make your best case for it. Explain your position, present some legitimate evidence to support your position and let's discuss some science. But enough with the drive-bys.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:


Yes, whatever. Do I detect a little bit of panic? Yes, I do. All the usual suspects respond with the typical attacks on the author, but not one attack on anything actually stated as fact in the article. Yeah, something funny going on here.
That's funny; I didn't attack the author at all. I merely noted that everything he'd written was debunked garbage. Pointing out a presenter's logical and factual flaws isn't an "attack"; it's "science".

Now, call this an "attack" if it makes you feel good, but the writer of that dreck--Craig Loehle--has a masters in forest management, and a doctorate in range management. IOW, he wasn't educated in the climate sciences, nor has he worked as a climatologist. That simple fact, however, hasn't prevented from the--wait for it--Heartland Institute from declaring him a global warming expert. Go figure...
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13720
Quoting martinitony:


Yes, whatever. Do I detect a little bit of panic? Yes, I do. All the usual suspects respond with the typical attacks on the author, but not one attack on anything actually stated as fact in the article. Yeah, something funny going on here.


Well you're getting the attention you want but not the respect you need. If you want real responses try posting something worth responding to.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting greentortuloni:
Why do you think that all of hte organizations with a stake in the future as as part of their reason for existence (i.e. US Navy, Army, large corporations, etc) are all making plans for global warming damage and consequences?
Why, because they're all in on the great global scam to get grant money, don't you know? Check out the list of the world's richest people in Forbes; more than 80% of them acquired their vast wealth through research grants. The world's trendiest locations are chock-full of jet-setting climate scientists who've engorged themselves on the massive fraud that is climate change. If The Beverly Hillbillies was being filmed today, Jed Clampett wouldn't be a backwoods fool who stumbled into an oil fortune, but rather a labcoat-wearing climatologist who swindled the government out of hundreds of trillions of dollars...

:-\
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13720
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, my, but that's incredibly lame even by WUWT standards--and that's saying a lot. It's the written equivalent of a pre-adolescent's tantrum after being told they need to clean their room; they can't bear the thought of being made to clean up a mess they've made, so it's far easier for them to simply cry and scream and throw themselves to the ground and complain "It's not fair!!!!!".

There's obviously not a single shred of anything new in that post. It's just another rehash of debunked garbage. And for that reason, I award it the seal:

Denialist Approved


Yes, whatever. Do I detect a little bit of panic? Yes, I do. All the usual suspects respond with the typical attacks on the author, but not one attack on anything actually stated as fact in the article. Yeah, something funny going on here.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting misanthrope:

You must not have read Dr. Rood's post because, if you did, you'd realize that he has already "picked em apart." One example, we get lots of non-specific references, such as:

"Many government reports..."

"One government draft report indicated..."

"Some reports state..."

"Government assessment reports note..."


These are huge red flags for me and they should be for you as well. I want to know exactly what "government reports" are being referred to and exactly where in said reports I can find the information. This, added to the fact that specific references are included for information that seems to support the thesis of the author makes me suspect - right off the bat - that there's something funny going on.


You're right. There's something funny going on.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting martinitony:
Yeah, thanks Doc.
Here's some arguments. Pick em apart.

Arguments
Oh, my, but that's incredibly lame even by WUWT standards--and that's saying a lot. It's the written equivalent of a pre-adolescent's tantrum after being told they need to clean their room; they can't bear the thought of being made to clean up a mess they've made, so it's far easier for them to simply cry and scream and throw themselves to the ground and complain "It's not fair!!!!!".

There's obviously not a single shred of anything new in that post. It's just another rehash of debunked garbage. And for that reason, I award it the seal:

Denialist Approved
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13720
Quoting martinitony:
Yeah, thanks Doc.
Here's some arguments. Pick em apart.

Arguments

You must not have read Dr. Rood's post because, if you did, you'd realize that he has already "picked em apart." One example, we get lots of non-specific references, such as:

"Many government reports..."

"One government draft report indicated..."

"Some reports state..."

"Government assessment reports note..."


These are huge red flags for me and they should be for you as well. I want to know exactly what "government reports" are being referred to and exactly where in said reports I can find the information. This, added to the fact that specific references are included for information that seems to support the thesis of the author makes me suspect - right off the bat - that there's something funny going on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
Yeah, thanks Doc.
Here's some arguments. Pick em apart.

Arguments


Seriously? Bah, what a bunch of tripe.

Where's Nea?

Nea are you there?

Nea? They're pitching down the middle again.

(I pinch hit occasionally but I don't swing for the fences like Nea can.)

I'll levae the details for others but seriously, Martinitony, read some of hte many many studies about any of the topics listed on your link. I don't think you will read what anyone else posts (see post #1) so I'm not replying. But a casual search returns overwhelming results against your link.

Why do you think that all of hte organizations with a stake in the future as as part of their reason for existence (i.e. US Navy, Army, large corporations, etc) are all making plans for global warming damage and consequences?
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Link
As a young Lieutenant on my first combat tour, I served on an isolated fighting camp south of Baghdad in an area known as the “Triangle of Death.” My unit was entirely dependent on daily fuel convoys to power our generators and fuel our vehicles. Recognizing this, Iraqi insurgents consistently ambushed the convoys while my infantry company fought to protect them. That meant almost daily firefights which we jokingly called “fighting for our supper.”

The insurgents had recognized a crucial weakness, one that Osama bin Laden referred to as “America’s Achilles heel”: our dependence on oil as a single source of fuel.

Not surprisingly, Iran has identified a similar weakness in our national energy posture. Oil fuels almost our entire transportation sector – and thanks to decades of inaction, we lack comprehensive alternative options to gasoline. This permits Iran to significantly influence the price of gas at the pump. Rising oil prices sap our national strength, driven by U.S. consumption and ever-increasing demand from developing economies. America sends more than $1 billion per day overseas for oil. It should not be a surprise, then, that oil is the single largest contributor to our foreign debt, outpacing even our trade deficit with China.

Iran reaps the benefits of our single-source dependence. For every $5 rise in the price of a barrel of crude oil, the Iranian regime receives more than $7.9 billion annually, a Truman National Security Project analysis found. Over 50% of Iran’s entire national budget comes from the oil sector, according to the CIA world fact book. That’s enough to pay for Iran’s nuclear program, support for terrorism, and aid to dictators like Syria’s Assad. So not only does our dependence make us vulnerable to their whim, it also puts constraints on our foreign policy choices.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to use oil prices – and the threat of price shocks – as a bargaining chip. Over 20% of the world’s oil supply flows through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow waterway the Iranian military has threatened to close in response to U.S. pressure to end its nuclear program. Each time Iran escalates tensions, fear of supply disruptions drives the price of gas upward, inflicting damage on western economies. Iran knows this, of course – and periodically uses bellicose rhetoric and military posturing to inflict economic pain.

Iran is not America’s only oil-funded security threat. Even Afghanistan’s Taliban benefits from ever-increasing oil prices. According to former Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke, the Taliban’s major source of funding is private donations from individuals in oil-rich Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf states.

We must act to meet this danger, in the only way that makes sense: by developing alternatives to oil.

There is no single solution, no silver bullet, that can break oil’s grip on our economy. Fortunately, we have silver buckshot in our arsenal. At a minimum, we must develop a broad range of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies, support communities across America as they transition their infrastructure to support alternative vehicles, and increase tax incentives for families and small businesses that purchase those alternative vehicles.

My earliest military training taught me to anticipate threats and take action to defeat them. Our military leaders understand this when it comes to the cost of oil – a cost that extends beyond the gas pump and onto the battlefield.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Yeah, thanks Doc.
Here's some arguments. Pick em apart.

Arguments
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Thanks for the post, Dr Rood.

I agree with what you are saying but I think the problem is deeper than dispassionate students understanding forms of arguments.

I live in europe now. When I first came here (UK first), one of the things that I really enjoyed was the different sports on TV, cricket, football and rugby. I refound my taste for discussing sports in bars (pubs).

It amused me to no end to watch a passionate Manchester/Liverpool game (for example) and discuss the game both sets of fans only find how they absolutly disagreed on the opinion of various calls by the referee.

This is in super slow motion, high definition TV, albeit usually after a few pints. The point? The evidence in this case is unbiased. The TV camera is as close to objective as is possible. Even calls such as was the ball over the line from an over head camera were subject to doubt and discussion.

I had a recent discussion with an Italian about American culture. We came to a conclusion that I think this is fundamental to understanding American attitudes towards global warming versus the rest of the world.

Americans were raised with the concept of a frontier. There is in the American psyche/spirit a darkness on the edge of town, a wild west, a boundary beyond which civilization ends. I think this concept is emergent in many ways and yet capable of existence on its own. This concept becomes embedded in American identity and as we grow to have our self concepts as adults, this is one thing that froms us, as deeply as the concepts we have of God or family. From my persepctive, this is a thing of rare beauty and something I love about America.

This, along with the absolute lack of funk in Eurpeans, is what seperates us from Europeans. This is why we seem cruder, less cultured and so on. Europeans lack this and instead have a much higher sense of culture/community as part of their persepctive.

To believe in global warming is to deny the wilderness: man has tamed the wilderness. This is as fundamentally impossible to accept fro many Americans as denying God, sexuality, or any other core belief.

I think this explains why denialists are able to believe in the absurdity of a giant conspiracy to elicit grant funds and create a socialist state - because that is exactly what is left when there is no wilderness anymore.

I think that the evidence will continue to mount. I think and I think that borderline people will move towards belief in global warming. On the other hand, the more firmly entrenched denialists will, in an attempt to derive rationality from increasingly seperated facts and emotional vantages of America, will find a solution in blaming the bearers of hte facts. I think this is evident already in the anti-science stance of that abomination the is what is left of a once honorable GOP.

So what is the solution? I think only a new wilderness will quench this desperation. A voyage to Mars, for example, providing the vision of the wilderness as greater than earth and consequentially allowing earth to become the 'town surrounded by darkness', might be a solution. There are plenty of wildernesses out there to chose from.

For what it is worth, you denialists, on any other issue i will stand with america, even if it means going to hell. But I won't condem a world to hell for the sake of moral laziness on our part.
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 50 - 1

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.