Guest Submission: Making A Scam Work

A Guest submission for Dialogues on Global Warming

RE: Making a scam work;

Considering the clever subterfuge being employed by man-made climate change deniers we need to consider the supposed legitimacy of those who deny man's culpability. And since we are apparently having more and more, intense, and extreme weather around the world, it is particularly interesting that Global Warming deniers have been ramping up their game in an effort to deny any significant dangers caused by the vast release of Co2 into our worldwide environment.

One article about a “peer-reviewed” study that was published in the 2-14-13 issue of Forbes claimed that a peer reviewed, (survey) determined that a majority of scientists remain skeptical about the proposition that global warming posses a huge threat to mankind, and, also that, valid research about this threat, fails to affirm a need for urgency regarding climate change. But interestingly, the study was done by the APEGA, or the Association of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists ofAlberta, and wouldn't you know—the professionals in that survey were heavily representative of Geologists, which are the least likely scientists to affirm the dangers of man's role in climate change. 

In scientific terms, a survey is really nothing more than a glorified poll lacking real controls and objective methodology. Furthermore a genuine Study, found that 97 percent of actively publishing earth scientists agreed that human activities are changing global temperatures. But apparently, since the study cited in Forbes was authored by Lianne M. Lefsrud at the University of Canada, and, Renate E. Meyer, a professor of economics from The University of economicsin Austria, who also studied at The Copenhagen Businesses School in Denmark, the Forbes study was heavily representative of Geologists working in the oil industry categorized as “economic geologists,” who study geology primarily to examine its role in commercial applications—you guessed it—this last group tends to be the most skeptical of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. So how objective is a survey that's conclusion highlights scientists who already doubt man's role in global warming? And how strange that scientists working for the advancement of oil interests in Canada, might be biased—Ya think?

The long study citing their opinions is also full of largely unintelligible ten dollar words, that are confusing to even the most intelligent among us. And the APEGA sponsored study itself, admitted that its methodology represented “a convenience, (non-probability) sample, of self-selected respondents, similar to the general APEGA membership.” Furthermore although the survey was sent to 40,000 members of the APEGA, only 1077 completed surveys were received—just 2.69% of the total!

Here is one paragraph from page nine of that lengthy (30 plus page) “study,” which illustrates the convoluted language and terminology used:

Data analysis

“From our research question, we developed theoretically informed coding categories based upon a review of the identity, framing, professional competency, and legitimation literatures to heuristically circumscribe the discursive construction of expertise. As we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0 in an iterative manner.”

Wikipedia's Online dictionary defines some of these words including;

1. Heuristically: A heuristic method such as one using a mathematical algorithm that solves a problem more quickly, but is not as certain to arrive at an optimal solution. 2.Discursive: (A) to digress from the main point; rambling. (B) A philosophy using reason and argument rather than intuition. 3.Iterative: Of a procedure that involves repetition of steps to achieve the desired outcome. In computing this may involve a mechanism such as a loop.

So, aside from the fact that conventional climate scientists, as well as all other kinds of scientists have (always) relied on reason and logic more than intuition, and that the words “legitimation,” and, “literatures,” are not really used very commonly—If we included the definitions of all of these questionable terms, including those of the more common words, “circumscribe,” and, “theoretically,” we might end up with a paragraph which reads something like this:

“From our research question, we develop coding based on categorical guesses, reviewing identity, framing, professional competency, (I.E. the ability of professionals to determine results based on accuracy and legitimate knowledge) and (literatures?) which legitimizes such research and then uses mathematical methods to arrive at a quick solution that is not certain to be the best answer. Our methodology which circles around in a rambling digression from the main point in order to establish the self proclaimed expertise used in our survey, is based on facts, not intuition. And, as we engaged with the data, these coding categories were further refined and applied using NVivo 8.0. in a procedure including repetitive steps to achieve the desired outcome by using a computing loop.”

If you ask me this is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual application of jargon to justify studies which are rife with vagueness and which lack real credibility due to institutional bias!

The fact remains that without giving undue credit to (fox guarding the hen house surveys), that commonly advance the special interests of big oil and other Co2 producing companies, 97% of actively publishing climate scientists remain convinced about man's primary role in global warming.

And, getting back to that article about this study in Forbes, posted by “James Taylor,” (a contributor), is it any wonder that Forbes includes a disclaimer written in extremely fine print, stating that: “Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own?”

Peter W. Johnson

Superior, WI

The Senator With The Snowball

Senator James Inhofe is one of the biggest disgraces of the United States. This is a leading member of the U.S. Senate and he uses that platform to repeatedly demonstrate just how ignorant he is. I shudder to think what the rest of the world thinks of the U.S. education system every time this man opens his mouth.

If you aren't familiar with him, he's the man that claims "manmade global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public." He's the guy that says climate science is a conspiracy by Barbara Streisand and the Weather Channel. "It's all about money. I mean, what would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people weren't scared anymore?"

What's funny about that statement is Inhofe has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, making him one of the top recipients of oil money. Hmmm. Do you think there's a link between all the money he gets from the fossil fuel industry and his fight to protect their interests at the expense of his constituents?

Inhofe is also famous for coming out every time there's a cold day in the winter (when its supposed to be cold) and make some statement about how it proves climate change isn't real. Then, he disappears on those winter days when the temperature hits a new record high. I'm sure he thinks he's being clever. The rest of the world knows he's an idiot.

Now, he's done it again. He brought a snowball into the Senate and claimed it was proof climate change isn't real. But, it backfired. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse took him to task about it. Whitehouse cited numerous authoritative sources saying climate change is real and then repeatedly asks, who are you going to believe, these excellent sources? Or, "the Senator with the snowball." Watch the video.

There's nothing we can do about Inhofe. We're stuck with him. But, we can be thankful to Senator Whitehouse for the new catch phrase for all of the people that reject science and think they're clever: they are another Senator with a snowball.

Why the Fight?

I recently had a disagreement with some friends because I had no opinion on an issue that was important to them. The particular issue isn't important. What is important was how they were very upset with me because I did not have an opinion one way or the other. I did not have an opposing opinion to them, I just did not have an opinion at all. They were very incredulous and I feel they treated me very badly, even worse than if I had actually held an opposing viewpoint.

When they asked me how it was possible for me to have no opinion, I told them you can't have an opinion on everything. I have not done the research on the issue in question and I have friends and family on both sides. My life will not change because of this particular issue, either way it goes. It isn't my fight.

But, I reminded them there is an issue that is important to me and that I am informed about. They all know my stance on climate change. I also know there are those of my friends that agree with me, those that disagree with me and there are even those that have no opinion on the matter at all. I don't hold that against them. I respect their viewpoint and try my best to not get on my soap box about climate change when we are together.

This is my fight. I wish it was theirs also, but I am not going to force the issue on them.

This is the single most important issue of our day. It is more important than Islamic terrorism. It is more important than AIDS and Ebola. It is more important than Russia in Ukraine. It is more important than anything else you can think of. And, the reason is simple. This is the only issue that will affect every single human being on the planet. It will affect every single living organism on the planet. It will affect the very planet itself. There is nothing that measures up to that standard. Additionally, it will affect almost every other issue you can name, mostly in a negative manner.

Why get involved with the fight? That is easy and has been said better than I can ever say it. In addition to science, I enjoy reading about history and I am reminded of a speech I read many years ago given by Theodore Roosevelt in Paris, 1910. It is formally known as "Citizenship in a Republic," but is more commonly known as the Man in the Arena speech. I think it says everything that needs to be said. Here are some excerpts:

The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.

Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."

Wow! What a line. "The men who quell the storm and ride the thunder."

And, that is why I fight. So, where are you? Will you be the critic that doesn't count? Or the man in the arena? After all, it's only the most important issue humanity has ever faced.

Emotions Rule Climate Debate?

I saw an article today, Emotions, not science, rule U.S. climate change debate: study.
If you're at all familiar with the ongoing debate you probably don't need to read any further than that. Yes, it is all about emotions. Science has most certainly taken a back seat on this issue. Hell, science is on the side of the road trying to hitch a ride. Rejecting science is the rule of the day.

You know how you can tell this is true? Just ask someone what they think of Al Gore. WARNING: Don't stand too close when you do. Al Gore is not a scientist and his stand on climate change is irrelevant. What is important is what the science says. But, try convincing a denier. It is amazing to see how quickly they will froth at the mouth (sometimes literally and I'm not exaggerating) at the mere mention of the man.

Why is that? Really. Why do deniers go crazy when you mention Al Gore? Why do they hate him so much? Is it because of his movie? Is it because he won the Nobel Prize? I don't think so. That doesn't make sense. In fact, the whole thing doesn't make sense. Like I said, Gore is not a scientist and he is irrelevant to the question about AGW being real or not. But, I don't think there is a single topic that gets a stronger reaction than Al Gore. I wish I could tell you how many people have told me AGW isn't real because Al Gore ...... (fill in your sin/crime of choice). The fact is, there have been so many I can't tell you how many there have been. The worst part? These people really do think it proves AGW isn't real. Al Gore has become the focus of everything they want to vent about when it comes to climate change.

So, how do we get past this and address the problem? I don't really know and I don't think the authors of the paper do either. Here is what they say:

"Strategies for building support for (climate) mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public's understanding of science," Ana-Maria Bliuc, a professor at Australia's Monash University who co-wrote the study, said in a statement.

So, the science isn't the issue. I'll agree with that. The science is conclusive and anyone that believes AGW isn't real is simply rejecting science. There is nothing you can do to convince them the science is real. Read some of the submissions to my global warming challenge. I had people state any science that disagrees with them must be rejected. No amount of science will convince those people they are wrong. Consequently, you have to find another way to get through to them. What could that way be?

Then, they say,

Instead, scientists who want action on global warming should try to change the relationship between believers and deniers, said Bliuc, a social and political psychologist.

This sounds a little simplistic. Yes, the relationship needs to change. Any suggestions? Unfortunately, they also say,

Both groups generally agree that climate change is real, according to the study based on an Internet survey of U.S. residents. But the two camps differ on whether human activity is causing warming.

I can say from my own personal experience, this is not a true statement. I have met few deniers that say global warming and climate change are real. In fact, most of the deniers I have met insist it is not happening and any statement about 'the climate has always changed' is meant to divert the conversation. It is their way of avoiding the question. The truth is, based on my experience, most people saying that do not believe the climate is changing, naturally or otherwise.

But, the authors do say something that of merit,

In the United States, the two camps are divided largely along political party lines. More than 70 percent of Democrats say the earth is warming mainly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, according to polling data released by the Pew Research Center in January.

In contrast, among Republicans just 27 percent hold this view; more than 40 percent say there is no solid evidence that the planet is getting hotter, and 30 percent say climate change is due mostly to natural environmental patterns.

Ah, there we go. No, we do not need to convince the public, we need to convince the Republicans. That is what it all boils down to. We need to get the Republican leaders on board if we want to address this problem (Disclaimer: I am a devoted, life-long independent and do not belong to any political party). There is some indication of progress on this front. However, I do not believe the problem is going away anytime soon. Republican leaders are ensconced in the the position that AGW is not real and they will not do anything to address it.

In conclusion, I do not agree with the authors of the paper. I do not see how it is possible to convince the deniers to take action and I do not see any way the relationship can be changed. As long as they are attacking climate scientists and engaging in character assassination, there will be no civil discourse. The best I can hope for is to educate anyone that has not made up their minds, yet.

Not a very hopeful assessment, but I think it is realistic. I would be interested in hearing any suggestions, though.

Chinese Coal Production Down - Why It Matters

Chinese coal production in 2014 was down slightly from 2013. China dug up 3.7 billion metric tons in 2013 and 3.5 billion metric tons in 2014, a drop of about 5.4%. Imports were also down by 10%. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend and not just a one-year blip. This may be the result of China's declared program to reduce air pollution or it may be due to economic issues. Either way, less coal burning is a good thing, and for a number of reasons.

Obviously, reducing CO2 emissions is going to be helpful in the fight to prevent climate change. Less of the stunning air pollution that Chinese cities experience is also certainly good. But, there is a less obvious benefit - world stability.

The Department of Defense has stated climate change is an issue of national security and presents an "immediate risk" to the country. This risk comes from things such as food, water and energy insecurity. The issue of climate refugees will also cause international tensions.

Just how bad can this get? Take a look at an extreme scenario - a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Such a war is not far fetched at all. In fact, they have already come frighteningly close. Past clashes between the two nations have not been the result of the effects of climate change, they have happened simply because the two nations don't like each other. But, since they can get that close without complications we can easily conclude additional stressors have the potential to push them over the brink.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan, even if limited to just their region, would truly devastate the planet. The total death toll would number in the billions of people. A recent study estimated a regional nuclear war between these two countries would put approximately 5 terragrams of soot into the atmosphere and affect the Chinese climate for at least 10 years. After one year, grain production in China (the world's largest grain producer) would be down 35%. Even after four years, production would still be down 25%. It is estimated the effect on European and American farm production would also be severe. They conclude this would put a billion people at risk of famine.

Now, I am not saying climate change is going to be the final straw in a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although I would really prefer to not take that risk. What I am saying is this is an example, albeit an extreme example, of how climate change is a cost we just cannot afford to pay. Even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, if climate change leads to a regional conventional war it would not be to our benefit. Have we benefited by regional wars in parts of the planet far from our country? Isn't it in our best interest to try and prevent these conflicts? The effects of climate change is one more reason for people to start fighting, possibly even the final straw. Therefore, it stands to reason it is on our best interest to remove these complicating effects and help reduce international tension before it even begins.

Hopefully, the drop in Chinese coal use is a sign we are making progress in the battle to do something about it.

The Cost of Climate Change Keeps Going Up

Let’s discuss the cost of climate change. The fossil fuel industry and its lackeys keep telling us climate change is good for us – the more the better. Literally, that is what they are saying. For example, take this quote from The Spectator:

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

By the way, his "expert" for all of this information is Richard Tol, an economist and well-known denier with a reputation for getting his facts wrong. In one of the big "Oops" moments in denier history, he analyzed the 97% consensus statement in an attempt to disprove it and - surprise! - proved it was correct. He has no scientific background that I am aware of.

I thought we could take a look for ourselves and see just how much global warming and climate change are costing us now and likely to cost us in the future.

One of the ways to look at the cost of climate change is to examine the economic cost. This is known as the social cost of carbon (SCC). Right now, the government puts the social cost at $37 for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted. We are currently emitting about 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that comes out to about $1.5 trillion per year. Yes, that was trillion, with a 't.' And, that expense is not only incurred every year, but is also increasing as emission amounts increase.

That is horrible news, but it gets even worse. Researchers at Stanford University examined this figure and have estimated it is more likely $220 per ton. That comes out to a staggering $8.8 trillion per year! Every year! And, climbing!



Why the big difference? The Stanford group included the effects current damage does to future growth.

“If climate change affects not only a country's economic output, but also its growth, then that has a permanent effect that accumulates over time,” Frances Moore, co-author and environmental scientist, said.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they are on the high side with their calculation. It is possible, but it is widely believed the government figure is way too low. Just for the sake of argument we'll say the value is at the midpoint between their value and the government's value. The economic cost at that rate is then about $5.2 trillion per year. That amount is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except the U.S. and China.

By the way, the poorer you are, the more you'll be affected. Poor countries will fare worse than rich ones.

Keep that figure in mind when someone tells you climate change is good for you.

Then, there is sea level rise. A study found the sea level numbers for 1901 - 1990 were overstated and, as a result, the data shows the rate of sea level rise since 1990 is 25% higher than previously thought and accelerating.

If you live anywhere near a coast (as the majority of the human population does), you might want to think about how much damage you will incur as a result of rising sea levels and the cost of protecting yourself.  Factor that in when calculating how much climate change will cost you.

How about drought? The current drought in California is likely to a more common story in the future and will result in a series of ripple effects, such as increased wildfire, loss of timber, floods, erosion and degraded water quality, just to name a few. The drought is estimated to be causing California billions of dollars per year in economic damage, mostly to farmers and agriculture workers. Those are the people least able to afford the damage.


Then, I saw these little tidbits in Scientific American (August 2014, vol 311, no 2, pg 22-23):

Five National Landmarks Threatened by Climate Change:

• Statue of Liberty - After Superstorm Sandy, the National Park Service began work on flood-proofing Liberty Island. Cost: Unspecified.
• Faneuil Hall, Boston - The city is planning building renovations that may include flood-protection walls. Cost: Unknown.
• Cape Hatteras Light, NC - In 1999 the National Park Service moved the lighthouse 2,900 feet to protect it against shoreline erosion and rising sea levels. Cost: $11.8 million.
• NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston - Installed new roofs to protect withstand more severe hurricanes. Repairs from 2008's Hurricane Ike cost about $80 million.
• Mesa Verde Nation Park, Colorado - The National Park Service is performing prescribed burns and treating the cliffs to protect against flooding and erosion. Cost: Unspecified.

The American taxpayers will be footing the bill for all of those expenses.

Still not convinced? How about the study that showed as temperature goes up, economic productivity goes down? A team at the Bureau of Economic Research found that every day life gets more expensive as the temperature goes up. They found a country's economic activity decreased by about 1% for every degree over 59 degrees F. The damage comes from increased costs associated with higher temperature. For example, if you have to pay more for electricity because you are running the air conditioner longer, you have less money to spend on other things. Notice that the people who benefit from that situation are the same ones responsible for creating it in the first place and are so eager to convince you it isn't a problem. As the temperature goes up, the total damage to economies around the world will amount to many billions of dollars.

Not enough? Take a look at this article in Eos that shows how climate change is causing cholera to spread. More epidemics around the world. Expenses for those epidemics will be in the billions of dollars.

I also saw this quote in Physics Today:

As the average global temperature rises, mountainous areas across western North America are experiencing significantly less ice and snow. A hundred years ago, Glacier National Park included some 150 ice sheets, but today it has only 25. The implications are vast for the surrounding areas. Rising air and water temperatures are affecting local ecosystems, fish, and wildlife. And because at least 80% of the water supply in the US West comes from its mountains, the loss of the natural reservoir that glaciers provide is also being felt by cities, farms, and industry all across the region. Although manmade global warming has a significant impact on the ice retreat, it is not the only cause. And the shrinking glaciers are only the first symptom of larger changes to come, says Daniel Fagre at the US Geological Survey.

To bring it home, take a look at this list I saw of seven ways climate change can kill you:

• 1. Bug bites that kill
• 2. Breathing problems, including asthma
• 3. Less nutritious food
• 4. An allergy season that goes on forever
• 5. Heat waves
• 6. Too much or too little water
• 7. Sunny days that make you dreary

And, the fishery industry is expected to lose between $17 and $41 billion between now and 2050 due to climate change.  Also, don't forget that ocean acidification results in a declining shellfish population.

There is plenty more and I don't need to go through it all, but I thought I would mention one last piece of news. That blizzard that hit New York City this past week cost the city $200 million in lost economic activity. Severe weather events like this are already becoming the norm. Tell me, how many 'storms of the century' have there been in the last few years?

So, I think we can see from just a very small sampling that we can definitely say global warming and climate change are not good for us. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

But, you know who will make money off of climate change? The same people that are hell bent for everyone to believe its good for us.

Air Pollution Provides Model of Success

"Urbanization and Air Pollution: Then and Now," by David D. Parrish and William R. Stockwell appeared in Eos, Earth and Space Science News, Vol 96, No 1, 15 Jan 2015, page 12. The article was about events concerning air pollution since the 1940s, but it provides an interesting analogy for how to deal with climate change. The situation with air pollution was very similar and many of the problems were the same.

The authors wrote of how bad air pollution was in the 1940s and 1950s, stating, "Episodes of high levels sulfurous smog killed or sickened thousands in Donora, Penn, in 1948, as well as in London in 1952." Continuing, they state, "These events were the result of very high emissions of sulfur dioxide, smoke, and other particles during stagnant, foggy weather conditions." Additionally,

At its height in the 1950s and 1960s, air pollution got so bad in Los Angeles that reportedly "parents kept their kids out of school; athletes trained indoors; citrus growers and sugar-beet producers watched in dismay as their crops withered; the elderly and young crowded into doctors' offices and hospital ERs with throbbing heads and shortness of breath"

The situation they describe was one where high levels of manmade emissions caused all sorts of environmental issues - similar to the situation with climate change.

They then state,

In North America and Europe, the coupling of industrialization and air pollution required the creation of air quality standards and regulations for emissions sources such as vehicles, electrical power generation, and industrial facilities. The success of these efforts has caused the most severe air pollution episodes to be distant memories in those regions.

If you didn't know the article was about air pollution it would be easy to think they are discussing actions to control climate change in this discussion. Even the sources of the emissions are the same.

In Los Angeles, scientific and engineering advances combined with political and societal commitment sustained over decades resulted in remarkable air quality improvement.

Of course, the issue is cost and they state, "Looking back, has the improved air quality in our cities been worth the large expense required?" Again, the parallels are interesting, in a grim, scholarly way. Today, we are faced with manmade emissions that are destroying the climate and causing all manner of deleterious effects on people. The only way to deal with the problem is to address the source, but the question is how much is it going to cost?

The EPA said the cost of air pollution control was an estimated $520 billion between 1970 and 1990 (constant 1990 dollars). At the same time there have been benefits and the EPA estimates monetized benefits to come to $22 trillion. That is about 44 times as much as the cost. The cost-to-benefit ratio is very good. With the success of air pollution control measures, you would think it would be easy to convince the populous and governments climate change legislation is a good thing. I mean, who wouldn't like an investment where you get $44 for ever $1 you invest? The problem is people have forgotten how bad it used to be.

Progress there and across the United States occurred over such a long period that many have forgotten how bad air pollution once was and have failed to notice the gains made. In fact, most people alive in the United States today never experienced the very poor air quality of Los Angeles that occurred in past decades. This fading societal memory poses another challenge: how to ensure that improved air quality is not compromised as communities focus on efforts to spur depressed economies and deal with other urgent societal problems.

People forget. They forget how bad it was; they forget how we fought the problem; they forget how we overcame the problem. But, the worst part is they forget there was even any problem to begin with.

Once again, the analogy is a good one. People don't believe how bad the climate change problem is; they don't believe we can overcome the problem; they don't believe it is to our benefit to overcome the problem; but, worst of all, they don't believe there is a problem.

Je suis Charlie!

I have been very dedicated to keeping this blog about one thing - climate change. I have resisted all attempts and temptations to make it into something else. But, I feel I have to take a stand on this issue. 

I hope everyone reading this posting is both disgusted and appalled by the cowardly, piggish attack on the journalist at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. People who attack unarmed people in a manner like this are the very worst of people anywhere. They claim they are worshiping the Prophet Mohammed when in actuality, they are worshiping Satan and evil. These kinds of people must be opposed at all times. Which makes me wonder - why aren't the Muslims stopping these kinds of actions? The very fact they continue makes me think they are just fine with attacks on the 'infidels' and condone the vicious violence.

In that spirit, I am posting the below drawing of Mohammed with his turban in the shape of a bomb about to go off. If Muslims find this offensive, let me tell you, I find their actions offensive. The idea they think they can control the world's free speech because they threaten violence to anyone that defies them is so revolting that I cannot put words to it.

I welcome them to come out here and make me a target. Just one thing - we shoot back in Texas.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II

The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.

From: David Okner

Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: "dogw.email"

Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

And I’ll respond to your response:

1.  The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather than invoking logical fallacies.

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

'

3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway. The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to your side. That is not a valid argument.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

4. The book is full of references, which you would know if you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book. Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a lot of things, but who cares.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.  There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture. You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

7. What? More character attacks about motives and also ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels. It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

A point made in the book is that some people have humans as their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive, because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies to evade.

Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture. The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

-David

Response:

Paragraph 1:

One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909

http://industrialprogress.com/about/

http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely nuts, not overtly harmful.

Paragraph 2:

No, the best background to integrate science is a science one.  You continue to demonstrate your logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And, no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials. Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all, according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.

Paragraph 3:

Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project work so hard to hide that information.

Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein. I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your false arguments in line, please.

Paragraph 4:

I would love to debate him in a public forum.

Paragraph 5:

Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least affordable sources of energy of all.

But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr. Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the environment is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is nothing more than a crock of horse manure.

Paragraph 6:

This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

 Source: World Health Organization

Paragraph 7:

Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?

More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.

Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:

It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault you, but it’s for lying.

Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”

Some of the several false arguments you make with your statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean, it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the same time.

And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why) has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely false argument with nothing to support it.

Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein on these issues in a public forum?

By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.

In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly bad failure of logic and science.

Time Magazine Was Right!

No, I didn't mean the article in Newsweek from the 1970s that misinterpreted what scientists were saying. I mean the Time magazine article from 1956 that said:

Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earth’s climate.

The temperature of the earth’s surface depends largely on two minor constituents of the atmosphere: water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are transparent to the short-wave energy (light and near infrared) that comes from the sun, but opaque to most of the long-wave heat radiation that tries to return to space. This “greenhouse effect” traps heat and makes the earth’s surface considerably warmer than it would be if the atmosphere had no water vapor or carbon dioxide in it. An increase in either constituent would make it warmer still. Warm eras in the geological past may have been caused by CO₂ from volcanoes.

At present the atmosphere contains 2.35 trillion tons of carbon dioxide, existing in equilibrium with living plants and sea water (which tends to dissolve it). Up to 1860, man’s fires added only about 500 million tons per year, and the atmosphere had no trouble in getting rid of this small amount. But each year more furnaces and engines poured CO₂ into the atmosphere. In 1900, the amount was 3 billion tons. By 1950, it was 9 billion tons. By 2010, if present trends continue, 47 billion tons of carbon dioxide will enter the air each year. [actual @37 billion tons]

This will be only 2% of the total carbon dioxide, but if it is more than can be dissolved by the oceans or absorbed by plants or minerals, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere will tend to increase. The greenhouse effect will be intensified. Some scientists believe that this is the cause of recent warming of the earth’s climate. Dr. Revelle has his doubts.

In the future, if the blanket of CO₂ produces a temperature rise of only one or two degrees, a chain of secondary effects may come into play. As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO₂dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO₂. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth’s coastal lands.

Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earth’s CO₂ and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO₂ blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether man’s factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.

Time Magazine, May 28, 1956

Whoa! How is that? They predicted Superstorm Sandy 55 years in advance. And, deniers have been telling us all along that scientists were predicting a new ice age in the 1970s. Well, that's alright, because the deniers assure us there is no consensus among climate scientists on climate change. But wait! Take a look here at the report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President's Science Advisory Committee from 1965. Speaking of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, the report stated (page 113),

The part that remains in the atmosphere may have a significant impact on climate: carbon dioxide is nearly transparent to visible light, but is a strong absorber and back radiator of infrared radiation, particularly in the wavelengths from 12 to 18 microns; consequently, an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could act, much like the glass in a greenhouse, to raise the temperature of the lower air.

This was so phenomenal, President Lyndon Johnson sent it to Congress as a special message.
 
But, it continues. The history of climate science shows it was becoming increasingly clear during the 1960s and 1970s that fossil fuel emissions would change the climate. The NRC report of 1977, the JASON report of 1979 and the Charney report of 1979 all came to the same conclusion: carbon dioxide emissions would lead to global warming.

So, not only is there a consensus, but that consensus was reached over 40 years ago!

You mean, the deniers were lying to us? How could that be?

There is an excellent video of Naomi Oreskes discussing this history.  I highly recommend it.

The point being, the denier industry, led by the Three Stooges (the George C. Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heartland Institute - all stooges for the fossil fuel industry) have been heavily involved in a campaign to mislead the public. And, they are very skilled at this. These are the same people that led the fight to convince the public the medical research linking tobacco to heart and lung disease was flawed. Their work ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people by delaying regulation of tobacco products. Today, they are killing hundreds of thousands of people by delaying action on climate change.

Keep telling yourself these people have your best interest at heart.

California Drought

As we (hopefully!) know, California has been suffering through a record-breaking drought these last few years. Recent studies have indicated that this has been the worst California drought in as much as 1200 years. Now, there is some relief coming. California has been hit with some rain in recent weeks and is now getting more. In fact, there is an atmospheric river in place that promises to bring quite a bit of precipitation. Rain would be great, snow would be even better.

If you are not familiar with the term, an atmospheric river (AR) is a narrow band of atmospheric moisture and they are responsible for the majority of moisture movement outside of the tropics. They form in the lower atmosphere and can move with wind currents for thousands of miles, lasting many days. When they strike obstacles, such as mountain ranges, the uplift causes the moisture to condense and precipitate out. That is why they cause so much precipitation in California - they travel in from the Pacific and strike the Sierra Nevada mountains. Take a look at this graphic showing the amount of precipitable water in the atmosphere and you can clearly see the atmospheric river heading into California.

Source: CCI Reanalyzer

Note how the AR passes over Hawaii, hence the nickname "Pineapple Express." Also, notice how much more moisture there is in the tropics. You can also see how the AR ends on the West Coast and doesn't move inland very much. West of the mountains will get rain, but the areas east of the mountains will remain dry. While some rain is good, ARs are capable of bringing catastrophic amounts. An AR in 1861-2 brought 43 straight days of rain to the West Coast and turned the interior valleys into lakes, causing massive amounts of damage and killing thousands.

Is this the end of the drought? We can hope so, but we'll have to wait and see to be sure. Hopefully, we won't see anything like the AR of 1861.

So, now the question is, is the drought a naturally-occurring event or because of climate change? The answer, as is typically the case, a mixture of both. California has had droughts in the past and will continue to have them in the future. This drought may have been a naturally occurring event. There are reports going both ways. But, the one thing that is consistent is that global warming certainly made this drought much worse than ones in the past. What studies have shown is that there have been droughts in the past that had even less rain than this current one, but they were all much cooler. This current drought has been a 'hot drought' and California has experienced record high temperatures (remember that the next time someone tells you East Coast temperatures mean the planet is cooling) at the same time the rain failed.

In short, the drought was caused by what has become known as the 'ridiculously resilient ridge.' This ridge caused the wind currents to go north, parallel to the West Coast, preventing moisture from reaching the coastal regions. The currents went up into Alaska and Canada before turning south and plunging into Mid-America, leading to our cooler than average winters in the east these last couple of years. There is debate if this ridge was natural or caused by climate change. But, drought was exacerbated by the high temperatures and the higher temperatures were most certainly caused by global warming.

What that means is that we can expect the naturally occurring drought cycle going forward, but they will look more and more like this last one. Even if this AR brings relief, California needs to make plans because this is going to happen again.

Commenter Highlights Error in Thought by Deniers

A reader recently made a comment on the Global Warming Challenge submission concerning wood found under glaciers and I found his comment to be very illustrative. Here's his comment in full:

 

owenvsthegenius

Sure, I see the problem now. You're experiencing a credibility drain. This is what happens when you yoke yourself to a political movement in its infancy. The movement makes white hat claims, hucks in a hockey stick graph, pumps a couple hundred thousand data points into a model and blammo, you all save the world. But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways. To us you look like a schill; all over the talking points, ready to pivot when the predictions fail. You have likely never read the "Limits to Growth" its where we first see the hockey stick graph (PS...its used to describe a pending ice age). You likely go cross-eyed when someone asks you about the Hegelian Dialectic. You think up is down, if I'm not with you I'm against you, you love Rachel Maddow. Does that sum it up? You're a parrot. And you don't want to consider positive feedback or that a year of heat cannot be used to determine climate, or that your hero Am Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade. You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn. You want the moral high ground but you haven't earned it; you are derisive and dismissive when you aught to be listening. Here's what you're not understanding, we all believe that climate changes, we all believe carbon dioxide levels are rising starkly, and we all like green things. We know that humanity is driving atmospheric carbon levels to "scary levels". My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees. Your worst fear is that the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and that we're all doomed because nothing will survive the changes we've inflicted on the planet. And if you weren't talking so stupidly about carbon dioxide, and if you didn't insist on the warming...you would have me. But you don't have me, because you're a schill. The oceans are not going to boil and we have real pollution issues to deal with. Plus as a guy who's planted two million trees, I'm certainly not going to imagine that you somehow care more than I do about the science of sustainability or conservation. You cherry pick your data, which you like to believe we do. You are actually intollerent to the diametrical and like I said, your challenge is a fraud. Its click bait. Bravo

Let's start with the only thing said here that has any merit, "You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn."

Here is the real meat of this comment, Mr. Genius is stating that, in fact, someone submitted a valid proof that AGW is not real and I reneged on the deal. But, what is missing in Mr. Genius' comment is just how the submission is valid and/or my comments on it were invalid. See how that works? He makes it look as though his claim has validity, but he never provides any kind of proof to support his claim or to invalidate mine. I go through the hard work of showing why the claims are invalid and he does nothing and will pretend his stand is superior.

I have received a few comments like Mr. Genius' and my response is the same: Show me how the submission is valid and my comments are not. I am sure it comes as no surprise to learn that I am still waiting. I am sure Mr. Genius will be no exception. It sounds good to make the claim, but let's see him do the hard work and prove it. The reality is - he wont because he can't.

That is a perfect example of nearly everything said by the denier industry ('Warming has stopped.' 'Warming is good for us.' 'Models don't work.' 'Climate scientists are just alarmists.") They make claims they won't substantiate because they cant' and the expect everyone to simply believe them. Anyone that questions them is somehow an inferior person. Well, if it makes me inferior to demand proof of your statements, then I guess that makes me inferior because I will always demand the proof. It would make it more interesting if any of you guys could ever produce any. This is why I say the only way someone can deny climate change is to deny science. 

Let me complete my comments on these two sentences before moving on.

Yes, I am a scientist (Ph.D. in physics), but that really is irrelevant. I have done the hard work of proving my point in the my book (Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming) so the challenge was never about me. What I did would be equally valid if I was not a scientist. It was all about people like Mr. Genius that make claims and can't back them up. I gave them a chance to do just that and no one was able to come even close.

Another important part of his claim is the one where he claims I never intended to yield a cash prize. Just like all of the other deniers that have made this claim, this is not only false, but they can't produce anything to support that claim. That is how they operate - accusations without any evidence. Of course, if they needed evidence to believe something they wouldn't be deniers. Yes, in fact, I fully intended to award the prize to anyone that could prove manmade global warming isn't real. The problem, Mr. Genius, is that no could do it and I knew that going in. Simply said, not a single person provided anything new and original that had anything even resembling science to it (there were a few original claims that made me think the submitter was on drugs - or should be). Everything submitted has already been examined and found to be invalid. I would have loved for someone to prove AGW is not real. I would love to learn that we are not really heading down this path we are on. And, I would have gladly paid if someone could have removed that concern from my mind. But, no one came anywhere even close and the majority of submissions were so bad that even if AGW wasn't real (and it is), they still would not be valid. Yes, they really were just that bad.

As for Dan Pangburn, he did not, to the best of my knowledge, make a submission. I reviewed all submissions and his name was not on any of them (there are several submitted as 'Anonymous' and he could be one of those). Since he didn't make a submission, I don't owe him anything (is that logic really that hard to follow?). I have seen his name on numerous comments and they are all scientifically invalid, so it would be easy to conclude that he would not win, even if he had submitted.

Another comment by Mr. Genius was, "But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways." This really demonstrates the lack of understanding by deniers. Science is not politics. It is not an opinion. It is not a 'party' issue. It is not something you believe in (do you believe in gravity?) It is the understanding of how the universe works and the universe will do what it does with, or without, any understanding or action taken on our part. Are politics involved? Certainly. Just look at how the Republican party is making a major issue out of denying any science they don't like. But, no amount of politics will change the way the universe works and you should be pretty ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise. As for doing your 'homework,' you clearly have not and your comment shows that. That is why you look at us sideways (and, yes, we know why you do). That sideways look of yours is the look of ignorance and comes from denying science. If you would educate yourself that look would go away.

Most of Mr. Genius' comment is merely a diatribe, such as the comment, "your hero Am (sic) Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade." For the record, I have never met Al Gore, he is not a hero of mine, I have never quoted him in any of my responses and he has never groomed me for anything. I wish I could take part in making billions (or even thousands) of dollars, but I'm afraid I'm not part of any such gambit. And, there we go with another example of the lack of logic that deniers constantly put on display. Where in the world did Mr. Genius come up with any of this?

 

He (just like the denier crowd everywhere) goes on to embarrassingly display his lack of knowledge, his ability to do homework, or to even think clearly by using $50 dollar words in an attempt to impress. There is a simple rule, the better you understand something the easier it is to explain it to people that don't understand. Mr. Genius displays his lack of understanding by pulling out terms like Hegelian Dialectic and The Limits to Growth. Why is that Mr. Genius? In case you are not familiar with the terms, a dialectic is a method of resolving arguments and is credited to the Greek philosophers Plato and Socrates. The Hegelian Dialectic is one form of a dialectic. Why didn't you just say so? You merely engaged in an attempt to look intelligent so that it would make you claims look intelligent. It didn't work. What is interesting is that I have actually used the dialectic approach with the challenge. And, Limits to Growth is a book from the early 1970s that basically found if we continue the way we were (in the early 70s) our society would eventually have to collapse under its own excess. This is very strange that Mr. Genius would quote it and makes me think he is the one that hasn't read it because the argument on climate change is practically straight out of the pages of that book. It is a perfect example of how bad things will happen if we don't change our ways.

And, I don't know who 'Rachel Maddow' is. I have never heard of her, so I cannot comment on if I 'love' her or not. Nice job of assuming something without having any evidence to support your belief. But that is what you (and other deniers) do, isn't it, Mr. Genius?

The last part of his comment continues to show the failure in logic on display by the denier crowd. He has gone through and found what he wants, and I don't mean just the comments that lead me to believe he thinks global warming is a good thing ("My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees."), but also to his claims about what I think (or anyone else, for that matter). No, I do not believe the oceans will boil and that nothing will survive. I am not aware of anyone that is making any such claim. Once again, his lack of homework is a demonstration of why he is a denier. Things are going to change and they will not be for the good. But, it will not be the end of humanity. But, let me ask you something, Mr. Genius. What if I said 20% of humanity will die because of climate change? That still leaves 80%, so we are not talking about the end of humanity. But, wouldn't that be a calamity? What if you, or your loved ones, were in that 20%? Would you care then? But don't worry if that happens, because the rest of the 80% will continue, no matter how much their standard of living has been decreased. 

And, that, is why the logic of deniers fails. And, Mr. Genius has done a wonderful job of demonstrating just that.

One more comment, apparently I really do care more about the science of sustainability and conservation than you do. You convinced me of that.