The Closing of Debate


There has been a growing and disturbing trend in political debate. It is the pre-emptive declaration that the debate is over. Al Gore and the mainstream media have declared that the debate over global warming is over. President Obama has intimated that the debate on America’s economic crises is over. And with the decline in oil prices, it appears that the debate over energy independence is over.

In each instance, the “close of debate” comes at a time when the public debate begins to call into question the legitimacy of the left’s claims or solutions. In each instance, it is designed to force action fueled by political considerations instead of science, economics, or common sense. In almost every instance the “close of debate” is announced by the far left and trumpeted by the mainstream media. In almost every instance the “close of debate” is premature and the “action” advocated as a “cure” is wrong.

For instance, the debate over global warming isn’t over; the left has just stopped listening. There are hundreds of highly regarded scientists who continue to dispute both the fact of global warming and the alleged cause of it. There are few who do not concede that over the past fifteen years, the average mean temperature of the globe has risen — marginally. Those who disagree with the global warming theory simply note that the phenomenon is not new but rather recurring. In contrast, those who support the global warming theory refuse to recognize that the last three winters have resulted in a substantial cooling off — returning the average mean temperature to its 250,000 year averages, rebuilding glaciers in Alaska and other Northern climates, and dramatically increasing water availability in areas where drought was alleged to be evidence of global warming. In fact, those zealots blame the cooling trend on global warming and have changed their concern from “global warming” to “climate change” thus enabling them to point to any unusual event as evidence in support of their position.

The purpose of this “pre-emptive closure” is to force new restrictions and costs on America’s consumers in the form of “carbon credits” and restrictive energy use. Even those who advocate the global warming theory acknowledge that nothing that they propose currently will bear any results for over 130 years — a time past which they will be conveniently dead and not available to explain their mistakes.

In speech after speech, the latest being from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Tuesday morning, the new administration has sought to cut off debate on the cause and effect of the economic and financial crises. The purpose of the “pre-emptive close” is to force acceptance of the liberals’ massive spending bill as the only alternative to “solve” the crises. Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) cut off debate in the House by refusing to allow consideration of amendments proposed by Republicans. And while President Obama gave perfunctory consideration to Republicans in the Senate, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) chose to listen to only three Republicans who have historically voted with liberals in the Senate and declined any consideration of positions advocated by the Senate Republican leadership.

And finally, with pump prices hovering just below $2.00 per gallon, all considerations for extracting additional domestic fossil fuels as a part of the plan for energy independence have been quietly shelved by the new administration. There will be no additional offshore drilling, there will be no opening of ANWR, there will be no construction of additional refining capacity, there will be no increase in coal production or methane gas production, and there will be no further pursuit of new nuclear facilities. Instead all of the government’s energies will be focused on wind and solar energy. The fallacy here lies in the fact that the same environmental radicals who have opposed development of the nation’s fossil fuels, are just as opposed to the construction of transmission facilities. In this instance, the geographical locations required for wind (the Midwest wind belt) and solar, the Southwest, require massive new transmission facilities to gather the new power created and carry it to the urban centers for that use. It is pointless to build expensive and unsightly wind turbines or solar displays covering hundreds of acres if you unable to build transmission facilities between the point of origination and the point of consumption.

And while there is danger to the American culture through these “pre-emptive closures” of public debate, the real danger lies in the accumulated impact of their “cures.” The Congress has already imposed $750 Billion to bail out the financial institutions and yet the credit availability to mainstreet business — the heart of America’s and particularly Oregon’s economy — remains decidedly stingy. Congress is set to pass a “stimulus” bill this week that will top $900 Billion that contains very little stimulus and a lot of pork barrel spending for constituents loyal to the Democrat left. And finally, Secretary Geithner has announced yet another spending proposal to aid financial institutions that is rumored to be in the $800 Billion range. This nearly $2.5 Trillion worth additional debt is heaped upon the economy at the same time that we are about to impose crushing carbon credits and leave American industry at the mercy of the next manipulation of the energy market by speculators and foreign oil producers.

At the very moment that American business is reeling, does anyone think that it can absorb this staggering new debt load while at the same time it struggles with new burdensome environmental regulations and sky high cost for “new” energy from wind and solar. America’s productivity already suffers from the highest tax rates, the highest labor rates and the most regulations (environmental, health, safety, etc.). We are about to add to that more regulation, a burdensome debt load and high energy costs.

And all the while the left stubbornly refuses to listen to any alternatives — no alternatives to energy independence, no alternatives to economic recovery, no alternatives to global warning. I have always found that the dumbest people are also usually the most stubborn and the least likely to accept responsibility for their own failures. You can build your own list but mine usually begins with P for Pelosi.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 34 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • David Appell

    > There are hundreds of highly regarded scientists who
    > continue to dispute both the fact of global warming and
    > the alleged cause of it.

    These scientists may be highly regarded, but their opinions are not, unless they are put into scientific language and pass the most basic muster of peer-review.

    In fact, you rarely if ever find any of these supposed scientists doing so. They take the easy way out and write op-eds or publish simple treatises on friendly Web sites. They always have high-minded ideas, and never stoop to analyzing data, models, and the conclusions of today’s top scientists — the young whippersnappers in labs who devote 14-hrs a day to climate science.

    Read the scientific journals — there are hardly any papers published that question the reality of AGW. Go to climate science conferences. There is simply too much good science behind this hypothesis, and it is, in fact, holding up well and what’s happening with the earth is completely within bounds of the theory.

  • David Appell

    > There are few who do not concede that over the past
    > fifteen years, the average mean temperature of the globe
    > has risen – marginally.

    Marginally? Hardly.

    According to NASA GISS data, the average temperature anomaly of the last 15 yrs is +0.44 C. The temperature anomaly of the 15 years before that was +0.19 C. The 15 yrs before that: -0.03 C.

    In other words, in 30 yrs, the world has warmed up 0.47 C, or about 0.16 C/decade. That’s an enormous rate, by any (historical) standard, and hardly “marginal.”

    Your use of the word “marginal” is completely wrong and, frankly, inexcusable.

    • jim karlock

      *David:* In other words, in 30 yrs, the world has warmed up 0.47 C, or about 0.16 C/decade. That’s an enormous rate, by any (historical) standard, and hardly “marginal.”
      Your use of the word “marginal” is completely wrong and, frankly, inexcusable.

      *JK* Have you seen J.C. & Bohling, G.C., 2001, The search for pattern in ice-core temperature curves. AAPG Studies in Geology 47, 213-229?
      It shows several rapid warming that are much more rapid than recently, especially from about 1100 to 1000 years BP. So you are wrong again, David.

      Please quit spreading religion instead of science.

      Thanks
      JK

  • David Appell

    > Those who disagree with the global warming theory simply
    > note that the phenomenon is not new but rather recurring.

    They may note that, but it is not a very sophisticated or useful analysis.

    Because the world has changed significantly in the last 200 years, compared to time before that. Man has significantly perturbed the planet by taking carbon that was underground and putting it into the atmosphere, changing the atmospheric percentage of CO2 by 35% — this, for a gas responsible for about 9 C of our basic greenhouse effect.

    It does not make sense to compare today’s earth to anything in the past, because today there are factors which never existed before. We are in wholly new territory here.

    The real question for skeptics is: how can such a large increase in CO2 (and other potent GHGs) *not* lead to a warmer planet? No skeptic or skeptical scientist has ever explained this, nor modeled it.

    • jim karlock

      *David:* Man has significantly perturbed the planet by taking carbon that was underground and putting it into the atmosphere,
      *JK:* Now tell us how it got underground?
      You, won’t, so I will: It was taken out of the atmosphere by plants and ended up buried. This means that earlier atmosphere had much moe CO2 and the earth did not turn into a burnt cinder. A Phd like yourself should have been able to figure his out.

      Further, returning that carbon to the atmosphere will, at most, merely return to the conditions of an earlier atmosphere. At the least, it will do nothing because of the earth’s natural negative feedback mechanisms.

      *David:* changing the atmospheric percentage of CO2 by 35%
      *JK:* You forgot to mention that the effect of CO2 is mostly saturated at today’s levels and more CO2 will lead to little warming.

      *David:* — this, for a gas responsible for about 9 C of our basic greenhouse effect.
      *JK:* Now tell us what % of total warming this 9 C represents. (Hint: quite small, H2O is the big greenhouse gas))

      *David:* It does not make sense to compare today’s earth to anything in the past, because today there are factors which never existed before.
      *JK:* CO2 was much higher before it was sequestered in the earth by photosynthesis. Why don’t you mention this?

      *David:* The real question for skeptics is: how can such a large increase in CO2 (and other potent GHGs) not lead to a warmer planet?
      *JK:* Pure crap David. First you have to show CO2 is capable of dangerous warming. You simply have not been able to do that,

      Thanks
      JK

  • David Appell

    > In fact, those zealots blame the cooling trend on global warming
    > and have changed their concern from “global warming” to “climate
    > change” thus enabling them to point to any unusual event as
    > evidence in support of their position.

    You should stop taking your science from advocacy groups, whether on the right or the left, and listen to what scientists actually say.

    All climate scientists have always and forever admitted the role of natural fluctuations and other secondary factors in the overarching trend suggested by manmade greenhouse gases. If you need a reminder about this, see Keenlyside et al, Nature, 5/1/08, p. 84. They have never suggested that temperatures are going to monolithically increase year after year.

    There’s no pretty way to say this: Larry Huss is full of shit and doesn’t know what he is talking about. He clearly doesn’t understand the fine points of climate science and makes a fool of himself with essays like this. I can’t imagine why anyone would give him the slightest bit of credence, based simply on all the notions he has gotten wrong in this one essay alone.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Not to speak for Larry Huss here, but you have clearly missed the point of the article.

    The point was not to defeat the AGW position, the point was to question why the left wants to cut off debate on any number of issues and forge ahead with remedies which are very much in doubt as to their efficacy.

    With regard to AGW, you simply cant have major figures constantly calling into question AGW itself, the efficacy of the solutions and claim that either are settled science. Constantly getting caught in what are major scientific blunders at best, fraud at worst (such as making up numbers for last Octobers temperatures, or the wide spread claim of 1998 as being the warmest year on record) further distances AGW proponents from the realm of science and closer to that of propagandists.

    Indeed, the behaviour of AGW proponents, that any questioning of their claims or solutions is to be mocked or ridiculed is decidedly not that of a scientific consensus and more that unscientific mob. The fact that some of the main players seem to be set to both richly profit from their proposals while they behave in a manner wholly at odds with their claims tends to also invite skepticism.

    >It does not make sense to compare today’s earth to anything in the past, because today there are factors which never existed before. We are in wholly new territory here.

    Nice debate cutting off tactic. Why does this sound so much like the debate over the “stimulus” package?

    The fact is this argument is a little self defeating. One of the main thrusts of the AGW crowd has been Al Gore and his attempts to fit together temperature and carbon curves obtained from ice samples. If you are suddenly going to start claiming that we can’t consider anything in the past, you have opened up a rather novel approach that to my mind seems to undermine the entire premise of AGW i.e. temperature following carbon.

    >In other words, in 30 yrs, the world has warmed up 0.47 C, or about 0.16 C/decade. That’s an enormous rate, by any (historical) standard, and hardly “marginal.”

    No its not. You are being totally disingenuous. You seriously think its reasonable to take a 30 year period and extrapolate from that and think no one is going to notice?

    That’s absurd and quite frankly is one of the main things that is used to take down the AGW argument. The simple fact that AGW promoters want to take small data sets and expand them to make long range forecasts. It’s exactly the sort of thing I was talking about, more akin to propaganda than science.

    In addition, you would totally mock anyone who did what you are doing here: using NASA GISS as a source. James Hansen who heads the GISS is not only a noted proponent of AGW, but was caught as recently as last November making the astonishing bungle (and I am being generous with the use of that word) of getting a result totally at odds with most peoples perception, that October was the warmest on record, this in the middle of record lows and snowstorms in Texas. Rather than double check, which one would think would be the correct approach, he published the results. He then got caught re-using September numbers for Russia. I think the person who caught it was a high schooler. The fact that you accuse Mr. Huss of only listening to advocacy groups, and then go on to cite GISS shows the level of introspection here.

    In short, Mr. Huss might not be a scientist, but the idea that AGW is settled science is pure fiction. The contention that it holds up well is belied by the attitude of wanting to shut down debate. If a scientific hypothesis holds up well, then debate should be the last thing feared. Again, actions totally at odds with purported beliefs.

  • Bitch Slapped

    Wow Rupert just totally Bitch Slapped Appell!

    Holy crap! DAvid, will you now please skulk back under that manhole you came out of?

  • David Appell

    Rupert wrote:
    > Constantly getting caught in what are major scientific blunders
    > at best, fraud at worst (such as making up numbers for last Octobers > temperatures

    Rupert, these numbers weren’t “made up” — which is a defamatory comment at least.

    NASA GISS made an error. It was corrected within days.

    Do you ever make errors, Rupert?

    I assume you do. Does that mean they are fraudulent?

    Hardly. They are simply mistakes. Everyone make them. The question is, how do you deal with them?

    Such data errors have been made throughout the history of human thought, and certainly thoughout the history of science. Have you even noticed the errors on the other side? Did you notice that Christy and Spencer made errors in their corrections for microwave sounding data for tropospheric temperatures, an error that persisted for years and which lead to contentious debate for years, until they finally realized they were wrong and corrected their error, showing that tropospheric temperatures have indeed risen strongly, as expected by AGW theories.

    Where Christy and Spencer fraudulent, too, Rupert?

    No, they were not. There were scientists, doing their best, sometimes making mistakes, correcting them when necessary.

    That’s exactly what NASA GISS did, only a lot quicker.

    If you expect perfection, you will never find it — even in yourself.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >That’s exactly what NASA GISS did, only a lot quicker.

      GISS had to act quickly, they were caught red handed re-using September numbers.

      >If you expect perfection, you will never find it — even in yourself.

      Pointing out that you are using a source that tends to have some wild blunders and is headed by someone with a clear advocacy position after you just accused Mr. Huss of the same hardly makes the case that I am demanding perfection from others.

      My position was that your quoting of GISS is hardly better than what you accuse Mr. Huss of given the record GISS and Dr. Hansen have.

      You don’t like that? Fine. Then don’t go accusing others of only listening to advocacy groups and then go on to quote GISS and think no one is going to notice you are quoting a source that has made some colossal blunders, announced them with a fanfare that results in front page news, don’t self correct obvious blunders but rather wait for them to get caught by bloggers and is run by a man who is a stated proponent of AGW.

      • David Appell

        Rupert:

        I am awaiting your proof that your own mistakes at less that NASA GISS’s.

        I don’t expect it to be forthcoming.

        The fact is, everyone — EVERYONE — makes mistakes, you included. The question is what you about them.

        NASA GISS withdrew their data within about 36 hours, reevaluated it, and subsequently posted a more refined number.

        And you, REupert: what do you do when you make a mistake?

        What did Christy and Spencer do (a topic you have assidiouisly avoided so far)?

        You won’t even acknowledge this mistake, Rupert, because you know as well as I do that it seriously detracts from your high-handed argument.

        Try to be at least a little bit honest, Rupert, as it might further your legitimate cause.

        As it is, we all know what you’re avoiding.

        • jim karlock

          David Appell: Try to be at least a little bit honest, Rupert, as it might further your legitimate cause.
          As it is, we all know what you’re avoiding.
          JK: And “we all know what you’re avoiding”, David. Try to be at least a little bit honest, David, as it might further your legitimate cause. Just show your previous statements to be true. Your claim that you have answered them is simply false:
          1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
          2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
          3. “if you’re going to damage the climate by burning carbon ”
          4. “today’s CO2 is different – manmade (there’s irrefutable proof of this).”
          5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”

          Where is the evidence? Your silence is ample evidence that you have none

          Please quit your lies on these forums. You are scaring little children and democrats.

          Thanks
          JK

          • David Appell

            Jim, I keep asking you if you have read the IPCC 4AR (esp v1), and the references therein, which is where you will find the proof you are looking for.

            Curiously, you never answer.

          • jim karlock

            David Appell Jim, I keep asking you if you have read the IPCC 4AR (esp v1), and the references therein, which is where you will find the proof you are looking for.
            I am not interested in slogging through thousands of pages of crap, written mainly be non-scientists and political hacks. (It appears that your alarmist William Schlesinger has finally admitted that only 20% of the IPCC actually know anything about climate, let alone being climate scientists.)

            If the proof is really there amongst the hundreds of irrelevant and duplicative papers you could easily cite the papers that contain it. Do that or shut up.

            Thanks
            JK

          • jim karlock

            *David Appell* Jim, I keep asking you if you have read the IPCC 4AR (esp v1), and the references therein, which iswhere you will find the proof you are looking for.
            *JK:* I am not interested in slogging through thousands of pages of crap, written mainly be non-scientists and political hacks. (It appears that your alarmist William Schlesinger has finally admitted that only 20% of the IPCC actually know anything about climate, let alone being climate scientists.)

            If the proof is really there amongst the hundreds of irrelevant and duplicative papers *you could easily cite the papers that contain it. That you refuse tells that you know that they do not exist.* Cite the papers, including quotes or shut up.

            Thanks
            JK

      • David Appell

        Hansen’s advocacy is based on the well-established scientific truth of the past 30 years. Huss’s is not.

        The science behind AGW has been well-established and is now a fact. Hansen clearly believes he has a moral duty to push humanity away from this coming tragedy. He has more experience and knowledge of this issue that nearly anyone on the planet. He has earned his opinion.

        Would you not also do the same if you were in an similar position? Or would you just sit back and watch the world march off a cliff?

        • jim karlock

          *David Appell* Hansen’s advocacy is based on the well-established scientific truth of the past 30 years. Huss’s is not.
          *JK:* If that is true you can show us where to find the evidence that CO2 can actually cause warming. You have refused for month after month. You cannot because there is no proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming. You are lying.

          *David Appell* The science behind AGW has been well-established and is now a fact.
          *JK* Then why are the peer reviewed journals still publishing papers that throw doubt on the very foundations of the crap you peddle?
          And why does Al Gore feel the need to lie? Al Gore admitted lying in his Grist interview. (He called it an “over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is”. If you have trouble understanding this consider it as if GWB had said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous Saddam Hussain is”)

          *David Appell* Hansen clearly believes he has a moral duty to push humanity away from this coming tragedy.
          *JK:* He is a deluded, admitted liar. He even admitted it by saying: “ Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,”

          No! Lying is never appropriate. *Hansen and Gore’s lying and name calling is an attempt to short circuit rational debate.* That is the game Hansen and Al Gore play. They are not interested in truth. They are only interested in tricking people. In Al’s case to get rich. The fact that Hansen felt that “it may have been appropriate” tells us all we need to know about Hansen’s honesty.

          Then there is Hansen’s about bing muzzled. While being quoted in hundreds of articles.

          *David Appell* He has more experience and knowledge of this issue that nearly anyone on the planet. He has earned his opinion.
          *JK:* You bet he earned his reputation as a liar.

          *David Appell* Would you not also do the same if you were in an similar position? Or would you just sit back and watch the world march off a cliff?
          *JK:* Thank you David, for finally admitting that you feel it is OK to lie to push a religious view on others. (And AGW is a religion.) Shame on you. You are unfit to be a science writer.

          Thanks
          JK

  • David Appell

    Rupert wrote:
    > With regard to AGW, you simply cant have major figures
    > constantly calling into question AGW itself,

    Rupert, the very point is, these “major figures” are simply old scientists who no longer publish in the scientific literature. They are notorious for saying everything and anything. But none of it means a damn, just as, in they heyday, they dismissed senior scientists because such people were not up to date on the latest research and did not represent the latest thinking.

    If these “major figures” had something that was scientifically important to say, they would write papers and submit them to scientific journals, where they would be analyzed by peers and decided upon.

    But these “major figures” never do that, do they? No, instead they rely on op-eds in the WSJ and various friendly web sites that try and pretend they have something, but in most cases they do not. They are not screened nearly as closely as are peer-reviewed publications, and. well, they are little better than the National Enquirer.

  • David Appell

    David Appell wrote:
    >>In other words, in 30 yrs, the world has warmed up 0.47 C,
    >> or about 0.16 C/decade. That’s an enormous rate, by any
    >> (historical) standard, and hardly “marginal.”

    > No its not. You are being totally disingenuous. You seriously think > its reasonable to take a 30 year period and extrapolate from that > and think no one is going to notice?

    Rupert: then show me an analagous period in the past where temperatures increased this fast.

    I was real, hard, and data, with references.

    Go.

  • David Appell

    Rupert wrote:
    > You seriously think its reasonable to take a 30 year period
    > and extrapolate from that and think no one is going to notice?

    Then tell me Rupert, what time period to *you* want to extrapolate from?

    40 yrs? 50 yrs? 100 yrs?

    We will take any of these. Please pick a number and then include an analysis of the temperature increase since then.

    I know you won’t — you don’t have the required mathematical skills do so do.

    Yet you think you deserve an opinion about this past century’s temperatures.

    You do not. You cannot analyze the independently and so all you can do it parrot what your favorite skeptic says.

    You have no intellectual ground on which to stand.

    • jim karlock

      * David Appell:* Then tell me Rupert, what time period to you want to extrapolate from?

      40 yrs? 50 yrs? 100 yrs?
      *JK:* How about 5000 years. The trend is down from then.

      *David Appell:* I know you won’t — you don’t have the required mathematical skills do so do.
      *JK:* Interesting statement from a person who does not even understand log graphs.

      *David Appell:* You cannot analyze the independently and so all you can do it parrot what your favorite skeptic says. You have no intellectual ground on which to stand.
      *JK:* It is you who is totally intellectually bankrupt. Not only did you lie about Katrina, you lied about the following (or so it seems because you refuse to provide proof:)
      *1.* “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
      *2.* CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
      *3.* “if you’re going to damage the climate by burning carbon ”
      *4.* “today’s CO2 is different – manmade (there’s irrefutable proof of this).”
      *5.* “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”

      Where is the evidence? Your silence is ample evidence that you have none

      Thanks
      JK

      • David Appell

        >> David Appell: Then tell me Rupert, what time period to you want to >> extrapolate from?
        >
        > 40 yrs? 50 yrs? 100 yrs?
        > JK: How about 5000 years. The trend is down from then.

        That would be a very stupid choice, because the world has changed in the last 5000 years from the activity of man. In fact, it’s changed significantly just in the last 150 yrs. If you ever took calculus, you would know that you can’t establish a function’s limit unless you look at it in detail much below those of its perturbing factors.

        Which is to say, the previous 5000 yrs are interesting in that they can be useful in establishing very basic climate laws, but the problem must be looked at anew because we have seriously perturbed the earth’s state in the last 150 yrs. Thus, we need new analysis here, and simply extrapolating the past climate doesn’t work.

        • jim karlock

          *David Appell:*
          >> David Appell: Then tell me Rupert, what time period to you want to >> extrapolate from?
          >
          > 40 yrs? 50 yrs? 100 yrs?
          > JK: How about 5000 years. The trend is down from then.

          *David Appell:* That would be a very stupid choice, because the world has changed in the last 5000 years from the activity of man. In fact, it’s changed significantly just in the last 150 yrs.
          *JK:* you just changed the subject. Lets stick with the original question: Extrapolate over the last 5000 years. We have cooling. You are wrong.

          *David Appell:* Thus, we need new analysis here, and simply extrapolating the past climate doesn’t work.
          *JK:* You asked for a more appropriate period. I gave it. Now you want a new analysis.

          Besides what is so special about he last 150 years, except it is the end of the little ice age and warming is natural after a cold spell. You are merely trying to cause alarm over a natural event. You are behaving like a little child watching the tide coming in and screaming that the whole world is about to be flooded.

          Thanks
          JK

  • David Appell

    Rupert wrote:
    > One of the main thrusts of the AGW crowd has been Al Gore and his > attempts to fit together temperature and carbon curves obtained
    > from ice samples.

    Rupert: as far as I can tell — and I have followed AL Gore very closely — he has not ever generated any data of his own or tried to fit it to anything.

    Can you please show us where this has occurred?

    Rather, Gore has been very, very clear that he is not a scientist, but merly passing along what science now knows.

    Which is the proper role of an activist.

    Do you have evidence otherwise? Now is the time to present it.

    Otherwise, you need to withdraw your faulty claim.

    — David

  • Dean

    “The left” does not want to “cut off debate” on the issues Larry Huss identifies. The broad middle of the nation and world want political leaders to finally take action on festering problems.

    The scientists who do the research and publish their results are not “left” or “right.” They are people who deal in objective reality, and their job is to report their findings to us. A few of them, like Hansen, have stepped forward and become public figures because they believed this was needed to get the message out. The preponderance of evidence says we ahve a serious problem and it is past time to get busy dealing with it. Let the debate go on, but start doing something in the meantime. If “skeptics” ever turn up an alternative explanation that has verifiable facts, great. Then we dial back and apologize for messing up the view with all the giant wind turbines.

    The debate on the economic crisis is also not being “closed.” But given what we know, the leaders we just elected believe that time is not on our side. Thus extended debate will do more harm than good. Elections have consequences.

    And…its a bit early to conclude that energy issues have been “shelved” by an administration that has been in place 1 month and has a lot of alligators lined up in the swamp to deal with. Off shore drilling for oil is years away regardless, and there ain’t enough oil out there anyway. Tapping ANWAR oil was opposed by BOTH major candidates, and there ain’t enough oil there to make a difference either.

    Yes Larry…”the left’ has listened to “alternatives.” In fact we lived with those alternatives the past 8 years. See alligators in swamp above. See elction results, 2008.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >I am awaiting your proof that your own mistakes at less that NASA GISS’s.

    Wait all you want, I never contended I made less mistakes than GISS. You are attempting diversion by trying to change the subject. The fact that I have pointed out to you that I never contended I made less mistakes than GISS and yet you continue to ask for proof of something I never contended is exactly proving Mr. Huss’s point. You seek to shut down debate on what is supposedly a scientific issue by the tactics of a propagandist.

    >Rupert, the very point is, these “major figures” are simply old scientists who no longer publish in the scientific literature. They are notorious for saying everything and anything.

    Interesting. I never saw this point brought up when the IPCC report was issued. At any rate, your dismissal of every scientist that disagrees with AGW is old is fairly vapid as I rarely see “professor emeritus” after the names of these people. You are again trying to use a dismissive propagandist tactic here. Those scientists shouldn’t be listened to because they are old>

    >Rupert: then show me an analagous period in the past where temperatures increased this fast.

    Uh oh……. didn’t you just get through saying that we are in unprecedented times so there was no point in comparing anything in the past.

    Hold on a sec……. put down my drink

    ……cut and paste…..

    Here ya go:

    “It does not make sense to compare today’s earth to anything in the past, because today there are factors which never existed before. We are in wholly new territory here.”

    So, which is it?

    At any rate, you are again trying to divert. I maintained that using a 30 year data set was too small of a data set to then go on and make 100 – 200 year predictions.

    You are trying to change the argument to “find another 30 year period”

    Nice try, but, gotcha.

    >Rather, Gore has been very, very clear that he is not a scientist, but merly passing along what science now knows. Which is the proper role of an activist.

    Ok, so now are you maintaining Al Gores advocacy is ok, but Mr. Huss listening to advocates is not?

    So its all well and good to be an advocate, but Mr. Huss is somehow a fool in your mind for listening to them?

    Is that what you are saying or what the hell are you saying?

    That’s a weird pot of Gumbo there. I’m not exactly sure how you cook it but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want to eat it. Does one use chopsticks? a spoon? fork?

    >Rupert: as far as I can tell — and I have followed AL Gore very closely — he has not ever generated any data of his own or tried to fit it to anything.

    Then you obviously haven’t seen Al Gores movie. I haven’t either but I have seen clips of it and he very clearly fits the two curve together after showing a bunch of ice cores and says “anyone notice any similarity here”

    >Otherwise, you need to withdraw your faulty claim.

    What faulty claim? Al Gore generated a movie, that’s about it. you are the one now maintaining I said Al Gore had generated data of his own. Where did the notion that I claimed Al gore had generated data of his own pop into your head?

    Look – What is being argued here is the lefts tendency to cut off debate. You seem unable to face that point and now want to dance around with a bunch of things that were never in contention.

    I would say your failure to address the central point, combined with Pelosi’s cutting off debate today has proven Mr. Huss’s point in spades. You might think that Mr. Huss doesn’t know much of anything, but frankly your diversion attempts here combined with Pelosi’s actions today make Mr. Huss seem quite prescient in a rather uncanny manner right now.

    • David Appell

      Rupert, regardless of what some professor emeritus says, they never seem to publish their work in codified scientific language and subject it to the criticisms of their peers.

      That’s the whole point. Any scientist can write something and have it appear anywhere.

      But you seem to have no standards whatsoever for evaluating this research. Since you lack the ability to evaluate it on its own, you only approve of what agrees with your position and disagree with what does not.

      It gets a little tiring. Is the world really supposed to take its climate policy based on what “Rupert from Springfield,” think — someone who is afraid to even sign his own name to his opinion — or from what all the august scientific bodies of the world have concluded?

    • David Appell

      As I thought, Rupert — you make mistakes no less than does NASA GISS — no less than does anyone.

      The question is what do you do with that mistake? NASA GISS corrected their’s in about two days.

      I notice you have strictly avoided commenting on Christy and Spencer’s mistake, which took years to correct.

      Are you afraid it undermines your cause?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Are you afraid it undermines your cause?

        No, since you have never explained how they address the fact that you feel entitled to cite advocacy groups while if Mr. Huss does you feel it is ok to fault him for that and say he is full of it.

        I never cited Christy and Spencer, nor did Mr. Huss.

        I never claimed Christy and Spencer were advocates or were not.

        I don’t have any idea how whether Christy and Spencer made mistakes or were advocates or not has any bearing whatsoever on your insistence that it is ok for you to accuse someone of exactly what you have done and then claim they are full of BS.

        You are simply trying to set up the same logical construct you were before, namely that errors elsewhere in the world, first in my life, now in Christy in Spencer’s work, somehow either purge a third group, GISS of any accusations of advocacy or entitle you to cite advocacy groups yet accuse others of being full of it when they do the same.

        As before, you are trying to shut down debate. First through name calling of Mr. Huss, and now through bringing up fallacious arguments such as these.

        It is quite clear from this and other posts you have a vaunted opinion of yourself insofar as being knowledgeable about AGW and scientific inquiry. You seem to want to be treated or thought of as scientifically minded yet you behave in a manner diametrically opposed to that of a scientist as you use all the tactics pointed out by Mr. Huss. You wont debate the issue, so you launch into side bars that you hope will either divert the person from the argument or will overwhelm them with, what you feel, is your vast scientific knowledge.

        The fact is attempting ridiculous logical diversions, or BS name dropping is not in the least scientific, especially combined with the fact that you need to revise history to maintain GISS as being impartial.

        GISS is headed by Dr. James Hansen, a man who by any definition of the term is an advocate

        GISS did not correct their mistake on their own as you are trying to maintain. Rather, they were grudgingly forced to when bloggers discovered the errors quite rapidly. At the outset GISS tried to make excuses, so they did not in fact correct on their own as you say, and they did not correct it themselves, they were forced to. The fact that they didn’t catch something that was caught in two days by others says a lot. The fact that they instead published their initial numbers with much fanfare says a lot too.

        GISS has been caught in this same thing before when Watts and McIntyre rather famously forced Dr. Hansen to revise his published figures for the 1990’s being the hottest decade.

  • Anonymous

    Like dueling out of tune pianos David and dean are here distributing more of their distortions and dishonesties.

    Not even the most basic framework to the represent accuratly.

    They appeared as though they have been contracted and assigned to distribute propaganda on the local blogs.
    I suspect they may be getting some compensation from any number of lunatic democrat activist groups but it matters not.

    With everything they post and their dishonest methods they might as well be.

    • Dean

      I’ve told you before…I get 20 cents a word (which is why I write long) and a 10 cent bonus whenever some anaymous yahoo responds and accuses me of things. So thanks again. Keep it coming. Ka-ching.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      If you ever find out who these blogs are, Id like to know.

      Frankly Id give those blogs a donation if they would promise to send someone who could argue their point logically and not think presenting fallacious issues will pass muster. I mean does this sort of thing pass as clever or insightful in some left wing circles?

      I mean, even in the left wing circles I travel in, presenting the sort of fallacy I am seeing here would get the “what the hell does that have to do with anything, are you an absolute idiot?” look.

      • anonymous 2

        Rupert…just send me the money directly and I promise to work harder. Signed dean.

  • Anonymous

    Dean,

    For the record, that was stupid.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)