Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[Poptech]

Do not look behind the curtain ... of a purposely semantic rope-a-dope.

Pop, and his allies, rely on changing the subject from the science to ... arguments about whether it is 97% or 93%. We've had page upon page of arguments more-or-less in the vein of 'taste great / less filling'.

Inspector Clouseau, please use your great deductive skills to figure out that I have been replying to everyone else's comments even when they repeatedly change the subject - not the other way around.

 

[Brian Stirling]

​

Inspector Clouseau, please use your great deductive skills to figure out that I have been replying to everyone else's comments even when they repeatedly change the subject - not the other way around.

You do have your issues, no doubt about that.

You got all pissy when I checked into your posting history and whined about my "cyber stalking." I note with great interest that on the home page of YOUR website, on the right under the section heading of "Exposes," you post links such as this:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html

Tell me, when are you going to stop cyber stalking Jon Stewart and Judith Curry?

And just to keep everyone up to date as of tonight, and I freely admit this is a moving target, you've now up the percentage of post dedicated to climate to over 83%. This is a pretty diverse website covering tech topics and yet you have a near singular focus on climate.

I also noted with interest that your website, although it "appears" to cover a broad range of tech topics, many of those topics consist of a singular post by "Alex" or "Kurt" and even more interesting, that singular post is actually just a link.

What you are is a shill for industry and you method is to spam boilerplate bullshit.


Brian

 

[Poptech]

You do have your issues, no doubt about that.

You got all pissy when I checked into your posting history and whined about my "cyber stalking." I note with great interest that on the home page of YOUR website, on the right under the section heading of "Exposes," you post links such as this:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html

Tell me, when are you going to stop cyber stalking Jon Stewart and Judith Curry?

LMAO, that is the worst counter-argument yet to your exposed cyber-stalking - where you are attempting to smear me by bringing up my posting history here and on the Internet. Something alarmists do when they have no valid argument to the actual discussion. Why are you so scared to try and actually debate? Am I embarrassing you that bad?

And just to keep everyone up to date as of tonight, and I freely admit this is a moving target, you've now up the percentage of post dedicated to climate to over 83%. This is a pretty diverse website covering tech topics and yet you have a near singular focus on climate.

Inspector Clouseau still cannot figure out why I posted in the discussions I did even after I gave him a clue.

I also noted with interest that your website, although it "appears" to cover a broad range of tech topics, many of those topics consist of a singular post by "Alex" or "Kurt" and even more interesting, that singular post is actually just a link.

Alex or Kurt? What are you talking about? A singular post is a link? Are you confusing the website with the forums? Inspector Clouseau please stop ...you are embarrassing yourself.

What you are is a shill for industry and you method is to spam boilerplate bullshit.

I have commented on many forums on the Internet and this one tops even many politically far-left forums for libelous smears. It is shame because these forums used to be place for rational discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell you what, in your own words tell me why climate change isn't happening, or isn't caused by man, or isn't a problem - whatever you feel the facts are.

I can be persuaded by a logical arguement supported by observable facts. Why don't we give that a try?

This should go well.

 

[Meghan54]

I have commented on many forums on the Internet and this one tops even many politically far-left forums for libelous smears.

Well, geez, if you've suffered from abject libel here, sue. But, then again, that'd require court and the most important part--discovery (something which I don't think you want to go through...it'd be disastrous for you to have to show your true self.)

You haven't answered Paratus's question. So, while you're trying to get your libel ducks in a row, could you answer Paratus's simple question?

 

[Meghan54]

This should go well.

He'll just ignore it because he can't answer it....it's not part of his script.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I have commented on many forums on the Internet and this one tops even many politically far-left forums for libelous smears. It is shame because these forums used to be place for rational discussion.

Yep, it used to be a relatively decent forum.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Curious to know, he found a few papers where the conclusion was drawn improperly to the statistical study, but he offers no counter statistic.

He has found 7 scientists that say they were misclassified (who knows how many he actually contacted, he doesn't provide that information.) There were 12,000 papers examined in the original study. There will always be errors, which is why the sample size is so large.

So I guess the better question would be, what does that author believe the true number to be? 95%? 92%? 40%? Or is he only trying to discredit the paper without offering any additional study on the topic?

Cook's paper has been highly criticized for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to speculate on the intent of the author. I would personally like to see a more granular research survey on this particular subject...specifically, a breakout of estimates of the AGW component of the current warming trend (by climate scientists only). Many recent studies are indicating that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated.

My chief concern isn't so much with Cook's paper, but that it's become an iconic meme within the believer community who misunderstand and commonly mischaracterize this study.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cook's paper has been highly criticized for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to speculate on the intent of the author. I would personally like to see more granular research on this particular subject...specifically, a breakout of estimates of the AGW component of the current warming trend (by scientist). Many recent studies are indicating that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated.

My chief concern isn't so much with Cook's paper, but that it's become an iconic meme within the believer community who misunderstand and commonly mischaracterize this study.

Why are you concerned? I love you and see in you a person of the highest moral character. And yet you seem to chafe under the moral load that is given to all who are virtuous to bear. All of that is symbolized by the cross and crucifixion. Yet you seem so angry and call others dishonest. Why? Why do you complain of exhaustion? What are the motives that drive you. What does it matter if the LBD has created an altered reality where death by man made pollution destroying the world is a total fiction. Should you be angry that you can't awaken these sleepers from their sleep. Is that your job and your responsibility? How did such a yoke get placed around your neck?

 

[glenn1]

Cook's paper has been highly criticized for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to speculate on the intent of the author. I would personally like to see a more granular research survey on this particular subject...specifically, a breakout of estimates of the AGW component of the current warming trend (by climate scientists only). Many recent studies are indicating that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated.

My chief concern isn't so much with Cook's paper, but that it's become an iconic meme within the believer community who misunderstand and commonly mischaracterize this study.

Yeah, too bad "scientific consensus" isn't what makes laws. Which is why the global warming folks always dwell on that, because once you get beyond that their crackpot ideas get rejected out of hand or revoked in short order. Even places stupid enough to implement their ideas (e.g. Australia and the carbon tax) soon wise up and throw out of office the politicians dumb enough to try them.

 

[dphantom]

Yeah, too bad "scientific consensus" isn't what makes laws. Which is why the global warming folks always dwell on that, because once you get beyond that their crackpot ideas get rejected out of hand or revoked in short order. Even places stupid enough to implement their ideas (e.g. Australia and the carbon tax) soon wise up and throw out of office the politicians dumb enough to try them.

Both Cook's "97%" and mann's "hockey stick" have been fairly well discredited. It still leaves the question of how much man is contributing to any global warming.

If we can get past the notion that those who think there is much yet to be learned about climate and question the impact man is having on climate have valid questions, then we will find that virtually everyone is in agreement that man has had some, yet to be determined, affect on climate.

the research is fascinating and changing all the time. I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time reading papers published by dozens of researchers. There is far from a consensus as some would have us believe.

But the consensus there is, is one that essentially is saying we do have some effect and we need to understand that better so we can make appropriate policy decisions.

 

[thraashman]

Yeah, too bad "scientific consensus" isn't what makes laws. Which is why the global warming folks always dwell on that, because once you get beyond that their crackpot ideas get rejected out of hand or revoked in short order. Even places stupid enough to implement their ideas (e.g. Australia and the carbon tax) soon wise up and throw out of office the politicians dumb enough to try them.

I like how in the mind of someone who is crazy far right things like saving the earth, ending pollution, and preventing global catastrophe become "crackpot ideas".

 

[bshole]

I like how in the mind of someone who is crazy far right things like saving the earth, ending pollution, and preventing global catastrophe become "crackpot ideas".

Um that is why we have nonstop coverage of the rivers of chemical shit being created in China? There are cities in Chinathat haven't seen the sun in fucking years! When did CO2 become the ONLY environmental problem and environmentalist quit giving a shit about everything else?

Environmentalists used to represent the best of America.... they are responsible for so much good that happened in the last 50 years. Somewhere along the line they lost their way and have fastened on a phantom pollution that does no active direct harm to man, plant or animal while completely losing interests in the bevy of chemicals that do direct active harm. Just so sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Um that is why we have nonstop coverage of the rivers of chemical shit being created in China? There are cities in Chinathat haven't seen the sun in fucking years! When did CO2 become the ONLY environmental problem and environmentalist quit giving a shit about everything else?

Environmentalists used to represent the best of America.... they are responsible for so much good that happened in the last 50 years. Somewhere along the line they lost their way and have fastened on a phantom pollution that does no active direct harm to man, plant or animal while completely losing interests in the bevy of chemicals that do direct active harm. Just so sad.

I'm not sure where you got the crazy idea that environmentalists only care about CO2, but I have good news for you: environmentalists care about all forms of pollution, CO2 being only one of many. They have accorded it greater importance in recent years due to the overwhelming conclusions of science, which seems pretty logical, don't you think?

 

[dphantom]

I'm not sure where you got the crazy idea that environmentalists only care about CO2, but I have good news for you: environmentalists care about all forms of pollution, CO2 being only one of many. They have accorded it greater importance in recent years due to the overwhelming conclusions of science, which seems pretty logical, don't you think?

CO2 is not pollution. Too much O2 can kill you. Does not make O2 pollution.

 

[fskimospy]

CO2 is not pollution. Too much O2 can kill you. Does not make O2 pollution.

CO2 is definitely pollution. Too much anything can kill you, and basically anything in small enough doses will not harm you. That doesn't make nothing a pollutant.

A substance is generally classified as a pollutant if it is causing harmful effects to the environment and/or human life. CO2 being released in the quantities that we release it in causes harmful effects to the environment and/or human life. Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

 

[dphantom]

CO2 is definitely pollution. Too much anything can kill you, and basically anything in small enough doses will not harm you. That doesn't make nothing a pollutant.

A substance is generally classified as a pollutant if it is causing harmful effects to the environment and/or human life. CO2 being released in the quantities that we release it in causes harmful effects to the environment and/or human life. Therefore, CO2 is a pollutant.

No it is not.

 

[fskimospy]

No it is not.

The EPA disagrees.

Regardless, can you explain to me how we could classify something as a pollutant or not without taking concentration/quantity into account, as nearly everything on earth is toxic when concentrated enough and nearly everything is benign when diluted enough?

 

[dphantom]

lol chill out bro.

The EPA is heavily politicized and is attempting to regulate things Congress has not mandated be regulated. Hence the classification of CO2, a beneficial gas, as a pollutant. Anything in high enough concentration can be toxic. It does not make it a pollutant necessarily.

BTW, I do agree climate is changing.

 

[umbrella39]

CO2 is not pollution. Too much O2 can kill you. Does not make O2 pollution.

This has nothing to do with pollution just addressing the O2 statement.

Room air is 21% Too much room air oxygen doesn't kill anyone. You need supplemental oxygen to start causing problems ie non rebreather mask running at 100% FiO2. This is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It's more accurate to say high fractions of O2 can kill you.

CO2 can kill you with no supplemental/external CO2 required. Hold your breath for a minute. Your CO2 will rise until you start breathing again and blow off the excess CO2. People who hypoventilate (conditions like some COPD'rs) and retain CO2 can and do die from hypercapnia.

 

[fskimospy]

lol chill out bro.

The EPA is heavily politicized and is attempting to regulate things Congress has not mandated be regulated.

The Supreme Court disagrees, as it has not just said the the EPA can regulate CO2, but in certain cases it is required to do so unless it can supply a scientific basis to refuse (which it was not able to do).

2007 case mandating the EPA regulate CO2 or offer scientific explanation why not:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?pagewanted=all

Most recent case: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Hence the classification of CO2, a beneficial gas, as a pollutant. Anything in high enough concentration can be toxic. It does not make it a pollutant necessarily.

What does make something a pollutant, specifically?

BTW, I do agree climate is changing.

Right, but the science says that climate is changing due to human activity. This is important because the logical result of that is that we can alter our effect on climate change.

 

[First]

lol chill out bro.

The EPA is heavily politicized and is attempting to regulate things Congress has not mandated be regulated. Hence the classification of CO2, a beneficial gas, as a pollutant. Anything in high enough concentration can be toxic. It does not make it a pollutant necessarily.

BTW, I do agree climate is changing.

Oy.

 

[First]

Btw, I find it a bit amusing a helpdesk support lackey would criticize John Cook as a cartoonist, when he is more accurately described as a solar physicist (at least in terms of education).

 

[dphantom]

He, to the best I can determine, never became a solar physicist. he had some training, but appears to never have completed.

Since he described himself as a cartoonist, it would seem to me that would be an appropriate way to refer to him.

I would stay away from Cook as he has reportedly had a tendency to edit comments from skeptics on his blog site to say something not always intended.

 

[xBiffx]

Since the EPA pretty much defines a pollutant as anything they deem to be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act it is ridiculous to use the EPA's completely self serving and circular definition of a pollutant.

Also, under their definition, we all potentially pollute just by being alive and breathing. Good luck with that one.