Make haste more slowly

What fun - readers point out that some revisions are to be made to the Dessler paper in the light of comments made by Roy Spencer. I wonder if Steve M's comments will have an effect too?

Comments

[BBD]

matthu

Thank you kindly.

So far we've got a bit closer to identifying the theological leanings of the Cornwall Alliance. This is progress, but it's oddly one-sided.

You need to say something.

For example, do you agree/disagree that the slab of text above is largely composed of, shall we say, Christian dogmatists?

[BBD]

Bad Andrew

You can play too. How about an answer to the above?

[Bad Andrew]

"How about an answer to the above?"

BBD,

How ' bout Global Warming is a Hoax. Does that pretty much cover all your questions? lol

Andrew

[BBD]

Bad Andrew

No.

You might try answering the question I actually asked. This promotes discourse.

I'm off to bed now, so no further comments tonight.

[Bad Andrew]

"I'm off to bed now, so no further comments tonight."

Goodnight, BBD.

Andrew

[hro001]

BBD,

However, I am having trouble finding a Rabbi in the following list [...] Now we can go round the mulberry bush all night about this,

Be my guest. Although I would note that you forgot to include the scientists, medical doctors, and economists - not to mention the fine-print from that page which reads:

Organization and title are listed for identification only, and do not imply organizational endorsement.

I wonder if it has ever occurred to you that each of these signatories may well have chosen to align her/himself with the Cornwall Alliance (and its declaration) simply because the position adopted by the respective religious organization to which each belongs is more along the lines of that expressed by the Moderator of the United Church of Canada who would have her unwitting flock believe that:

Life as we know it will die. Millions of human lives are on the line, rich and poor, old emitters and new, vulnerable and strong. There is no inoculation against this except all of us changing our behaviour all at once.

But I must say, you have provided a very impressive list of individuals who subscribe to the view that:

The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost.

Is that idea true?

We believe not.

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible. It rests on poor science that confuses theory with observation, computer models with reality, and model results with evidence, all while ignoring the lessons of climate history. It rests on poor economics, failing to do reasonable cost/benefit analysis, ignoring or underestimating the costs of reducing fossil fuel use while exaggerating the benefits. And it bears fruit in unethical policy that would

•destroy millions of jobs.
•cost trillions of dollars in lost economic production.
•slow, stop, or reverse economic growth.
•reduce the standard of living for all but the elite few who are well positioned to benefit from laws that unfairly advantage them at the expense of most businesses and all consumers.
•endanger liberty by putting vast new powers over private, social, and market life in the hands of national and international governments.
•condemn the world’s poor to generations of continued misery characterized by rampant disease and premature death.

In return for all these sacrifices, what will the world get? At most a negligible, undetectable reduction in global average temperature a hundred years from now.[emphasis added -hro]

It seems that in your view, if I were to sign this declaration - which I find eminently reasonable, btw - such an action would make me an instant "fundamentalist" and/or an evangelical Christian by association.

I also note that you seem to be far more concerned with harping on and/or promoting your argument-of-the-hour (whatever it might be) than with addressing my (perhaps) inconvenient point regarding Mike Hulme's religious views and choice of alliances - and how these might have "informed" his many contributions to the annals of climate science.

P.S. You'll find some Rabbis listed at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/notable-signers-of-the-cornwall-declaration/ as well as on the Board of Advisors. Not a lot of 'em, I agree. But Jews are a very small minority, so this is to be expected, don't you think?

[Shub]

From someone constantly demanding precision in rhetoric, what horrible ignorance, and confident ignorance at that.

Fundamentalism is a specific attribute, to be found in religious and political affiliations. Screw the Wikipedia and open your eyes, man. Any sect can be fundamental.

You are pretty fundamental yourself, for instance, I could say - you demand that all dimensions of the climate system be thrown away, in view of CO2/DLR./etc. This sort of a rigid mental framing is a particulate of fundamentalism, and there are a few others.

Anyone who simply believes in anything is not a fundamentalist. I know your atheism has probably precluded any further acquisition of knowledge in these areas, but it would be nice at least to know the broad taxonomy of belief. Because then, when you use these terms to smear people, at least you would be in the right ballpark.

It is clear that you used the adjective without knowledge of its precise meaning (or even a broadly correct meaning). Try not to do that next time.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Shub - atheism is one of the most strict forms of belief, worsened by its blindness towards its own self, its "pretence absolute rationalism". We can see that in people who make an argument however flimsy and then nominate themselves as sole judges of how strong their argument is, and how weak the responses.

[Steve Short]

Meantime, while our resident self appointed Mormon theologian from BYU e.g.:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/bickmore02.html

is busy as a little bee calculating how much juicy Apostasy he can squeeze out of those pesky sceptical scientists to balance on the head of his pin (head):

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=332

where the rubber on the tires of the mighty CAGW bandwagon (which poor Barry so desperately wants to reconcile with the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young etc., etc) meets the freeway of reality e.g. :

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf

alas the famed oil slick in the shape of Jesus (of which the latte day prophet Carl Hiassen wrote of in his frothy missive to the faithful 'Lucky You'), awaits......

[BBD]

Hilary

What's this I see? Why 'tis a declaration that the fundamentalist theology promulgated by the Cornwall Alliance trumps everything when it comes to climate science (my emphasis):

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible.

Well, that could not be clearer.

So, we have Spencer - and others - aligning themselves with a fundamentalist organisation mainly composed of Southern Baptists, which states that AGW isn't real because it conflicts with its fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Am I alone in having some insight into what the Southern Baptists are all about? It certainly feels like it. Perhaps a little more research might help. See the end note.

I have argued that this (and his Republican political affiliations - see end note, final sentence of quote) provide abundant insight into Spencer's behaviour. Which is to promote his religiously-informed belief in a low climate sensitivity. While he has never even come close to demonstrating this scientifically, he creates a very strong, and very misleading impression that he must be on to something.

This is his intent, and he has just succeeded in spreading yet more misinformation across the media and the blogosphere.

The attempts to shout this down on this thread have for the most part been weakly argued and and exposed their authors as intellectually inflexible. From you, however, I expected better than a transparent attempt to twist my words and reframe the discussion.

End note:

A little more about Southern Baptist fundamentalism for interested readers (emphasis added, just for fun):

In October, the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention quietly decided to pull the SBC out of the Baptist World Alliance. In December, they made their decision public, citing liberalism within the BWA. The BWA promptly refuted the charge of liberalism, exposing the lies of Southern Baptist leaders. By the end of January, Baptist leaders from Russia, Poland, Romania, Great Britain, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Bulgaria, South Africa, Ukraine, Italy, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and other Latin American nations (as reported by the Fort Worth Star Telegram), not to mention the United States, had publicly criticized the Southern Baptist Convention.

To longtime observers of the 25 year fundamentalist makeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, the departure from the BWA comes as no surprise. Southern Baptists’ fundamentalist leaders have long been marching the SBC out the door of Baptist life and onto the threshold of their own little kingdom. Core Baptist principles are systematically being discarded in place of policies designed to shore up the new fundamentalist order. The Priesthood of all Believers has been dismantled and replaced with strict pastoral authority. Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State have been jettisoned in favor of the myth of America as a Christian nation. The Authority of Scripture has been buried under layers of creedalism, of which the frosting on the cake is the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Faith in Christ alone now plays second fiddle to homage to that same BF&M 2000. Local Church Autonomy has been rejected in favor of Roman Catholic-like, hierarchical conformity.

In short, Southern Baptists’ fundamentalist leaders have been intentionally dismantling the “Baptist” in Southern Baptist Convention for more than two decades. In its place they have been crafting a southern coalition of inerrantist-spouting, Republican Party-loyal evangelicals which now reaches throughout the nation.

[BBD]

Shub

It is clear that you used the adjective without knowledge of its precise meaning (or even a broadly correct meaning). Try not to do that next time.

Please see above, and remember what we are actually discussing. You are up to your usual trick of twisting the meaning of what has been said.

And Shub, you do realise that every time you say things like the above, I fall about laughing?

Do grow up.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Personally, I'm not surprised. Risum abundat in ore stultorum. And no, I'm not talking mining here.

[Bad Andrew]

"Am I alone in having some insight into what the Southern Baptists are all about?"

BBD,

Actually, you sound like you could be the member of Y Protestant denomination attempting to assert your authority by pointing out where X denomination is wrong. That's how those fundamentalist religious types argue.

Andrew

[HaroldW]

Maurizio -
Are insults really necessary? I realise that this thread has degenerated, but still...

[BBD]

Andrew

As I said upthread, I'm an atheist.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if one of you now said: okay, that's a lot of referenced argument there BBD, maybe you have a point.

Maurizio

Your Latin is as poor as your argument: 'Risus'.

As I said upthread, you have nothing except your mantra of 'you're wrong BBD'. Now that is exhausted, it becomes: 'you're stupid, BBD'.

You are predictable, Maurizio.

Why don't you admit defeat now. This is getting embarrassing.

[Bad Andrew]

"I'm an atheist."

BBD,

Surprising. ;)

I submit that this religious belief of yours influences you away from objectivity in the way you view science in general and unnecessarily sets you up politically in opposition to anyone who believes in God, as evidenced by your recent extended run of religion and denominational-centered comments.

Andrew

[Maurizio Morabito]

HaroldW - since when is the mindless labeling of other people as "fundamentalists" not an insult? I must've missed your protestation at the time. At least I'm trying to get a bit of classicism back after "festina lente", in a "discussion" where one of the parties is incapable of understanding trivial stuff such as the naivety and logical impossibility of absolutely judging one's own argument.

He even believes he's referenced "a lot", when the meaning of "fundamentalist" is magically assumed as thesis and hypothesis at the same time. I mean really, what can one argue with a position as dramatically locked up like that? Not a word on how a person's belief system differ from different points of view, and not even a hint of guessing the most basic truth that there's no person who doesn't hold a belief system. It's just a collection of "I convinced myself Spencer is a fundamentalist and I'll keep saying it to the point of redefining what fundamentalism is". Yeah, right.

Stultus est sicut stultus facit, as Forrest Gump wouldn't mind saying.

PS I blame "Risum" on Google's "quickview"

[BBD]

Maurizio

I cannot face any more of your waffle. You are simply incapable of debating in good faith. And I think a number of people here have seen that now, so this exchange was worth the effort.

Have you ever wondered if you are getting left behind, there in your carefully-constructed world? There must be the odd moment of doubt, surely?

Or perhaps not.

[hro001]

BBD,

What's this I see?

At this point, it is quite obvious that the only thing you are capable of seeing is that which you choose to use as a launching pad for your next groundshift.

You may choose to call such a posting practice "debate", "discussion" or even "discourse". I call it intellectual dishonesty: I don't practice it, myself - and I have much better things to do with my time than continuing to engage with those who do.

But, by all means do let me know if and when you are ever prepared to address:

1.

The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost.

Is that idea true?

We believe not.

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible. It rests on poor science that confuses theory with observation, computer models with reality, and model results with evidence, all while ignoring the lessons of climate history. It rests on poor economics, failing to do reasonable cost/benefit analysis, ignoring or underestimating the costs of reducing fossil fuel use while exaggerating the benefits.

In full and in context along with:

2.

It seems that in your view, if I were to sign this declaration - which I find eminently reasonable, btw - such an action would make me an instant "fundamentalist" and/or an evangelical Christian by association.

I also note that you seem to be far more concerned with harping on and/or promoting your argument-of-the-hour (whatever it might be) than with addressing my (perhaps) inconvenient point regarding Mike Hulme's religious views and choice of alliances - and how these might have "informed" his many contributions to the annals of climate science.

P.S. You'll find some Rabbis listed at http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/notable-signers-of-the-cornwall-declaration/ as well as on the Board of Advisors. Not a lot of 'em, I agree. But Jews are a very small minority, so this is to be expected, don't you think?

Until then ... well, all I can say is that you might want consider getting rid of that little bee in your bonnet, BBD.

[BBD]

Hilary

You may choose to call such a posting practice "debate", "discussion" or even "discourse". I call it intellectual dishonesty: I don't practice it, myself - and I have much better things to do with my time than continuing to engage with those who do.

That is both untrue and out of order. And you know it as well as I do, which makes it even worse.

And no, I will not allow you to simply ignore the points I have made and forcibly shift the discussion away from them.

Spencer's motivations are clear to anyone prepared to examine the evidence. I have laid it out above only for everyone here to go through hoops to pretend that the blindingly obvious is in fact just an ad-hominem attack. Which it obviously is not. It is an observation of fact.

You either have not looked at the evidence, or you are willingly defending the indefensible. Remember, Spencer is endorsing the CA Evangelical statement. He signed up to this:

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible.

This is Spencer's publicly-acknowledged position: climate science is invalid because it goes against the Bible

There is no waving this away. Even trying shows a frightening lack of objectivity. I won't stoop to accusing you of intellectual dishonesty, but I do wonder what the hell is going on on this thread.

[BBD]

Mike Hulme's views are irrelevant. We are discussing the fact that Spencer's theology explicitly states that the current understanding of the effect of CO2 on climate is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.

The overwhelming demographic of the Cornwall Alliance is Southern Baptist. The fundamentalist nature and Republican-sympathies of this church are set out above (1:47 pm).

You simply ignored this information. But it is very, very relevant - unlike Mike Hulme's views. And you go on to make accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Fantastic! And "Bruce Gourley" is new Utterer of the Truth! Whatever he said in 2004, must be taken as Unassailable Evidence for millennia to come!!!

ps an Objectivity Award for BBD! At once!!

[Maurizio Morabito]

Why would anybody care about theology and global warming (alarmism)? For example, to counter the efforts to frame global warming (alarmism) as the de-facto morally-right position to embrace for all people of a religious disposition.

For example see my blogs here and here.

Obviously if one wants to reply to religious scholars meeting up in Windsor or anywhere else, one has to reply at a theological level, explaining the relationship between one's theological interpretations and global warming (alarmism).

For example my opinion is here. Note that I quote from Matthew and the Ecclesiastes.

You may note also that I agree that global warming alarmism rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible. That's how it is now (IMHO). Since I have given my reasons to think so, I have given also a strong hint of what needs to happen for my opinion to change.

Say, if global warming turned into a full, contemporary issue of the "today", the Matthew condition would be passed. Easy, uh? Only an atheist would think a religious statement can't be changed if evidence comes up supporting a different interpretation.

[Maurizio Morabito]

oops..my bad with the italic tag...

here it is: You may note also that I agree that global warming alarmism rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible. That's how it is now (IMHO). Since I have given my reasons to think so, I have given also a strong hint of what needs to happen for my opinion to change.

Say, if global warming turned into a full, contemporary issue of the "today", the Matthew condition would be passed. Easy, uh? Only an atheist would think a religious statement can't be changed if evidence comes up supporting a different interpretation.

[BBD]

Maurizio

So Gourley is lying. This never happened:

By the end of January, Baptist leaders from Russia, Poland, Romania, Great Britain, Belgium, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Bulgaria, South Africa, Ukraine, Italy, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela and other Latin American nations (as reported by the Fort Worth Star Telegram), not to mention the United States, had publicly criticized the Southern Baptist Convention.

Why don't you check and prove Gourley is dishonest? I know it's much easier simply to rubbish a source that contradicts you, but doing so carries zero weight and lays you open to the charge of not being objective.

I've said that I'm an atheist (and yes, I understand the logical fallacy of atheism as opposed to agnosticism). What is your theological position? I'm beginning to wonder if it is relevant here.

[BBD]

Maurizio

Our posts crossed. Let me read your links.

[Maurizio Morabito]

I don't need to prove that Gourley is dishonest. I am only stating that if Gourley thinks some people are "fundamentalists", that is Gourley's opinion. Other people might disagree, so we cannot start taking Gourley's statements as assumptions shared by all.

[HaroldW]

Maurizio -
Perhaps I shouldn't stick my head above the parapet, as there is a lot of flak buzzing about. But I think that it is incumbent upon us to be civil to our fellow commentators. Civility towards public figures (interpreted in the context of the issues discussed here) is appreciated, but of lesser value.

For the record, I *did* put in my two cents' worth earlier. You may have missed it -- trust me, it's not much of a loss. But there is a world of difference between "person X is stupid" and "X is biased." The first is merely an insult. The second, if valid, *may* bear upon statements made by X. Of course, it should not be taken for proof that whatever X says is wrong, for several reasons. It's a warning sign, a yellow card if you will. Not a red card.

[BBD]

Maurizio

I don't need to prove that Gourley is dishonest. I am only stating that if Gourley thinks some people are "fundamentalists", that is Gourley's opinion. Other people might disagree, so we cannot start taking Gourley's statements as assumptions shared by all.

No. That's just your opinion. To give it weight, you must show that Gourley is mistaken or worse. You refuse to do so. I am free to draw my own conclusions as to why.

But it looks obvious that it is the problems of today that should be of interest to a Christian.

And anthropogenic global warming is not a problem of today.

I have a problem with this.

Especially as you introduce the 'Matthew condition':

- Matthew 6:34:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own

- and Ecclesiastes 7:14 for justification:

Therefore, a man cannot discover
anything about his future.

This is deliberately to confuse aspects of the human condition with the current understanding of the effects of CO2 on climate and the strong likelihood of negative consequences for future generations.

I have problem with this, which appears to be the core of your argument.

The warming of the climate system by CO2 is time-lagged. Energy accumulates in the oceans (see my replied to HaroldW on the 'What's all this about then?' thread, starting at Sep 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM). This delays the rate of atmospheric warming but will ultimately prolong and intensify it. As will the long atmospheric residence time of CO2.

This is why discussions of climate sensitivity include both transient CS and equilibrium CS. The latter will be what future generations have to deal with.

You argue that nothing need be done unless and until negative effects are widespread and attribution indisputable. But because of the nature of CO2 forcing, by then, the climate system will be committed to still further warming. Matters will be made much worse, with inevitable human suffering on a large scale.

As far as I can tell (and this is the first time I have looked into the differing doctrinal positions on AGW), the mainstream Christian view is that this would be a great moral wrong.

What concerns me is that the Cornwall Alliance and its supporters may be mistaken, and the mainstream scientific view (and the mainstream Christian response to that view) may be correct.

[BBD]

Maurizio

Sorry, now I'm screwing up the tags. Let me try again:

I don't need to prove that Gourley is dishonest. I am only stating that if Gourley thinks some people are "fundamentalists", that is Gourley's opinion. Other people might disagree, so we cannot start taking Gourley's statements as assumptions shared by all.

No. That's just your opinion. To give it weight, you must show that Gourley is mistaken or worse. You refuse to do so. I am free to draw my own conclusions as to why.

But it looks obvious that it is the problems of today that should be of interest to a Christian.

And anthropogenic global warming is not a problem of today.

I have a problem with this.

Especially as you introduce the 'Matthew condition':

- Matthew 6:34:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own

- and Ecclesiastes 7:14 for justification:

Therefore, a man cannot discover
anything about his future.

This is deliberately to confuse aspects of the human condition with the current understanding of the effects of CO2 on climate and the strong likelihood of negative consequences for future generations.

Say, if global warming turned into a full, contemporary issue of the "today", the Matthew condition would be passed.

I have problem with this, which appears to be the core of your argument.

The warming of the climate system by CO2 is time-lagged. Energy accumulates in the oceans (see my replied to HaroldW on the 'What's all this about then?' thread, starting at Sep 11, 2011 at 8:09 PM). This delays the rate of atmospheric warming but will ultimately prolong and intensify it. As will the long atmospheric residence time of CO2.

This is why discussions of climate sensitivity include both transient CS and equilibrium CS. The latter will be what future generations have to deal with.

You argue that nothing need be done unless and until negative effects are widespread and attribution indisputable. But because of the nature of CO2 forcing, by then, the climate system will be committed to still further warming. Matters will be made much worse, with inevitable human suffering on a large scale.

As far as I can tell (and this is the first time I have looked into the differing doctrinal positions on AGW), the mainstream Christian view is that this would be a great moral wrong.

What concerns me is that the Cornwall Alliance and its supporters may be mistaken, and the mainstream scientific view (and the mainstream Christian response to that view) may be correct.

[Maurizio Morabito]

HaroldW - OTOH if the Latins used "stultus" and I were to change it, it would be an example of political correctness gone mad. Therefore...absit iniuria verbis...I am sure BBD can live with its use. 8-)

[Maurizio Morabito]

What concerns me is that the Cornwall Alliance and its supporters may be mistaken, and the mainstream scientific view (and the mainstream Christian response to that view) may be correct.

Sure. Opinions, opinions, opinions. And if Gourley says those guys are "fundamentalists", and we use the contemporary, pejorative meaning for the word, and I don't see those same guys as "fundamentalists", it's not because one of us is right or wrong in principle. Likewise neither of us should be forced to take the other's view as "Truth".

You should join a Church just for fun and go check their theological discussions and then come back and tell us how "fundamentalists" the people sounded...especially when they disagree on the "'fundamentals" ;-)

[BBD]

Maurizio

May I ask again, what are your religious affiliations? Please be specific. It seems increasingly likely from what you say that they are relevant here.

You know my position; I do not feel it unreasonable to ask yours.

[Maurizio Morabito]

I'm RC. Not sure where you want to get to? Don't try to teach Shoe Theory to the cobbler...

The issue was and is..."shall we dismiss Spencer's scientific papers because he is a signatory of a document that dismissed climate change alarmism on scientifc, economical but also theological grounds, and was signed also in majority by a group of people that some but not all define as "fundamentalists", thereby indicating according to BBD that Spencer is a fundamentalist himself who will mercilessly twist science to his own religious beliefs?"

Alas, even if I became Pope the answer to that question wouldn't change a bit.

[BBD]

Maurizio

I'm not trying to teach shoe theory to the cobbler. I needed to know where you stand, and thank you for clarifying that.

So:

Spencer's papers are subject to methodological shortcomings (there are various rebuttals including published literature online). We'll see how SB11 pans out in due course, and I'm very happy that his hypothesis of cloud forcing will be examined closely and under the eyes of the blogosphere.

But his books, public speaking, interviews with the media and blog promote his belief in a low climate sensitivity which his published work does not support.

It is this disconnect - and the obvious reason for it - that has propelled our exchange.

What with all the fuss it's conveniently easy to forget that SB11 makes no claim to have overturned the basis for current estimates of climate sensitivity. So it is interesting that others have perpetuated the impression that it did.

Again, there is a disconnect. If you are as smart as you think you are, this will not have escaped your notice.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Spencer wouldn't be the first or only one taking advantage of the public interest in climate change to promote a particular interpretation over another. Perhaps in a world full of Manns and Trenberths it's sink-or-swim, resign-or-speak your mind for all involved.

Then as the world is a diverse place, there'll be the closet Socialist, the avowed Southern Baptist, the determined Libertarian, etc etc and even people that are a combination thereof. What's controversial about it?

[Richard Betts]

Wow - thought we had big news then when under "Recent comments" I saw Maurizio revealing:

I'm RC.

Most disappointed to find him merely talking about his religious affiliation! :-)

[hro001]

We seem to have ended up with a thread that is virtually littered with the disrespectful droppings of one whose zealous crusade consists of misrepresenting, bullying, browbeating - and, as a last resort, pretending not to comprehend and/or handwaving with a hefty dose of ad homenem (or ad feminem) thrown in for good measure - any and all who have the temerity to question the validity of this person's ill-founded smear of a respected climate scientist.

This individual has appointed her/himself judge, jury and executioner - not to mention Lord High Arbiter. And to add insult to intellectual injury, it would seem that s/he is quite fond of playing "my claim, prove me wrong".

From where I'm sitting, in this person's books whatever s/he chooses to drag into the thread must be accepted as gospel (regardless of any logical fallacies inherent in her/his"argument") because, well, Because! S/He! Said! So!

This person has demonstrated an obvious failure to grasp the simple fact that if s/he wants to insist that Spencer's (highly irrelevant, well, except to a crusader, I suppose) religious views "inform" his science, then s/he is obliged to consider Hulme's religious views - and the extent to which they might "inform" his contributions to the annals of climate science. And then has the utter chutzpah to expect that no one will bat an eye when s/he subsequently turns around and demands to know the "religious affiliations" of one of her/his interlocutors because s/he thought it "increasingly likely" to be "relevant"!

In this person's books, whatever "interpretation" s/he chooses to place on words must be accepted because, well, Because! S/He! Said! So.

S/He was whining because s/he didn't find the names of any Rabbis in the chosen wall-of-text-of-the-hour (that s/he calls "evidence"). Yet when s/he was shown where such names could be found- instead of dealing with this s/he decided to launch into a tirade against Southern Baptists and Republicans!

And here I thought I'd seen everything back in the days when I was in the virtual trenches, combatting the mud-slinging army of "revisionist scholars".

But, I must admit that if her/his ultimate goal was to divert the thread away from Dessler's errors of omission and commission (and to repeat unsubstantiated additional smears against a respected climate scientist), then this particular zealous crusade would appear to be eminently successful.

[Maurizio Morabito]

Hey Richard...perhaps we should check among the Pope's followers at CRU... 8-))

[HaroldW]

Maurizio:
Placet.

[Richard Betts]

perhaps we should check among the Pope's followers at CRU... 8-))

Hey, maybe you're on to something there Maurizio ... RC did say "A miracle just happened" - maybe that was the literal truth... :-)

[BBD]

Hilary

Well, when flawed argument fails, you can always get even nastier ;-)

I think we're done here.

Interested readers can review the ding-dong between three (!) 'sceptic' bloggers and little old me, and decide for themselves who made their case.

For the record, I am profoundly unimpressed with the lot of you.

[Shub]

But, I must admit that if her/his ultimate goal was to divert the thread away from Dessler's errors of omission and commission (and to repeat unsubstantiated additional smears against a respected climate scientist), then this particular zealous crusade would appear to be eminently successful.

That was it, really, wasn't it?

BBD himself has not a single thing to say, for instance, even about the Bickmore post, let alone Dessler's paper, in his own words.

Small hand-wavy comebacks and ripostes to detailed well-written arguments. Now, which corner of the Internet have I seen that technique before? Something that starts with 'R' and ends with 'C'.?

[Maurizio Morabito]

Just like old times on Usenet, including the childish fake goodbye comment

[BBD]

Shub

BBD himself has not a single thing to say, for instance, even about the Bickmore post, let alone Dessler's paper, in his own words.

That's because neither SB11 nor D11 are in any way groundbreaking work when it comes to refining the estimated value for climate sensitivity. That's just spin by the 'sceptics'. And that's what Spencer is doing here. So that's what needs talking about.

Before you re-invent this exchange to suit your own imaginings, here's a reminder of the key points:

Let's not forget that SB11 really doesn't make any great claims about climate sensitivity, but it has been spun as doing so. This was clearly Spencer's intent: get something out there (by publishing it in a journal that won't spot the problems) then amplify the fuss for all it's worth. (Sep 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM )

.

It has been clear from the outset that SB11 does not advance our understanding of anything much. The furore it has caused is much more important than the paper itself. This is effective tactics, and Spencer has just won a round.

Not everyone is so stupid as to be unable to see what is actually going on here.
(Sep 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM)

.

The point is that SB11 is simply the latest in a long continuum of books, blog comments, public speaking and papers all claiming - but never demonstrating - low climate sensitivity. (Sep 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM)

.

I have argued that this (and his Republican political affiliations - see end note, final sentence of quote) provide abundant insight into Spencer's behaviour. Which is to promote his religiously-informed belief in a low climate sensitivity. While he has never even come close to demonstrating this scientifically, he creates a very strong, and very misleading impression that he must be on to something.

This is his intent, and he has just succeeded in spreading yet more misinformation across the media and the blogosphere. (Sep 12, 2011 at 1:47 PM)

.

Spencer's papers are subject to methodological shortcomings (there are various rebuttals including published literature online). We'll see how SB11 pans out in due course, and I'm very happy that his hypothesis of cloud forcing will be examined closely and under the eyes of the blogosphere.

But his books, public speaking, interviews with the media and blog promote his belief in a low climate sensitivity which his published work does not support.

It is this disconnect - and the obvious reason for it - that has propelled our exchange.

What with all the fuss it's conveniently easy to forget that SB11 makes no claim to have overturned the basis for current estimates of climate sensitivity. So it is interesting that others have perpetuated the impression that it did.

Again, there is a disconnect. If you are as smart as you think you are, this will not have escaped your notice. (Sep 12, 2011 at 11:15 PM)

You, Maurizio and Hilary have covered yourself in muck trying to get around a very obvious truth:

- Spencer is religiously and politically motivated

- nothing he has published in the literature in any way provides substance for his claim for a low climate sensitivity

- this episode is part of the larger struggle by fundamentalists and the Republian right for ascendency in US politics (you've heard of the Tea Party?)

Your take on what is going on is incomplete and pathalogically biased, which doubtless explains the problems with your reasoning. That and the fact that you live in a fantasy world.

For the last time, this piece of nonsense is what Spencer publicly endorses:

We believe that idea—we’ll call it “global warming alarmism”—fails the tests of theology, science, and economics. It rests on poor theology, with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible.

There it is: 'climate science is wrong because it goes against the Bible'.

You cannot sign up to bollocks like this and expect to be taken seriously. It's a watershed. Spencer chooses faith over science, and that's where he parts company with the rest of the field

You think Spencer is a 'respected climate scientist'? Have a look around the internet. Not much respect going on, is there?

[hro001]

@Shub @Maurizio

[Gavin mode on]

Yes. Yes.

[/off]

And I see that s/he has returned citing no less an authority than .... wait for it ... her/himself.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

But just for a change of pace .... at the point at which s/he waved g'bye (some ppl leave and never say g'bye, others say g'bye and never leave, so clearly s/he is one of the latter) ...

There were 244 comments in this thread made by a grand total of 50 individuals.

Of the 50, 29 made only 1 comment, 5 made 2 and 3 made 3. Which leaves us with 13 commenters. Here's their ranking (with percentage of 244):

Poster | Count | Percent
BBD | 86 | 35.25
Maurizio Morabito | 26 | 10.66
Shub | 23 | 9.43
Bad Andrew | 12 | 4.92
Green Sand | 8 | 3.28
matthu | 8 | 3.28
hro001 | 7 | 2.87
Josh | 5 | 2.05
Steve Short | 5 | 2.05
Atomic Hairdryer | 4 | 1.64
Barry Bickmore | 4 | 1.64
golf charley | 4 | 1.64
HaroldW | 4 | 1.64

Not too many surprises in this big picture, eh?!

[BBD]

Hilary

But Spencer's still motivated by religion and Republicanism. And you are still denying it in the face of overwhelming evidence. Which is, frankly, a rather odd thing for a rational person to do.

Funny how it says on the cover of my copy of The Great Global Warming Blunder:

The official climatologist of the EIB Network

This, for those who aren't familiar with the Republican propaganda machine, is a talk-radio show hosted by Rush Limbaugh, who is a US conservative of the hard right.

Here's an example of Mr Limbaugh on climate science:

A fact you never hear the environmentalist wacko crowd acknowledge is that 96% of the so-called `greenhouse' gases are not created by man, but by nature.

That's straight-up misrepresentation, or 'bollocks', if you prefer.

Past co-presenters on the show include Matt Drudge, who used his site, The Drudge Report to trumpet the misleading Forbes article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute entitled: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.

This would be a good point to remember that SB11 does nothing of the sort. It's rather meek conclusion is:

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

Now, what you and Shub and MM are doing on this thread is attempting to perpetuate the spin surrounding SB11. You do so for political, not scientific motives, and I am calling you out over it.

You cannot bully me, and you certainly cannot out-debate me, so you are in a bit of a fix, aren't you?

[Bad Andrew]

"you certainly cannot out-debate me"

BBD, highest total comment count <> winner of "debate." Any blathering keyboard-jockey (ahem) can spam climate blogs.

Andrew

[Maurizio Morabito]

In truth, BBD replied not a thing to my comment dated Sep 12, 2011 at 11:45 PM - he simply went back to repeat the points already demolished - so in a sense yes, I have out-debated him already.

Congratulations to myself.

[BBD]

Hilary and BA

wrt the post-count delegitimisation attempt. It's another non-argument. You seem to forget that I was responding to other comments, not just posting away into a vacuum.

Just another of those unpleasant little tactics exposed...