Wednesday
Jul082015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Sutter thread
Jul 8, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG2 CNN's JD Sutter - the author of that piece the other day that alleged the Marshall Islands are going to disappear - wants to talk to sceptics. How nice!
The comments are yours sir. I'm hoping you will tell us why you are telling your readers these things about Pacific atolls.
[Preemptive comments by others will be deleted. Let's wait until the man himself has chimed in].
Update on Jul 9, 2015 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
From the silence, I guess this could be one of those "new dialogues" that upholders of the climate consensus are always on about. Oh well.
Reader Comments (45)
Andrew,
After reading the comments section of Mr Sutter's article you linked to, I highly doubt he will show up here. He is being roasted at his own CNN page, with the commentors all being civil, yet utterly destroying his article.
At least Mr. Sutter has the integrity to use the proper word, "skeptic".
J D Sutter,s Global Warming End of the World Show just like the man himself is a no show.
I guess only the lowinformed little people were supposed to have read about Sutter's noblemindedness
"As a person who writes about climate change for CNN, I hear from them (from you?) an awful lot. Skeptics clog up my e-mail, flood the comments sections of my columns in the Two° series, overrun Facebook chats and, at times, make my Twitter feed feel like a firing range."
I wonder if that sentence Sutter wrote is telling him anything.
Errr...have you actually invited him personally to comment here?
Seems a bit churlish to crow if he doesn't actually know of the existence of BH.
I would certainly welcome his views with an open mind.
From the silence, I guess this could be one of those "new dialogues" that upholders of the climate consensus are always on about. Oh well."
What makes you think he is even aware of you?
I know well what a "dialogue" at BH is like I get a few sensible exchanges wit sceptics; against a constant background of denial, insults and as hom attacks.
If Mr Sutter is aware of your desire to converse, I would advise him not to waste his time.
Shame you think that, EM. I was going to suggest sending you to ask him.
SimonW, yes, Bish did invite him on twitter:
"CNN's @jdsutter wants to talk to sceptics. BH cordially extends an invitation. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/7/8/sutter-thread.html/ …"
But I think we should be aware that Mr Sutter has over 1000 comments on his blog to look at, and probably similar numbers of twitter notifications and emails. And he says he travelling to Oklahoma. So expecting him to comment here does seem a bit unrealistic.
JD is a self proclaimed "social justice campaigner" - I rather suspect that his finely tuned sensibilities would be rather more at home on the pages of CiF than the hurly-burly at BH.
CNN just hasn't been the same since Bobby Batista left.
Ooooooklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain. Well, he's got the wind up in comments on his article. He's not such a weatherman as to tell which way the wind blows.
========================
Entropic man (Jul 9, 2015 at 1:17 PM), you may not agree with what people here say or think but it does provide an excellent example of the rationales for our scepticism.
So, if Mr Sutter is genuinely interested in understanding these rationales, as I'm sure any open minded journalist would, he should be encouraged to at least read through some of the discussions and maybe even ask a simple question like "just what are you sceptical of?".
Personally, your advice of "not to waste his time" sounds more like an intent to misdirect, rather than be helpful.
I agree with EM. A dialogue between deniers and science from my experience is utterly frustrating. Usually one against a myriad of deniers with varying degrees of scientific competence (ranging from none to some with the latter usually sitting in the "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.." camp).
He may well be utterly unaware of you but imo his article is quite quite naive. I'll stick with Lewandowsky's view that, apart from brief flirtations, best we don't chat much to one another.
At the end of the day you just think we are machiavellian conspirators and we just think you're either stupid or lying (or typically both).
@ Dave Salt 2:51pm
A "rationale for scepticism" would usually be accompanies by evidence. In my experience here I rarely get anything remotely useful other than links to other AGW denial sites like GWPF and WUWT (i.e. so typically not useful). I think that is what EM is referring to.
You go on say the Guardian climate change discussion areas you as a "sceptic" are likely to get innundated with relevant links (pper erviewed etc). They can do it because they have the evidence..
It is remarkable the symmetry of outlook of alarmists and skeptics. Who's right? Well, re catastrophe the skeptics are, re warming the warmers are.
Once our pitiful little aliquot of fossil fuel carbon is fully appreciated for the mild warming and great greening that it is, the framing will leave warmers(well the luke sort) and skeptics in marvelous agreement. You alarmists and all of your fellow voyagers will be left out in the cold.
==============
Well maybe Sutter's devoted disciples could explain how the Marshall Islands are more at risk from climate change?
Or is it because overpopulation has encouraged people to build houses on land that their ancestors would not, for fear of ocean storms. So they now live like sitting ducks at an artillery range.
But not only can you not stop yourself repeatedly coming back for more, you are allowed to do so.
Onbyaccident
heh... some of the "evidence" I've seen offered over at The Guardian (and me wearing my eco-burka, quietly watching through the gauze) would embarrass Jehovah's Witnesses... As a long time student of Machiavelli I suggest you search for a rather more appropriate metaphor. As for Lewandowsky he's simply a blathering embarrassment to academia who's pushing supposedly informed learned discourse into putrid landfill.
Onbyaccident (Jul 9, 2015 at 3:24 PM), my rationale for scepticism is simply the lack of any significant scientific/empirical evidence - as opposed to computer model outputs - to verify the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis. Note that I have no problem with the idea that some warming is anthropogenic, just not enough of it to justify the draconian measures demanded by certain political groups and 'activists'.
Of course, if you want to invert the 'null hypothesis', you're changing the way the scientific method works... or at least the way I thought it works, based upon what I was taught as a physics undergraduate back in the 1970's.
The simple fact that the IPCC 'relaxed' their estimations for sensitivity in AR5 also suggests to me that my scepticism is well justified.
OBA
You just think we are Machiavellian conspirators and we just think you're either stupid or lying (or typically both).
tomo, be careful insulting Lewandowsky when other people are about. After Mann, he is their top secret agent. But nobody can be entirely sure, whether he is part of an entrapment exercise, like Chuck Blazer at FIFA.
@ jamesp
Very clever. I see what you did there...
Now want to start getting clever with the science mayhaps? :)
An open letter to John Sutter.
Probable undergoing some form of cleansing ritual before he mixes with 'evil deniers ' :)
golf charlie
as somebody who followed Lew through his "Perth" phase - out of curiosity - and read his output... and honestly expected that to be his 15mins Andy Warhol's worth ... (I really was neutral - he was a curiosity) - I was agog at Brissle Uni / The Royal Society no less fêting the fellow and giving him a pulpit and sinecure.
Now he's buzzing around like a big black fly - which is transparently what was intended - somebody with more clout than me is going to get tired enough to roll up a print-out of one of his efforts and do the obvious.
What is it with Australia and flies? It's instructive I think to compare Lew's career trajectory with that of Murry Salby.
@ tomo I seem to recall that Lew was first invited to Bristol by one of his grad students, perhaps sent out to see if it was safe to land there.
Noah had discovered a leak in the Ark, perhaps?
bornbyaccident: In just one comment above you called me (people of my persuasion) a 'denier', a 'liar', or 'stupid'. And you wonder why we have qualms about having a dialog with you. Then again, you also say that: "[I am] Usually one against a myriad of deniers" - Does that mean we are in a consensus. Or are you many 'myriads'?
You really are quite pathetic.
TrodOnbyaccident would rather hide behind the invincible Holy Hockey Stick, and the superpowers of rational debate it bestows on true believers.
Harry Passfield, it is all about faith, innit?
@ HP 8:54pm
YOU have qualms about having a dialogue with US? You really take the biscuit for whiny lying comment of the day. All we ever hear is moaning about the fact that the "warmist" side of the debate won't entertain a dialogue with you (and for good reason - see my previous mail) yet you utterly and shamelessly imply it is the other way around?!? You really believe the scientific world is out there pining away for YOU LOT? You're delusional man. And you call me pathetic?
You are certainly in a consensus on this site but it is a bit like a consensus of thieves in a prison.
You are a denier. To be honest I don't know why you people are so sensitive about the term as it describes you rightly. For example as far as say creationism is concerned then I could be called a denier (proudly). I'll be charitable though and let you choose between stupid or a liar. I don't think you have it in you to be both ;-)
Oh nooooo - the monstrous intellect wot is golf charlie responds...run away, run away!
:-D :-D !!
onlybyaccident
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm
See 9 : Attack Opponents Through Innuendo and Character Assassination
Alternatively you can try boring us to death, when 9 fails. Good luck.
Onbyaccident, do explain why your superior intellect reduces you to visiting this site. Is it a bet? Clearly our intellect is so inferior to yours, so why do you waste your time, unless your job depends on it?
OBA
"want to start getting clever with the science mayhaps? :)"
Not my job, although it would be nice to see some. The evidential, empiric sort, that is.
(And it's 'mayhap' I believe - good word, though.)
Onbyaccident, more to the point, do you accept Michael Mann's Hockey Stick as a full and fair representation of Climate past, Climate now, and Climate future?
I did once. But the more I thought about it, my schoolboy knowledge of science, and subsequent experience of history, geography, seafaring, archaeology, plus my professional qualifications gained in surveying and engineering combined with a diverse range of experience over 30 years, makes me question the Hockey Stick.
I do not see or feel any runaway warming, as portrayed in the Hockey Stick. Do you?
Those fracking sites are so eco modernist
This is far worse than you thought. CNN appears to be well beyond full Guardian campaigning mode with the "2-degrees" program. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/opinions/sutter-climate-two-degrees/index.html
The video clips are beyond astonishing, the "Disappearing Antarctic ice" segment has an alarmed presenter in front of NOAA labeled maps of the West Antarctic Peninsula claiming that all ice shelves are melting, irreversibly!, and could be gone in as little as 10 years, dooming every glacier and causing 1.5 metres sea level rise displacing half the worlds populations.
This is so far beyond a one individual "opinion journalist" in terms of extent, scripting and production values, it is high level, focussed propaganda and you have to wonder who is sponsoring it. Come out, come out whoever you are!
Eli, have you got any more dirty photos you want to share? Or is that you best defensive/diversionary tactic/gambit on behalf of Sutter?
Eli, have you got some photos of graves, filled because people could not afford heating bills? Maybe funeral pyres, or the smoke from a crematorium?
Maybe you could answer the fairly simple question I put to Onbyaccident about accepting or denying the truth of the Hockey Stick, as a fair representaion of Climate past, Climate present, and Climate future.
Perhaps you like video footage of wind turbines not moving. They are great for wasting electricity, whilst watching none being generated.
Betapug, taxpayers are paying for footage to convince us we are not wasting our money on a good cause. The Green Blob would never waste their own money, forcibly extracted from taxpayers. It is their money now, and they are going to spend it on lifes big luxuries.
Eli, did that flame blow all the leaves off the trees, or are there none visible because it is winter? I expect that in the warm light of summer it looks rather more green and pleasant, do you have such a photo for comparison purposes? Are those vehicles still there, and is the flame still burning?
It would look so much better with all the trees felled, so as not to obstruct the useless efforts of a forest of windturbines, on mass concrete foundations, that probably won't last more than 15 years before being abandoned, after the developers have creamed off all the subsidies, and allowed the holding companies to go bust. Ecomodernism really trashes everything.
Why was the MWP erased, and not the Hockey Stick?
"Well maybe Sutter's devoted disciples could explain how the Marshall Islands are more at risk from climate change?"
and the Marshall Islands are more at risk from getting their Drug Cartel, Third World Dictator Bribing,Russian Mafia Arms Dealing ,People Trafficking ,Terrorist Financing Money Laundering Operations getting shut down by Interpol the FBI and the U S Treasury Dept.
Bright side of Global Warming with the Marshal Islands under 3 foot of sea water that,s one less Off Shore Tax Haven for President Obama to complain about.
So Entropic where,s your boy Sutter , instead of him we got you .We want the Organ Grinder not one of his Monkeys.
Maybe J D Sutter would like to explain this to drought ridden California and Nevada
Snow in the middle of the blistering Mohave Desert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxRU1SYpoJY
Flying out next week to see Mariah Carey at Ceasars Palace and Rush at the MGM trust me Vegas is hot
To be fair, Jamspid, that was from December, 2008.
Enjoy your break.
As for responding to the likes of Onbylying – DNFTT!
oh yes, here is another green fracking site
Eli / Mr Halpern
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-23756320