[Vision2020] Hypocrisy

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Sep 15 12:02:34 PDT 2011

Condesending, rather, is the manner in which you dismissed the
comments by McKibben on the video you posted, and also again in the
manner in which you suggest I have not given my views on the climate
change issues you mention!
Condesending, and disingenuous, it appears, given I have repeatedly
asked that you address my response, given again below at the website
to the Vision2020 post in question, which I paste in almost in its
entirety, to your comment about Levenson's list of estimates of
climate sensitivity being "all over the board," with no response.

Don't respond, if you don't wish to; but please don't later come back
and state I have not given my views on these questions, such as
probable evaluations of climate sensitivity, the change in global
average temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2!  This is a
flat out false statement that misrepresents my statements on these

You arrogantly summarize my posts on climate change issues while there
is evidence you either have not read critical posts, or simply ignored
them, as you have ignored numerous corrections to your statements on
climate science and related issues that were misleading or outright

I have posted repeatedly, ad nauseum, some no doubt feel, regarding
the climate change related questions you pose below... Of course I
back up what I present with credible sources.  I don't expect people
to take my word on complex issues of science and technology and
economics as though I alone are an authoritative source.  No one alone

The first post addresses climate sensitivity, the second one much
lower down addresses economic means of lowering CO2 emissions,
economic proposals which I do not recall ever being discussed in-depth
on Vision2020:

[Vision2020] Exploring Implications of Levenson's List of Estimates of
Climate Sensitivity

*Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
*Mon Jun 21 19:06:15 PDT 2010* wrote:

"The link you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over
board, from 0.26 to 5.5 Kelvins.  There doesn't seem to be a trend that
shows them converging on a final number, either.  Since 2000, the range
is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin.   Anything under about 1.2
is probably not a problem, since it implies strong negative feedback.
Anything over about 2 could be a definite problem, depending upon the exact
involved.  It doesn't appear to me that climate scientists are on top of
the feedback problem, either.  I'm not even confident that they have
identified them all, let alone figured out exactly how they affect each

Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 11:16:24 PDT 2010 wrote:

These estimates on climate sensitivity from Barton Paul Levenson are not
"all over the board," as you wrote.  Not one indicates a reduction in
temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.  If they were "all over the
board" some would show negative feedback(s) that more than overcome the
radiative forcing of CO2, resulting in predictions of a temperature
reduction, especially if your arguments referencing "Chaos Theory" applied
to global climate are compelling.

Furthermore, you make no reference to Levenson's analysis revealing the mean
of these studies indicates climate sensitivity to be 2.86 or 3.15
Kelvin.   This mean result can be argued indicates that based on these
studies, there is a significant probability that climate sensitivity is high
enough to justify taking action to reduce CO2 emissions.

Given your emphasis on "Chaos Theory" to question the scientific consensus
that human impacts are the primary driver of the the rapid and profound
global climate change currently being observed which will increase
significantly, it is a challenge to your argument that all these studies on
climate sensitivity show a temperature increase.  If the global climate
system was as "chaotic" as you suggest, there would be a significant number
of peer reviewed published results predicting doubling atmospheric CO2 would
decrease global average temperature from strong negative feedbacks,
perhaps from cloud formation feedbacks, a variable you have pointed out that
climate scientists have difficulty modeling.  That all these estimates of
climate sensitivity from Levenson's research show an increase in
temperature, suggests that on this scientific question the climate system is
not as "chaotic" as you imply.  Indeed, the scientific question of climate
sensitivity is perhaps one of the best examples of a question focusing on
global *climate*, rather than more chaotic local or regional *weather*.

Perhaps you can offer a list of peer reviewed published estimates of climate
sensitivity predicting temperature decreases in global average temperature
from doubling atmospheric CO2?  Even the "dean" of anthropogenic climate
change skeptics (to quote NASA climate scientist James Hansen from his book
"Storms of My Grandchildren" http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/ ),
MIT's Richard Lindzen, finds climate sensitivity to be positive, though
minimal.  He has argued with his "Iris" theory that the climate system has
mechanisms to dissipate thermal energy to space that lower temperature.
However, Lindzen's "Iris" theory has not held up to scientific peer review
( [Vision2020] Anthropogenic Warming Skeptic Richard Lindzen Deconstructed
Via Peer Review:
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-July/064927.html  ,
[Vision2020] MIT Meteorologist Lindzen's Recent Climate Science Paper Poorly
Peer Reviewed, With Direct Critical Comments Rejected by GRL?* *
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068047.html ).

As far as these studies converging on a "final number" (Levenson's analysis
does suggest "convergence" in the graphs he presents.  Quoting Levenson, "In
summary statistics, N = 61, the mean is 2.86, and the sample standard
deviation is 1.50. Notice how the estimates are beginning to converge with
time"), climate science operates within a probable range of future
temperature increases in global average temperatures from human CO2
emissions and other impacts.  If you are demanding a "final number" before
declaring the science confidently predicts a high probability of a
significant temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2, you are
making a scientifically flawed argument.

Also, there are ten estimates of climate sensitivity in Levenson's list from
2000-2006.  As you wrote, "the range is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin."  But nine of
the estimates are from 1.8 to 4.5 Kelvin.  Only one estimate, 0.75
Kelvin, shows climate sensitivity to be low enough to indicate
human emissions increasing atmospheric CO2 and temperature are not a major
problem, as shown below (however, ocean acidification is another important
issue indicating CO2 emissions should be reduced, regardless of the
magnitude of global warming).  It is not unreasonable to question one low
estimate when nine others are much higher:


  Boer et al. 2000 3.5 Washington et al. 2000 2.1 Dai et al. 2001 2.1 Wetherald
et al. 2001 4.5 Boer and Yu 2003 3.50 Shaviv and Veizer 2003 0.75 Stern 2005
4.4 Sumi 2005 2.8 Goosse et al. 2006 1.8 Hegerl et al. 2006 2.5
I'll briefing consider evidence that climate sensitivity is not a low  0.75

So far, human CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by approximately
110 ppm, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm to a current level of
about 390 ppm ( http://co2now.org/ ), less than half of a doubling of
atmospheric CO2.  Yet global average temperatures since 1880, according to
climate scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ), have already increased 0.8
Celsius, depending on the error bars interpretation.

Of course anthropogenic climate change skeptics, even if they accept this
temperature increase as based on reliable temperature data, which many do
not, will claim the increase is mostly from natural climate change
variables. Read Roy Spencer on this question, a well known often quoted
skeptic whose climate science analysis indicates natural variables are
warming climate, that overall does not survive scientific peer review:
However, the consensus after decades of analysis by climate scientists
around the globe is that natural climate change does not explain the 0.8
degree Celsius increase since 1880.  Read 2010 reports from the National
Academy of Sciences on climate change:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010 and
2010 release from the American Statistical Association:
http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/ .

Professor Scott Mandia's analysis on this issue is instructive, especially
the implications of tropospheric warming coupled with stratospheric cooling,
as evidence temperature increases are not due to certain natural variables.
Mandia's analysis indicates Roy Spencer's claims at the website already
given cannot be correct.  The isotope signature ratio of the CO2 in the
atmosphere indicates the CO2 increase since pre-industrial level must be due
to the burning of fossil fuels and land use impacts, and the tropospheric
warming coupled with stratospheric cooling is not explained by solar, cloud,
or ocean current climate variables.  Quoting Mandias: "Solar forcing, cloud
cover, ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. cannot explain a cooler stratosphere even when
ozone depletion is accounted for. Increasing greenhouse gases explain this
coupling very well and climate models predict a warmer troposphere and a
cooler stratosphere with increased greenhouse gases."  Read on this issue
The physics regarding CO2's radiative forcing in Earth's atmosphere can
largely explain Earth's warming trend, as human emissions have increased
atmospheric CO2 level, according to the American Institute of Physics.  The
following website explores the history of the science as far back as the
1800s, with intense debate among scientists, among them Sherwood Idso, one
of the scientists listed in Levenson's estimates of climate sensitivity who
found a low value for climate sensitivity:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm .

If there were also profound natural variables warming Earth's climate at
this point in time, it's likely even more temperature increase would
be observed.  In fact, there are natural climate trends that could be
cooling the Earth's climate at this point.  Read March 2005 article by
Ruddiman in Scientific American regarding an argument Earth should be
tending to cool by natural variables:

An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm, less than half of a
doubling of CO2 level, is already resulting in a global temperature increase
(0.8 Kelvin, or Celsius) that indicates climate sensitivity is well above
0.75 Kelvin.  It would be a very dangerous gamble for humanity to push
atmospheric CO2 level to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level to 560
ppm, given the probability climate sensitivity is significant.

The climate feedbacks that are claimed are not well understood enough to
make credible predictions regarding future climate, have been studied by
climate scientists for decades; and reliable predictions are quantified
within a range of probabilities. Read 2009 MIT study on probabilities of
temperature increases:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf .
Vision2020] "Age of Stupid" Director a Woman, Not a "Guy" Re: 10:10
"no pressure" video

For anyone serious about considering plans to lower CO2 emissions to
address anthropogenic climate warming, I recommend study of the
following plan from the Earth Policy Institute for lowering global
emissions 80 percent by 2020, or read NASA climate scientist James
Hansen's book, 'Storms of My Grandchildren."  There are numerous
professional and in depth sources addressing this problem, but these
two sources are certainly worth consideration.
The Earth Policy Institute has discussed "tax shifting" to encourage
less reliance on fossil fuels, and James Hansen has advocated a "fee
and dividend" plan.  Peculiarly, these alternative plans to "cap
and trade" are rarely discussed in mainstream media, as far as I have
noted.  James Hansen has specifically stated that "cap and trade" is a
flawed approach.
I have posted information on the Earth Policy Institute plan and
James Hansen's plans repeatedly, yet I do not recall anyone on this list
ever responding "onlist" specifically to these sources:
Information on Earth Policy Institute's "80 by 2020" plan:
James Hansen on "fee and dividend" plan as discussed in a New York
Times article "Cap and Fade."  The article title makes it rather clear
that Hansen does not promote "cap and trade:"

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 9/14/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, I can be flippant at times.  For that, I apologize.
> What I was after in that discussion was what *you* thought.  You don't
> often post your straight opinion on something climate-related.  You
> reference other papers and blogs, but rarely do I see you say what *you*
> think.  Of course, I can infer that from what you're linking into the
> email, but for once I'd like to see what you actually think.  Are we
> doomed?  Are we going to hit the worse scenario?  Are we realistically
> looking at a 2C rise in temp for a doubling of CO2 or 5C or more?  Given
> the realities of the politics of climate change, what can we have a hope
> of actually accomplishing?  Should we be concentrating on nuclear
> power?  Alternative energy?  Gas taxes?  Etc.  That's what my response
> about Bill McKibben's post was meant to convey.
> Paul
> On 09/14/2011 02:53 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to score points or beat my viewpoint into others.
>> ------------------
>> Wow!
>> When you once posted a video related to anthropogenic climate change,
>> and I posted Bill McKibben's response to this video, you
>> condescendingly dismissed my post and McKibben's response, because, as
>> you phrased it, "If I had wanted to know what Bill McKibben thought
>> about it, I'd either have asked him or googled it."
>> In this exchange you clearly wanted the responses to comply with your
>> dictates!  You even expressed this condescension by lamenting how hard
>> it is to get a discussion going, expressed in the subject heading, as
>> can be read below referencing Vision2020 posts from this discussion.
>> As far as I am concerned, offering McKibben's response, from a
>> environmental scholar very knowledgeable about climate change, to the
>> video you posted, is offering worthwhile commentary, that others also
>> might have found worth considering.  Not for you, it appeared.  You
>> demanded I give my direct impressions of the video, dismissing
>> McKibben's response.  Talk about beating your viewpoint into others,
>> while ignoring the commentary of a scholar whose views on climate
>> change issues are worth considering, well, that is if you were not so
>> immersed in a confirmation bias filtered Weltanschauung on climate
>> science!
>> [Vision2020] "Hard to Get Discussion Going?" Re: Bill McKibben
>> Commentary Re: 10:10 "no pressure" video
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071816.html
>> *Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20%22Hard%20to%20Get%20Discussion%20Going%3F%22%20Re%3A%20Bill%20McKibben%0A%20Commentary%20Re%3A%2010%3A10%20%22no%20pressure%22%20video&In-Reply-To=AANLkTikW2RDQyzcXyZO_Rb0hS3nwUVBBCEy1uvSj9tw7%40mail.gmail.com>
>> /Tue Oct 5 16:59:56 PDT 2010/
>> Actually, I was looking for your opinion (and the opinions of others on
>> this list).  If I had wanted to know what Bill McKibben thought about
>> it, I'd either have asked him or googled it.
>> ---------------------
>> And in another post in this discussion regarding this video on
>> anthropogenic climate change:
>> Vision2020] Bill McKibben: "The Climate Skeptics Can Crow" Re: 10:10
>> "no pressure" video
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071784.html
>> *Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20Bill%20McKibben%3A%20%22The%20Climate%20Skeptics%20Can%20Crow%22%20Re%3A%0A%2010%3A10%20%22no%20pressure%22%20video&In-Reply-To=AANLkTinE%2Bq_J_E%3Do8YmZEFDnBDa%3Da4O%2B72eewjZ6%3DKU1%40mail.gmail.com>
>> /Mon Oct 4 11:43:53 PDT 2010/
>> *goes down on his knees throwing his hands up in the air*
>> I just wanted somebody to watch the (expletive-deleted) film, for
>> sobbing out loud!
>> And, if you (or anyone else) is not too busy, and it doesn't take too
>> much time out of your day, and it doesn't conflict with your religious
>> convictions, and you just happen to be in the mood, please watch the
>> film and let me know what you think.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>     I've never claimed to be Jesus Christ or Gandhi.  Of course I have
>>     issues of my own.
>>     I find climate change interesting.  I read up on it, and even
>>     write programs to graph data.  I'm always doing projects like
>>     that, not all of them tied to issues on this list.  It's what I
>>     do.  My opinion differs from the norm on climate change, so when
>>     someone posts something about it I often disagree.  Sometimes I
>>     like to respond as if it were a public mailing list.
>>     Why does everyone think that I'm always being dismissive,
>>     condescending, or patronizing?  I'm just having a conversation.
>>     I'm not trying to score points or beat my viewpoint into others.
>>     When someone responds, I reply if I have something to say.
>>     Paul
>>     On 09/14/2011 10:39 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>>>     Paul wrote:
>>>     “In my personal opinion, some people on this list should question
>>>     whether or not they are obsessing too much about these people.”
>>>     Do you mean “obsessing” as in your obsession to respond to
>>>     virtually all climate change posts with which you disagree?
>>>     Or, do you mean “obsessing” as in the expertise some list members
>>>     (including yourself) have pursued to learn about climate change,
>>>     mega-loads, child sexual abuse, etc.?
>>>     Or, do you mean “obsessing” as in people not willing to accept
>>>     your opinion on any particular topic as gospel as evidenced by
>>>     offering opinions/experiences different than your own???
>>>     One person’s obsession is another’s passion, you know.
>>>     Personally, I’m grateful we have longer term community members on
>>>     the Viz who value community history.  There are some who’d like
>>>     us to forget about things like SSAIW & religiously motivated
>>>     local laws pushed by their own personal lobbyists actually on the
>>>     city council & board of county commissioners . . . and that
>>>     unsuccessfully tried to run stealth anti-public education
>>>     candidates for the school board.  There are some who’d like us to
>>>     forget the role of certain local religious factions in
>>>     Proposition 8 & in boycotting “immoral” local businesses so they
>>>     can whine with phony “righteous indignation” when individuals
>>>     choose not to patronize their businesses.  And, there are some
>>>     who’d like us to forget all about certain local churches that
>>>     have been caught dead to rights – and more than once -- violating
>>>     the conditions of their tax exemption status by partisan
>>>     politicking from the pulpit.
>>>     And, there are certainly local (as well as state & national)
>>>     politicians on both sides of the aisle who’d like us to forget
>>>     their campaign promises . . . and lies.
>>>     Your “obsessing” comment is yet another in a long line of
>>>     examples of your dismissive, condescending, and patronizing jabs
>>>     at those who disagree with you.  You’re not the only one, of
>>>     course, but you – as are others – are pretty consistent about
>>>     it.  You might do well to pay more attention to the plank in your
>>>     own eye than to the speck you perceive in the eyes of others.
>>>     In my personal opinion, of course J
>>>     Ha – and the subject line actually still fits!
>>>     Saundra
>>>     Moscow, ID
>>>     The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
>>>     people to do nothing.
>>>     ~ Edmund Burke
>>     =======================================================
>>      List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>     http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>     =======================================================

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list