[Vision2020] Hypocrisy
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Sat Sep 17 19:46:14 PDT 2011
Don't bother with a response to my post on Levenson's estimates of
climate sensitivity for my sake... I'm not waiting for or interested
in a response, at this point in time.
I posted again [Vision2020] Exploring Implications of Levenson's List
of Estimates of
Climate Sensitivity http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html
not to get a response specifically to that post, but because you
requested a few days ago that I answer your question about a doubling
of CO2, and to point out that I had given my view on this issue
already, though you seemed oblivious of this fact. If you are going
to make broad sweeping statements about my posts, you might consider
actually reading them?
You wrote: "You don't
often post your straight opinion on something climate-related.... 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. You reference
other papers and blogs, but rarely do I see you say what *you* think.
Are we realistically looking at a 2C rise in temp for a doubling of
CO2 or 5C or more?
[Vision2020] Exploring Implications of Levenson's List of Estimates of
Climate Sensitivity had already answered your question, when I wrote
in this post:
"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. 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."
And also:
"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."
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 9/15/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> While we're on the subject, are there any more of these kinds of posts
> sitting out there for which you have been awaiting my reply? I probably had
> a few days where I was pretty busy and forgot about the conversation. I'll
> reply when I'm able to get the time. I don't remember what I said or what
> led up to it so I'll have to spend some time reading the history of the
> exchange and to look everything over in light of what I've learned on the
> subject since then.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Hypocrisy
>
> 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
> issues!
>
> 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
> false.
>
> 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
> is!
>
> 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
> http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html
>
> *Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at yahoo.com
> *Mon Jun 21 19:06:15 PDT 2010* wrote:
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070628.html
>
> "The link you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over
> the
> 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
> feedbacks
> 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
> other."
>
> -----------------
> 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:
>
> http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html
>
> 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
> Kelvin.
>
> 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:
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
> .
> 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
> here:
> http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html
> .
> 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:
> http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf
> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/ruddiman-william-f/
>
> 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/resources/gamble/no-policy.html
> 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
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071795.html
>
> 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:
> http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf
> 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:"
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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