x-y-no wrote:This op-ed is an example of what I meant when I said "I really find some of the arguments they're willing to still be associated with (which were indeed valid questions ten or fifteen years ago, but not any longer) very difficult to reconcile with the knowledge of the science which I know that they have."
You might be interested in reading a point-by-point reply to Lindzen's op-ed
here.
That was an interesting read--but there are two points to make:
1.) upon looking more carefully into the so-called "Real" climate website, I find it hardly an objective source of information--they are clearly slanted to the pro AGW mentality. I readily grant you that one could say much the same for the WSJ and the anti-AGW mentality, but whenever people use terms like "real" and "true", or "honest" and sundry other qualifiers to their claim, I recognize a propaganda potential called "Victory by Definition"... in other words you come with an opposing view, and I claim it isn't "real" or "true" or "honest." It works with some folks--but others can readily see the propagada technique being employed. In essence, however, I find the Realclimate website little more than an apologist for the AGW adherents, which is fine--but much more concerned with slamming those whom they can't proselytize, or dare to differ with them than any degree of measurable objectivity. Among MANY comments I've found about this site the following I find an apt description:
"RealClimate.org functions like a defense attorney for global warming alarmists. They relentlessly defend their client (global warming alarmists) while at the same time attacking anything and anyone who dares dispute the politically correct version of climate change. They are very knowledgeable on the subject of climate change but they are extremely biased." 2.) Now I know one could, with validity claim this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black--and they'd have a point: essentially BOTH camps are quite capable and willing to stroke their own particular bias. On the other hand I also found an interesting discussion on another blog to which you could find the link given a cursory search on google or some other adequate search engine. The reason I don't provide it is simply because of the outright filthy language some of its users employ. Now while I'd be the last to deny that lack of maturity and use of crass tactics falls in the exclusive domain of the AGW adherents (as it clearly is NOT) of note, however is the undeniable and readily observable fact that on this blog, at any rate, the shrillest voices, and by far most disposed to resort to insult, name-calling, and obscenity, are the proselytes of the AGW camp. I find this tactic, aside from the obvious offensive language, indicative of an intellect as bereft of maturity as it is of logic. Now that stated, I will paste another comment I read among those of the more even-tempered disposition in reply to the "point-by-point" ersatz rebuttal from Davidoff:
..."
Well, "Daniel Kirk-Davidoff" 's supposed "more detailed" point by point
rebuttal looks pretty weak. It is not worth a line by line commentary,
but here are a couple of things that stick out:
"Daniel Kirk-Davidson" took exception to Prof. Lindzen's comments
about how climate alarmists seize on every weather fluctuation as
evidence that the world is coming to an end; where could such a charge
come from, he asks? (Just look at the title of this thread!). He goes
on to state:
"Of course, attribution of any individual such event to presently
observed global temperature change can only be fractional ..."
And how many times have we seen a headline like, "Hurricane 95% due to
normal weather fluctuations, 5% due to alleged anthropogenic global
warming"? The point goes to Prof. Lindzen.
Then "Daniel Kirk-Davidoff" ducked one of the key issues by stating:
"The third paragraph about drying up of funding for dissenting science
has been addressed by others."
Technically, in a supposed point by point rebuttal, that is called
forfeiting by default. The point goes to Prof. Lindzen.
I could go on, but there is no need. The sad thing is that apparently
some people are trying to convince themselves that the so-called
rebuttal by "Daniel Kirk-Davidoff" is worth reading.
Message for those people who think there is a good case for alleged
anthropogenic global warming -- there are lots of us out here who are
willing to listen and could potentially be convinced, but first you
guys need to raise your standards. Data! Physics!! Frank
acknowledgement of uncertainties!!! The bottom line is the bottom line.
It just seems the advocates of AGW simply brook NO opposing viewpoints. There are doubtless some exceptions, but this does seem to be the rule. Opponents are ridiculed, ostracized, insulted, and on this particular blog (NOT S2K--the one for which I didn't put the link) defamed with some rather tactless and immature obscenities that lends little credence to their position, when they might achieve a lot more by avoiding such maneuvers. I KNOW only too well there IS both data and physics behind some of their opinions (and therein disagree with the preceeding wording), but contrary to their vociferous protestations, there are both data and physics that belie at the very least SOME of their alarmist views which they with predictable vitriolic applomb simply refuse to acknowledge, and Lindzen (among others, but he stands out the most) is living proof of that. That he is in an appreciable minority I would never deny; but fortunately science is not now, nor has it ever been subject to majority rule, or else we'd all still be card-carrying members of the flat earth society.
I don't think I've seen Lindzen deny that all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity. That has, in fact, been definitively established.
Well not in so many words; but depending on how you employ logic the conclusions to be drawn vary. He readily acknowledges that sharp increases in CO2 have been observed.. AND that this should contribute to further warming.... then he goes on to clearly say "However what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm NOR ESTABLISH MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY for the small amount of warming that has occurred." [my emphasis] Now while one could claim that the key "future" suggests a latency which has heretofore remained unaddressed, and I'd have to agree, were that the angle of perspective I employed. One might equally argue that since levels of CO2 have been on a continuous upswing for well over a hundred years, his statement that it does not establish man's responsibility could be interpreted as an implication that man is NOT the proven culprit... again, eye of the beholder.
I could go on with other comments about the alleged "definitve fact" of human causation, but I've already spent way more time on this than I should have, and contrary to the possible conclusion one might draw from all the attention already given--I do have a life!
... perhaps at another time.
A2K
