Rambling Rhodes

You suck, Rhodes! You get first dibs on Nick Coleman. Now you want Lambert too? Does your Thunderjournalism have no boundaries?!

Posted by: Doug Williams at June 22, 2007 11:22 AM

Fine, I'll give you Lambert, if I must.

Posted by: Ryan at June 22, 2007 12:16 PM

You're a fine, upstanding Thunderjournalist, Rhodes. Of course, I meant to say so all along. Just slipped my mind earlier.

Posted by: Doug Williams at June 22, 2007 02:28 PM

while i agree that we should let people continue to debate all they want because if nothing else, it shows what jackasses some people are, i also agree that the continued debate in Congress is stalling the implementation of direly needed global warming legislation, which i think is more the problem he was getting at.

Posted by: amy.leblanc at June 22, 2007 03:05 PM

See, leblanc, I'd be more inclined towards legislation if the case was more convincing that we dirty, nasty little human beings were the principal cause behind global warming. Because, legislating naturally occurring--and largely misunderstood--geo-processes strikes me as kind of a stupid, and needlessly expensive, thing to do.

Posted by: Ryan at June 22, 2007 03:58 PM

Let's discuss the "expert" you link to. First of all, he uses this phrase "Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings." which proves he doesn't know what the word "literally" means. So okay, he's a scientist and not a grammarian. He's affiliated with "Friends of Science," which sounds like a kid's show but is actually an industry front group that releases lots of press releases "de-bunking" the consensus on climate change but doesn't appear to do much in the way of publishing peer-reviewed studies on that topic or showing up at meetings where other scientists might be waiting to ask them hard questions. They seem to vastly prefer talking to journalists, who often don't seem to possess even the rudimentary knowledge of science needed to know which questions to ask.

You will notice that the article you linked to does not even directly address the question of whether the current climate change might be caused by human activity -- it is only alluded to periferally but has nothing to do with the actual studies being referenced. Terminology like "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate" (really? How little?) and "About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers" (about half? Of who exactly?) should tip readers to the fact that some fudging is occuring, but the complete absence of facts on the relevant question should be a red flag.

Scientific consensus is not just calling up some scientists of your own choosing, taking a poll, and deciding "about half" agree with the position your sponsors like. Consensus means that an overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed publications conducted by researchers in a field are in agreement. The reason why compromised scientists like Patterson in the employ of fossil fuel companies (through proxies) are reduced to pointing to some poll conducted by "German environmental researchers" four years ago to create the impression that legitimate researchers in the field agree with them is because if they had to give an honest reading of the findings of researchers they would be forced to admit that their opinion that climate change is not the result of human activity is held by a tiny minority, many of whom are similarly compromised.

I know I've said it before, but I'm saying it again: This position that global warming is merely coinciding exactly with the burning of fossil fuels by humans but not caused by it, while having the rhetorical advantage of being difficult to disprove (correlation being much easier to establish than causation and hair-splitting being the province of those who fervently wish to avoid doing anything about global warming) is just grasping at straws. Twenty years ago, there was serious "debate" over whether it was happening at all, with the same interests now pushing this line saying it was pure speculation. Now, after stalling any action for a couple more decades while continuing to pump ever-increasing quantities of carbon into the atmosphere in the meantime, the "serious debate" has abandoned that bullshit position and moved on to the next bullshit position. Anything to forestall action.

Which brings me to a question I've wanted to ask you before: If you accept that the globe is warming and that the effects of this are likely to be disruptive, wouldn't addressing it be a prudent step regardless of its causes? Last I checked, people still built buildings that were earthquake-resistant even though nobody believes earthquakes are man-made.

Posted by: flamingbanjo at June 24, 2007 07:37 PM

Let's discuss the "expert" you link to.

Which tells me you didn’t even bother with the wealth of links found in the heart of the article, and that you’re dodging the complete point of the post entirely, that being it’s a bullshit position to advocate quelling of debate on this issue, particularly from a “journalist.”
And I didn’t link to an “expert,” I linked to an article written by a professor—one of a series of articles addressing the topic. No on is an “expert” when it comes to climate change, in my most humble opinion.

First of all, he uses this phrase "Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings." which proves he doesn't know what the word "literally" means. So okay, he's a scientist and not a grammarian. He's affiliated with "Friends of Science," which sounds like a kid's show but is actually an industry front group that releases lots of press releases "de-bunking" the consensus on climate change but doesn't appear to do much in the way of publishing peer-reviewed studies on that topic or showing up at meetings where other scientists might be waiting to ask them hard questions.

Oh, those dastardly industry front groups. As opposed to those real scientists who rely on grant money to do all their “real” research. Because everyone knows, research done by industry front groups simply has to be bogus, while “true science entities” competing for grant and research dollars are unimpeachable. It’s certainly not the case that the most popular or “consensus” topics tend to garner the most research dollars and are, thus, the most lucrative areas to focus on and that to focus on the non-popular, non-consensus topics either A) has to be conducted by “industry front groups,” or B) conducted in a basement next to the model train set.

They seem to vastly prefer talking to journalists, who often don't seem to possess even the rudimentary knowledge of science needed to know which questions to ask.

Uh huh, and when the “consensus” people take their findings to journalists, then it’s okay, because it’s all been peer reviewed by a bunch of people who already agree with each other anyways. Gotcha.

You will notice that the article you linked to does not even directly address the question of whether the current climate change might be caused by human activity -- it is only alluded to periferally but has nothing to do with the actual studies being referenced.

You will also notice (in addition to the additional links in that article) THAT WASN’T THE POINT of this post. The point was that to advocate a complete journalistic squashing of debate on the issue of global climate change is a DUMBASS stance to take.

Terminology like "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate" (really? How little?) and "About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers" (about half? Of who exactly?) should tip readers to the fact that some fudging is occuring, but the complete absence of facts on the relevant question should be a red flag.

Again, if you bothered to even acknowledge the rest of the article series, you’d have seen this link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0, which addresses your CO2 correlation canard. As for “red flags,” the idea that human beings can even assume to positively understand the combined intricacies of global—nay, even solar system—climate and conclude human beings are the main culprit for a process that has been in flux since the planet first started roiling strikes me as a total “red flag.”

Scientific consensus is not just calling up some scientists of your own choosing, taking a poll, and deciding "about half" agree with the position your sponsors like. Consensus means that an overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed publications conducted by researchers in a field are in agreement.

A field where it’s in your best financial interest to tow the accepted line, lest you risk ridicule and a dry-up of the consensus money teat. Of course, you have an entirely different reason for this “consensus,” that being “compromised scientists” working for those horrible fossil fuel companies. It’s certainly not possible that their different scientific opinions drove them out of the consensus scientific community or anything. No, they’re dirty, compromised, fossil fuel scientists. What-the-hell-ever.

The reason why compromised scientists like Patterson in the employ of fossil fuel companies (through proxies) are reduced to pointing to some poll conducted by "German environmental researchers" four years ago to create the impression that legitimate researchers in the field agree with them is because if they had to give an honest reading of the findings of researchers they would be forced to admit that their opinion that climate change is not the result of human activity is held by a tiny minority, many of whom are similarly compromised.

Yep, there it is!

I know I've said it before, but I'm saying it again: This position that global warming is merely coinciding exactly with the burning of fossil fuels by humans but not caused by it, while having the rhetorical advantage of being difficult to disprove (correlation being much easier to establish than causation and hair-splitting being the province of those who fervently wish to avoid doing anything about global warming) is just grasping at straws.

I know I've said it before, but I'm saying it again: This position that the success of human society and civilization is merely coinciding exactly with the warming of the earth beginning roughly 20,000 years ago by global—nay, solar system—processes that are completely beyond our control, while having the rhetorical advantage of being convenient to blame on ourselves (based on about 200 years of specious fossil fuel scientific history no less) is just grasping at straws.

Twenty years ago, there was serious "debate" over whether it was happening at all, with the same interests now pushing this line saying it was pure speculation.

No, 20 years ago there was “serious” debate about global cooling. Which, strangely enough, also coincided with the solar cycles being posited by those evil industry front groups. But, never mind that.

Now, after stalling any action for a couple more decades while continuing to pump ever-increasing quantities of carbon into the atmosphere in the meantime, the "serious debate" has abandoned that bullshit position and moved on to the next bullshit position. Anything to forestall action.

Yeah, after stalling for a couple more decades after that global cooling craze that proved so factual. And, as we pumped ever-increasing quantities of carbon into the atmosphere in the face of a ban on additional nuclear power plants, thank you very much, speaking of forestalling action (nothing like saying you need to change your ways while also tying both your hands and feet behind your head).

Which brings me to a question I've wanted to ask you before:

FINALLY!

If you accept that the globe is warming and that the effects of this are likely to be disruptive, wouldn't addressing it be a prudent step regardless of its causes? Last I checked, people still built buildings that were earthquake-resistant even though nobody believes earthquakes are man-made.

Constructing buildings in very specific areas around the world to mitigate the shaking of earthquakes is 180 degrees different than instituting worldwide guesstimate measures to attempt to mitigate global processes we don’t even remotely understand and, thanks to our bottomless capability for self-blame, apparently think we’re the cause of. The beauty of global climate change is we can implement all manner of expensive “corrective” measures, and the planet is going to just go on changing like we were never here in the first place, which is exactly what it’s doing now.

All of which, is completely off topic from this post itself, which was to call Lambert out for the dumbass he is.

Posted by: Ryan at June 25, 2007 09:04 AM

i'm with banjo. human-created CO2 emissions are certainly not HELPING the problem, and it's not like such legislation would be totally useless if we found out we're screwed, the sun's just getting hotter, as some suggest. the other cancer-causing, ozone-depleting pollutants in the air from the same sources as CO2 (ship ports, oil refineries, coal burning power plants, diesel particulate matter) are equally, if not moreso, as dangerous as any global warming impacts, so regardless of whether human activity is the primary cause of global warming, there are LITERALLY dozens, if not hundreds, of other proven human health and environment reasons for greater emissions legislation to be passed, and many of the reports state as such, but those details are just ignored by the press and everyone else.

if you have a problem with the guy, fine. but really? you're going to stand on the side of the oil and coal industry lobbyists on this one and claim it's part of a longstanding naturally occuring trend, and thus we should not feel the need to do nothing about it? excuse me while i puke.

Posted by: amy.leblanc at June 25, 2007 06:10 PM

Nice sarcastic flailing. Pretty much what I expected.

And yes, industry front groups like Friends of Science are in the exact same vein as the Council for Tobacco Research, that is groups designed to forward some point that their sponsors want made. Science that starts with the conclusions and works from there is not real science. Full stop.

In fact, these refutations of global warming are instantly recognizable to anyone who paid attention to the "scientific" arguments leveled by the tobacco companies against the prevailing consensus among researchers that a causative link between smoking and lung cancer exists. The research into other causes for cancer funded by Philip Morris et al was in some cases perfectly legitimate, as this research about solar cycles may well be. But it deliberately did not set out to ask certain questions, because the whole purpose, from a P.R. standpoint, is to muddy the debate and forestall legislation that might prove harmful to the interests sponsoring it.

I'll reiterate here that I fervently wish that your and your fellow credulous conservatives' wishful thinking on this matter turns out to be true. I would love to find out that every scientist I've ever talked to whose research in any way touched on this was wrong and the P.R. shills for petroleum companies were right. Nothing would make me happier, to be honest. I just don't think it's wise to stake so many lives on wishful thinking.

And seriously, as someone who was once a journalist (before you switched to merely mocking them), don't you think direct conflicts-of-interest, say receiving your research funding from an industry with a vested interest in the questions posed by the results coming out a certain way, is noteworthy? If a scientist from the Crack Cocaine Industry Research Council told you that crack cocaine was perfectly safe, wouldn't that at least give you pause?

Posted by: flamingbanjo at June 25, 2007 07:31 PM

Nice sarcastic flailing. Pretty much what I expected.

Then why'd you ask in the first place?

Science that starts with the conclusions and works from there is not real science.

Tell that to Al Gore.

Posted by: Ryan at June 25, 2007 07:45 PM

sorry for the extreme snarkiness on my part, but as i sit here while Lake Tahoe is burning, it's hard to hear people say that there's no one responsible and nothing can/should be done.

i agree that the science isn't nearly as "conclusive" as Al Gore made it out to be. but, as stated, that does not mean that there aren't hundreds of other reasons (ethical and otherwise) for something to be done about emissions.

i know this thread has become fairly OT from your original point about Brian Lambert, but i still agree with him: the "spurious debate" on global warming offered by conservatives seems to be missing the point (the point would be fostering better investigations) and serving only to please their interests, not actually productively address the issue(s).

Posted by: amy.leblanc at June 27, 2007 12:23 PM