Famously climate denying Senator Ted Cruz announced for President this week.
Above, see Senator Cruz’s extravagant praise for one of the 20th century’s most prominent Southern racist segregationists, Jesse Helms. There’s a little well-documented history there for those too young to remember.
I’ve posted before on the link between racism and climate change denial, and I’ve noted that Senator Jim Inhofe is to climate denial as Strom Thurmond was to civil rights. Both clung to outmoded and terribly destructive irrational prejudice, long beyond what reason would dictate. Even Thurmond softened his racial rhetoric in later years – while Inhofe has grown only more bombastic and shrill.
Here is yet another example, in Senator Cruz open admiration for Jesse Helms. Maybe there’s an answer to this in the way the denialist brain functions, that’s an area for further research.
And don’t miss Tamino’s debunking of Ted Cruz claim that there’s been no warming in 17 years, which claim Cruz made on “Late Night with Seth Meyers” TV show
Stupid is as Ted Cruz does
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/stupid-is-as-ted-cruz-does/
Better be careful who you believe – the IPCC’s AR4 SPM said there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998:
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] ̊C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] ̊C per decade).
Notice the minus sign in the lower range of the uncertainty – that mans it is possible the climate has cooled since 1998.
Quote from bottom page 2 of http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
https://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/decadalavsmall.jpg
from IPCC 2013 SPM.
you strain to find a way to distort the big picture.
I believe he was directly responding to the question as to whether the statement made by Cruz was legitimate or not.
You miss the significance:
The big deal about the lack of warming since 1998 is that the climate models failed to predict it just a few years from the date the prediction was made. Yet people think those same models won’t fail in their prediction for the next 80 years.
In fact that ONE failure shows that the models are completely unreliable and worthless at prediction.
Those same models are the ONLY basis for predicting CO2 id about to cause severe global warming.
To more effectively participate in this discussion, best get up to speed on this issue. Try this
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/09/08/study-climate-models-replicate-temperature-pause/
greenman3610 —–To more effectively participate in this discussion, best get up to speed on this issue.
ME—I am very much up to speed. The simple fact is that the models failed to forecast the pause. The pause is real as shown by the IPCC quote and by the decade + flat spot on the “Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean” in your citation. (Which also debunks the claim that the oceans are still warming since it includes oceans.)
As to claims that modern models would have forecast the pause, that is pure curve fitting to known data. A model has ZERO credibility until it is tested successfully against real world, unknown, data.
If the models can predict the pause when the PDO is included, why didn’t they do that 20 years ago? Same for several other, known, climate factors. And what factors are still unknown?
David,
You are a classic denier troll who ignores 32 pages of data and statements in the IPCC report and clings desperately to one cherry-picked “truth” that you think supports your deluded beliefs. You argue things that have been discussed and debunked here on Crock and on other sites many times over.
This post is NOT about climate models, Venus, or anything you’ve mentioned anyway. It’s about racism and climate change denial, and if you can’t get on topic, why don’t you just go away and stop cluttering up the thread?
“If the models can predict the pause when the PDO is included, why didn’t they do that 20 years ago?”
um…because, in 20 years, scientists actually learn and apply new things. I understand your puzzlement – it’s a phenomenon unknown among deniers.
greenman3610 —–because, in 20 years, scientists actually learn and apply new things.
ME—- Then in 20 years, we may know if they learned enough to make successful predictions. Until then we have to rely on actual observations, like the lack of warming since 1998 as stated by the IPCc and by the graph on the citation cited to me. And that lack of warming disproves the current models. With the current models worthless, and the latest ones un proven, there is no evidence that I am aware of that man’s CO2 is (or will) cause dangerous global warming.
Clearly you do not understand how to interpret your own graph. The warming from 191x-194x was just about as large and as the warming from 197x-200x. The difference? CO2 was virtually flat 191x-194x. Then, 194x-197x, temp paused while CO2 began its rise. These obvious non-correlations between temp and CO2 would give any unbiased observer cause for skepticism. Alarmists cannot explain this conundrum, so they, like you, simply ignore it and ad hom attack anyone who disagrees with them. When alarmists begin operating by the scientific method, they will get the respect they deserve.
In the essay Peter states, “Maybe there’s an answer to this in the way the denialist brain functions, that’s an area for further research.”
My guess is that it is that it has to do with a sense of entitlement on the part of those who have benefited from the status quo. In the case of racism, they don’t want to give up their position relative to minorities. In the case of global warming, they want to believe that they have earned their success by being productive, that this wasn’t in any sense unearned, at the expense of others. And to acknowledge that their affluence was bought, at least in part, by the suffering of those less fortunate than themselves or that of future generations is something they would rather avoid.
This sense of entitlement is well-encapsulated by the Upton Sinclair quote you seem especially fond of, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
You have to go back to the days of slavery to flesh out the meaning of “entitlement” with regard to racism. Here’s a good look at the racist mindset that has trickled down to today.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
The Civil War was really a war between two conflicting economic systems, and that’s largely true today. The war is between those who advocate for democracy, fairness, and equality of economic opportunity for the majority and those who want to concentrate wealth and control in the hands of the few.
The connection to climate change denial is that the slaves of today are the “energy slaves” we utilize in fossil fuels, and the corporatocracy-plutocracy-free market-growth-profit forces don’t want to give them up any more than the owners of negro slaves did. Nor does the general citizenry want to give up the cheap “slave” energy, since so many don’t look to the future and worry about AGW consequences.
You have to remember that the denialists are for the most part the direct descendants of the “rebels” of the 1860’s. Religiously fundamental, socially conservative, anti central government, and hugely hypocritical regarding any question of ethics or morality related to their racism or anti-science beliefs.. Just as they justified their enslavement of humans back then, they keep alive their racism and intolerance today and have extended it to denial of science.
Cruz is their poster child, and just as he is not fit to be a candidate for president, the denialists are not fit to be citizens and voters. And research in the denialist brain? It has been done—-the results have been mentioned on Crock and in many other places (I will again tout Mooney’s book, The Republican Brain). Denialists live too much in the amygdala, the reptilian part of their brain (and maybe that’s why Cruz is such a snake).
I just posted a little ditty on a prominent agriculturalist from late 18th century/early 19th century England questioning His Excellency, George Washington, on the sustainability and incredible wastefulness of the American slave labor model, using Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello as the example.
http://www.woodbridgeandhedgely.com/?p=97
Apparently Americans have always been a wasteful people, probably secondary to their perception of infinite resources.
Dumb Old Guy,
Your analysis is practically incoherent. You equate a desire for free markets with continued slavery? Did you miss the whole 70 years of the Soviet Union and their wonderful lifestyle?
If anything on this thread is “practically incoherent”, it’s your comment here..
How in the world could you interpret what I said to mean that I “…equate a desire for free markets with continued slavery”?
And what kind of thinking does it take to compare negro slavery in the 1800’s with “….70 years of the Soviet Union and their wonderful lifestyle”?
Lord love a duck, but all that is really beyond incoherent. WTF are you talking about?
We can count on Rachel to lay out truth for all to see. I predict that we are going to see this clip of Cruz saying “we need 100 more like Jesse Helms” many many times over the course of the campaign. Maybe it will help gain the Repugnant nomination for Cruz, since the right-wing racists will love it. It will then help to bury him in the general election, just as the “47% of Americans are moochers” comment helped to bury Romney.
The Democrats win both ways—-first by having the Repugnant primaries sink to the lowest common denominator, and second by handicapping whoever the Repugnant nominee may be. (All predicated on the Dems being able to turn out their voter base, which they do far better in presidential years than in mid-terms).
As for Slimeball Ted, maybe he thought he was back in his college debating days and could get by on his reputation, charm and good looks?. If it had been a formal debate, Maddow would have eaten his lunch, since she made her argument and supported it well. Slimeball Ted just stood up there and slung offensive racist bullshit. Maybe that’s what goes over with the anal orifices at the Heritage Foundation. If so, it’s just another reason to dislike conservatives.
Praising Helms is what the politicoscenti call a “dog whistle”. It is a message not detectable to most people, a pheromone, meant for the hearts and minds of Southern whites and other racists, telling them that Cruz is part of their tribe.
Southern racists like Cubans? I learn something new every day.
this post must have struck a nerve, based on the response.
Yep. Look at all the “thumbs down” my comments got, and my loyal fans Russell and Omno and Fishbreath have likely not visited this thread or they would have spouted inanities, so it can’t be them.
I have learned from my years in the South that there are certain “buttons” you can push to set “them” off, and a “Cruz is a racist” post pushes several. (Don’t mess with their dogs, guns, trucks, boats, or confederate battle flags either, or you’ll really upset them).
You rang? Luv how I’ve been able to Occupy your mind rent-free™.
Sure you want to pull the race card in the global warming issue. Harry C. Alford, one of my Facebook Friends, proved so well a while back how that backfires big-time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_jGD5nZ6U
“Luv how I’ve been able to Occupy your mind rent-free”. In your dreams, Russell. Your crap and any reply I make to it instantly disappear from my mind when done. Like flushing a toilet, only even quicker (and that’s a good analogy considering—-another one would be that I no more retain memories of you than I do of a minor fart)).
You really want to own the Demented Rooster Suit, don’t you? You are as out of your depth speaking about “race cards” as you are talking about climate change. Boxer was the winner in this 5-year-old episode you linked, and it was Alford who played the race card, not she. If you understood this game at all, you would know that. And I have to go OT here and say that it’s simply wonderful that you and Harry C. are “Facebook Friends”—-he must have 100’s of thousands, and probably has no idea who you are (unless through the Heartland connection).
You, Harry, and Al Sharpton share some things in common. You have all sniffed the air and decided on a direction, although yours isn’t going as well as theirs. Al and Harry have taken up speaking for blacks—-Al on the liberal-radical left and Harry on the conservative right. Within limits, people don’t care who is trying to make their lives better, and Harry IS helping black business, which we hope treats black employees and customers better than white business does, although I wouldn’t bet on it. Some of the “racism” in this country is intra-race, as I mentioned elsewhere, and the blacks on the extremes of the social and economic spectrum have nearly as many issues with each other as they do with whites.
IMO, Harry is a bombastic, obnoxious, ignorant, rude, and crude anal orifice that embarrassed his race with his performance and treatment of Boxer (which behavior Strom Inhofe supported, if you noticed). IMO, most blacks would rather have the NAACP, CORE, SCLC, the Urban League, or the many smaller black professional and business groups speak for them than Harry.
And are you aware that Harry seems to be in your line of work? A merchant of doubt? He takes money from Exxon-Mobil ($425,000 since 1998), signs Heartland letters, and has worked to push back regulation of tobacco and EPA pollution standards. He founded the Black Chamber of Commerce, and has done quite well with it—-he has known how to play the race card for quite some time.
Yeah, one surely needs to watch out for “backfire”. In your case, you swallowed the tailpipe so far that the backfire has blown off your trousers. shoes, and socks, leaving you bare-ass naked (again). Clueless moron!
LOL. MZW spreads non sequiturs and logic fails like cows spread cowpies.
Southern racists “like” anyone who is a racist, Cruz is not a Cuban, and fools like MZW seldom “learn” anything “new”. They’re too busy “believing” to be open to any real knowledge or understanding.
Dumb Old Guy,
Cruz is indeed Cuban American. Please source your revelation that he is not. Michael Z. Williamson is a best selling author and quasi-famous pundit. To call him a fool, by your definition, implies that you are somehow more successful. Please let the readers know what amazing talents and contributions you have made to society that exceed his.
At the end of the day, Michael Z. Williamson provides a product to people who get 7-15 hours of enjoyment for around $6.99. He gives society a better return on their money than a $50.00 whore, without the chance of crabs.
What have you done?
Uh, Stevey? Pay attention. “Southern racists like Cubans?” was the statement I was responding to, and Cruz is a Cuban-AMERICAN (as you yourself pointed out), and not a CUBAN. Fidel freakin’ CASTRO is a Cuban, Cruz is NOT. Do you have a reading comprehension deficit?
Michael Z. Williamson may be “a best selling author and quasi-famous pundit”, but unless someone has hijacked his identity and embarrassed him, he has harmed his “brand” by making the comments he did here .
To call him a fool “implies” only that IMO he has spoken foolishly here, and the only “success” of mine that concerns you is that I am able to successfully point out MZW’s and your logic fails and willful ignorance. (And I think it’s indicative of your level of maturity that you would consider the “contributions” of a pop fiction writer to be of such major significance).
What have I done, you ask? All you need to know about me can be found in my comments on Crock. As to what I WILL do, I will apologize to MZW if in fact his identity was hijacked and it was some fool like you using his handle. I like Baldacci and Silva and others of that caliber who write things similar to MZW’s books—-I’ll check my library and see if they have his work and give it a look. If his books measure up, I’ll compliment him. If he continues to make “foolish statements” on Crock, I’ll address them as well.
Crock of the decade !
Goes along with the resolute ignorance of the most basic grade school science of this watermelon nonscience .
You insult me and some of the women I have most loved .
What rules out Cruz for me is he’s a zionist .
That’s great, Bob – thanks!
Be sure to check out Bob’s website. It’s chock full of useful information about Bob’s worldview, his scientific acumen (which, sadly and like other geniuses ahead of their time, went unappreciated by his PhD committee), and even a graceful and multi-colored design for a flag for the NeoPythagoreans who represent Bob’s mathematical sensibilities about religion (a view which, surprisingly, has not gained popular appeal, probably because, as Bob puts it:
)
One can only dream for a wondrous day when we may be treated to a philosophical steel cage death-match between the NeoPythagoreans and the Omnologists.
All of my work is very basic and classical and computable .
What I respect about the Pythagoreans is that they were the first , and perhaps only , religion to disprove one of their fundamental assumptions : that all numbers could be expressed as the ratio of 2 integers , ie , rational .
But then they proved that the square root of 2 , hypotenuse of a 1 1 right angle triangle could not be .
The proof that James Hansen’s claim that Venus is an example of a runaway greenhouse is quantitatively absurd is a distinctly undergraduate computation .
Anybody who continues to parrot that is more of a cultist than a Pythagorean 2800 years ago .
The earth is unique in that it has a chemical weathering effect that provides a negative feedback against atmospheric carbon. So on a 100,000 year time scale, there is little probability that a runaway greenhouse effect can happen. Though i suppose on a smaller time scale we can make things rather uncomfortable for the present residents upon the earth.
My statement is that Hansen’s claim that Venus’s surface temperature 225% the gray body temperature in its orbit is provably quantitatively absurd by very basic undergraduate level computations of radiative balance . No material spectrum is within an order of magnitude of that solar heat gain .
Can we agree that Hansen’s claim is false ? If so we start getting back on the track of classical quantitative analytical physics .
By contrast , the Earth is about 3% warmer than the 279K of the gray body temperature in our orbit and has warmed about 0.3% over the last 40% or so increase in the source of carbon to the biosphere .
The Earth has never been much hotter even with 1000s of ppm CO2 ( before photosynthesis it started off with ~ 300,000 ppm ) but has catastrophically fallen below the very nearby “tipping point” at 273.15 freezing point of water regardless of CO2 level .
Bob,
I will say to you what I said to David Clark. This post is about racism and climate denial, not Venus or trotting out your “genius” for us to admire. If you can’t get on topic, please go away and stop cluttering the thread with irrelevancies.
Bob, —- This post is about racism and climate denial, not Venus or trotting out your “genius” for us to admire.
ME — our posts were in response to the “climate denial” part of the topic.
Try harder to get beyond your cognitive dissonance, David. Reread the title and text of this post. Everything on CLIMATE DENIAL CROCK of the Week relates to denial, but THIS post is about its relation to racism, not the science of climate change.
But I’m direct living proof that your asserted correlation , which is the sort of ad hominem irrelevance only found in CAGW blogs , is false .
I won’t go into my personal history , but your contention is an insult to me and a number of individuals with whom I’ve had and have very personal relationships .
It is an evermore common observation that the ones who display a seemingly intractable hangup on race are statist liberals .
(Sorry, I inadvertently posted this as a new reply, so it will appear twice)
Actually you’re direct living proof of the need for everyone to take English composition and communication classes at a young age. I would “proffer” that your use of “asserted correlation” is proof of that (someone please hand him the freakin’ perfumed sleeve hanky so that he can properly “sniff” at us).
And “ad hominem irrelevance”? We on Crock like to warn each other about skunks, and pointing out that someone looks, walks, and smells like a skunk is just being neighborly. And could you point me to your favorite CAGW blog? I have visited only one or two, since I tend to spend my time on Crock and other “fair and balanced” sites.
“I won’t go into my personal history, but your contention is an insult to me and a number of individuals with whom I’ve had and have very personal relationships”.
Don’t tell me about your “insultedness”. I am a card carrying member of P.O.O.P. (People Offended by Offended People) and have little sympathy for the really insulting people on this planet, AGW deniers like you being high on the list.
And this closing of yours rates a HUGE “WHAAAAT”? And a WOW!!! It verges on bat-shit crazy! Except for the big words used, it sounds like something Michelle Bachmann would say. Who is this “observation” becoming “evermore common” among? Do you have a citation? Why do you conflate “seemingly” and “intractable”? Is that anything like terminal cancer being “seemingly fatal”? And could you clarify the meaning of “statist liberal”? Is that a way of politely saying “communist-socialist-fascist-liberal-progressive-Nazi” as so many of your brethren on the right do because they don’t know their “ists”?
“It is an evermore common observation that the ones who display a seemingly intractable hangup on race are statist liberals”.
Bob, are you using the optical thickness method, where one defines it as a function of the sum of (Pa^1/2 * k) for each greenhouse gas? That seems to get good values for earth and mars, even disregarding methane, but it low balls venus. I’m assuming the low ball has to do with not taking the sulfuric acid clouds into account, but I’m just an arm-chair hobbyist. NASA is a thousand times better than me, scribbling averages based on first principles on a few sheets of paper. Didn’t they already measure the Venus temps anyway with a probe or some other empirical mechanism?
At least this is addressing the actual physics rather than just attempted smears that “climate deniers” — which is in itself a silly slur — and being racist are correlated .
I am doing nothing so complicated . I am simply applying the most basic computations for radiative balance between a source spectrum and a ball of uniform spectrum . See my http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html which links to my 12 minute presentation of the computations at Heartland’s Las Vegas conference .
These are non optional constrains on planetary temperature . The situation is particularly straight forward when the absorption is nearly complete within high level dense clouds . Within that boundary the divergence theorem implies that the mean temperature cannot be different , in this case greater , than that calculated for that boundary .
NASA has put out some real garbage . Which is why a number of ex-NASA people have publicly expressed their disgust — including Hansen’s old boss .
You mention Earth and Mars . It is worth noting that both of them , and Mercury too , are within just a few percent of the gray body temperatures in their orbits . The Earth is about 3% warmer than the ~279K of our orbit . Here’s a graph from the Heartland talk : http://cosy.com/Science/AGWpptSBplanetTemps.jpg .
The total variation over a change of about 40% in CO2 has been about 0.3% .
The significance of no warming signal rising above the noise over the last decade and a half or so is not the time , but that the “greening” gas continues to increase at a somewhat greater rate , most likely in part from more of the world emerging from energy poverty to join our 21st century prosperity . The significant fact is that there has been no discernible warming over the last ~ 8% increase in CO2 .
“I am doing nothing so complicated”.
From where I stand, it looks like you are wantonly cluttering up a thread that is all about racism. Is that your goal? To keep us from exploring the correlation between climate change denial and racism? Are you part of a Heartland hit squad that is responding to Cruz’s dilemma and trying to deflect attention from it? If you wanted to talk science, you could have found better Crock threads than this one on which to spout your crackpot MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOPHYSICS-induced maunderings.
David Appell, where are you when we need you?
To stay on racism,
Does anyone where Robert Byrd (KluKlux Klan Grand dragon & Democrat Senator from West Virginia who filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act ) stood on climate? You know the Democrat that wrote “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
Nice try, David, but we all know you don’t want to “stay on racism”. Your goal is to distract us from the real topic on this thread—-racism and AGW denial today, with emphasis on Ted Cruz and Republicans.
There were actually two Senator Byrds, Harry F. from VA and Robert C. from WV. Both were Democrats from coal states, and as expected, knew to be “careful” there. That’s true of both our present VA Senators as well, who are both Democrats and good men, but still tread a bit lightly around the fossil fuel folks.
You only bring up the WV Byrd so that you can try to make some BS argument that smears a dead Democrat, and you have NO interest in climate change. Byrd is one of those avowed racists when young who made a 180 reversal when he got older. If you had cared enough to google more than right-wing propaganda horseshit, you would have found that the LCV and NAACP gave him a decent rating in his later years.
How about you turn your attention to a Senator TODAY who thinks that “we need 100 like Jesse Helms”, rather than one who was a racist 50 years ago and recanted? Cruz is also an AGW denier of the first order. Hand fits glove, IMO, and you are FOS.
Did it ever occur to you that the reference to Helms was NOT about race, but about other issues?
If Byrd had been a Republican, my guess is that many would not be so forgiving.
While you are forgiving, don’t forget to forgive the Democrat who created segregation in Washington DC.
And all the other Democrats who voted against the voting rights act.
And don’t forget to praise Republicans who freed the slaves (Lincoln) and those who championed various civil rights laws over objections of the Democrats.
Thank you for proving my point, which was that you are a right wing anal orifice who only wants to sling political horsepucky, and doesn’t want to deal with the real topic of this thread—–racism as it relates to AGW denial.
And please enlighten us about what the “other issues” were about Helms.
Andrew,
For a guy who has displayed a lot of good sense in past posts on Crock, you seem to have caught the “try to talk sense to idiots” bug from Linda Plano. You waste our time engaging with Bob and ARE detracting from the discussion on this thread—- topic is RACISM as it relates to climate deniers, NOT any of the climate science that the deniers refuse to accept. You just encourage Bob by trying to talk science with him. Bob simply won’t quit until the world agrees with his craziness—-he is a demented energizer bunny clone.
If you want proof of that, DO go to the cosys link Bob has provided and follow down to the 100+ comment exchange he had with David Appell (who is to be commended for having the stomach and patience to carry on with a whacko like Bob for so long). The crowning touch is the final comment in the string—-from another whacko—-wait for it—-Stefan the Dumber!!!! LMAO
A little research on Bob will show you that his “science” education consists of a B.A. in Psychology, Northwestern University, 1969, and an M.S. in Mathematical Psychophysics, Northwestern University, 1976. Yes, that’s MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOPHYSICS, a field of study that not one other climate change “researcher” on the planet has ever looked into. Bob has apparently never “published” beyond his blog and Heartland stuff (yes, he is a Heartlander—-are you surprised?)
http://www.desmogblog.com/bob-armstrong
David Appell, on the other hand, has a B.S. in mathematics and physics from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and has done graduate work in the creative writing. Check him out at http://www.davidappell.com/ and look at his blog Quark Soup. Here’s what David has to say about his publications.
“I’m a freelance writer living in Salem, Oregon, specializing in the physical sciences, technology, and the environment. My work has appeared in Scientific American, Physics World, Audubon, New Scientist, Wired, Salon, Popular Science, Nature, Discover, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Physical Review Focus, Discovery Channel Online, Science, and many other publications, and on the syndicated radio program The Weather Notebook . I’m a Regular Contributor to Yale Climate Connections.”
If you want to read a way more intelligent commentary on Venus than Bob’s, go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
Bob gave the link, but there’s no evidence that he has ever commented on skeptical science. I’d bet that he has been banned from SkS for “repetitive spouting of BS”. Please don’t encourage him here.
Aaaargh! Forgot about the “too many links” rule and my comment went to moderation. Here it is with the links “obscured”. Apologies—I am, after all, a dumb old guy.
Andrew,
For a guy who has displayed a lot of good sense in past posts on Crock, you seem to have caught the “try to talk sense to idiots” bug from Linda Plano. You waste our time engaging with Bob and ARE detracting from the discussion on this thread—- topic is RACISM as it relates to climate deniers, NOT any of the climate science that the deniers refuse to accept. You just encourage Bob by trying to talk science with him. Bob simply won’t quit until the world agrees with his craziness—-he is a demented energizer bunny clone.
If you want proof of that, DO go to the cosys link Bob has provided and follow down to the 100+ comment exchange he had with David Appell (who is to be commended for having the stomach and patience to carry on with a whacko like Bob for so long). The crowning touch is the final comment in the string—-from another whacko—-wait for it—-Stefan the Dumber!!!! LMAO
A little research on Bob will show you that his “science” education consists of a B.A. in Psychology, Northwestern University, 1969, and an M.S. in Mathematical Psychophysics, Northwestern University, 1976. Yes, that’s MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOPHYSICS, a field of study that not one other climate change “researcher” on the planet has ever looked into. Bob has apparently never “published” beyond his blog and Heartland stuff (yes, he is a Heartlander—-are you surprised?) google “desmogblog bob-armstrong”
David Appell, on the other hand, has a B.S. in mathematics and physics from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in physics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and has done graduate work in the creative writing. Google davidappell dot com and look at his blog Quark Soup as well. Here’s what David has to say about his publications.
“I’m a freelance writer living in Salem, Oregon, specializing in the physical sciences, technology, and the environment. My work has appeared in Scientific American, Physics World, Audubon, New Scientist, Wired, Salon, Popular Science, Nature, Discover, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Physical Review Focus, Discovery Channel Online, Science, and many other publications, and on the syndicated radio program The Weather Notebook . I’m a Regular Contributor to Yale Climate Connections.”
If you want to read a way more intelligent commentary on Venus than Bob’s, go here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
Bob gave that link, but there’s no evidence that he has ever commented on skeptical science. I’d bet that he has been banned from SkS for “repetitive spouting of BS”. Please don’t encourage him here.
Well, there’s several other things I should be doing other than watching a 100+ comment conversation, but I thought the Spire of Commerce was fun, with the copy reading, ‘Timeless, Unifying, Strong’. It takes a few seconds to warm up to the notion that Bob is perfectly serious there. I could see how Stefan the Denier, the double agent Poe, would be attracted to the sight. [Nice one Bob – but the spire seems a bit tall in the first picture!]
Bob, I just watched you excellent video.
Just one question:
Since Venus’ atmospheric pressure is about 100 x that of Earth, could that account for the temperature difference? (Adiabatic lapse rate?)
David , thanks . Glad you found it informative .
“Climate science” generally , and the simpler problem of planetary mean temperature particularly , are just issues of applied physics despite the watermelons’ cant that it is some special priesthood where general solid quantitative backgrounds don’t count .
It’s the abominable state of understanding of the most basic math and physics apparent on both sides of the debate which caused me to get involved .
An example is the discussion of “error bars” here which seems to regard them as something outside the data rather than computed from the data . An example was given of a simple sequence of integers , eg , ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9) and a comment to the effect they would believe the data whatever the error bars . But in that case of perfect linearity , the “confidence interval” ( another name for the width of the error bars) would be 0 . It’s more complicated than that but I suggest anyone interested take a course in prob and stats .
Being an APL programmer , I won’t claim to understand that which I can’t compute . I’ve only implemented the computations in the Heartland presentation so won’t speculate further . Pressure does not enter those equations .
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the role of pressure because , as is well known compressing a gas heats it up . ( The first talk at yesterday’s SV-FIG hangout , https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2v6b9814uIA5egk5-yHAVw , was on the equations of state between gas , liquid , and solid state )
However , a compressed gas doesn’t stay hot . It it did , we could just pump up some scuba tanks and have perpetual sources of energy .
One goal is to get some collaborators who’ve spent their professional live studying planetary physics , and funding , to produce a highschool and undergraduate online curriculum with all algorithms involved expressed in executable notation so that bright kids around the globe can crush these decades of nonscience .
Someone was invoking the troll David Appell . It is interesting that Appell has conceded the correctness of the first part of my presentation , that holding spectra constant , the temperature of a planet is directly proportional to the temperature of the Sun and inversely proportional to the square-root of its distance to the Sun . See http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics for complete computations and discussion .
It may be that , despite major issues of comprehension , his understanding of physics is forcing him to concede the correctness of my computations of radiative balance and solar heat gain too . And thus that Hansen’s howler that Venus’s surface temperature can be explained by the energy it receives from the Sun is false .
Bob says, “Being an APL programmer, I won’t claim to understand that which I can’t compute”. LOL
I was the one “invoking” David Appell, and it is not he but YOU who are the troll here. You are wearing the Demented Rooster suit when you proclaim that
“…Appell has conceded the correctness of the first part of my presentation…”. A rather bald assertion from a narcissist computer geek who had his brains beaten in by a real scientist. Got a link that supports that assertion?
I was not familiar with Climate Wiki, so I went there to see a “complete” discussion. See http://climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Essential_Physics for complete computations and discussion . It’s “complete”, all right—-a complete pile of denier horse pucky. Some excerpts from the site:
“Welcome to ClimateWiki
An Encyclopedia on Climate Change
“ClimateWiki is moderated and edited by The Heartland Institute, “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting denialism regarding man-made climate change.” (And proud of it, too!
“We created this site to help everyone from high school students to scientists working in the field to quickly find the latest and most reliable information on this important topic.
“Featured article
The Heartland Institute hosted its 9th International Conference on Climate Change….where leading international scientists discussed “man-made global warming” and its potential effects on plants, animals, and human welfare.
“Speakers addressed myths of climate alarmism, specifically refuting the often-repeated assertion that 97 percent of scientists disagree with so-called global warming skeptics. On the contrary, speakers noted, only 0.5 percent of the authors of 11,944 scientific papers on climate and related topics over the past 21 years have said they agree most of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, and that is one of the necessary preconditions for an asserted global warming crisis. Speakers also cited the Remote Sensing Systems satellite record which shows there now has been no global warming for 17 years and 10 months.
“Speakers included prominent authorities on climate change such as Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Marc Morano, Christopher Monckton, and Anthony Watts.
PROMINENT AUTHORITIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Monckton? Morono? “I love CO2″ Idso? LMAO and JFC. The site provides RELIABLE INFORMATION, like .”5% of 11,944 papers”? Whose rear end was that tidbit plucked out of?
You are just another Heartland whore, Bob. Have none of you any shame?
@Bob –
If the [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] were derived from empirical sampling, they’re still going to have error bars to reconcile the probability of the sample being representative of the population.
“One can only dream for a wondrous day when we may be treated to a philosophical steel cage death-match between the NeoPythagoreans and the Omnologists”.
I have reserved two dozen front row seats for my friends on Crock and will make the popcorn for all.
Bob’s website is simply awesome, and all who enter should beware. It may cause one to hallucinate. If you dig deep enough, you will find references to the Von Mises Institute and Rockwell, and it doesn’t get any better than that in the Libertarian world that Bob inhabits. How did he ever find his way onto Crock?
“How did he ever find his way onto Crock?”
Marc Morano .
Marc Moron Morano? (and I’m not stuttering). And is Marc (the Political Science BA moron with no science background who spouts BS about climate change) your good buddy and he told you to come to Crock and waste our time? Or did you make a pest of yourself on his site and he’s trying to get rid of you? Details, please?
It’s unfortunate that you mentioned Marc here, because any association with him is an instant credibility destroyer. We think of him more because of his association with Rush the Gasbag Limbaugh and Senator Strom “Frosty” Inhofe. Morano has been disassembled on Crock by Peter in a classic video clip that you should access and learn from.
Knew you’d like that 😉
Marc wipes the floor with your Bill Nye the professional geek impersonator .
You all have no credibility with me anyway . I think as Cork Hayden describes you , you will do anything except take a physics course .
I though that insane racist rant you made was your “last post”? Are you now proving me correct in my assertion that you would find it hard to stay away because you’re a mindless and deluded narcissist? To reply briefly:
1) Marc Morono has trouble wiping his own rear end, and his BS in political science and advanced studies in slinging bullshit do not make him capable of competing with ANYONE who is minimally informed about AGW.
2) Cork Hayden?? That charlatan who thinks a physics degree gives him any standing to comment on climate change? Who takes money from Heartland to spew ignorant bullshit? Who has NEVER done a study or published a paper on AGW? LOL
And “Cork” says “….you will do anything except take a physics course”. He can’t be speaking of me since I have a BA in physics, an MA in biology, have taught both subjects, and have studied climate change extensively. Anything I say on the topic has more credibility than everything you and Cork have ever said collectively.
“You all have no credibility with me anyway”, you say? LMAO! As if anyone in this whole world but other deluded deniers puts any value on your opinions. You said your were going to stop posting here. You have not only lied, but you have posted something inane and childish. This will be my last comment to you—-you are now on my DNFTT list. Go away!
So, the black geologist I know, with a PhD, who is skeptical of AGW based on his studies of long term climate trends, is both ignorant and a racist?
That explains a lot.
if he exists, probably just ignorant, or more likely ideologically blindered.
If your black geologist friend went around saying publicly that we need more like Jesse Helms, than yes – he would be a racist.
See… being a AGW denier doesn’t make you a racist. Being a racist makes you a racist.
Btw, I double dare you to show this comment thread to your black geologist friend, if he actually exists, to get his opinion on your deep understanding of racism and logic.
And I triple dare you to show him your twitter page. Good grief, man!
Made up or not, this is a classic non sequitur from MZW. And dumb in so many ways. Many MANY more geologists are employed by fossil fuel companies than “study long term climate trends”. In fact, very few study climate per se. A PhD in geology is most likely not expert in climate science, and therefore may be quite “ignorant” in his views about AGW.
And some (if not most) black folks can be “racist”. They’ve got good reasons that have nothing to do with AGW. I worked with a man who was the president of the NAACP chapter in a large VA county outside DC. He freely admitted that he harbored ill feelings towards many whites as well as certain blacks, and he had good reasons.
MZW needs to get out his Logic for Dummies book and study up.
The howling non sequitur here is the title of the post itself insultingly and irrelevantly to the science implying a correlation between racism and skepticism of this thoroughly disproven absurdity .
Non sequiturs howl? Really? Is that another non sequitur or just hyperbole? Hmmmmmm—-I sometimes get confused when in the presence of superior minds like yours.
Have you heard the Duchess’ opinion on that, Bob? She makes more sense than you do.
“I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.”
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)
not racism and skepticism. racism and denial.
……… if only any of you could actually find a skeptic climate scientist who denies climate change or that global warming has happened over the last century.
Y’all’s enslavement to that shorthand talking point will implode on you one of these days.
Go down to Alabama or Mississippi and start handing out surveys in the countryside. I’m guessing r=0.7 to 0.9
Wow. Lotta herp-a-derp here. Have fun y’all….
we always have fun.
What “herp derp” are you referring to, PP? Although your use of “y’all” gives us a clue as to what you may think is herp derp here. Do you have the brains and courage to say more? Or are you just whistling Dixie?
So do all you fine, upstanding warmists send your kids to white-minority schools and live in white-minority neighborhoods? Asians don’t count.
Tab NumNut would be a more appropriate handle. This thread is obviously under attack from a herd of brain-eating denier zombies. Please allow me to puncture the brain case of this one.
Nummy,
In answer to your simple-minded question, the answer is simply no, and why do you say “Asians don’t count”? The ones among my nearest neighbors are well educated in math and “count” as well as anyone else, if not better. The one right across the street is an engineer.
Fun fact about Asia. When the Aryans vanished from the Silk Road (after giving China the wheel, horse, bronze and textiles and founding India), Asia stagnated for 4,000 years until whites came back via the sea. I might write a book about it, thinking of calling it, “From the Wheel to the Electron, White Gifts to Asia.
Yep, Nummy is a racist.
Actually you’re direct living proof of the need for everyone to take English composition and communication classes at a young age. I would “proffer” that your use of “asserted correlation” is proof of that (someone please hand him the freakin’ perfumed sleeve hanky so that he can properly “sniff” at us).
And “ad hominem irrelevance”? We on Crock like to warn each other about skunks, and pointing out that someone looks, walks, and smells like a skunk is just being neighborly. And could you point me to your favorite CAGW blog? I have visited only one or two, since I tend to spend my time on Crock and other “fair and balanced” sites.
“I won’t go into my personal history, but your contention is an insult to me and a number of individuals with whom I’ve had and have very personal relationships”.
Don’t tell me about your “insultedness”. I am a card carrying member of P.O.O.P. (People Offended by Offended People) and have little sympathy for the really insulting people on this planet, AGW deniers like you being high on the list.
And this closing of yours rates a HUGE “WHAAAAT”? And a WOW!!! It verges on bat-shit crazy! Except for the big words used, it sounds like something Michelle Bachmann would say. Who is this “observation” becoming “evermore common” among? Do you have a citation? Why do you conflate “seemingly” and “intractable”? Is that anything like terminal cancer being “seemingly fatal”? And could you clarify the meaning of “statist liberal”? Is that a way of politely saying “communist-socialist-fascist-liberal-progressive-Nazi” as so many of your brethren on the right do because they don’t know their “ists”?
“It is an evermore common observation that the ones who display a seemingly intractable hangup on race are statist liberals”.