Chagnon on human-induced climate change

There was an interesting comment on my “Debunking Science with Handwaving and Bullshit” post by Chagnon, who is apparently an atmospheric scientist. I thought it deserved attention, so I’m reposting it here:

Rescuing Reason » Blog Archive » Debunking Science with Handwaving and Bullshit

If the “jury” were to consist of atmospheric and oceanic scientists, the verdict on human-influenced climate change would be a very nearly unanimous “guilty”, as one could easily determine through a search through the relevant scientific literature on the topic. The trial in which these jurists have been participating is one that demonstrates phyical evidence supported by simple theoretical expectations. A lovely compendium of the relevant “case law” is available on http://www.realclimate.net . Cutting edge research intended to assign better probabilities to prediction of climate change scenarios is being undertaken at http://www.climateprediction.net . If nonscientists, bloggers, and journalists should like to question the reality of global warming, then they are obliged to examine the scientific case and demonstrate the flaws therein. As an atmospheric scientist, I can admit that the problem is quite complex and challenging, but that careful and creative techniques are succeeding in reducing the uncertainty. To me, it appears that FoxNews and journalists like Steve Milloy have made up their minds without any consideration or appreciation of the science. There are still important debates to be had on the science, and notable skeptics such as Richard Lindzen should be heard, but in the context of a debate with equally prominent and knowledgable scientists. Journalists would do well to facilitate such a debate, in proper context, rather than editorialize on issues that they don’t understand.

Advertisements

17 Responses to Chagnon on human-induced climate change

  1. GMB says:

    For a guy whose in the business this guy is light-years behind the argument.

    CO2 is good. Glaciation is bad. The immense irrationality and evil of the campaign to destroy Canada and Russia (with the White Death) is not just about pretending the other side are pretending there is no human effect?

    The immense idiocy and unparalled stupidity is about thinking something should be done to stop this fortunate development.

    For fucksake man. Snap out of it.

    How long can you maintain this idiocy in contradiction to the facts. This massive rebellion against reason that wanting to stop yield-enhancing CO2 represents.

    I challenge you to find something more irrational then this campaign.

    Brock the fact that it is taking you so long to get your shit together is a real question mark here.

  2. GMB: “Brock the fact that it is taking you so long to get your shit together is a real question mark here.”

    I’ve had enough of your shit. Every once in a while you say something that makes sense, which tempts me to keep conversing with you, but I’m not going to get dragged into this insanity and flurry of insults yet again.

    We can discuss this more when you get your shit together and cut the drama.

  3. GMB says:

    What are you talking about Brock. This is no line-ball call. You are being without reservation entirely irrational if you want to limit CO2 output. I mean I thought you would have been able to work it out by now.

    The relevant threat is glaciation. CO2 causes increased plant yields. The question then obviously isn’t anything to do with whether its human-induced or not. STUCK ON STUPID.

    The question is how do we stop the glaciation and increase the food production. Not how can we be smug about other peoples skepticism.

    If CO2 can increase plant yields as much as 75% then its FREE FERTILISER. Its Manna from heavan. Its the best thing that’s ever happened to us and if it prevents glaciation THEN ITS THE BEST DUMB LUCK WE’VE EVER HAD.

    This is no ambiguous case fella. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

  4. I’m not talking about your argument above, I’m talking about the way it’s put forward. I won’t engage you in further discussion of this or any other topic until you become civil.

  5. GMB says:

    Well the rest of it is just not important. The main issue is what do we do. And the answer of course is we keep putting the CO2 out and don’t let anyone take any money from anyone to hamper such a fortunate thing.

    Enough time has gone by for folks to get to what is important about this issue.

  6. “The main issue is what do we do. And the answer of course is we keep putting the CO2 out and don’t let anyone take any money from anyone to hamper such a fortunate thing.”

    Okay, so the points are

    Glaciation is bad
    Food shortage is bad
    global warming will help to stave off glaciation
    High CO2 emissions will help to increase crop yields

    Do I have these correct?

  7. chagnon says:

    GMB has apparently taken offense to something that is entirely absent from my original comment. I made no such inference concerning whether global warming and increased CO2 was good or bad for the world. My comment was directed at those nonscientists who irrationally insist that human-induced climate change is not occurring. Because GMB seems to agree with the scientific community’s assessment that such warming is indeed occurring, I must conclude that GMB did not bother to read my original comment.

    GMB’s stated position is that although global warming is occurring, we should welcome it as a solution to our world’s problems. With very few exceptions, GMB’s position contradicts that of most ecologists, climate scientists, economists, and policy makers. For more info, read the relevant sections of the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at http://www.ipcc.ch , or have a look at the joint science academy’s statement on the matter here: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf . These referenced sources are hardly what I would consider “part of an immensely irrational and evil campaign to destroy Russia and Canada”. Infact, signatories to the latter statement include the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of Canada!

  8. GMB says:

    ” My comment was directed at those nonscientists who irrationally insist that human-induced climate change is not occurring.”

    Well lets see your evidence then. How come you are unable to come up with any evidence and are instead relying on science sentiment?

    I assure you that science is about evidence and not about the sentiment of science workers. And lets forget that further UN scandal the IPCC. Thats just like money-for-Kim and Oil-for-food. Like their human rights committees. Just another UN scandal.

    Negligible human-induced global warming won’t cut it. Lets see your evidence that it is substantial. The both of you are just being mindlessly irrational. You are an embarrassment.

  9. GMB says:

    So its all about an intuitive survey. Your alleged evidence comes down to an intuitive survey. No evidence necessary just intuitive surveys. Thats all you need to distinguish between truth and falsehood. There is absolutely no question that Brock and chagnon are the committed irrationalists in this story.

  10. GMB says:

    Just incredible the irrationality here. That you people would put science-administrator sentiment ahead of evidence and argument. This faith-based assholery just makes me want to puke.

  11. GMB says:

    “Okay, so the points are

    Glaciation is bad
    Food shortage is bad
    global warming will help to stave off glaciation
    High CO2 emissions will help to increase crop yields

    Do I have these correct?”

    Are you some sort of moron? Of course all of the above is true. But the fact is neither you Chagnon nor I have evidence that industrial-CO2 will warm in anything but a negligible way. But that aside the above is obviously true. You would have to be an irrational faith-based twit to say otherwise.

    Are you contesting any of the above????

    Totally irrational the both of you.

  12. GMB, what, did you get bored? This is old stuff. I had to reset the password to this account because it’s been so long I couldn’t remember it.

    It’ll make you happy to know that I no longer argue with people about climate change. It’s become clear to me that unlike evolution, the evidence is not clear cut. That doesn’t mean I agree with you that we should do everything we can to warm the globe, but it’s not something I’m ready to “evangelize” about.

  13. GMB says:

    The evidence is very clear cut. 50 billion dollars and no warming signal found from CO2. Hence we know for a fact that CO2’s influence is so weak or slow-acting that it CANNOT/NOT be a good thing if indeed the effect is warming and not cooling.

    This position is unassailable. We are not waiting on the numbers to come to this conclusion. You set yourself a high standard if you are calling yourself a beacon of reason. So you cannot fail to see the unassailable nature of this conclusion unless this is a fake boast on your part.

  14. GMB says:

    The fact of the matter is that you are an apostle of unreason and a CO2-bedwetter. If not you would have come down on this blatant science-fraud by now.

  15. graemebird says:

    Indeed you are a CO2-bedwetter.

  16. “Indeed you are a CO2-bedwetter.”

    Flattery will get you everywhere with me.

    But seriously, getting bored since they kicked you off of Catallaxy? A number of apparently-qualified people have argued both ways, each saying the others’ data have been tweaked.

    I am not qualified to tell whether their data are accurate or not, so I’m staying out of it.

  17. GMB says:

    You ought not need to be qualified to figure out whose bullshitting. If you ask these guys for evidence they give you the runaround. If you even ask them to put their assumptions on the table they’ll give you the runaround and block your ass.

    What happens is when I cannot use the one computer I go to the old one and you are on this here browser.

    Bad investments get wiped out during credit crunches and this global warming racket is one that will hopefully bite the dust like a lot of other illusions of the bubble.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: