When Politicians Check Out

If you look at the top of Climate Depot’s website (to the far left and far right), you’ll see the buzzwords in large type that Marc Morano unfailingly associates with climate science and global warming: FRAUD & CLIMATE CON. [UPDATE: I see that Marc removed his latest climate “fraud” headline off the top left banner.]

These loaded terms have come to define a narrative that seems to hold sway with Republicans running for office this year. As Ron Brownstein at the National Journal reports:

virtually all of the serious 2010 GOP challengers have moved beyond opposing cap-and-trade to dismissing the scientific evidence that global warming is even occurring.

That dismissive attitude, notes Bill McKibben in The New Republic, now pretty much extends to the GOP establishment:

On what is quite possibly the single biggest issue the planet has faced, American conservatism has reached a near-unanimous position, and that position is: pay no attention to all those scientists.

That position, I’d like to point out, is very much at odds with the position staked out in many federal agencies, from the CIA to the CDC. For example, we already know that the U.S. intelligence and military community is taking climate change seriously. We learned recently that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is taking climate change seriously. And now comes word that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is taking climate change seriously.

As readers of this blog know, I like to engage in political, policy and media issues related to climate change. Sometimes I cast a critical eye on rhetoric employed by climate bloggers, which earns me blowback from all sides. Mostly, I like exploring the nuances of issues central to the climate debate, which also earns me disapproval from partisans.

Above all, though, I like to think that I take the science of climate change seriously, including the anticipated (and yes, widely debated) ramifications of anthropogenic climate change to public health, wildlife, foreign policy, geopolitics, etc.

If one of the two major political parties in the U.S. is reflexively dismissive of global warming–indeed, increasingly sees it as part of some grand con by a cabal of climate scientists and environmentalists–then this political party, the GOP, is willfully ignoring what’s happening on the ground at many government agencies. That also means that a large segment of the American political establishment has decided to opt out of the discussions and policies these government agencies are formulating to address climate change.

What Republicans don’t seem to realize is that these micro level debates and policies on climate change are going forward, with or without them.

109 Responses to “When Politicians Check Out”

  1. Steve Bloom says:

    The smarter ones have no problem understanding it.  Republican strategists know that they’re in a permanent minority relative to the policy preferences of voters, and that tightly-focused narratives are a necessary part of overcoming that disadvantage.  There’s no need whatever for the narratives to be true, noting other examples such as the death panels and Obama’s citizenship, since the media have no stomach for holding Republicans to account for such things.     

  2. Pascvaks says:

    When politicians ‘check out’ it’s all political; it reflects the mood of their districts, states, or what-have-you.  The ‘impact’ on agencies is one of funding.  The mood of the politicians vis-a-vis AGW is negative (it’s also negative on anything else that’s going to take tax dollars to fund).  What’s this ‘shift’ say to scientists, researchers, academics, functionaries, administrators, and the like?  It says “Times is tuff Charlie Brown, don’t plan on any more handouts or free passes until the Great Recession is over!”
    You know, I have a feeling a lot of voters are buying it too. 

  3. Tom Fuller says:

    As a lifelong progressive Democrat, I wrote last year that I feared that climate change threatened to become the ‘Iraq’ of the Obama administration, in the sense that it would consume everything else and suck the energy out of other policy initiatives.
     
    I’m really glad I was wrong about that part of it, but in other aspects, global warming has very much become a ‘kick me’ sign that my party has affixed to its hind end, and I can’t even blame the GOP overly much for complying with instructions.
     
    I do believe the GOP’s blithe dismissal of climate change is just a luxury opposition parties can afford themselves–as they have no real power, they can be as disruptive as they like.
     
    I don’t consider their behaviour re climate change to be in any way, shape or form to be different than their obstructionism on healthcare, the economy, immigration ad nauseum.
     
    The Republicans are wrong–again. The Democrats gave them a club to beat them with. Again. It will have consequences. Again.
     
    Candidate Obama had a raft of incremental and useful policy tools to address his desire to reduce emissions dramatically. They were really good–and still are. Maybe now that Cap and Trade has gone away, we can get back to them.

  4. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    When you have people like John Holdren as science czar to the president, is it really surprising people disbelieve global warming claims?  The guy has made a lifestyle of grossly exaggerating ecological issues to frighten people into “saving the planet.”
     
    I think a lot of the conservative base which rejects global warming does so due to poor education on the subject.  That, combined with being told they have to massively change the world through blanket policies like cap-and-trade make people scoff.
     
    I suspect good education combined with realistic policies that deal with individual issues would go a long way toward getting people to reduce carbon emissions.

  5. Jack Hughes says:

    It’s a tough call for a lot of people like me who believe:
     
    1) There is not a problem with the climate.
    2) Many of the “solutions” are just bonkers even if there was a problem.
     
    One of the most totally bonkers was a scheme in New Scientist magazine for fleets of yachts to drag generators behind them to produce hydrogen then return to land and offload the hydrogen.
    This is totally insane – but nobody dares to challenge this.
     
    Windmills are just as carzy – but have some kind of plausibility with the public and especially with the ruling elites.

  6. Jack Hughes says:

    The problem is that when you say #1 (there is no problem) then you are not allowed any input to #2 – so all kinds of impractical schemes are touted.
     
    Bio fuels.
    Electric cars (where does electricity come from).
    Solar power (PV) in the UK
    etc

  7. Brandon Shollenberger says:

    You shouldn’t be so dismissive of entire categories.  For example, why do you say bio fuels are impractical?  While some types certainly are, what about things like algae-based bio fuels?  Electric cars may not be practical, but their cousin the hybrid certainly is.
     
    Polluting is bad.  Improving efficiency is good.  These are things everyone can agree on without even considering global warming.  If we could at least reach an agreement on issues arising from these, it would be a huge advancement.

  8. TerryMN says:

    “That position, I’d like to point out, is very much at odds with the position staked out in many federal agencies, from the CIA to the CDC. For example, we already know that the U.S. intelligence and military community is taking climate change seriously. We learned recently that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is taking climate change seriously. And now comes word that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is taking climate change seriously.”

    You realize that these are all agencies fighting for budget dollars, correct?  As an agency, if I can pin a problem to my mission, there are dollars attached to it.  Having worked in and with the DoD (and a bunch of other fed agencies) for the better part of 2 decades, I can tell you that mission number one is budget, so that you can fund missions number 2 through n.  You’d be shocked at the amount of ordnance expended every September to make sure that “we get at least as much next year, just in case.”  That’s one tiny slice of September budget drainage.  And I know, there are serious budge deficiencies in several agencies – but none of them come in under budget, because it affects next year.
    If you look at it through that lens (which is somewhat cynical, I’ll agree) the motivation to “take it seriously” takes a different light.  JMO, YMMV.

  9. NewYorkJ says:

    Politicians (particularly Republicans these days) are often puppets of those who elect them, as one might expect.  A Republican can’t win a primary by holding a position that in any way supports the “scam”.  As a result, they tend to live in their own alternate reality regarding science.

    Polls show that public opinion hasn’t changed much.  Americans by good margins support emissions reductions, including cap and trade legislation.  If there’s a decline in acceptance of the science, it’s a moderate decline among conservatives.  A lot of that manifests itself in those who are already skeptical but have become more fanatical as a result of media (more so with right-wing media)  pushing the “hoax” narrative, and more likely to make a candidate’s position on climate change a make or break issue.  This was predictable.  The far right was more inclined to be ho-hum about climate change until their party was entirely out of power at the federal level and those evil Democrats threatened to “tax them to death”.  They became easily prone to disinformation.

    Global warming denial plays well with the tea party, which is sort of the anti-intellectual anti-elite wing of the Republican party.  The tea party tends to be strongly against anything perceived to be coming from the government.  There’s a cult-like mentality among them, as they see themselves part of a movement, actively recruiting members in hopes of tearing down the existing establishment.   This is found in Tom Fuller’s latest rant (note the difference in tone over there):

    “The double handful of climate hysteria weblogs have tailed off in both output and popularity since the events of Climategate and Copenhagen. The Joe Romms, Michael Tobises, Tim Lamberts, the Desmog Blogs, Deep Climates and William Connellys of the world have been largely reduced to recycling whining points and venting splenetically against the sad fact that the world is turning away from their point of view.”

    But it’s this sort of  inane rhetoric that gets the choir singing, and the issue on their minds, helping to remind them again not to support any politician that lends credence to the great scam.  Certainly, self-described objective “luke-warmers” are not inclined to reason with them.

  10. Tom Fuller says:

    Of course, NYJ. I’m not with you, so I must be with them. It’s so obvious. But admit it–you gotta like ‘whining points.’

  11. NewYorkJ says:

    Is a “whining point” something like this?

    Tom Fuller: “Thought better of you, Tobis. Expected that crap from dhosed, but thought better of you. Okay, you’re both the same.”

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8524070301101240472&postID=1237036911562896261

    That seems more of a “trolling point”, like your last post.

  12. Steve Bloom says:

    In the couple of years since Fuller first made his appearance on the climate blogging scene, I have been waiting for some bit of evidence that he is indeed a “lifelong progressive Democrat.”  Other than an unverifiable claim that he votes for Pelosi (leaving aside the issue of whether she’s “progressive”), the indicators seem to be pointing more and more in the other dirtection.  Funny, that.

  13. kdk33 says:

    Elections in November.

  14. JD Ohio says:

    “On what is quite possibly the single biggest issue the planet has faced, American conservatism has reached a near-unanimous position, and that position is: pay no attention to all those scientists.”

    This is wrong for a number of reasons.   1.  Scientific knowledge accumulates in a matter similar to compound interest.  (See Julian Simon generally).  In the 75 to 100 years that Alarmists predict catastrophy, humankind will undoubtedly be able to easily geoengineer its way out of any problems caused by warming.  All it currently takes to cool the earth is one large volcanic eruption.  Surely, with the addition of hundreds of millions of educated Chinese & Indians (and 3 or 4 new Einsteins), as well as the quicker transfer of information enabled by the Internet,  a way will be found to replicate what one volcano can do.  2.  Even if warming caused intractable problems, there is no practical way to plan ahead 75 to 100 years.  Examples of planning similar to that proposed by the Alarmists that have failed are China’s Great Leap Forward, and the Vietnam War  (which was predicated on preventing the long-term falling of non-communist dominoes in Southeast Asia.)  The world changes so fast, that it is virtually impossible to plan ahead more than 10-15 years.  Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.
     
    JD

  15. Tom Fuller says:

    Gee Mr. Bloom, tell us about your search? Where did you start? Who did you correspond with? What pieces of mine did you read?
     
    Or maybe you’re just making that all up so you don’t have to forego an opportunity to slam me.
     
    Now, there’s an opportunity to respond to comments I made on this thread. I stuck to the substance, tried to objectively look at actions and consequences of U.S. domestic politics, gave my conclusions. I seem to remember writing that the Republicans were wrong, that it would have consequences, and that I am a big supporter of Obama’s energy plan announced while he was campaigning for president.
     
    I’m glad you were able to ignore those diversionary tactics and use your unparalleled intuition to see through to the dark nature of my soul.
     
    But this really shouldn’t be about me. This should be about politicians hijacking science for political purposes. When you interrupt the thread to attack me based on your opinion and nothing more, you are boring. You bore other people. You bore me.
     
    But you can go back and high-five at Deltoid, and that’s all that matters to you. My suggestion? Stick to the thread here, and insult me at Deltoid. Well, insult me more at Deltoid.

  16. jakerman says:

    Jack Hughes writes:

    “all kinds of impractical schemes are touted. Bio fuels.
    Electric cars (where does electricity come from). Solar power (PV) in the UK etc”

    Biofules– the improvment depends on the source, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuel are good.  A carbon price would cost out the perverse ones in the USA (as would removing perverse subsidies). And proper carbon accounting and protection of ecosystems can prevent destruction of rainforest elsewhere.

    Electric cars (where does electricity come from). – Some from regenerative breaking, with the plan for the rest coming from increasing lower carbon electricity.

    Solar power (PV) in the UK- So use wind, wave, tidal and biofuel CHP (and Nuclear?) in the UK and import solar from Portugal, Spain and North Africa.

  17. jakerman says:

    Steve Bloom
    You post promted me to check out Fullers positions on other issues. I clicked through the first 10 pages of his blog on the examiner and found nothing but global warming posts (they were all tagged Liberal Skeptic). So I started jumping read every 5th. Same result. All the way to page 56 of posts.

    So from this sample Fuller looks like a “Liberal” with a voice on one issue. An issue that happens to line up with the worst of the hard right.

  18. jakerman says:

    Fuller is also positioning himself in the false middle between non-gausian distributed extremes

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com//editorials/6954-global-warming-marc-morano-the-enemy-of-my-enemies-speaks-on-cuccinelli-and-global-warming.

    Its like saying that Roy (negative feedback) Spencer in in the middle rather than in a minority.

  19. Tom Fuller says:

    Lukewarmers aren’t in the middle. We’re ahead of the pack.

  20. Stu says:

    It seems to me that Tom’s just using his own brain. Others may be happy enough simply parroting the official party line of whatever party it is they’re aligned to.
    Pre-packaged thought. Pre-packaged people.
     
     
     

  21. NewYorkJ says:

    From what I understand, Tom Fuller gets paid a small sum for web traffic, so clicking on his site (literally?) feeds the troll.  It explains quite a bit of his style, and how the message morphs a lot between audiences.  As far as web visitors goes, he’s after quantity, not quality, much like Watts.

    “Liberal skeptic” is an advertising slogan or a niche.  It’s also used as the basis for the concern troll routine.

  22. JMurphy says:

    JD Ohio wrote : “The world changes so fast, that it is virtually impossible to plan ahead more than 10-15 years.  Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.”

    So, if scientists said that it was very likely that the earth would be hit by a potentially catastrophic asteroid in 100 years, you would throw your hands in the air and claim that there’s nothing we can do at the moment, and we should cross our fingers and hope that someone comes up with a good plan nearer the time ?

  23. JD Ohio says:

    Murphy 22

    “So, if scientists said that it was very likely that the earth would be hit by a potentially catastrophic asteroid in 100 years, you would throw your hands in the air and claim that there’s nothing we can do at the moment, and we should cross our fingers and hope that someone comes up with a good plan nearer the time ?”

    Completely inappropriate analogy.  Those favoring CO2 controls are arguing that we should engage in megaregulation and turn societies upside down over the next 50 years and beyond on the basis of what may happen 100 years from now.  If an asteroid was on track to hit the earth, the effects would be certain and predictable.  The extent of warming and its effects are not predictable in any manner comparable to that of an asteroid collision.  Also, I stated that I supported geoengineering to deal with warming if it later turns out to be significant and harmful.  Setting up missiles or other devices to strike an asteroid that would be known to strike the earth is equivalent to geoengineering.
     
    You are trying to equate the enormously complex subject of taking CO2 out of the world economy starting now, on the basis of the uncertain effects of it 100 years from now, with the task of spearing an asteroid that we know will come.  Also, dealing with the asteroid would simply be a technical issue that would not involve upending the fabric of the world’s economy.  I would add parenthically that I consider asteroids striking the earth to be a serious issue and that I would support efforts and spending to deal with that problem.
    JD

  24. Pascvaks says:

    Ref –  JMurphy Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 5:32 am

    JD Ohio wrote : “Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.”
    So, if … very likely… potentially… ?
    _________
    Sounds like a plan.  Let’s do it.

     

  25. jakerman says:

    “It seems to me that Tom’s just using his own brain.”
    As opposed to comparing the evidence for a range of climate sensitivity in scientific journals?
    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html

    Spitting the difference between political power bases is one approach, but not one that is going to be more accurate than a rigorous review of the evidence.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

  26. JD Ohio says:

    “Pascvaks #24 Ref –  JMurphy Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 5:32 am

    JD Ohio wrote : “Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.”
    So, if “¦ very likely”¦ potentially”¦ ?
    _________
    Sounds like a plan.  Let’s do it.”

    Obviously, you take my words out of context.   When I said “Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.” I was referring to the complex action of removing CO2 from the economy and the complex process of predicting the effects of CO2 100 years from now, which are in no way comparable to planning for spearing an asteroid in terms of either the reliability of the prediction and the efficacy of the remedy.   Do you have any response to the real argument I made?  Or, is the best that anyone can do here is to compare the science of global warming and the remedies necessary to solve the perceived problem to what would be necessary to stop an asteroid from strking the earth.
    JD
     
     

  27. Steve Bloom self-deludes himself into thinking that political perspective dictates scientific perspective. This may be the case for Bloom, and it may be the case for those with whom Bloom associates, but it doesn’t carry outside his Deltoid orbit.
     
    Views of the integrity and quality of scientific endeavour, in reality, are neither dependent nor influenced by political affiliation. The issue of scientific method versus postnormalism is only a political issue for those who are themselves intent on advancing policies derived from political ideology by the replacement and/or perversion of long-established scientific processes.
     
    The true divide between CAGW sceptics and CAGW believers is not Right vs Left, it is one of scientific integrity and scepticism vs political corruption and ideological imposition.

  28. jakerman says:

    Steve Bloom self-deludes himself into thinking that political perspective dictates scientific perspective.”

    No I think Steve Bloom just noted the GOP’s position as described in the intro of this thread.

  29. “No I think Steve Bloom just noted the GOP’s position as described in the intro of this thread.”
    Then extrapolated to presume discovery of Tom Fuller’s secret right-wing tendencies? Thank god we don’t depend on that level of thinking for the furtherance of science! Oh wait! In climate scientists’ circles, that’s exactly what we do! Ugh!

  30. JMurphy says:

    JD Ohio wrote : “Completely inappropriate analogy.  Those favoring CO2 controls are arguing that we should engage in megaregulation and turn societies upside down over the next 50 years and beyond on the basis of what may happen 100 years from now.  If an asteroid was on track to hit the earth, the effects would be certain and predictable.  The extent of warming and its effects are not predictable in any manner comparable to that of an asteroid collision.”

    So, apart from the strawmen of ‘megaregulation’ and ‘turn(ing) societies upside down over the next 50 years and beyond’ (but you must believe what you want to believe), you’re trusting scientists who assert it is “very likely that the earth would be hit by a potentially catastrophic asteroid in 100 years” (i.e. it’s not definite and it’s not definitely catastrophic) but not trusting scientists who warn of the dangers of a warming world (“”˜equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C”) – ignoring, of course, your other strawman of AGW ‘catastrophy’.

    One group of scientists you trust, and another you don’t. Why ?

  31. Tom Fuller says:

    In other areas of policy, large swathes of the public are not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about either sheaf of policies presented by major parties; not in the US, not in other countries.
     
    Someone tell me why climate change should be different.  In this country, both Democrats and Republicans have been enthusiastic about making climate change a political issue. As with other issues, their established positions appear to leave about 40% of the population unconvinced.
     
    Someone will eventually try and fill that gap–maybe Lukewarmers can do it. It’ll be glorious! Democrats will say they’re Tea Partiers and Republicans will say they’re Pinkos instead of Commies.
     
    Hey–if we work hard enough we can just ignore the science completely! Oh, wait–that’s what extremists on both sides are already doing…

  32. JD Ohio says:

    JMurphy   So, apart from the strawmen of “˜megaregulation’ and “˜turn(ing) societies upside down over the next 50 years and beyond’ (but you must believe what you want to believe), you’re trusting scientists who assert it is “very likely that the earth would be hit by a potentially catastrophic asteroid in 100 years” (i.e. it’s not definite and it’s not definitely catastrophic) but not trusting scientists who warn of the dangers of a warming world”
     
    Forgetting the immaturity and bias of the James Hansens (why is a nutcase like Hansen who talks of “death trains” and jailing energy executives in charge of an agency responsible for gathering weather statistics)  and Michael Manns, they don’t even seriously consider the planning issues.  The mainstream warmist camp simply assumes that the crudest way to deal with warming (eradicate energy usage as we know it to reduce CO2) is the best way to deal with problem without even considering geoengineering or the work of Julian Simon.  No one has to agree with Simon, but any serious thinker on climate issues needs to be aware of his work.  However, the mainstream warmists are so insular and and narrow minded that they don’t even seriously address his work.  That is how a huge failure like John Holdren obtains a prominent position in the federal government dealing with climate issues.
     
    JD

  33. JMurphy says:

    JD Ohio, your political views are very clear now, which is why you write the way you do, as shown in your latest output :

    “immaturity and bias”, “James Hanson” (the bogeyman, of course), “nutcase”, “Michael Mann” (another bogeyman – won’t be long before you bring up Al Gore), “eradicate energy use as we know it”, “Julian Simon” (a great man, naturally), “insular and narrow-minded” and “huge failure”.

    All very unbiased and rational. You obviously enjoy arguing with strawmen, because you seem to enjoy bringing them with you into everything you write.

  34. JD Ohio says:

    JMurphy #33  Glad you have a sense of humor.  Very funny post and good chuckle for the afternoon.
     
    JD

  35. TMarkus says:

    So is this old guy ‘Tom Fuller’?
    http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/thomas-fuller

    ‘Liberal skeptic’ is a misnomer. Like saying ‘compassionate neocon’. Does not exist.

    He is so polarizing in his writing and behavior that makes you wonder if he actually has relevance to environmental issues. That is, his skills are in furthering the agenda of his masters, whichever that is. If he has no other income, he might be forced in doing this shame.

  36. Pascvaks says:

    Ref –  JD Ohio Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 7:04 am
    “Pascvaks #24 Ref –  JMurphy Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 5:32 am
    JD Ohio wrote : “Taking action now to prevent events that may occur 100 years into the future is not possible.”
    So, if “¦ very likely”¦ potentially”¦ ?
    _________
    Sounds like a plan.  Let’s do it.”
    __________________________

    JD
    I was agreeing with you.  I took the “So, if “¦ very likely”¦ potentially”¦ ?” from Murphy’s question to you.  Wouldn’t think any issue so nebulus would be worth the effort either.  The comment “Sounds like a plan.  Let’s do it.” was meant to refer to your response.  Mea Culpa for the screw up.

    PS: Ref your follow on discussion, I’m sitting here thinking “Right! Go! Go! Go!”

  37. Tom Fuller says:

    Furthering the agenda of his masters… doing this in shame…
     
    TMarkus, you are showing Keith here why his post his wrong. He thinks Republicans are reflexively dismissing the debate. You are showing there is no debate. You, Bloom and NYJ. Only submission to your religion. What could Republicans possibly debate with you?
     
    Faithfully furthering the agenda of my masters…. (I guess that’d be my wife, wouldn’t it), I will sign off by saying you three jerks give Marc Morano every excuse he needs to be the way he is.

  38. JD Ohio says:

    Pascvaks #36  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Glad to have your support.
     
    JD

  39. Steve Bloom says:

    Just for the record, I would have more respect for Fuller’s views if, when presented with an opportunity to discuss them in detail with a climate scientist, he had not simply engaged in a classic Gish Gallop.  (The linked post is for context; follow its links to see Fuller’s most recent gallop.) 

    Going back to Fuller’s blogging origins, he claims to have come to the debate and engaged in a detailed review of the science over the course of just a few weeks, that review then serving as the basis for his “lukewarmer” position.  Sorry, for a non-scientist to do that simply fails the smell test, especially as it appears to have been to a considerable extent based on a severe over-inflation of the importance of the “hockey stick” to projections of future climate behavior.  It is, OTOH, more than enough time to make a political call as to the most lucrative stance for paid blogging on climate. 

  40. jakerman says:

    Tom writes:
    Hey”“if we work hard enough we can just ignore the science completely! Oh, wait”“that’s what extremists on both sides are already doing”¦”


    Keep in mind that Tom calls Joe Romm, Deltoid, Deepclimate, Realclimate, etc extremists, while Busily posting his stories on WUWT.
    Four of those five site named above continually reference and compare claims to established evidence. One keeps making claims (many contradicted by the published evidence) while promising to to publish on pet topic (always) in the future.

    One extreme requires a conspiracy theory to support its often ignoring of the evidence, while Tom would equate those who competently review the evidence as some form of equivalent extremist (who are no less than ignoring the science). That is how Tom fabricates  his phony middle ground.

  41. grypo says:

    It’s a bit frustrating to watch people constantly trying to redefine what the ‘middle ground’ of the climate debate is.  It’s pretty much the same as it has been for a while now.  It’s getting warmer, we are doing it, and it will likely be bad, so we should do something about it as soon as possible.   Acting as a passive observer is not middle ground, it’s no ground.  Lukewarmerism, or whatever that is, isn’t the middle or mainstream or anything that people try to convince themselves of as “practical”.  It’s not.  It’s likely just wrong.

  42. Tom Fuller says:

    Sorry, Keith. The hyenas are a yappin’.  Deltoid must have been free with the day passes.

  43. jakerman says:

    Re Steve Bloom’s link: Perhaps Tom could tell us if  Michael Tobis was ignoring the science? Is that why Tom (phony middle) Fuller discarded Tobis’ informed concerns on SLR?
    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/09/ingrate.html

  44. jakerman says:

    “The hyenas are a yappin'”
    Leaves Tom’s previous comment seem like a Freudian slip:
    Hey”“if we work hard enough we can just ignore the science completely!”

  45. Tom Fuller says:

    All right. Bloom, you manage to not tell the truth frequently.
     
    You would not respect my position if I had studied 20 years at MIT. Since you don’t even understand it, why bother to mischaracterize it? Nor do you correctly characterize how I came to my position.
     
    Although you may be an expert on odors, I don’t recall having seen you elected as arbiter of who does or does not pass a smell test–and if you get the facts wrong, (why do you always get the facts wrong?), it increases the chances for error.
     
    And I hate to call this to your attention, but somebody should, I guess. There are only three people I know getting paid real money to blog on this–Marc Morano, Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt. The money I get from Examiner wouldn’t keep you in crayons and scissors.
     
    jakerman, I know which side is always writing about a conspiracy–yours. Your little comfortable den at Deltoid can’t go ten minutes without talking about it. It’s as if you looked at the few skeptics moonbatting about Maurice Strong taking over and said–yeah, let’s be like them! And you have exceeded them on every point.
     
    There’s no newcomers here–everybody showing up this low in the comments section has read enough of Romm, Rabett, Deltoid and WUWT to know that your description is weird as well as wrong. Watts links to more scientific papers than anyone doing this except Pielke Sr.  They’re all anti-consensus, sure. But don’t you think that point of view deserves to be aired?
     
    One side censors, edits and interrupts comments and uses delayed posting as a strategem. The other side allows conflicting viewpoints the opportunity to guest post. I’m evidence of that.
     
    You’re often more pungent with your criticism when you’re safe in your playground: “Don’t forget the army of denialist who want to believe the fastasy Tom Fuller creates. That is an easy (and undiscerning) market to play to.”

    Like I say. Lukewarmers are not in the middle and don’t want to be. While extremists on both sides are vapidly rehashing their straw man arugments, Lukewarmers have pulled ahead.

    Or don’t you read the news?
     
    Just out of curiosity, Bloom–have you ever been right about anything?
     
     

  46. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman, Tobis doesn’t ignore the science. He uses it as a launching point for his nightmare scenarios. You should really go over and cheer him up–he seems dejected recently. Well, with people like you as running mates, I can understand.

  47. Tom Fuller says:

    And jakerman, that’s classic jakerman tacitics: Post half the quote.  Let me try: ‘Michael Tobis was ignoring the science.’ Nah… doesn’t work for me. But hey–hope you’re relaxed and smoking a cigarette…

  48. Sashka says:

    Keith,
    I think TerryMN (8) makes a very good point. But even if he weren’t correct I wouldn’t quite understand why you think the official position of CIA (a bunch of ignoramuses science-wise) is relevant while that of a distinguished physicist is not.
     
    Tom(45):
    Do you happen to know how the civil servant Gavin Schmidt manages to get paid for what amounts to GW advocacy work? I don’t care much about Morano and Romm. They are not climate scientists and if they are privately funded then they are within their rights. But I find it odd that the government scientist gets paid for blogging. Would it be simply by personal request of his boss Jim Hansen?
     

  49. jakerman says:

    Tom writes:
    “I know which side is always writing about a conspiracy”“yours.”

    Then shows us what he means: “One side censors, edits and interrupts comments and uses delayed posting as a strategem. The other side allows conflicting viewpoints the opportunity to guest post.”

    Tom, I was thinking about the temperature network conspiracy, but your one side view of conspiracy contradicts your earlier claim.

    BTW Tom, you didn’t answer my question directly, yet your Freudian slip is looking more and more like a game plan:
    “dance around the details for days, using rhetorical tactics and resorting to whatever level of insults are necessary to change the subject”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/10/sea-level-rise-hype-and-reality/

  50. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman, at some point you’ll learn to read.  I note you don’t ‘deny’ that my description of hysteriblogs tactics in comments is accurate, but you neglect that I don’t say it is one-sided. I know there are loony skeptics out there, too.
     
    And then, of course, you take part of a quote from another article entirely and use it for something completely different–once again. Nice. But that is what you people do when talking about sea level rise, and there’s no ‘denying’ it. And Tobis is among the worst of them, as witness his comment on another thread on this blog this morning: “Let’s not get distracted by relatively minor issues like whether we should boil off the oceans and steam cook every living thing on earth like a goddam lobster dinner.” and later, “Never? In that case there is not much future to worry about.

    On this theory, investing in energy or climate research or much of anything long term is a very long shot. My breakthrough suggestion is to put every spare dime into butter and garlic instead.”

    That’s insanity. That’s denying the science coming from people he claims to respect. That’s hyperbolic fearmongering. No wonder he’s depressed. He really thinks that global warming will drive humanity to extinction.

  51. jakerman says:

    “I note you don’t “˜deny’ that my description of hysteriblogs tactics in comments is accurate”

    I don’t deny the world is flat either. There are too many inaccuries on the web to correct them all.

    I simply point out your hypocracy, your phoney claims to a fabricated middle ground, and I also have been noting a pattern when you are challenged on the science. The pattern seems to something you identify, but project onto others:

    “”dance around the details for days, using rhetorical tactics and resorting to whatever level of insults are necessary to change the subject”

    I’m not clear from your post what your complait about MT is, Its almost like another example of your restorting to your self projected game plan?

  52. Steve Bloom says:

    Fuller, as far as I can tell the only constructive result to that entire multi-post interaction was that you managed to shed your initial conflation of sea ice asnd ice sheets.  Now that’s what I call Climate Progress!

    All humor aside, here’s the take-home point, Fuller:  You’ve never taken the time to understand the science well enough to even have a sense of where the gaps in your knowledge lie.  Bluster is no substitute.  Good luck with the business model.

  53. Tom Fuller says:

    Good luck with finding some way of being accurate–and look in the mirror when you want to see bluster. And check back on Tobis’ thread to see that I didn’t conflate sea ice and ice sheets–I was pointing something else out. Not that it would matter to you.

  54. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman, you’re losing it. You could eliminate many of the inaccuracies on the internet by stepping away from the keyboard.
     
    I am not interested in a middle ground, but since I’ve only said it three times in this thread, I guess you’re not required to understand it.
     
    As for not understanding what I said about Tobis, sorry–get a dictionary, thesaurus, first grade primer, whatever…

  55. jakerman says:

    Could Fuller be any more vague when it comes to specifics?

    So sure yet so vague?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/10/14/the-post-partisan-power-play/comment-page-1/#comment-21472

  56. jakerman says:

    Fuller writes:

    “jakerman, you’re losing it. You could eliminate many of the inaccuracies on the internet by stepping away from the keyboard.”

    Fuller projects:

    dance around the details for days, using rhetorical tactics and resorting to whatever level of insults are necessary to change the subject”

    Why did you illicited MT’s input on SLR? What did he say that meant you didn’t use a single word?

  57. jakerman says:

    Fuller:

    “I am not interested in a middle ground, but since I’ve only said it three times in this thread, I guess you’re not required to understand it.”

    I understand you say that  now Tom. That is a different thing to beleiving what you say:

    “As with other issues, their established positions appear to leave about 40% of the population unconvinced. Someone will eventually try and fill that gap”“maybe Lukewarmers can do it. It’ll be glorious!”

    Tom Fuller: I will be titling this column ‘The Enemy of my Enemy…’ Do you feel that a middle ground exists between your position and that of, say, Real Climate or Climate Progress?
    MM: Yes, the middle ground of rational scientific discourse. Climate Depot is just that, rational. Climate Progress is hilarious to read. Romm is so clueless, he is entertaining.
     

  58. Tom Fuller says:

    So Jakerman, I’m still not sure you are capable of understanding. Because Marc Morano says Climate Depot is rational (actually I agree, depending on how you define rational–just frequently mistaken–but in a rational way, given the site’s purpose), because he says something in an interview with me, that means something about my beliefs? Because I use the word ‘middle’ in an interview that means I’m looking for that?
     
    And yes, I think at least 40% of the population is willing to leave you squabbling in your play pens and try to move ahead.

  59. Tom Fuller says:

    As for your comment at #56, I do not understand what you are saying/asking.

  60. jakerman says:

    “Because Marc Morano says Climate Depot is rational ”

    Nothing to do with what MM says. All to do with your attempt to position yourself. I am satisfied to expose you as not being in the middle, even if you claim this has never been your goal.

    1) Why did you illicite input from MT on SLR as he described in the link provided by Steve Bloom;
    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/09/ingrate.html

    2) After illiciting his input, why did you not use it? What did he say that lead you to discard his presumably informed view?

  61. Tom Fuller says:

    Illicit? Would that be illegalize? Oh–elicit.
     
    The answer is simple, but I’m sure you’ll find a way not to understand. Look at the post–if you can… He wrote a typically lugubrious post bewailing the fact that he had written a post specifically for me.
     
    Which I never asked him to do. It just appeared out of nowhere.
     
    I would not ask Tobis for his feeling about ice melt (either sea ice or ice sheet) because he believes that IT’S GOING TO KILL US ALL and I don’t agree.
     
    So you see, he wrote a post. He later said he wrote it for me. Because as usual he attacked me incorrectly, twisting what I write and imputing motives and designs that I do not have (something you should certainly understand), I responded to his post.
     
    But I elicited nothing from Tobis.

  62. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman at #60, one of us is exposing himself… don’t think it’s me…

  63. jakerman says:

    I see my mistake, you did not elicit the input from MT.

    There I was thinking you were seeking input from a range of view like a journalist. My mistake.

  64. Tom Fuller says:

    I do elicit input, licit and otherwise. But from people I trust. That doesn’t include Tobis. It doesn’t include you, either.

  65. jakerman says:

    The limited range of input in your WUWT post is obvious.

  66. Tom Fuller says:

    Golly, jakerman, could I turn you into a fan with a wider range of sources? Color me dubious on that one…

  67. Tom Fuller says:

    BTW, jakerman, I offered to interview Tobis and also to let him write a guest post. He declined.

  68. jakerman says:

    Call me dubios on the quality of your sources given your output.

    So what climate sensitivity do you judge has the strongest supporting evidence?

  69. Ed Forbes says:

    “.. the GOP, is willfully ignoring what’s happening on the ground at many government agencies..”

    Not a problem…A change in admin will see a change in the management of the agencies. Problem solved.

    And as the Dems look to be the ones that will be sweep out……

    I am REALLY looking forward to November.

  70. Tom Fuller says:

    What? Stop the presses! You actually want to talk about climate change? Are you eager for my opinion? Will you consider it an oracular pronouncement, Delphic in wisdom? Will you trumpet it from the rooftops, or finally retire to gnaw upon it with your friends at Deltoid, gnashing your teeth as you contemplate my perfidy?
     
    1.7-2.3

  71. Tom Fuller says:

    Ed Forbes, given that the Democrats have not really been able to put in a full team due to Republican obstinacy, are you being fair? And do you think that Republicans will actually bring competence to the bureaucracy they hate so much? What happened to starve the beast? What happened to ‘Heckuva job, Brownie?’

  72. jakerman says:

    Back to your game plan Tom?

  73. Tom Fuller says:

    Certainly not yours, jakerman.

  74. jakerman says:

    Yes, obviously not mine, I’m still waiting to read which sensitivity you judge has the proponderence of evidence supporting it.

  75. Tom Fuller says:

    Uhh, look at comment 70… or keep waiting, which would provide the rest of us with no end of entertainment.

  76. jakerman says:

    Yes comment 70 is another example of your game plan: ”
    dance around the details for days, using rhetorical tactics and resorting to whatever level of insults are necessary to change the subject”

    But how about answering the question?

  77. Tom Fuller says:

    Well, if you can’t read, just keep waiting. I’ll change my name to Godot and we can have a rollicking good time…

  78. Tom Fuller says:

    Seriously, jakerman, it’s in comment #70.
     
    1.7-2.3
     
    You can take it to the bank. Of course, banks aren’t what they used to be…

  79. jakerman says:

    I see,  you dropped it down there under all your pointless theatrics . (Without units its easy to miss.)

    So given you judge a senstivity of 1.7 to 2.3 degrees ( Celsius I assume) . What temperature rise you jude we are likely to reach by the end on the century based on BAU projections?

  80. Tom Fuller says:

    I don’t believe we will pursue a business as usual path, so I don’t have an answer for that.

  81. Tom Fuller says:

    What do you believe atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 to be?

  82. Ed Forbes says:

    Tom Fuller Says:
    October 14th, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    Tom, I am no longer interested in “fair”.
     I have never voted for a  repub before, and I first voted for George McGovern.
    I even supported Jimmy Carter over RR.
    But I am so pissed at the dems that I am voting a stright repub ticket this time around. Kick the bums out and try again. 

  83. jakerman says:

    “I don’t believe we will pursue a business as usual path, so I don’t have an answer for that.”

    Suppose your belief is wrong, what temperature do you calcluate would result if current BAU continues on its current trajectory?

  84. jakerman says:

    “What do you believe atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 to be?”
    Just under 3 degC. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

  85. Tom Fuller says:

    That’s a lot of hate in you for one degree C.

  86. jakerman says:

    “That’s a lot of hate in you for one degree C.”

    More projection and you seem unaware that your game plan has little effect when  people see throught it.

    So :
    What temperature do you calcluate would result if current BAU continues on its current trajectory?”

  87. Tom Fuller says:

    It’s certainly not projection. I have no game plan. And I haven’t calculated temperature rise for a BAU scenario, as I said above.
     
    There’s a lot of hate in you for one degree C.

  88. jakerman says:

    Repeading your projections don’t improve them, so lets get back the science,

    You’ve written 56 pages of articles on global warming at the Examiner, but you are unwilling to calcuate the temperature rise for a BAU scenario?

    Surely how can you be so sure that BAU will not continue? Why are you so offended that you won’t even do the calculation when asked?

    Let me help there is a chart here that might assit you: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

  89. jakerman says:

    Tom you’ve also piqued my interest, what CO2 ppm concentration do you judge will be our peak? And what evidence do you base this on?

  90. Tom Fuller says:

    ‘Night, jakerman. I feel no need to perform calculations for you.

  91. jakerman says:

    Looks like three questions for Mr Fuller to contemplate in his sleep:

    1. Given Tom’s strong opinions and so many artciles on AGW (56 pages of titles at the examiner alone) why does Tom refuse to do the rudamentatry caluclations to find what temperature rise would result from a BAU scenario using his accepted climate sensistivity?

    2. How can Fuller be so sure that a BAU emissions scenario is impossible?

    3. a) What CO2 ppm concentration does Tom judge will be our peak? b)And on what qaulity of evidence does Tom judge this upper limit with such certainty?

    Failure to adquately address these questions  might give some cause (not I, as Eli would say) to conclude Steve Bloom might be onto something with his assessment:

    “All humor aside, here’s the take-home point, Fuller:  You’ve never taken the time to understand the science well enough to even have a sense of where the gaps in your knowledge lie.  Bluster is no substitute.  Good luck with the business model.”

  92. Tom Fuller says:

    Here’s the point, jakerman. If you want me to throw out a number, like 42, I suppose I could. But if you want me to perform calculations, then you shouldn’t spend the whole evening insulting me.
     
    Not saying I can’t. I’m saying I won’t. Because you’re a jerk.
     
    Fade in on the Deltoid den, where wizened little trolls are gathering around a fire, rubbing scales off of wizened fish. Suddenly the jakerman crawls in, a sly grin on his face.
     
    “I did it again” he cries. The group whoops and hollers. “Who did you get this time?” “Fuller again. He won’t spit out the number for BAU temperature increases by 2100!”
     
    “We win again! Gollum, gollum…”
     
     

  93. Tom Fuller says:

    Oh, wait–I’m sorry! Gollum wasn’t a troll…

  94. Ian says:

    Hey Tom

    From one ‘progressive’ – although perhaps i am even more ‘progressive’ as I generally vote for the Australian Greens 😉 – I have often found that the wiser course of action, when discussing climate issues with those who are welded to their frame of reference is to make a statement, one reposte, then just walk away.  When I was an active campaigner propogating the CAGW message far and wide, I would most likely have attacked you not unlike others on this thread. From someone who enjoys your writing and resonates with much of what you express, I personally think that engaging in lengthy blog battles with those fundamentally opposed to you achieves little.
    Best wishes, ian 

  95. Stu says:

    Heh, another long time Aussie Greens voter here (right up until this year, where I simply chucked my vote). I also enjoy Tom’s various posts and articles- never been to his blog though so it looks as though his cunning plan of getting people to pay his grocery bills through his web activity isn’t working on me just yet…
     
    (the real reason is that I didn’t know that Tom has his own site, but thanks to the guys in here for pointing it out. You’re not working for Tom are you? It’s o.k. you can tell me, hehe).
     
     

  96. jakerman says:

    “Not saying I can’t. I’m saying I won’t. Because you’re a jerk.”


    When asked to attend to science tha challenges him, Tom Fuller’s reponse : resort to game plan:

    “”dance around the details for days, using rhetorical tactics and resorting to whatever level of insults are necessary to change the subject”

    So Tom when you decide your plan is transparent and looks foolish the questions are ready and waiting.

  97. Ian says:

    Hey Stu
    Don’t give up on the greens just yet (their climate alarmism and rather naive economic policies notwithstanding)!!! I confess that I rarely assist toward Tom’s grocery bills either, just catch the odd postings on other sites these days. 
    Cheers mate 🙂

  98. Stu says:

    Thanks Ian. 🙂
    The real reason I didn’t vote this year was because there was some confusion as to whether I was properly registered or not- I posted the relevant forms but nothing got back to me as confirmation, and in one of my rare moments of total disillusionment I simply didn’t follow it up.
    My thinking at the time was that I would still vote Greens, but put them as second preference to the Sex Party, which is basically another way of saying you’re chucking your vote I guess 😉  Hey, you don’t get much more honest than… Sex Party!   😉
    The Greens seemed to do pretty well without me this year 🙂

  99. Ian says:

    Stu
    Yeah the Sex Party, ya’ gotta luv ’em!! Hope they received enough votes to cover their costs.

  100. jakerman says:

    Ian, glad that your vote is sending a sound message, I’m sure we’d get along fine.

  101. Ian says:

    Cheers jakers…
    If your ever in Brisbane I’ll shout you a beer (or 2,3…) and we can chat one of our subtropical nights away on any topic bar climate…and maybe religion 🙂

  102. jakerman says:

    Sound great!

    🙂

  103. Steve Bloom says:

    For the record, here’s a comment where Fuller confuses sea ice and land ice:

    ‘And, “As opposed to the doom and gloom predictions of recent ice melt features in the western section of Antarctica, a recent study shows ice is thickening in Eastern Antarctica.
    ‘A study covering Eastern Antarctica shows continued growth in the ice mass of a region four times larger than the Western Antarctic area which is showing signs of ice reduction.
    ‘The head of the Australian glaciology program ,Antarctic Division, Dr. Ian Allison stated:

    ‘”Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,”
    Also mentioned was the difference in the size of the areas involved. ‘One section of Eastern Antarctica is the Ross Sea region, which by itself has more than made up for the loss of ice in Western Antarctica.”

    ‘Now, Rust Never Sleeps, we can throw cites back and forth all day. I am sure that there are papers out there saying that Antarctic ice extent, or mass, or volume, or snowflakes, is decreasing. And I can go out there and find other papers that say it is increasing.

    ‘But we would be fighting over weather, not climate science.’

    This was the second time he did so in that post.

  104. JohnB says:

    Cool, another Brisbanite.

    That’s two here now, our power and influence is growing. First Collide-a-Scape, tomorrow the world! 🙂

  105. Tom Fuller says:

    Ian, thanks for the tempering and temperate advice. I will attempt to follow it here.

  106. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman, it’s a brand new day. Please provide your definition of business as usual, with energy usage and emissions through 2100. Based on that I will answer your questions.
     
    Bloom, you’re still 0 for everything.

  107. Steve Bloom says:

    Everyone else can read, Fuller.  The bluster’s not helping you.

  108. Tom Fuller says:

    jakerman? You there?

  109. Barry Woods says:

    Tom – chill

    letting them wind you up, and you responding just makes them feel good, even as the CAGW delusion falls apart around them

    Realpolitic says, the chines are going to burn all their coal, whatever anyone else does or says..

    Connolley is topic banned at wiki… celebrate…

    especailly as he is as graceless as ever.  see his comments on the arbitrators…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.