When Arrogance Meets Arrogance
So what happens when two insufferably smug climate bloggers butt heads over at Climate Progress?
It’s a karmic exchange:
As usual, this misses the real point. The current and long term threat to Egyptian agriculture is sea level rise. Egypt is a combination of Chile and Bangladesh, a fertile river delta with a long thin coastal region along the Nile and nothing else. The delta is being inundated by sea level rise (and sinking as water is pumped out of wells).
If you don’t address that, you are spiting into the wind.
[JR: As usual? I’m letting this comment thru cause you’re a colleague. But until you’ve blogged on sea level rise half as much as I have, don’t suggest I’ve omitted something by not including SLR in every friggin’ post I write on a related subject. Heck, when you’ve done a quarter as many posts as I have on the urgent need to address climate change, then you point out here that failing to address the climate renders all solutions meaningless.
This is a repost of a colleague’s piece and is perfectly reasonable. SLR is a contributing factor, no doubt, and I’ve got a piece coming up on that.]
*******
I really can’t improve on Joe Romm’s inline response beyond the obvious translation: I’m letting this comment thru so I can belittle it in my usual obnoxious and patronizing manner.
Eli, have you wiped Joe’s footprint off your forehead yet? That’ll teach you to get mouthy with the master.
given your elevated, targeted reaction to a somewhat pointed exchange, one is left to wonder how many Romm footprints are (still) on you?
Are you kidding. This is sport to me. (Can’t you tell?) These two deserve each other, and it’s too bad you can’t appreciate the karmic quality of the exchange. I’m sure others will.
As long as I’m freelance, I’m not burdened by the same constraints and niceties as my colleagues when it comes Romm. If I go back on staff somewhere, I’m sure I’ll have to reign it in. Meanwhile, he provides me with great fodder, much to the consternation of his greatest fans.
tell you what Keith, use the google
Egypt climate change
If you don’t know how here is a hint
http://www.google.com/search?q=Egypt+climate+change&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
This is sport to me. (Can’t you tell?)
Yes, we can.
So another thing we have learned..
so usually he doesn’t let comments through that he doesn’t like…
I’ve always responded in the same tone at Climate Progress as at CaS….. but comments do not appear.
But I guess I’m not considered a ‘colleague’ (strange choice of a word) 😉
beginning of the end game… they start fighting amongst themselves ?
Then again, skeptics are always desperately predicting the imminence of the ‘end game’, whether it’s climate science or evolutionary biology.
How many times do you have to be wrong before you realize you’re wrong, Barry?
That ‘as usual’ is very revealing indeed. 🙂
II remember correctly, something like this happened at Realclimate with Eli Rabett and Eric Steig, with Steig all upset that Eli Rabett wouldn’t spell out who ‘Cox’ was, but sort of dismissed a Simon Lewis post in similar fashion.
In the end though, I would support Eli (vs Joe Romm, that is) in his attempt to prick the bubble of the one who has copyrighted ‘High Water’. … What? Eli is supposed to only utter obscure mumblings in rabbit’esque climate termi, and cannot express himself more directly? Unfortunately, Eli Rabett is off scaring himself looking at Wikipedia pictures of Shub Niggurath. 🙂
So Eli is Romm’s colleague? Where’s Mashey?
6
Nice try Steven, sneaking in sceptics of AGW deny evolution 😉
I’ve a BSc, MSC and absolutely no religios faith of any kind.
Keith is stirred the pot, not me, would the colleagues (interesting choice of word) have been behaving like this pre-Copenhagen.. Things don’t appear to have gone so well since then
Oh yes, Joe and Eli play pin the tail on the Kloor every weekend at our spacious hideout.
If any of you were really interested in communicating science, nearly as much as than the sport of verbal jousting, then I think that the following points need to be made about the Romm article (actually a repost by Jake Caldwell) regarding threats to agriculture in Egypt:
1. Eli is right, long term, sea level rise due to climate change threatens to inundate much of the coastal delta region.
However, currently and nearer term, like many of the world’s delta areas, this region is already subsiding due to the compaction of sediment, and the withdraw of groundwater. Eli also notes this.
Egypt’s delta has another problem, which is the current lack of replenishment of sediments that used to occur with annual flooding, thanks to the Aswan Dam. The dam also cuts off nutrients.
I do not believe that it is possible to have an intelligent discussion of making Egypt food secure without bringing up the points above.
Jousting is fun however, and this article, paragraph by paragraph provides plenty of ammunition, such as this one, which I believe confuses climate and weather:
“Our changing climate is feeding this uncertainty. Climate change is causing extreme weather events such as massive flooding in Australia, Pakistan, and Brazil; unprecedented heat waves and drought in Russia, Ukraine, and now China; heavy rains in Iowa and Illinois; and dry conditions in key U.S. wheat-growing regions such as Kansas and Colorado. These are all affecting food production and have injected a level of doubt into forecasts for upcoming harvests, current stockpiles, and the prospects for the spring planting season.”
Eli agrees with Gaythia (and actually tried to make at least a few of those points, but extreme weather is a killer also because of storm surge and once the salt water gets into the fields damage can last a long time. It is certainly not an either or problem, but and, and and.
That being said, as you say, you cannot ignore the special geographic issues of Egypt. The Rabett rather like the idea that Egypt is a combination of Bangladesh with Chile.
Jeez Keith…will ya stop with the whining and sniveling about Joe Romm..it’s old. It gets more difficult every time I slide by here to believe that you are actually a journalism instructor..I mean, small minded or what?
[Aw jeez, Steve, will ya stop with the whining and sniveling every time I poke fun at him, cause, it never gets old for me.//KK]
After deep reflection, I now realize warmists are correct: sea level rise will inundate coastal regions.
Why couldn’t I see it before.
Yeah, about every twelve hours.
Barry:
“Nice try Steven, sneaking in sceptics of AGW deny evolution I’ve a BSc, MSC and absolutely no religious faith of any kind.”
Couldn’t care less about your degrees or religiosity. I’m pointing out that a loopy, patently wish-fulfilling fantasy — that a body of mainstream science that annoys you ideologically is actually trembling on the edge of collapse — makes you and anti-evolutionists two species of the same reality-denying genus. The resemblance, on that point at least, is uncanny. I could just as well have included Velikovskians in your clade, but no one talks about them any more. **smiley face**
Actually Steven, they do. While generally discredited, his proposed changes to the ancient Egyptian timeline is gaining ground. The current timeline based on Manetho gets some occurrances some 200 years out of whack.
Velikovskis timeline gets events to line up again.
These two are regular Feynmans, Sagans, deGrasse Tysons, Hawkings.
Where’s teh thread about how are climate skeptics made?
Josh Halpern, Joe Romm, you are turning Breitbart and Morano into the face while you wrestle over which of you is the bigger heel.
We deserve better.
@Eli, I live in Colorado. I think that water resources are key factors in considerations of the total impact of global climate change here as well as in Egypt. These problems exist in many delta areas and many arid areas of the world and in my opinion, are not all that unique. Population increases, land use changes, and climate change do not segue together well here. One of the things that reservoirs do is to increase the amount of water subject to evaporation, both in the reservoir itself and in the areas put under irrigation as a result. This also has salt issues. One of the things that warming does is increase evaporation. In areas where rainfall does not also increase, this will be a problem. The Colorado river is already oversubscribed. It is my understanding that the Nile is approaching that condition. In many areas, there are going to be big disputes between upstream and downstream users.
I am not disputing the effects of extreme weather, I am trying to draw a distinction between saying that over the long haul, and in general, extreme weather events are a problem, and using it as a rationale for predicting short term and local things, like any particular extreme weather event. But it should be used in pointing out that such events could become more frequent. In my opinion, global climate change should not be used in prospects for this spring’s planting season. But could be used to say that farmland in some areas might not be such a great long term investment.
The public has a hard time sorting out weather, regional climate, and global climate. Pointing to short term things as examples of global warming only aggravates this. I understand that some global climate change advocates want to do this because they think it makes the issue seem up close and personal. In my opinion, it causes people to increase skepticism of global warming as soon as they experience a cold snap.
Steven Sullivan, so are you supporting the views of Eli over Joe, and risking a personal hit piece from Joe?
Or maybe you accept that Joe is right?
Jake Sully, nobody thinks science is on a precipice, gazing into an abyss which is busy gazing into them.
A small group of scientists with a political agenda tried to bend findings and distort data to further that agenda. They are in a slow-motion car wreck of being busted.
That’s all this is.
A small group of scientists with a political agenda tried to bend findings and distort data to further that agenda. They are in a slow-motion car wreck of being busted.
That’s all this is.
This would also depend on the progression, yes? Only someone who believes AGW is a scam could be so focussed on a few fraudulent scientists (fraud still not proven). Because if AGW continues unabated no one will be screaming for the heads of Mann and other Team members. Nobody besides the loonies.
But you believe AGW is real and potentially serious, Tom, right? So help me out. Which is it? If AGW is real, then Mann and the Team aren’t as wrong as you would hope. Besides the fact that it is completely irrelevant what they did and what their political agenda was, when AGW continues unabated. People will have other things on their mind than the neurotic nitpickings of Hockey Stick graphs by obsessive old men.
Admit it, Tom. You think AGW isn’t a problem at all. In fact, you wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out there never has been and there never will be any warming, especially not due to human activities. Come on, come clean, be honest.
“This would also depend on the progression of AGW, yes?”
AGW is real.
Mann and his team distorted the data and hid the decline that showed the uncertainty of the hockey stick.
I said it and my head did not explode.
Science is real, even when it is a work in progress. Scientists are human, subject to error, whimsical fancies, greed and a desire for fame and glory–just like the rest of us.
The Hockey Stick is important. People in Europe are paying billions in taxes and higher energy bills because politicians bought the hockey stick.
It was wrong. People in England are dying of cold due to heat poverty, as their energy bills skyrocket and their incomes do not.
The Hockey Stick was wrong. Flattening the shaft of the Hockey Stick led many to assume for policy making purposes that heating would be monotonic and unceasing, rather than a sawtoothed waveform with lots of ups and downs.
Anthropogenic global warming is real, but it is not the only factor affecting our climate. You will undoubtedly respond that scientists never said it was–but they haven’t in recent decades stepped up to say it wasn’t. And policy makers, spooked by a manufactured consensus that sought to criminalize, medicalize and ostracize all who opposed it, took the path of least resistance.
People are dying of the cold in England. Global warming is real.
I said it and my head still didn’t explode. Go figure.
The Hockey Stick is important. People in Europe are paying billions in taxes and higher energy bills because politicians bought the hockey stick.
It was wrong. People in England are dying of cold due to heat poverty, as their energy bills skyrocket and their incomes do not.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Energy bills are going up because of greed and scarcity. Care to explain how it is that oil price is nearing 100 dollar a barrel? AGW mitigation costs are still practically non-existent, especially compared to defense and health care budgets, or compared to profits made from fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, drugs, armaments.
And how is/was the Hockey Stick wrong? It’s warmer now globally than it has been any time in the last 2000 years. And AGW is real, remember?So it’s irrelevant if the first HS wasn’t perfect or if it was prominently displayed. This would only be a problem if AGW were a hoax or a non-existent crisis. Which you say it isn’t.
Tom, practically everything you write, bears the signature of denialism 2.0. The difference with denialism 1.0 is that you inject your memes with ‘I believe AGW is real’ to confuse people who have just come to the debate. It’s a tactic, a pose.
Here’s what I think: Tom Fuller is a denier who poses as someone who believes in AGW, trying to mislead as many people as he can, delaying mitigation policy as much as he can. Even though he’s lying and posing, he still means well and thinks he’s doing the right thing.
There, I said it and my head still didn’t explode. Go figure.
Uh-oh. Neven has found the truth. I am revealed. Unmasked for the miserable fraud that I am, I am. Woe is me! Hmm. Maybe I can blog about healthcare. Or potholes in the road.
Do you check under your bed every night?
You see, in Neven’s mind, I am a denier, akin to skinheads who preach that six million Jews did not really die in the Holocaust.
Why does Neven believe it?
Is it because I supported Cap and Trade (before it became a monstrosity)?
Is it because I currently support a carbon tax (starting at $12/ton and re-evaluated against both emissions and concentrations every ten years)?
Is it because I support transferring technology to developing nations at approximately $100 billion/year?
Is it because I abandoned driving a private car 20 years ago?
Is it because I publicly proposed acceptance of atmospheric sensitivity at 2.5C for the sake of moving forward towards a solution?
No, Neven cleverly sees through these ploys and fights his way through to the heart of the matter.
I am a denier because I disagree with him and his league of saints.
And that’s all it takes. And that’s why the Nevens of this world worry about communication issues on climate change. Oh, wait–that’s the other thread, innit?
Gaythia
We pretty much agree on a lot of things, but differ on others. For example, planting maps in the NH have been moving north for quite some time. A major driver is not that the winter is getting warmer on average but that the average minimum temperature (the extreme) is getting warmer a lot and that last freeze dates are moving to earlier in the year.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/confusion_on_climate_variabili.html
and
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/nature_climate_blog_off_to_roc.php#comment-423816
ignore the chaff and read the stuff in the comments about what changes planting maps.
You see, in Neven’s mind, I am a denier, akin to skinheads who preach that six million Jews did not really die in the Holocaust.
In Neven’s language such a denier is conveniently called a ‘revisionist’.
No, in Neven’s mind Tom is a denier, akin to someone who denies he’s a alcoholic, or who denies that tobacco kills, or who denies that his actions have consequences for others in general, or who denies that he or someone dear to him is terminally ill. In other words, he is in psychological denial, a very broad psychological phenomenon that encompasses many forms of denial, not just the one that denies the Holocaust took place. That’s a strawman so lovingly employed by real deniers.
But if Tom says outright that he denies the existence or potential seriousness of AGW, most people will not listen to him (except for the fringe that is already being served by WUWT and other crap generators). The evidence for AGW has become so overwhelming that it has become impossible to maintain credible denial since the last 2-3 years. Tactics had to change.
So Tom now has to say he believes in AGW until those darned observations start showing the great cooling that is bound to come and put egg on all those alarmist little faces. It hasn’t warmed since 1998! Despite all the ‘own goals’ and the utterly failing ‘communication’ by that homogeneous group of environazis, the data and observations are so strong that most rational people still believe AGW is a potentially serious problem. Which it isn’t of course, but Tom can’t say that.
So in the meantime it is of paramount importance to Tom to keep pounding and proclaiming the evilness of the Team, who form practically all of climate science (just the 5 of them), and screw the myriad of other lines of evidence! The Team! Hide the decline! Travesty! Piltdown Mann! The Team! It’s a scam, a fraud, a hoax! Himalayagate! Saharagate! Thisgate! Thatgate! The Team! Pachauri! GORE!
Scream loudly enough (by writing books with corny titles and butt-ugly covers) and the crowd will take it from there and think AGW is a hoax. This permits you to whisper AGW is real and go poison blogs in the center such as Keith’s blog here and the extremely friendly Bart Verheggen’s blog.
Great going, Tom. Ends justify means, eh? Keep saying AGW is real, continue your frenetic obsession with the Team and stay buddies with all the other deniers and posers. No contradiction there whatsoever. Keep trolling till it cools.
I’m not the one whining about how people won’t listen to my message. They do. They bought our book–and I like the cover, too.
Neven, you’ve already shown us all that Neven’s language is particular to Neven. Which is great for all your self-justification and whining about reality (hey–sometimes it bites), but a language with one speaker is not only doomed, it is not useful for, well, communicating. Try English-oppure proviamo in Italiano, se lei preferisce…
I realize I know only a little. But scientists should admit its faults to their fellows. Clear away the wreckage of the past. Give freely of what they find and join us on the road to happy destiny. (Let those with ears to hear understand…)
That’s right–this post had something about Egypt in it, so I guess mudflinging about denial is inevitable.
And Neven, when you conflate the concerns of a group of rogue scientists and corrupt administrators with the state of science overall, you sound like an apologist for a corrupt dictator.
Climategate was wrong. It didn’t change the science.
Pachauri misled the world on the state of Himalayan glacers while negotiating a contract to study the state of Himalayan glaciers.
It doesn’t change the science. But it should change the cast of characters.
I’m sorry, Tom, I thought you knew I was Dutch.
It doesn’t change the science. But it should change the cast of characters.
Yes, and as long as that doesn’t happen we will keep going on about the cast of characters. AGW can wait.
It’s a great tactic, Tom. Highly unethical and irresponsible, but very effective. And you don’t even have to be smart to employ it.
Neven, it is your side that is holding up the parade, mostly by pretending that nothing is wrong with your policy proposals, data or messaging. You refuse to negotiate, you insist that those who oppose you are denialist scum who are out to ruin the planet, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.
At some point the world will have enough of these Stepford Stooges that can only parrot a party line and throw mud at people who in fact believe much the same as they do on the important matters.
Better stop now or Keith will start wagging his finger at me.
Neven, there is a lesson here that I think it would greatly benefit you to learn. I’m not trying to be patronizing, I’m trying to be helpful.
A little bird was flying South for the winter. It was so cold, the bird froze and fell to the ground in a large field. While it was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on it. As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of dung, it began to realize how warm it was. The dung was actually thawing him out! He lay there all warm and happy and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate. Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung and promptly dug him out and ate him!
Global Warming Lessons:
1) Not everyone who drops dung on you is your enemy.
2) Not everyone who gets you out of dung is your friend.
3) And if you discover you like being in deep doo-doo, keep your mouth shut.
Neven, it is your side that is holding up the parade, mostly by pretending that nothing is wrong with your policy proposals, data or messaging.
Tom, that is not my side. If I have any side, it’s with my 6 year old daughter and the rest of her generation.
I don’t really care about how effective policy proposals and messaging are. If people are too stupid to see through PRopaganda and take rational action when confronted with compelling information (AGW being one of many indicators), then they deserve whatever happens to them.
But I do have a problem with posers and poisoners, such as you and Mosher and McIntyre.
You refuse to negotiate
Nature refuses to negotiate. Limitless growth isn’t something that can be negotiated.
You go ahead and negotiate/delay. I don’t want to be in your shoes when the consequences of your behaviour have progressed from the theoretical to the physical.
you insist that those who oppose you are denialist scum who are out to ruin the planet,
You are opposing yourself and yes, you are indirectly ruining the circumstances you and everyone else needs for a peaceful life.
If AGW continues unabated, all that whining about the Team and the ‘cast of characters’ will have some very dire consequences. I know that part of your tactic is to then switch to blame-the-victim (the Team made me write that book! They are to blame!) and I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear that this tactic too will probably work. But like you say, it won’t change the science. And it won’t change what is happening to climate patterns. I’m sorry. But, go ahead, keep trolling till the cooling comes (I don’t think it will).
Like your analogy by the way.
@ Eli #28 I am a gardener. I am quite aware of the changes in planting zones. I am in one of the areas that is generally warmer than it used to be.
The planting zones are based on minimum winter temperatures because this effects the likelihood that you can plant a given variety of tree or bush and have it survive.
Average date of last frost is the statistic that tells you when it is a good gamble that you can set your tomato plants out without having them killed off by a heavy freeze.
Average date of first frost is the statistic that tells you something about the probability of eating a lot of fried green tomatoes in the fall.
Since weather is not climate you can plant all sorts of good for your zone stuff, and still get hit with one ultra cold winter night and zap, it’s all croaked. This one location one time event would not materially affect global warming.
Although you could have more swings in weather, more variability, making use of the guiding statistics less useful, and attribute that to global warming.
What are we supposed to be disagreeing about?
I should qualify my last statement about weather swings and whether or not I would be able to link them with more regional and global swings. Not sure if that would be global climate either. Depends.
Do we disagree about using global climate change to predict “prospects for the spring planting season”?
I learned it thus:
Global Warming Lessons:
1) Not everyone who drops dung poops on you is your enemy.
2) Not everyone who gets you out of dung poop is your friend.
3) And if you discover you like being in deep doo-doo If you’re up to your nose in poop, keep your mouth shut.
Similar, yes, but the visual in 3 is better.
BTW, I was wondering when the recent uprisings in the US midwest would be connected to global warming. Surely, there’s something there.
Why did my cross-outs disappear?
sigh…
1) Not everyone who poops on you is your enemy.
2) Not everyone who gets you out of poop is your friend.
3) If you’re up to your nose in poop, keep your mouth shut.
There, that’s better.
It’s true that not everyone who poops on you, is your enemy.
Neven, yes, it is clear that you have a problem with me and Mosher.
Good luck to your daughter.
kdk33, that’s brilliant. Write the phony story. “Tensions over unusual climate and its contribution to rising food and energy prices may have contributed to a legislative revolt in Wisconsin…’
Peter Cox FWIW
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/excellence/keythemes/climate/news/title,3366,en.php
Which was always obvious.
As to planting (gotta get them things started), yes, that is one place where global warming is showing up as a creep of planting zones.
More to the point this is a 9.0 post on the silly scale. First, Romm has his opinions, Eli has his. No one goes Judy Curry if we disagree. Besides which Eli is right.