Person Who is Never Wrong Does Not Know Basic Logic or Science

"Who's never wrong about anything" is the way the London Telegraph describes James Delingpole, who recently wrote one of the most inane, and manipulative posts, ever to have graced the online pages of a major "news" source.

Here is Delingpole's assertion, as he shows why climate gate, is the "scientific scandal" of the modern era.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

So what is the evidence of these "private doubts?"

First, let's consider what is meant by "warming up;" nanmely, is climate change real. Now let's look at his "evidence" from one of the hacked emails:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Did the person who is "never wrong about anything" ever take a science class in high school or college? Did he pass it? Of is it just that his ideological bent has annilihated his ability to exercise basic scientific understanding or rudimentary logic when it comes to what is clearly an ideological issue to him (just read his popular post, linked to twice above.)

Sadly, that seems to be what is happening, in America (and apparently in our little puppy England) as we continue our march toward becoming more and more ill informed, as we become more and more ideologically driven.

Consider the paragraph that is cited as his "evidence." It claims a disappointment with the ability of a model to predict something, and has almost nothing to do with the underlying isssue of warming.

Some scientist is bummed because he can't accurately model exactly what is happening in the climate, and that's a relevant portion of what he requotes as the "scientific scandal of the modern era"?

This is what happens when the debate no longer revolves around what is going on, and what is the most sensible thing (if anything) to do about it, but between those who are essentially interested in understanding science when dealing with the physical world (which is what defines science), and those who are so driven by their "wants" "beliefs" "desires" and preconceived notions of the way that things should be, or that they want them to be, that their ability to spin (thus convincing themselves at the same time as others) increases commensurate with their precipitiously decreasing ability to objectively reason.

The rest of his examples are also similarly misplaced or well overblown.  And even if by "trick" and "hide" these scientists did not mean what most scientists normally mean (rounding out errors) and meant what non scientist mean by these things, so what. It's about as consequential to the underlying issue of climate change as........ [you fill in your own analogy; ours was too ribald to permit the printing thereof].

In other words, irrelevant. Because it's not their data that drives this. It's not their estimations that drive this.  Without any of it, the entire basic underlying science is the same. The physics never changes.  The known fact of net emissions increases in GHC and how much those are, never changes. The fact that heat trapping gases do drive climate, never changes.  And even the observable data, the only non essential part of this equation (although it has tended to corroborate early predictions decades ago) doesn't change; that is,data produced by some of the most reputable organizations on the planet, including NASA and the NOAA, and not some scientist at climate center East Anglia.
And the London Telegraph publishes his tripe, and perpetuates and promotes such idiocy.

Hopefully Delingpole lives in a big house near the sea, where he plans on staying a long, long time.

The American Spectator -- Why Would You Follow Something That Purposefully Misleads?

The American Spectator -- Why would you follow something that purposefully misleads?  Or, if not purposefully, illustrates no clue regarding the subject matter which it is nevertheless trying to inform you on, and, what do you know, by a bizarre coincidence, is also wildly misinforming you.

What is the reason for that bizarre coincidence?  Simple. The American Spectator has a particular view that -- right or wrong -- it very zealously, almost religiously, wants to believe, and promulgate. So it does it's darndest to then cherry pick, manipulate, and misrepresent information in order to promote that pre conceived notion.

Why would you trust such a magazine as a source of information?

Don't believe that this is what the America Spectator does? Let's take an example, on a very objective, factually based, non partisan, and in fact, wholly scientific matter, which nevertheless has been turned into a somewhat partisan, and very subjective matter by resources just like the American Spectator.

Here is their opening two paragraphs, with links, of a piece by Paul Chesser.  It is clear Chesser wants to believe something, so has done his darndest to convince himself that what he wants to believe, is accruate. He has that right. As do you to read his stuff. But if you want to be informed, rather than mislead into thinking that you are coming to your own conclusins,when in fact you are being somewhat manipulated, why would you want to?

Here we go:

It is like the Peanuts gang laughing in derision after yet another Charlie Brown gaffe. It is like the doubling-over at the double-stumble (video) during fashion week in Paris.


The cackles and guffaws now come routinely. Global warming alarmists, led by inconvenienced (because of cooling weather) Al Gore, are seeing their prophecies of doom dissolve. Now that big ice grows, big winter is bad (like last year), cold temperatures hit record levels, and global mean surface temperature has not continued upward -- despite continued increases in that demonized "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide -- the panic peddlers look like flailing jesters.

First, notice the three of three completely gratuitous links in paragraph one. Okay, that's fine. But what about paragraph two, where the mocking stops, and the "substance" begins?

The first link showed that it was really cold one day.  Trying even to insinuate relevance to this, would be like saying in late May that we must be going into winter in the northern hemisphere, because at 4:30 p.m. it was cooler out than at 4:23.  To call it idiotic doesn't even do it justice. But this is supposed to be entertaining? Is that what the American Spectator is, a "wholly" entertaining magazing that "informs"? How is it doing that here, and not misleading you by trying to imply that a day or two of temperatures have anything to do with the only data that really matters -- the decades long temperature trend.

The second link (go ahead, click on it, or go the original and try it there) is of course, "broken or expired."

Then comes the third link. Go ahead and click on it, also, and see how it was "really cold." It shows a record cold snap in a particula region,which is like saying now on a Wednesday in May that we are moving to winter because Tuesday hit a record low in your state (while perhaps hitting record highs in other areas, and on other continents). Only here this American Spectator artiucle actualy tries to tell its readers that this is in anyway relevant to the issue. What is this; blatant scientific idiocy on the part of the American Spectator, or an attempt to manipulate and deceive, you, its audience?

Which one?

Perhaps American Spectator does not understand the science. But then why write the article?? And why do so to try and undermine the consensus of an overwhelming majority of scientists (which, in itself, is fine), by the writing patent scientific absurdities and taking advantage of the fact that most of its audience probably does not consist of scientists either,  and is looking to the/American Spectator for guidance on the issue.And yet instead, is getting mislead.

Link four is not bad. But it is similarly irrelevant, since those who think that global climate change -- which means that our huge net emissions of heat trapping gases will have an influence on the climate -- somehow completely obviate natural patters, as well as cause climate to suddenly become linear and not still erratic (when really we should expect it to become more so) don't understand the issue. 

Not "well, they have a different take on the issue." But; "don't understand the issue." At the same time,we want all the data we can get, and all of it is relevant for assessing what degree of impact we may have.  So the source of this link -- Richard Lindzen of MIT -- why is he cherry picking a relatively short time span here? Is he just trying to refine modeling, or is he trying to suggest that climate change is not a real phenomenon because temperatures are following expected non linear patterns?

Well, it turns out Richard Lindzen is a self described global warming "denier." What do you know. This is a fine view to have, although it does not appear, from this link that Lindzen's methodology of scientific reasoning is very objectively sound.

But what is interesting to note is that very very few actual scientists reject the consensus that the large net addition of gases that trap heat into the atmosphere will invariably affect climate. Very very few scientists reject this consensus because there has realy been no scientifically plausible basis -- given what we know about climate, atmosphere, and heat (as well as the long term historical ice core data) to reject it.  Notice how American Spectator scours far and wide to bring you that source, however; a source which then in turn posits as his evidence something which is largely irrelevant to the broader issue -- namnely, that change will be non linear.

For those who think that climate change means that temperature change will be linear, guess what; it doesn't.  So the American Spectator mislead with every single substantive link and statement in that paragraph. And the one link and assertion that it did not mislead? It simply got it wrong.

Which brings us back to the original question. If you want to be fed cherry picked, and highly misleading information designed to make you think you are coming to your own conclusions, the American Spectator is your source. If you actually want to be given objective, reasoned information, look elsewhere.

More Instapundit to Althouse Ideological Parroting

InstaBS, Dec. 6, 2009:

December 6, 2009
CLARK HOYT DROPS THE BALL AGAIN, gets spanked by Ann Althouse.

Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 9:21 pm

This Ann Althouse? The one that apparently believes that it is commendable that -- and has to affirmatively share -- with her many readers (often sent over by Instapundit), that she "believes" in science. That actually has to note this belief?

The Anglia affair is newsworthy. And that's it.  What is incontrovertible is that heat trapping greenhouse gases have risen remarkably, and remarkably rapidly, of late; and that we know precisely what human activities have led to this.

And these levels are not just higher than they have been for the last 650,000-800,00 years, they are significantly higher, and climbing still.

What is also incontrovertible is that we are seeing the slowly increasing warming, and increasing weather volatility, that we would tend to expect. (But can't really be sure about, while we can be sure that there will be increasing climate changes.)

That fact that a few scientists were afraid that some conflicting and otherwise largely irrelevant data to the underlying issue would have a disproportionate impact upon what is an already misinformed debate (thanks to sites like Instanpundit, and Althouse, of course), and so, wrongly, tried to hide some data, is a story. But that's all it is. A story. Not some huges scandal that deserves constant attention, or that changes the basic science.

So what did Clark Hoyt do that Ann, "No, really, 'I'm a believer"' in science, but not necessarily a believer in the Easter Bunny" Althouse, in the words of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, "spanked" him on? Let's see:

Wow. Hoyt thinks that the NY Times handled the "Climategate" story appropriately.  Presumably Hoyt believed that non stop, round the clock, let's decide to throw science out the window "controversy" was not really required by this scandal -- as apparently those on the very far right, who tend to over dominate thr framing of our debate in America today, do.

Yes. That is dropping the ball. If one is wishing desperately for any smidgeon, any kernel, by which to be able to cling to the not very objective idea that the basic, known facts -- that heat drives climate; atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have skyrockected; they have skyrocketed due to very known and very specific, easily identifiable activities and practices; and we have seen a very slow but corroborating warming, and more volatile climate shift -- are somehow irrevelant (which is bad science), or untrue (which is not true).

[Update:  Time magazine, hardly a "liberal" source, has an article aptly entitled: "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?" It notes,correctly, that:

The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.]

Climate gate, a bit more rationally examined. In particular, see here. Or here.

Yet a clearly outraged Althouse over the fact that the NY Times is not going to start (mis)interpreting the science or grilling on topics that really don't warrant grilling ("are you sure it's not the hot air coming out of the Instanpundit and Althouse sites, and not the fact that heat drives climate and that atmospheric heat trapping gases have radically risen that is causing climate change, maybe?") writes the following:

Drastic, mindboggingly expensive policy changes are proposed based on this science, making this potentially the biggest fraud in history.

Come on Ann, drop your ideological hat for one second. We know that perhaps some law professors are not that logical, necessarily; but are you seriously this gullible?

Also, and quite seriously, what makes you such a theoretical economics expert (when most people can't even get one of the two right) that you know that the "cost" to address climate change is really going to be so great, or even remotely significant at all.

Maybe all that this "cost" will accomplish is to discourage more harmful processes and activities that we have been over drastically overrelying upon, and encourage less harmful process that we have been drastically under relying upon. Maybe all the "cost" itself, since GDP is a measure of all goods produced (and ultimately they are not re produced if they are not bought), simply goes toward our net growth. In other words, Ann, and Glenn, maybe the development and growth of much smarter, more sensible, cleaner, and renewable fuels and energy practices will actually help constitute our growth, rather than, as you presume, impede it.

And is this really an ideological issue? If not, then why so seemingly knee jerk against the idea -- in this case, fighting tooth and nail the basic, incontrovertible science that you, Ann, say you are a believer in. 

What if you are right? Big deal, it costs some money. But it is incontrovertible that greenhouse gases trap heat, and that very identifiable activities are contributing massive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that atmospheric levels are wildly out of whack with both historical norms, and --quite logically given its causes -- that this has occurred at geologically breakneck speed.

No one knows exactly what will occur. But it is almost impossible for this to not have some type of radical effect upon climate, over time.  Likely, that effect will be warming, and increased volatility (which the actual data that we do have backs up, rather strongly). But we don't know with absolute certainty, from a scientific perspective.  We do know that it is wildly reckless. And that it really has nothing to do with ideology, or partisanship, or economic perceptions and beliefs, or anything else. Nothing but basic science, which explains the world around us.

And the funniest thing, the concern, over this "cost," in the long run, is probably misplaced.  Expenditures are what grow our economy; they don't strangle us.  Are you fearful that a little money spent on protecting the ecology and biology of our world might delay the onset of the next great coffee maker by 3 months; or make electricity"cost" more for a little while? But then perhaps -- until we have the proper market incentives to promulgate more development, implementation, and usage of smarter fuels and processes -- we are vastly over utilizing these things right now: which would be wildly inefficient. And inefficieny is a cost. And, all those expenditures go to grow our economy, and are as valuable as anything else we choose to do.

And in this case, they are probably far more valuable -- as it will enable us to avoid what, from a non ideological, non partisan, cold, hard, scientific reality (which is the reality of our physical world, like it or not) is very likely to be increasing and rapid scale ecological and biological harm -- those expenditures will in the long run be going toward something for more productive and beneficial. That's not a cost.

And this perspective is a pretty far cry from "Drastic, mindboggingly expensive policy changes." Which perhaps is what is driving so many, illogically, and non dispassionately, to cling to the idea, scientifically ridiculous as it is -- that maybe this is all a "fraud," let alone the biggest fraud in history, that Althouse potentially calls it.

Which itself is what is really, "mindboggling." Except it's not.  It's driven by increasingly fervid (and unhealthy) ideology in this country.

Put aside that preconceived belief, or desired belief, for a moment. Go take some measurements of the air, monitor some sites, examine the history through 100,000s of years of ice cores, study the science of air chemistry. And see what you see. And then just consider.  Maybe switching over to fuels, for example, that are not extremely finite, that don't otherwise pollute heavily (as coal and oil do, extraordinarily in the case of coal), is in fact,a smart economic thing to do.

Mabye you'll see a whole new world. And maybe we can make some progress on this issue, that like it or not we are all in together.

And keep in mind that, if anything, this is an anti big government blog. But anti big government does not mean that we don't sensibly address collectively the few things that we are forced to share. And, besides national defense, what is number one on that list?

The quality of our natural environment.

The Earth Has Continued to Warm the Past 10 Years, Not Cool

The last ten years have not gotten cooler, but warmer.  Graphs here. 

The two hottest years on record; 2005, and 2007. Both in the last ten years.  And from a geologic perspective, it is remarkably accelerated, as would be expected -- with some lag and general mid range variance -- from dramatically increased greenhouse gas concentration levels.

From Bloomberg News:

In 2003, 62 percent of the ocean’s ice cover was older, thicker ice, with 38 percent in seasonal layers, the researchers found. Five years later, 68 percent of the ice cap was made up of seasonal ice.

That is, in five years, the amount of non seasonal, constant ice was reduced by about half.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):, the world’s ocean surface temperature just this past summer was "the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August."

More importantly, "breaking heat records in water is more ominous as a sign of global warming than breaking temperature marks on land.”

Additionally, over the past ten years, "daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States":

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

"Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then."

Not only has the last decade been the warmest decade on record, but the "ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the last eleven years."
And so on, ad infinitum.

But all this really does not matter that much. What does matter is the basic science, unpolluted by desire, ideological bent, politics, or fear of misplaced economic implications due to the glaring need for smarter energy development and agricultural practices.  

Heat trapping gases make life as we know it on earth possible; without it the earth would be a largely lifeless ball of ice slowly circling the sun.  Heat drives climate.  Atmospheric concentrations of heat trapping gases (aka "greenhouse gases") are rising dramatically, and from a geologic perspective, at lightning speed, due to specific and easily identifiable anthropomorphic activities.