By Tom Fuller
I’d like to express my thanks to Jeff for letting me guest blog here. I’m sure he needs the break, but I need a neutral forum even more than he needs his rest. I don’t want people to think I’m doing this to attract traffic to my own webspace, so this is a big opportunity for me.
What I’m trying to do is describe an ecosystem by pairing up bloggers with similar profiles to see what we learn. As some of you may have already noticed, both consensus climate blogger and non-consensus bloggers are now locked in a symbiotic relationship. Much as we fume at each other, we actually need the other side even more than we need the support from people of our own persuasion. But I’m getting ahead of myself there.
Yesterday we compared The Air Vent to Deltoid. Today we’re after bigger fish–let’s look at Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and Joe Romm’s Climate Progress.
In many ways this is the easiest pair to analyse. First, they are two of the most popular weblogs devoted to climate issues. The website Alexa ranks Climate Progress at 37,736 and Climate Depot at 73,002. (Those are very respectable ranking in a field of over 1 billion.)
More importantly, they are the two climate blogs that are openly political, Romm’s Climate Progress being sponsored and funded by the Center for American Progress and Morano of Climate Depot having served as an aide to Senator James Inhofe, a confirmed skeptical Republican.
Joe Romm’s pedigree is particularly impressive. He holds a PhD in physics from MIT and served in the Clinton administration.
Marc Morano is a veteran journalist and participated in the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, which I consider unconscionable.
Okay, again I must declare personal bias (this will hold true throughout this series, I’m afraid.) Joe Romm and I have had a series of spats, with him declaring me ‘hubristic’ for daring to report on climate issues, and I’ve gone after him a number of times myself. I even had to apologise to him once–I wrote that he had predicted dramatic sea level rises, and he never has. (He lets others do it and prints their silliness.) Interestingly, Romm and I have a bet with each other regarding climate change during the current decade–If it’s low enough, I win a grand. If it goes up like the past few decades, he does. On the other hand, Morano has frequently linked to my articles, and has been cordial in our communications. After what he did to John Kerry, I almost wanted him to be meaner, but he hasn’t been. We obviously disagree on climate change (I’m a lukewarmer, he’s a skeptic), but as we seem to be on the same Enemies List held by the consensus defenders, we unintentionally end up in the same camp on a number of occasions.
So bearing my prejudices in mind, let’s take a look at the two sites.
Marc Morano’s Climate Depot is an aggregator. He links to stories found on other websites, writes headlines guaranteed to put the skeptical cause in the best, and the consensus cause in the worst light possible. He writes very little copy of his own. This was probably the best decision Morano made about Climate Depot. As a journalist (rather than a scientist), he would have very little credibility on the scientific issues. As a former communications director for Senator Inhofe, Morano would be seen as little more than a mouthpiece for Republicans on policy issues. Keeping silent and directing people to friendly stories was a really intelligent move.
Joe Romm’s Climate Progress is structured like an ordinary blog, with the layout not much different than The Air Vent’s. However, Romm is extremely prolific, posting six or seven times a day. He makes liberal use of guest bloggers, and quite a few of his posts are basically referrals with copied material leading up to a link. However, Romm writes a lot–maybe too much. Romm has said that he uses speech to text software and essentially dictates many of his posts–and it shows. He can write 4,000 word posts on topics that quite frankly don’t deserve that much space, and the quality of his writing suffers in the process. But the end result is that he covers almost as much ground as Morano does on Climate Depot.
Because both are nakedly political, they can and are real cheerleaders for their cause, and tough on opponents. Romm’s real advantage is that he also passionately covers green technology, where his scientific background confers a real advantage over almost all bloggers. I’ve been trying to cover green technology over at my space, and I have to say Romm is doing a better job. So far…
It is instructive to recall that Morano and Romm had a televised debate that lasted about ten minutes last year. Morano (in my opinion) won the debate, because he was able to frame the discussion on his terms. Had it been purely about science, Romm would have slaughtered him, but (and this is where my personal prejudice kicks in) Romm seemed to feel that his scientific background would translate into superiority in talking about politics and policies, and his arrogance cost him. I say it’s instructive because that dynamic actually carries over into both their weblogs. Romm seems arrogant–if you don’t call him Dr. Romm, he’ll let you know that he is. Morano seems focussed–he seems very much to have a game plan and to know what he needs to do for his team to win.
Neither weblog depends very much on commenters, and neither has a blogroll. (Kind of violating every principle of Web 2.0 strategy, and succeeding hugely anyhow. Life’s not fair.)
Recent posts on Joe Romm’s Climate Progress:
1. Chamber of Commerce Shuffles Its Board In Wake of Departures (repost of article covering changes in membership of Chamber of Commerce due to differing opinions on climate change.)
2. Energy and Climate Change News for April 19th; Obama Wants Senate to Tackle Climate Bill; East Asia and China can halt CO2 emissions growth; Global warming reduces grain output in India
3. Buy my new book, “Straight Up” (Because his previous book didn’t outsell Steve Mosher’s and mine. /sarc)
4. The most unintentionally ironic ad of 2010: Coal front group compares mining coal to fighting in a war zone
5. TV weathercasters know which way the wind blows (reporting poll showing more than half of weathercasters believe in climate change)
6. Denis Hayes explains why you should come to the “largest climate rally ever” on the DC Mall April 25 (Promoting Earth Day, where he will be attending.)
7. What are your favorite climate and energy metaphors and jokes?
8. Growth year for solar energy creates 17,000 new jobs despite harsh recession
9. Carpe Diem on Earth Day: Using executive authority to boost investments, create jobs, and save oil
10: The first book review of “Straight Up”
Recent posts on Marc Morano’s Climate Depot:
1. Next Eco-Scare already?! Greens now claim there is ‘serious shortage’ of air pollution! ‘Cleaner air could speed global warming…The world is running short on air pollution!’
2. Scientist: Missing Heat Hides From Climate Scientists: ‘Climate science cannot claim to understand what is going to happen to Earth’s climate’
3. EPA Contest Seeks Videos Promoting Government Regulations
4. Iranian Cleric: Promiscuous Women Cause Earthquakes
5. Sen. Inhofe Sees Only 26 Votes For Climate Bill
6. Italian Senate Calls For Re-Assessment of Climate Policy
7. UN IPCC Reliance on Grey Literature 30 Times Greater Than UK Threshold
8. Environmentalists Condemn Gore For Taking Cash For Water Campaign From Chemical Firm
9. Wacky Media: NPR and CNN Worry That Global Warming May Have Caused Iceland’s Volcano
Analysis
I use both sites routinely to stay abreast of the news agenda on climate issues. As long as readers are aware of the biases of both bloggers, I would recommend them to others.
As you can see from the headlines listed here, Climate Depot can seem like a tabloid paper (like I’m one to talk–my commentary is surrounded by headlines about aliens, death rays and similar absurdities). My biggest substantive criticism of Morano’s editorial choices is that he will sometimes link to stories that are so obviously wrong that he should know better. But… as long as it advances the cause.
If Romm stuck to science and green technology, both he and his audience would be better served. However, he wants to be a policy mover and shaker, and he clearly doesn’t have the chops for it. He will not negotiate with anyone who differs from him in the slightest. He routinely slams Roger Pielke Jr., for example, when Pielke is such a natural ally that any person wanting to win the policy fights involved in climate change would be falling all over himself to find a way to make common cause with him. (Pielke very much believes that climate change is real, has a strong anthropogenic component, and needs to be addressed. However, they disagree on policy to prevent, adapt and mitigate. So, in Romm’s mind, Pielke must burn.)
Romm also thinks he’s moving the media agenda. In an affectation that is unintentionally humorous, he often issues instructions to journalists on his posts, and he will post on how people should communicate about science–and these posts are really lame.
Again, remember that I have fought long and hard with Romm on several occasions–go see his site and make up your own mind. As for the rest, for Americans, Democrats and Republicans can either find opinions to their liking or spy on the opposition at these two sites. More importantly, if they were time starved and could only look at two sites on a daily basis, then (like yesterday’s comparison of Deltoid and The Air Vent), they would get a good overall view of how climate change is affecting policy–and vice versa.
the Air Vent 
I hadn’t heard of Marc Morano until recently. Green activist “The Benshi” had an interesting two-part interview of him; on the site’s Table of Contents, see #17 and #18. Also #21, for analysis.
“if you don’t call him Dr. Romm, he’ll let you know that he is.”
I refuse to pay much attention to people like this.
I think you forgot to mention that Morano is a little less one-sided than Romm. He DOES list publications that are pro-AGW, usually without any negative comments. I don’t think Romm ever gives the horrible, seditionist, denialists a break.
who are these two?
Tom I have had an interesting set of experiences relative to discussing our book with people in person.
1. WITHOUT EXCEPTION every dedicated warmist I have talked to FACE TO FACE, can see the problem with
climategate. without exception. No one will defend the scientists actions: FACE TO FACE.
2. WITHOUT EXCEPTION every warmist in the blogosphere REFUSES to budge one inch. Even with simple
admissions of INCONSEQUENTIAL wrong doing.
I’d attribute it to a speech versus writing opposition, but using the written word to valorize the spoken word, strikes me as ironically self defeating. derrida would approve.
Maybe its just my personal charm. ya.
“Maybe its just my personal charm. ya.”
Maybe its because the warmers cannot keep a straight face when speaking with you? Nobody can see the doubts when they are blogging.
I actually think that what we’re seeing is role-play on both sides as we position ourselves as communicators in what is still a relatively new medium. Would you honestly ever expect partisans such as Lambert or Morano to have a ‘Eureka’ moment and diverge from a pattern of exposition (I almost said communications, but I don’t really think that much is getting communicated) that has got them where they are today? I don’t.
What I expect to find from this little thought experiment is that we are all rapidly getting frozen into position by our past statements, reactions to commenters, and relationships to other bloggers. I hesitated before criticizing Marc Morano because he has linked to my articles in the past. That hesitation scares me.
We’re spending a lot of time noticing the Kabuki dance by politicians, climate scientists and the mainstream media. But it’s happening to us, too.
When was the last time you were surprised by something you read on a blog? I’m not referring to results from a paper or hard news. When was the last time a comment, opinion or belief from a blogger actually seemed new?
Well, maybe most folks are “frozen” into a position on blogs, but the general public is sure changing on this issue and some very important other issues–as the polls show. Maybe it’s part of the same thing Mosher is seeing.
Hi JAE,
That’s why I’m bringing it up. If the public is paying attention and we’re stuck repeating ourselves, we’re not really helping, are we?
Re: frozen positions.
Up to ~1 year ago, I took the “Scientific American” position–AGW was conclusively demonstrated fact, period. Learning about the brittleness of paleoclimatology and seeing the bad behavior of Consensus bloggers surprised me.
I came to strongly doubt the entire edifice of AGW. If the science is this faulty in one subdiscipline, it may well be flawed throughout.
Following Zeke Hausfather and some other bloggers at Lucia’s Blackboard as they explored the instrumental record, caused me to change my mind again. Their behavior’s been good, and the thrust of their findings haven’t been rebutted by the skeptics.
Now, I think we know very little in a quantitative sense about the past ~2,000 years of climate history, before 1850 or so. Most of what passes for consensus knowledge on the subject (e.g. the Hockey Stick) is likely wrong, I think.
But I think the data that the Earth has been warming for the past ~150 years is solid, and quantitative, and accompanied by plausible uncertainty ranges.
The point isn’t that I’m particularly right, or wrong, in these opinions. Rather, that they aren’t “frozen” but malleable. I suspect a lot of people who are relatively new to the AGW debate are like me, in that regard.
AMac, I think your position is sensible, perhaps because it’s close to my own. I too sense a certain malleability in public opinion (at least in the blogosphere) and just wish it existed within the bloggers as well.
I could never get past a paragraph or two climate progress. I also find climate depot features Marc Morano’s ego more prominently than anything else. So if you are interested in the science of climate change as opposed to the horse race, I’d stay away from both sites. One of my favorites sites for climate science is Roger Pielke Sr.’s. The last couple of days has featured a debate (in emails posted on the site (with permission)) between Roger and Kevin Trenbreth on ocean heat content with Josh Willis sort of keeping score on the amount of heat in the oceans over the last 5 years. Its one of the meatiest discussions I’ve seen in a long time. I’d love to see a satellite guy or two join in that discussion to talk about the radiative balances at the top of the atmosphere. Now that would be exciting. Personnally, I’d like to see fewer climate progress/depot silos and more sites like Roger’s where the debate is more direct and to the point between parties.
Sean, I concur.
“If the public is paying attention and we’re stuck repeating ourselves, we’re not really helping, are we?”
It is because the public is paying attention that we’re stuck repeating ourselves.
Warmists have to repeat themselves because, in their attempt to fast-track public policy, they’ve based their position on an argument from authority. “We know all the facts. The science is settled. We can confidently predict the climate 50 years from now. Noone else knows what they’re talking about”. To maintain that authority, and prevent the backlash from a loss of trust, they have to continue to pretend they know all the facts. Uncertainty is therefore an enemy that must be denied whenever it appears.
The “other side” has taken the pragmatic approach of exploring the uncertainties. This is where the skeletons have been hidden. They’re left repeating themselves because the warmists are.
Tom,
Much better than the last one.
We see the same thing though, left tends to be meaner more authoritarian.
Just saying.
Tim
#8 AMac
I’m almost a carbon copy of you in terms of my awareness before Climategate and immediately after Climategate I watched the story exclusively from a political perspective, still not realizing what had been going on. I was interested enough to buy and read “Climategate The CRUTape Letters” and that book changed me. I have become obsessed with this stuff…reading more books, hanging out on these blogs, learning more. Now I am downloading temperature data, bought a logger and am doing my own UHI experiments, and working at getting up to speed. I am still just astounded at the lack of decent coverage in MSM. I believe media history is in the making and these climate science blogs will be remembered as a turning point in how technical information is reviewed and disseminated.
being compared to Morano obviously is an insult to Romm.
Climate Depot posts random distorted headlines. Morano has zero qualification for climate “blogging”. a significant amount of the the article he links to are obviously false or borderline insane.
Romm is writing real posts. he is qualified to blog on the subject. his articles contain many links and long quotes, but also significant analysis by Romm.
ps: as always, i find your analysis lacking in depth, Tom. for example you failed to mention, that Moranno is blogging for CFACT.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
exactly the type of lobby connection that you typically deny to be significant for the “sceptic” side…
funny. current headline on the Morano site at the moment is this one:
Climatologist: Reducing emissions to ‘cure’ global warming ‘will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses’
together with some shocking picture of leeches on a patients face.
the link is to an article based on stuff from Roy Spencer.
http://algorelied.com/?p=4018
and Roy Spencer obviously really wrote that nonsense, right at the time when the medicinal leech is taking a massive comeback.
(google scholar gives 3800 hits on the term since 2009…)
Hey, SOD: This is also posted at Morano’s site:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19159977.htm
Let’s see something Mr. Romm has posted that is contrary to his religion.
Dear all,
The reactions to the blog posting of Tom cannot make his point more clear: as can be read here, AGW supporters are fanatical, and would do an excellent job in the teams that once formed the Holy Inquisition. They seem to be attracted to “denialist” opinions like locusts after a field of fresh salad plants. Nothing can deter them, nothing can deviate them from their holy mission: proclaim the cause of “Physics” until death.
Well, life will continue on this planet, with CO2 at 2000 ppm or at 200ppm.
Accept that you AGW supporters are not the “Keepers of the Universe”.
So be gentle and nice to your fellow humans as long as they last. Get a life, enjoy!
Cheers!
“Well, life will continue on this planet, with CO2 at 2000 ppm or at 200ppm.”
Well, yes at 2,000 ppm, but IIRC, plants can’t make it at 200 ppm, so most life would disappear.
JAE,
Plants can, they did so. They will do better at higher CO2, but primitive plants (ferns, mosses, etc) can do at low CO2.
JAE,
And you forget about anaerobic life, living on sulfates from deep ocean vents. And lots more of (dis)similar archaic life forms.
21: You missed the word “most.” You may be correct about 200 ppm; I don’t remember, but the lower limit for plant life is down there somewhere. So maybe you “win.” LOL 🙂
This thread and the earlier post on 2nd tier sites has been really useful to me. I agree with Sean (#10) in finding “Climate Progress” and “Climate Depot” to be a waste of time. Fanaticism does not appeal to me.
On the other hand hearing about “Science of Doom” and “Roger Pielke Jr” has already changed my blogging habits. Although Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” is extreme on AGW it is excellent on energy policy.
Thanks Tom for the time and effort. It’s very appreciated. Life is far too busy and I needed some help.
Tom–
I’ve enjoyed reading your and Steve’s book and your other posts. It’s reassuring to see that there is at least a smidge of agreement across party lines that something has gone terribly wrong in the field of climate science. I agree with you about the Pielkes — they make a lot of sense and need to be heard by a broader audience.
We differ on one point regarding Morano, namely his involvement with the Swiftboat Veterans. The Swiftboat Vet campaign against John Kerry’s presidential aspirations wasn’t unconscionable, Kerry’s unsubstantiated accusations (before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee in 1972) against American soldiers serving in Viet Nam was. That being said, this blog site is not the appropriate place to argue our differing points of view.
we are in the lucky situation, that both blogs have tackled the same subject just hours ag.
here is the Morano link. he didn t add anything and even swallowed the idiotic headline claim about leeches.
http://algorelied.com/?p=4018
and here the Romm take of the subject:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/20/the-great-global-warming-blunder-roy-spencer-marc-morano-cure-global-warming-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-leeches/
ps: any real analysis of the topic, would ask the question why Morano is the most popular “sceptic” webblog. i think this tells us a lot about “sceptics”…
As far as I am concerned, WUWT has become just as unreadable as RC.
Sod,
I dont know where you get the idea that climatedepot is the most popular sceptic site:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climatedepot.com+wattsupwiththat.com+climateprogress.com+climateaudit.org#
Both CA and WUWT have higher traffic rankings.
It is very curious and difficult to explain why some political views are associated socially with some views of purely scientific questions with which they have little to do. One can understand religion and views on evolution coinciding, since some religions have an explicit view of history which is incompatible with the theory of evolution. But AGW and liberalism, or anti-AGW and conservatism, it seems as unrelated as lets say, Protestantism and the Industrial Revolution. And then we get to positions on AGW and health insurance. Now what is the association there?
It is a bit like Dreyfus and Monarchism.
The thing that is hardest to understand in this is the real tin hat conspiracy theories – this is all a plot to impose world government. So lets see, you are strategy manager, you’re presenting to the Bilderburg group, and you begin like this: The first thing we do is make up a fairly easily refuted scientific theory, and convince everyone of it. This theory will be inconsistent with observations, fine we will fix them. Then it will be inconsistent with what we know of history, fine we’ll fix that. Then, it will turn out unable to predict anything. We will… deny that. Then we will argue, that to solve the problems this false theory predicts occurring, we have to implement world government. You’ll see, they’ll all buy it.
At this point someone in the audience raises a hand. Is there not, he or she says, maybe, some easier and more direct way to go about realizing our goal of world government? Because there could hardly be a harder and more convoluted one.
I find both Morano and Romm too US centric and political for my personal taste.
If anyone wants climate news I can recommend Tom Nelson’s blog. He is a sceptic but covers both sides without the political stuff. Also easier on the eyes than Morano’s.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Michel,
A simple analogy explains the difference: let’s say you have two people. one loves broccoli and the other hates it. If a few scientific studies concluded that broccoli was health risk and should be banned you would find that the broccoli hater would immediately accept their validity and call for the ban. Conversely, The broccoli lover would be very sceptical and insist the science is not settled and would look for alternate opinions.
That is what has happened with the AGW debate. On one side you have leftists who love big government and hate the free market. They love anti-CO2 policies because they expand the power of governments and severely limit the free market. The policies also provide plenty of excuses to justify wealth redistribution in the name of environmental ‘equity’. On the other side you have right wing types who hate big government and believe in a free market. They hate anti-CO2 policies for the same reasons that leftists love them.
In the end no really cares about the science. The science is a propoganda tool to be manipulated in order to impose one’s political views on others.
Tom, I’m really enjoying your articles here (altho I read your column too).
I have a job that allows alot of time to surf, so I make the rounds of tAV, CA, WUWT, Bishop Hill, Lucia, JoNova, Piehlkes – who’m I forgetting? Oh, peacelegacy.org (Ron House, I discovered as a commenter at WUWT), a very good article on wind turbines and birds, so I’ve kept up. Altho he doesn’t post that often, they have been very good articles so far.
Others I find in the aggregators – I think of Climate Depot purely as that and, being a skeptic with a sense of humor, I’m not at all upset by the sensationalist/partisan headlines, and, as mentioned above, many times the actual articles are from the warmist point of view. Despite that, that is actually not the first one I visit, the layout makes it hard to see what’s newest (unless you click on one of the articles that shows the recent ones on the right, but I’ve never figured out which articles do that).
I consider algorelied to be an aggregator – although there is an occasional blog post – because the blogroll is always updated, with the most recent on top, including a headline of its newest article – I depend on it for sites that don’t post that often as a reminder; for instance, I’ve been reading the MasterResource wind energy articles linked there. Tom Nelson is also an aggregator for me and he also often makes humorous headlines for the articles he links to. The Daily Bayonet Round-Up also serves as an aggregator, the links being contained in various levels of, to me, very enjoyable snark.
I do visit realclimate, climateprogress occasionally, more now to be able to say I look at both sides as I’ve received the same impression as many of you here. I’m tempted to go look at Romm’s again, as you’ve made it seem that I could get a kick out of the “lameness” of some of his articles (do you have some specific examples?). I also have visited the Policy Lass a couple of times!
I find it very interesting when commenters give their backgrounds on the issue, how they came to be interested, what sites they read, what kind of posts interest them most, as AMac and someone else above, as well as their biases. While political views are secondary and can be discussed elsewhere, unless Jeff or a guest poster initiates the subject, there’s no reason people should have to censor their basic philosophy.
Jeff, maybe you’d like to make an Open Thread while you’re taking time for the new baby and just ask commenters to introduce themselves along those lines (not having to give up anonymity, of course)- I’d sure be interested. I’m the only “junkie” I know, so I’m fascinated to know who and why others are.
I find that the Tom Nelson blogspot is the better skeptic aggregator than Climate Depot.
Joe Romm claims to be a Ph. D. Physics yet he ignores basic laws of physics and thermodynamics. The work of R.W.Wood proved that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This was in 1909. below are other references that Joe Romm should go back to school and learn some real physics. The paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner which Romm has repeatedly ignored or has lied about has been peer reviewed by real physicists and published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. This organization will not lower its standard to be “politically Incorrect”
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
The following text is from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SSPI
many others are available.
Sorry to rain on this parade, but I get little value from someone’s opinions about blog owner’s. I really enjoy the details and thought processes involved in the analyses of climate science papers.
I can figure out what motivates a blog owner in rapid fashion. The example of RC is easily appraised as a mini-IPCC that will show evidence for AGW mitigation or make the case for it and ignore or play down counter evidence. They are scientists acting as policy advocates, but they can provide sufficient scientific content on occasion to be useful in informing some scientific curiosities. I shamelessly look for analyses tools from anywhere that can be applied to climate papers.
I also enjoy very much the counter arguments and criticisms that AGW advocates/scientists make against sometimes flawed papers that contain counter evidence against the advocates arguments. What has invariably happened in these situations is, that to make the counter argument, the advocates have to reveal the uncertainty in their own conclusions and often reveal a lack of robustness in their own analyses through application of sensitivity testing – think Santer versus Douglass. Now if anyone wants to discuss those issues, I would be most pleased.
Kenneth, I can certainly understand your opinion, although I’m pleased that others apparently feel differently. For a lot of veterans, I’m sure this is redundant material.
Kendra and others, I agree completely with praise of Tom Nelson’s aggregator site. It’s really good. More generally, I think having effective aggregators has really helped the non-consensus position immensely, helping to counterbalance the very large communications budgets held by the consensus holders.
Can’t stand Romm. I mean, my news feed includes his headlines and my stomach turns every time I see them. He is an evil, hating person. If he has anything worthwhile to say about green technology, I will have to pass on it because I just can’t stand Romm.
Climate Depot leaves me cold. I don’t like the page layout, I don’t like the… wait, has he changed page layouts recently? It looks different than what I was thinking of. *sigh* I already waste too much of my day on this stuff, now I got a new site to survey.
Kenneth, I see what you mean but I have benefitted a great deal from being turned onto various sites, links, etc., through recommendations. I’m interested in a variety of aspects and can easily also filter out, once aware of, those that do not satisfy my interests.
Lately, there have been some references to a new psych study of the denier mindset – then someone else linked to a previous one, I just now have started to read the PDF. I can hardly wait to show my psychologist friend that instead of being fascinated about my research, he should be making an intervention! Ha, so many who “should be” are hopelessly out of the loop.
Oh, one of the sites I forgot is Lubos – but i may be biased there to some extent, one of my very best friends over here (Switzerland) had to flee from the notorious Prague Spring in 68 – he once studied geology, but we don’t live in the same town so when we meet with wives, husbands, children, we don’t get around to AGW!
This web-site is miss named there is scientific proof that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist therefore CO2 cannot cause heating of the atmosphere. The abstract from the peer reviewed paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner is shown below. For all of the AGW that have not had any physics – let me refer you to the web-site Ponder the Maunder developed by a 17 year old scientist that that has it right.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Gerhard Gerlich
Institute fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrate to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm sci-
entifc foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-
house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the
assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Sod,
I dont know where you get the idea that climatedepot is the most popular sceptic site:
sorry, my fault. so one of the most popular. still something to think about…
—————
A simple analogy explains the difference: let’s say you have two people. one loves broccoli and the other hates it. If a few scientific studies concluded that broccoli was health risk and should be banned you would find that the broccoli hater would immediately accept their validity and call for the ban. Conversely, The broccoli lover would be very sceptical and insist the science is not settled and would look for alternate opinions.
That is what has happened with the AGW debate. On one side you have leftists who love big government and hate the free market. They love anti-CO2 policies because they expand the power of governments and severely limit the free market. The policies also provide plenty of excuses to justify wealth redistribution in the name of environmental ‘equity’. On the other side you have right wing types who hate big government and believe in a free market. They hate anti-CO2 policies for the same reasons that leftists love them.
sorry, but i disagree.
you use the “it is all the same” tactic. but it is not.
person A is reading scientific papers about brocoli. person 2 is basing his knowledge on the horoscope, which told him to not eat anything green. it is different.
the most obvious example is this discussion about the Morano blog. there simply cannot be any discussion. climate depot is complete rubbish. the blog is absolutely worthless, the stuff posted mostly false.
climate progress is playing in a completely different league. anyone who doesn t admit that, is dong the brocoli dance.
Kendra and others, I agree completely with praise of Tom Nelson’s aggregator site. It’s really good. More generally, I think having effective aggregators has really helped the non-consensus position immensely, helping to counterbalance the very large communications budgets held by the consensus holders.
another uninformed comment. so Morano making the false claim that leeches aren t used for medical purpose any longer or your own false claims about a cold winter help the sceptic position? how?
why did you miss the Morano Exxon connection, in your “analysis”, Tom? not important? or contradicting your “middle ground” views?
The unconscionable aspect of the Swiftboat Vets campaign was the behavior of the mainstream news media. I have never heard or read arguments which were quite as stupid and irrational as some of those arguments thrown up (yes, like vomit) at the Swiftvets by the news media. John Kerry has been proven to be a liar on most everything he has ever said about his service in Vietnam. Some of those lies are so obvious that they are beyond argument (e.g. his claim to have been in Cambodia, that he listened to Pres. Nixon on the radio at Christmas while in Nam, that he ran secret insertions on his noisy boat, that his presenter at the convention served with him, etc.) All obvious, easily proven lies. The Vets, on the other hand, have not been shown to be inaccurate in any claim they made. Obviously, some claims involve eyewitness accounts about which some witnesses disagree. But you can’t point to a claim they made which has been proved to be false as so many of Kerry’s have.
John Kerry viciously slandered those men in his testimony before Congress. HIS behavior was unconscionable. Tom Fuller, it is one thing to disagree about policy proposals. It is quite another to slander people with whom you disagree politically. I see no possible way that any moral, ethical, intelligent person can review the facts (as presented by both sides) and view Kerry as the wronged party. No possible way. I can only hope that you are ignorant of the facts in this matter.
Aside from poor “science” on Joe’s site, the main difference I see is that Romm censors postings to make it appear most people agree with him. He does not allow criticism of AGW and certainly not of him. I know because I have tried many times.
Sod wittered: “another uninformed comment. so Morano making the false claim that leeches aren t used for medical purpose any longer”
I thought that the claim was that their use was “outdated”? You’re not putting words in Dr Spencer’s mouth, are you? Considering the fact that leeches used to be used for bloodletting, which was considered to be a cure for any number of ailments, I’m extremely glad that medical science has moved beyond such quackery. Nowadays, in modern medicine, they’re used more specifically to drain blood when draining is actually required, not because someone has the flu. One might well claim their use to cure human illnesses was outdated, therefore…
I simply don’t understand this hysteria about Morano’s site – it is simply an aggregator with perhaps provocative headlines sometimes. It’s been yonks since I’ve seen an article actually by him.
I visit it to see if I’ve missed anything. Period. I don’t think it’s that user-friendly, therefore it’s by far not my first choice.
Just to be clear, I’d like it if he would actually write some articles (or write more, if the nitpickers among you want to come back and site some he’s written that I’ve simply forgotten about).
I’m a grown-up and I can handle and enjoy passion, irreverence and hyperbole. I’m not a sucker for anyone – and those who are so critical seem also to be those who are afraid themselves of being sucked into someone else’s – especially if it’s on the “wrong side” – so instead, you praise the dry, juiceless, authoritarians. Where is your fear and horror coming from? It seems only those who advocate being friggin left alone unless there’s a GD good reason – all that we ask for – loose cannons as it were – that will spoil your brave new sterile world.
Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn’t throw in the towel and jockey for position in the Philosopher Kingdom of the worldwide oligarchy – I sure as hell know I’ve got more wisdom than the ones jockeying for it now.
I think we have a good example of the waste of time it is to give opinions on blogs and blog owners. It easily brings the whole discussion down to trivia like Sod’s comment on what a blog owner knows about modern leech blood letting. Can we all agree that those side issues are BS and a major waste of time – providing your not into gossip columns and are truly interested in the details of climate science?
Sod,
“ps: any real analysis of the topic, would ask the question why Morano is the most popular “sceptic” webblog. i think this tells us a lot about “sceptics”…”
And really how would that logic work, even if we grant you the dubious assumption that the site is the “most” popular?
That would be like me arguing that since Liberals read pornography that tells me something about liberals. Its this kind of easy thinking on your part sod that has never changed over the years. Now, let me characterize your way of thinking. In your way of thinking I can understand a person by the types of things he reads. That makes me an idiot for reading your comments.doh. and makes you a genius for reading mine. how about this, we can tell about a blog by the people who read it. Kinda a converse of your approach. Guess what: the crowd that reads WUWT is better educated and more diverse than the crowd that reads RC. You can tell a blog by its readers.. cuts two ways. If you want to understand skeptics let me suggest that your drop the proxies ( they are all oil shills, all anti science, all conservative, all white, pro abortion, anti evolution ) drop all those easy notions. THOSE notions are what screwed mann and jones up. misunderstanding the opponent. the skeptical adversary is diverse. there is no easy answer. no easy selling proposition for what you are peddling.
please get off the team of those us who believe in AGW, you are not helping.
hehe
It easily brings the whole discussion down to trivia like Sod’s comment on what a blog owner knows about modern leech blood letting. Can we all agree that those side issues are BS and a major waste of time – providing your not into gossip columns and are truly interested in the details of climate science?
sorry, it was an error in the HEADLINE. neither did Morano bother to link the original source. that makes a pretty horrible blog.
the error is pretty significant, because Spencer made an important analogy:
Reducing emissions to ‘cure’ global warming ‘will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses’
but “using leeches to cure human illnesses” is having a strong comeback. now what does this tell us about reducing emissions?
and again: Morano moved that error to the headline. (he didn t check the facts, nor dig the original source)
and the all of it is just one example, of how bad that blog is.
And really how would that logic work, even if we grant you the dubious assumption that the site is the “most” popular?
Fuller describes it as one of the “most popular weblogs devoted to climate issues”. the link that Raven provided above shows it to have similar traffic to climate audit. which most people would call popular.
That would be like me arguing that since Liberals read pornography that tells me something about liberals. Its this kind of easy thinking on your part sod that has never changed over the years. Now, let me characterize your way of thinking. In your way of thinking I can understand a person by the types of things he reads. That makes me an idiot for reading your comments.doh. and makes you a genius for reading mine.
very funny.
let me quote Fuller from above:
My biggest substantive criticism of Morano’s editorial choices is that he will sometimes link to stories that are so obviously wrong that he should know better. But… as long as it advances the cause.
even Fuller admits, that
stories are obviously wrong. and Fuller assumes, that this advances the cause.
like he thought that the “cold winter” helped this blog. when there actually was no cold winter.
the Morano blog is popular, despite the obviously false stories. and false claims help “sceptic” blogs. that should tell us something about readers.
Sod, you miss my point completely: I give a damn what you or Morano say in this context. Spencer’s comment taken in context is obvious to meaning, whether one agrees with it or not. He is talking about looking back (in the future) and I would not consider using leeches in modern medicine looking back. Jim Hansen agrees that what has been proposed will do little to decrease CO2 levels significantly. He proposes mitigations that are not politically acceptable – at least at this time.
Do you want to have a discussion about what the proposed mitigation measures will and will not do to the GHG levels? What is feasible politically? How certain we are of the detrimental future effects predicted by some for AGW? Or do you want to continue your dumb ass discussion?
For background on leeches and modern medicine see:
http://www.jimandellen.org/gmuhome/leeches.html
Kenneth, what Sod is doing is intentional, in case you had doubts.
Don’t feed the trolls.
That’s going to far IMO. But I often do feel embarrassed that the mods let through so much juvenile vociferousness, piling on, me-too chest-thumping, incendiary allusions, etc. It would be so easy to “tone things down” with more snipping and make it more like CA.
PS: Another thing I wish WUWT would do is tone down or cordon off the “weather event” and even the arctic ice stories. Put them on another tab somewhere. It’s very human to say Nyah Nyah when it snows, or the ice recovers a bit, but it’s also mostly juvenile, and lowers the tone of the site.
Also, at least 50% of the political comments should be cut, or anyway dumped into an “open thread” where they wouldn’t offend many of the people we’re trying to reach.
Tom,
You owe everyone an explanation of what Morano did to Kerry regarding the Swift Boat accusations. Hey, you brought it up, so why not elaborate a little bit? Make it simple – just use bullet points listing all his Swift Boat transgressions.
If you’re going to smear (“Swift Boat”) someone amongst a global warming discussion, at least make it credible and worthwhile, please.
PS: Tom, I felt especially embarrassed for WUWT when the bloggers there piled on you after you posted your mild-mannered and middle-of-the-road online poll. They didn’t even remember the favorable pieces you’d posted a couple of months ago (about your visit to RC), which drew a lot of supportive WUWT commentary. I posted a defense of you, but it was at the tail end of the thread.
Hi Roger
I wasn’t offended. They were marshmallows compared to the comments I get on consensus sites, usually from the blog owners.
This is just like the Dreyfus case. Recall that in that case, there was a question about whether a particular officer was guilty of espionage. He was initially found guilty. Never mind was he or not (later evidence exonerated him). The similarity is, in the early days of the case, there was a mixture of evidence pointing in the direction of a miscarriage of justice, but it was not certain, and reasonable good faith people could differ on where the balance of probability lay.
Now you might think this is a purely technical issue, and that whether this particular guy is innocent or guilty has nothing to do with such questions as, should we restore the monarchy, are we happy about the role of the French Jewish minority in France, are we happy with the role of the Catholic Church, is the Army well run….. etc, etc.
But in fact, there was a sort of lineup of opinion, Catholic, conservative, monarchist, anti-semitic and Dreyfus guilty, one one side. On the other side, socialist, what we would now call anti-racist, republican, secularist and non-revanchist on the other.
We seem to have the same thing here. You notice people fulminating on this site about everything from the Swiftboat affair to health insurance. On other sites they go crazy about tobacco, Exxon and intelligent design. Socialism gets into it too, plots about world government, marxism and communism. It seems to be expected that if you take one view of water vapor feedback, you are expected to take a standard party line on health insurance, big government, world government, taxation, evolution….and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with it. At bottom, the feeling seems to be that AGW is Democratic, and scepticism Republican.
I have to say, to me this seems totally insane. The only real issue I can see in all this is whether the undoubted forcing from a doubling of CO2 will actually result in a real long term temperature increase for the planet. And what that has to do with any of this other stuff, is simply incomprehensible.
But then, I would probably not have understood what Dreyfus’ guilt or innocence had to do with Alsace-Lorraine, or monarchism, back then.
Kenneth, what Sod is doing is intentional, in case you had doubts.
yes, it is my full intention, to point out your errors. and the lack of serious analysis in your posts.
Morano made the false claim about leeches being outdated. he is only writing single lines, so we would expect him to get that one right. he did not waste the one minute, to dig up the original article. nor the one minute, to check the modern use of medicinal leeches.
instead, he dug up a leech photo. this is just one example of the stupidity of that blog. the climate progress post on the same subject does real analysis. this is a fact.
but looking at the Fuller”analysis”, you get the impression that the two blogs are pretty similar, with minor pros and cons on different aspects. this is simply false.
Tom Fuller @ Post #51
Actually my comments were for posters like yourself on this thread. Sod’s rationale is impenetrable, but that does not mean he cannot be used as a bank board. I am stating what serious discussions could replace the nonsense that Sod wants to talk about. Besides Sod’s comments, I do get a gossipy tone from this thread that, I personally feel is a waste of time. It is unfortunately true that that tone at many blogs can garner more comments than posts that are thoughtful and thought provoking. I think that that preference is a gauge of the laziness of the posters and their avoidance of any hard thinking and analysis.
Michel, I’m actually writing a report on green technology right now and have summarized the controversy over climate change as “the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of CO2, the efficiency of the oceans as a carbon sink, and the net role of clouds–and all else is politics.”
Just to add a note on the right wing / left wing divide – I do know “conservatives” who are AGWers and look at Tom Fuller.
I think limited government people tend to prick up their ears when they hear about expansion of government and taxes. Inhofe himself was a believer until he found out the implications of the plans and then he decided it was necessary to investigate.
Since so much of the whole issue is political in any case, you can hardly expect people’s political persuasion from popping up from time to time.
..not to pop…
We all know how important air quality is, if you have ever spent a few hours on a plane you probably know that poor air quality has very negative effects, and that in some cases air quality has a very significant effect on general health.
Air Purifier Home