Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science

I left the following comment at

http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/ignorance-is-a-quick-review-of-pointless-opposition-climate-change-science/

As usual I look forward hopefully to an intelligent reply.

Well as you will read, there was never much intelligence in any of his replies that I can discern. Definitely a lot of unfounded accusation though, but not one intelligent comment about my blog, of which it appears he certainly had no answer.

Then he claims that he is not a believer in AGW anyway which is strange considering the title of his page. (Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science)

Try as I might,I cannot see any coherence in this guys replies. As I said above, he avoided my original questions and then proceeded to attack what he thought my beliefs and character were. He wasnt even close actually:)

My last comment was spammed.

Well its entertaining at least.

Well this guy made a number of others comment after my last one mentioned above as spammed.

He seems to have a lot of time to write rubbish (of which I have difficulty relating to my original comment) for a wonderful scientist busy researching to save the world.

Maybe his intentions are admirable but I think he is lost in his own confusion in my opinion.

If he wants to write more he is welcome to comment here. Save me a bit of posting:)

I must admit I couldnt resist making the last comment, but the fact is, during this interchange, I never noticed any attempt on our friend’s part to actually make a reply to my original invitation for his views.

Roger said

I am not ignorant and neither is anyone paying me. (would be nice though)

Unfortunately old son, the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” upon which all AGW arguement depends is impossible to actually prove and has about as many disproofs as swiss cheese has holes.

I invite you to comment intellegently on my blog which carefully simplifies the issues.

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

I admit this is a bit of a test about your own reasoning, but I look forward to hearing what you have to say in support of your somewhat smug headline.

Of course most sites such as yours simply spam comments such as this one as that course of action is simpler than having contrary comments that you have trouble answering on your list.
So no worries, I also post these comments along with your web address at my other blog 
http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com so my readers can evaluate your reply or lack thereof and thereby decide how genuine you really are.

Cheers

Roger

 

Denialist, Alarmist, fear monger, etc etc etc; quite frankly, I have little time for such and indeed being “smug” as you suggested in your comment.
I also don’t really care about the so-called “debate” over human induced climate change; it’ll all be irrelevant eventually anyway.
My argument is that climate change is occurring (for whatever reason), we are too heavily supported on an non-renewable energy source, much of what we do is unsustainable and the longer we take to address these issues, the larger the cost (to biodiversity, to health, to the environment and to resource supplies). Because of such, we need to change our views and start developing more sustainable practices.
Call me an alarmist if you will, but it’ll be people like myself who will eventually have to clean up the mess ignorance leaves in its wake and I refuse to do that to my children and those that follow.

Reading on I see that you’re an economist, that certainly cleared up a bit for me. There is a major wedge between how an economist and an ecologist sees the world. It seems that you and I both think the others principles will adversely affect future generations, but as I stated above and in the post that caught your eye and in many many other posts (as you hinted; you’re not a fan of linking, so I won’t “spam” you with information); our practices are not sustainable. Our source of energy is not sustainable. Without natural gas being used to create fertilizer, we could not feed as many people as are living today – what happens when that is exhausted? There is an incredible wealth of study out there that shows climate change, acidification of oceans (regardless to yours and others statements about CO2 being treated unfairly by scientists) and again; fossil fuels are a limited resource. I’m not advocating any political views or these ridiculous ETS; I’m merely pointing out the fact that the issue is greater than any of this other discussion.

 

Great answer!

As I suspected you are completely unwilling to have your faith challenged.
From this non answer which I must say typical of sites like yours, you are unable to reason why you believe in AGW. You didnt bother to read my blog to any extent and you immediately assume that I have no concern for the planet.
Sustainability of current sources of energy and AGW are seperate issues and to use the former to justify the latter is part of the biggest crock in history.
As an economist I not only care about the planet but I care about people and unlike you I understand the road to protect both.
You do realise that a warmer climate and rising CO2 levels favour greater agricultural and pastoral production?

Actually your answer coupled with some of the things in your blog show that you are basically confused and really need to get down and straighten these issues in your own mind rather than spout blindly what you are told and read.

Your answer is posted on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com for the benefit of my readers.

Cheers

Roger

It is not a question of any form of faith.
Non-answer? Typical of sites like yours?
I’m sorry, but my main argument is not focused on AGW (as I’ve made clear to you in these comments and throughout my posts).
I did read your blog and noticing that you had labeled another person I’m familiar with, Davidpj, I read your conversation with him and have come to the conclusion that you don’t listen to any argument put forth by anyone – I’m quite sure it is you that is, as I make clear in this post, the type unable to look more than a few steps before you.
Part of the biggest crock in history? Hmmm… you truly are very narrow minded. I am all about sustainability, as an ecologist and it turns out that in this situation climate science and I are on the same point. Again, I’m not heavily focused on AGW, my posts don’t dwell on AGW, but development towards increased sustainable practices. By the sound of it, all this goes over your head, so I’ll excuse you.
I am well aware that warming climate and CO2 levels favour great agriculture – in fact that is where I’m currently focused on. May I remind you that more important than that is H2O > irrigation and being in South Australia I’m very concerned about water with the various changes that are occurring. That wouldn’t effect a country without much land to cause a shadowing effect, so I will excuse you for not being too concerned about the lives of millions elsewhere around the world.
I’m not confused. In fact I’m very much involved with the science concerning landscape management in a changing environment. I feel sorry for people like you that desperately fear change. Yours is a faith that is quite disturbing for its lack of flexibility and ability to develop. I will remain in the realms of science, where evidence drives the endless search for clarity.

“I’m sorry, but my main argument is not focused on AGW (as I’ve made clear to you in these comments and throughout my posts).”
Really? so why do you mention “climate change” at least 10 times on this page and “global warming” at about the same occurrence?

I’m not surprised you know DavidPJ because he couldnt come up with anything objective either, although I gave him plenty of opportunity.

Climate science/AGW has very little to do with sustainability. Look at the biofuel stuff up. People are already starving because of the consequential rise in food prices. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/09/foodanddrink.renewableenergy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece
http://www.stwr.org/food-security-agriculture/the-western-appetite-for-biofuels-is-causing-starvation-in-the-poor-world.html

Sure I fear the change that the AGW madness is likely to bring on us. As an economist I am only too aware that meeting the IPCC emission reductions and wealth transfers will reduce us normal people to poverty and possibly starvation. In your country and mine.

Your claim to be researching sustainability is commendable, I just suggest you recognise the difference between sustainability and the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.

“I will remain in the realms of science, where evidence drives the endless search for clarity.”

Could be a very commendable statement. I just suggest the change of part of the phrase, substitute “seek the” for “will remain in”. 

Cheers

Roger

Yes, I do talk about climate change quite a lot, but I can understand that, as a layman, there may be some confusion between climate change and AGW: mine is a discussion about what to do in a warming climate, your debate is focused on what is causing the changing climate. I’m not a climate science (but obviously understand the science behind the field somewhat better than yourself) and so I am not heavily focused on the cause of a the changing climate, but rather on how to manage natural resources – adaptation to a changing climate – as my main interest (I’m getting rather tired repeating myself).

You may not be surprised that I am familiar with DavidPJ; your conversation with him however, seemed at best a complete waste of his time. He too had to repeat himself an awful amount.

I might add that I am not at all surprised to hear you make the same point as Monckton about biofuels. I’ve made my point pretty clear on this subject many times (which you, strangely, missed when reviewing my posts to come to the conclusion that I am “confused”) – biofuels are not my interest at all. I am not focused on adapting current combustion engines and so I will leave you to vent on the biofuel industry on your own space. Biofuels and AGW are not the focus of my blog, so thus far I see little reason for your little spit on my posts…?

On the discussion of starvation, I ask you; what viable sources of fixed nitrogen will support our ever growing population once natural gas is no longer available to be processed for fertilizer? This is often one of my arguments.

I hear a lot of fanatics terrified of wealth transfers.. Personally, looking at the relevant history, I’m sure addressing such environmental issues will not leave the populous going hungry while the big bad biofuels and IPCC grow fat on the yoke of change.

Come on! There’s already a stack of people out there that are probably very much like yourself who have made a quick buck on greenwashing! There’s always a market for the entrepreneur, the clever or the downright pocket holding gluttons. Surely as an economist you’re smart enough to understand that markets change to follow the money…

It’s not a mere claim; my work has always been in governance, environmental monitoring / reporting and sustainability. I do recognise the difference between sustainability and AGW (which you seem unable to understand and unwilling to move beyond, regardless however often I say as much). My work is looks into sustainable practices in a changing climate (AGAIN); landholder empowerment if you will, not feeding the pockets of the IPCC, biofuels or in any significant way, myself (just a typical second step professional wage). I ask you to understand the difference between your agenda and what you are harping on to me about.

But that wouldn’t suit your case at all. As far as I can tell;

• You, yourself, state that you are motivated by fiscal concerns – that [green policies] will hit your pocket,
• Your approach, within your comments towards myself and others, is not one of intellectual debate, rather, they are cheap attacks to incite an emotional response, (your comment about seek the realms of science is a wonderful example of such a jibe) instead of anything meaningful,
• It has been argued many times (by myself and others) that you do not thoroughly check references or indeed listen to the person you are communicating with, but merely harp on from the typical sceptical approach of, “climate is always changing,”
• You fail to see that I am not another blog crying black and blue about AGW, but one that argues that we require more awareness of unsustainable practices currently occurring and adoption of more balanced approaches to agriculture, natural resource management and land use,

These reasons, when combined with your selection of blogs to debate with could be argued as evidence that you are in fact cheery picking your fights and coercing the communications to illustrate your strongly held view that all supporters of climate science are indeed involved in some ideologically driven conspiracy to drive the world into a new dark age.

Yours is not a fight driven by any scientific logic for, if you truly believed in your convictions, you would instead do your homework, test your various hypotheses, analyse your collected data and provide this within professionally constructed arguments that are then placed out within the educated community to be discussed, debated and even improved upon, like many other individuals currently working hard to understand the world better and improve the lives of all, instead engaging in such futile attacks to protect your pocket.

 

 

Can I first of all refer you to the title of your page.

“Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science”

My english is fairly good and to me that means you are calling anyone who disagrees with the AGW theory  ignorant. Or does “Climate Change Science” mean something else?

If you mean “Science to cope with a changing climate” perhaps you should change the title and then I might agree with you little more.

“You, yourself, state that you are motivated by fiscal concerns – that [green policies] will hit your pocket”

I am refering to the IPCC  CO2 emission reductions.  If you are refering to other things you should make yourself clearer.
CO2 emission reductions and wealth transfers as specified by the IPCC will starve us very much quicker than running out of nitrates for fertliser will.  Thats what I mean by being hit in the pocket. Sustainability under climate change may be your thing, but economics is definitely not, so I suggest you do a little research in that area.

“strongly held view that all supporters of climate science are indeed involved in some ideologically driven conspiracy to drive the world into a new dark age.”

I wouldn’t go so far as saying all supporters, most of whom are like the sheep in Orwells book, but I think starvation induced by the IPCC would be a pretty good new dark age.

However I must say I am getting increasingly confused when I reread your page. Seems to me there is a lot of AGW nonsense there no matter how I read it.

And you accuse me of non academic debate?  I’m trying to get some out of you and I havent succeeded yet.

Remember that my first comment was an invitation  “I invite you to comment intelligently on my blog which carefully simplifies the issues.”

If you have done that, please refer me to the phrase because I have missed it.

Cheers

Roger

  

I’m sure you’re aware that climate has changed numerous times throughout known history. We are seeing a gradual increase of temperature that is causing a change in climate. In such a statement, AGW is irrelevant, isn’t it? My work is aimed at focusing on adapting to this change and I see such debates as your quest, futile, and counter-productive to public awareness to our changing climate. I DO NOT STATE MUCH IN THE WAY OF AGW. We are seeing an increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, we have been studying to greenhouse properties of gases for over a century and we are seeing a change in climate; that said, I offer the pieces. As far as I’m concerned, the bigger issue is that of ocean acidification. You have labelled me as a AGW alarmist, quite unfairly and rather hypocritically as it seems you see such labelling as primitive and uneducated.

I see your point; at least, if we continue with business as usual, you will have enough food to fill your gut until your death bed – as for those who follow with a world of depleted fossil fuels, you couldn’t care less – that’ll be their problem. This is very much the iconic difference between the economist and the ecologist.

I’ve not once discussed the IPCC (except in regards to the citizen’s group audit) and so to put me in the basket as another IPCC following sheep that would lead us to a new dark age is unfounded, baseless and very much childish finger pointing (which you like to label climate science “supporters” as being).

I’m sure the arguments I put forth confuse you; you make it clear that you either don’t read or simply cannot understand the ideas express in your responses. Basically I argue that facing the various environmental factors with as much research and responses as possible, and working in hand with policy makers would lead to a more stable and efficient social structure. I don’t advocate these ETS or the like; working to improve our practices as longer term projects means you don’t require sharp changes that will cause such massive disruptions to communities and BY WORKING AGAINST SUCH LOGIC YOU IN TURN LEAVE THE PROBLEM TO SOMEONE ELSE – thus meaning that they in a generation or two have to make radical changes because you wouldn’t use foresight.

You obviously just can’t see beyond your own bank account. The world is NOT your oyster. We have radically increased our population. We are living on a wave of non-renewable energy which will break. I argue for being proactive while you seem to fear change.

Also; I’ve not bothered to reply, using scientific argument because I’ve talked with many people like yourself. Reviewing your alarmist list, there is nothing extra that I can offer you in the way of scientific argument. The answers are there, you just don’t like what they say. This is the approach of my blog and my reasoning with those who listen; we need to be pro-active.

Your argument, like those mentioned in this post, is not a work of science, it is not worth entertaining, it is counter-productive and it urges us to leave the problem for someone else to fix.

Well I’m sorry, but I refuse to be a do nothing like yourself and I WILL continue to work with communities to be more sustainable in their activities and pro-active to a whole host of environmental issues. You can continue your meaningless war against the IPCC (for, the pollies are on side with the do-nothings).

Enjoy your ride!

(This last comment was spammed)

Well whatever,
You still never tried to discuss my original query and spend a rather long time attacking me and my perceived deficiencies and at the same time going on about how great and altruistic you are.

Haven’t noticed any facts or logic or any attempt to explain away your alarmist heading to your page “Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science”

While you may show some skill in emotional criticism you certainly dont impress me or anyone else with your claimed understanding.

Its good though because your character shows through and allows the readers to decide what sort of person you really are.

Well I will leave you to your emotional and illogical morass.

Cheers

Roger

mothincarnate said 20 minutes ago:

I didn’t realize that I was the one on the back foot?

I figured, with the weight of more than 150yrs of scientific research and debate, across many disciplines as support for the work that I do, that it was in fact you, an economist, who claims to knows more about environmental science than anyone past of present, that needed to prove why the weight of our understand is wrong.

If you’re referring to your original question about AGW, I took the effort to look around your site and I can see that you have been given the science; on numerous occasions you have been invited to read through the bulk of education provided by SkepticalScience.com which endeavors to explain these some times complicated processes in a way that can be understood by your average Joe. That said, from looking over our conversation (and the amount of times I had to repeat myself) and your responses when referred to such resources, I suspect that you are not an average Joe and will require more time and simplification to understand such work. So I never took the bait (because you’ve proven it pointless – I cannot help a blind man to see), nor did I bite to your jibes, nor did I spam your meaningless space. I walk away happy.

It’s funny, when reviewing all this, because you merely illustrate another form of attack and indeed call out for no-nothing-philosophy typical of the ignorant types I reviewed in that post; you ask questions and either ignore or prove yourself unable to understand the answers, you funnel-neck ever apposing view into your particular agenda and will not accept that their focus is necessarily aimed at your particular agenda (it comes to a logical conclusion similar, yet more gradual), when you fail to impress yourself and your readers, you turn to childish jibes to incite an emotional response, thus allowing you to write-off the other as petty (I’ve often felt like asking you to “grow up and discuss this as an adult”, but somehow it felt repugnant to do so to someone obviously older than myself), you’ve made it clear that money is your reason to make such noise – mine is science and sustainability; and you can only refer to newspapers snippets to refer to a sideline issue, while I could (and others have) refer to highly regarded scientific journals to illustrate our work, but you refuse to acknowledge the work. You are very much like the comic strip I made for that post, and as I’ve said before, I’ve talked to people like you and so knew that there was no point taking the approach others, that you have targeted, have, because you won’t listen.

I’m going to have to leave you here because my patients has expired on such meaningless dribble and I will return to the science that will eventually help increase our sustainability and understanding of this world. My work helps everyone (including people like yourself). Many of the people I work with and many other people within the community take great joy in the work that I produce on this blog (where I don’t need to turn to insulting people to gain attention, but do debate again illogical approaches – such as in this post) and so your jibe here about the readers is also meaningless.

If you comment further, I will not entertain you. I hope you’re able to hold onto your little money bag with all the strength of your paranoia.

NP,

I will post your comment, which can only be described as some sort of parnoid attack rather than any attempt to engage in reason, on my site and leave it for my readers to enjoy.

If you think Sceptical Science is an authority of any sort then you are beyond redemption.:)

Cheers

Roger

Again you have not listened.
C’est la vie..
Present your ideas in a scientific format and just maybe you might be taken seriously.

mothincarnate said 2 hours ago:

very well put!
I’ve try to address the issues between economic and ecological principles in that ecolomics piece.. Many different groups (especially those in governance) have also started to address the apparent incompatibilities between the two fields to avoid Roger’s paranoid future predictions. We need open discussion, not trivial finger pointing and childish name calling. Currently economics rules the school yard, however, I suspect the attitude is somewhat changing; that understanding that ecology is the driving force of economics (ie. resources) and standard economic models are hopelessly naive. This will finally hit people like Roger when the gap between what they want and what is available cannot be fixed with another gasoline hit.
Cheers,
Tim

mothincarnate said 2 hours ago:

You’re very right there; it is terrifying that people like Roger here, have the largest voice and that pointing out that they rely on a non-renewable source of energy is largely greeted with the same ol’, “Who cares – it’s beyond my life time.”
Indeed it may very well be. He makes the point on his blog that in the 1970’s, there was fear of a depletion of fossil fuels by 2000. Fair enough to state that this was wrong – as new reserves are found. However, it has only pushed the date back, not changed the fact that we are living on the combustion of fossils which is a limited source. As for the science of climate and environmental science at large; we’ve come a long way from the 70’s! As a student I remember a number of run-in’s with various religious door knockers who became very interested in a debate once learning that my studies largely addressed biology, with some focus on evolution. They too relied on scientific material from the 60’s and 70’s as evidence that the theory of evolution was wrong. They too didn’t offer any scientific basis for their alternate views. Unfortunately for both, science has gone on and the evidence is mounting against such agenda driven views. It is sad that such people cannot see past their hopes and delusions to see the wonderful world standing before them, slowly being degraded to the point that it will be unable to support a human population as we know it. I only hope that in time such individuals fade away, like alchemy into the shadows of a backwards past.
Quickly looking at Jared Diamond’s Wikipedia page that he hasn’t done a documentary. I’ll try this evening to find the one of I was thinking of – it does sound a lot like his work.
Cheers,
Tim

Following this ridiculous exchange with Roger, I (albeit, stupidly) went back to this economist’s page and found the following write up on our exchange:

“As usual I look forward hopefully to an intelligent reply.

Well as you will read, there was never much intelligence in any of his replies that I can discern. Definitely a lot of unfounded accusation though, but not one intelligent comment about my blog, of which it appears he certainly had no answer.

Then he claims that he is not a believer in AGW anyway which is strange considering the title of his page. (Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science)

Try as I might,I cannot see any coherence in this guys replies. As I said above, he avoided my original questions and then proceeded to attack what he thought my beliefs and character were. He wasnt even close actually:)

My last comment was spammed.

Well its entertaining at least.”

The man is obviously hard of understanding.
I replied on his space with this:
“Interesting write-up on our conversation, however, rather inaccurate (you really do have a problem of either listening or understanding). The statement I continue to try to explain is the AGW is not my focus; that my write up did not take a stand on either side, rather than this argument is IRRELEVANT as climate change IS occurring REGARDLESS of what you believe or what the science suggests is the cause. I would suggest that it is you fail to understand my point and did so from the very beginning.
If you consider my last comment to be spam, as I referred to skeptical science, I understand the flaw now in your approach.
As scientists, we tend to rely on references rather than repeat other people time and time again (although I can see that this may help you eventually understand the science) to save time and space. One can then refer to the noted text by searching through the acknowledgements and then following up on the referred work. This is professional science and NOT spamming. Skeptical science indeed references a vast number of excellent research (of which you can provide NONE).
However, if you desperately require the journal research, I can eventually provide a vast number of studies and get your expert breakdown on why they are wrong and you are right (based on what?)”

Now, I am truly done; the man obvious ignores the science, is driven by concern about his personal cash and refuses to offer a logical reason as to why the science is wrong. What a sheer waste of my and other’s time.

Now you have got all that off your chest, especially showing how learned and knowledgable you are, howabout answering my original comment in a rational reasonable manner?

Cheers

Roger

 

As links offend you so, I will refrain, but give you a list of reading that heavily encourages my work – these are the studies that I use as my pillars. You prove them all wrong, you discredit the work, you give a professional scientific evaluation of how the world really works and I will take back all that I have previously said. If not, I urge you to acknowledge the fact that it is indeed you that lives in some fantasy world.
Put your money where your mouth is instead of in your sweaty little paw.

Paleo-perspectives on ocean acidification; Carles Pelejero, Eva Calvo,and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, 2010, Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Physical and biogeochemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central North Pacific; John E. Dorea, Roger Lukasb, Daniel W. Sadlerb, Matthew J. Churchb and David M. Karlb, 2009, PNAS.

Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem; Scott C. Doney, Victoria J. Fabry, Richard A. Feely, and Joan A. Kleypas, 2008, Annual Review of Marine Science.

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset; J. Timothy Wootton Catherine A. Pfister, and James D. Forester, 2008, PNAS

Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2; Ben I. McNeila, and Richard J. Matear, 2008, PNAS

The interannual variability of oceanic CO2 parameters in the northeast Atlantic subtropical gyre at the ESTOC site; J. Magdalena Santana-Casiano, Melchor González-Dávila, María-José Rueda, Octavio Llinás, and Enrique-Francisco González-Dávila, 2007, Global Biogeochemical Cycles

That’ll do for acidification of oceans (for now if needs be).

Collision-induced absorption by CO2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment; A. P. Kouzov, and M. Chrysos, 2009, Physical Review

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements; F. Niro, C. Boulet and J. -M. Hartmann, 2004, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer

Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures; J. Buldyreva and M. Chrysos, 2001, The Journal of Chemical Physics

That should be enough on CO2 absorption

Now for some closer to my interest;

Organic farming in Europe: A potential major contribution to food security in a scenario of climate change and fossil fuel depletion; Lee, H., Walker, R.L., Haneklaus, S., Phillips, L., Rahmann, G. & Schnug, E. (2008), Agriculture and Forestry Research.

Reducing Energy Inputs in the US Food System; D. Pimental, S. Williamson, C. E. Alexander, O. Gonzalez-Pagan, C. Kontak, and S. E. Mulkey, 2008, Human Ecology.

Re-evaluation of Energy Use in Wheat Production in the United States; G. Piringer, and L. J. Steinberg, 2006, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Nitrogen in modern European agriculture; S. Vaclav,2005, Chapter 6 of Land, shops and kitchens: Technology and the food chain in the twentieth-century Europe.

Nitrogen and Food Production: Proteins for Human Diets; S. Vaclav. 2002. Ambio 31:126-131.

And some bedtime reading for you:

Biodiversity: Integrating Conservation and Production; Editors T. Lefroy, K. Baily, G. Unwin and T. Norton, 2008

Opportunities Beyond Carbon: Looking forward to a sustainable world; Edited by J. O’Brien, 2009.

This should be enough to explain my work ethics. If you want more, I can always happy to add more. If you want to go further and understand why I’m concerned about our changing climate, I can refer you to work carried out by the Aust Bureau of Meteorology, The U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, a number of excellent landscape science academic groups and other atmospheric and ocean science groups actively studying our planet while you sit there and complain about this all being faith driven.

I also suggest that if you have any conviction at all, you should produce our own scientific rebuttal or at the least give up arguing with us (relatively) lightweights and actually challenge higher academics such as Barry Brooks, Greenfyre, Michael Tobis, and others who know their stuff like Ari Jokimäki and John Cook.

Yours is not unlike Laframboise’s and Moncktons campaign; one to make yourself feel good by making noise rather than by offering any particular advancement to human knowledge, sustainable living, increases to health or anything else remotely useful.

Now, unless you require further references, I am beyond discussion with the like of you.

Great!

So which ones refer to the question in my original comment then?

Cheers

Roger

mothincarnate said 34 minutes ago:

You’re ignorance knows no bounds.. I pity anyone who has to put up with you in their daily lives.
They are all part of a larger system, ie. our ecosystem. If you find fault in their work and indeed the certain criteria with which we base our research upon and with which we base our education upon, well then you have unlocked the key to why you apparently know something beyond us environmental scientists.
There is enough there to get you finally understanding the basics behind our work, our methodology and our concern. Chose to read it, then debate with the logic, then I may listen. I’m not a shepherd to lead the down right stubborn and baselessly arrogant to a better understanding of our work. Do you argue so intensely when a doctor says you have a malignant mole? Or only when the cost has to come out of your pocket – or indeed to pay for basic medical cover for all simply because the money goes to help others and not you (supposing that you’re healthy).
If you do not wish to read this background research, then quite frankly you’re arguing through ideological means and are not basing your views from a professional scientific basis. Honestly, grow up and pick a fight on a subject you’re at least willing to learn about.

7 Responses to “Ignorance is… A quick review of pointless opposition climate change science”

  1. mothincarnate Says:

    I know how much you don’t like links, however Mike over at WTD just wrote an excellent post regarding what it’s like to “enjoy” a warmer world regarding the events unfolding in Russia.
    I’ve also included many papers in my own work which illustrate the damage of our raising climate on economically important ecosystems and will soon produce a series for another blog regarding the same point.
    You’re fear that addressing carbon through tax will prove to be trivial with peaking oil (most people coming to the conclusion that we’re roughly at peak) and the loss of ecological function becoming increasingly apparently and disruptive to human activities.
    What we need is not denial, but innovative solutions to maintain prosperity, mitigate emissions as much as possible and adapt (both our activities and provide strategies for other species) to inevitable change.

  2. mothincarnate Says:

    That statement doesn’t say that I don’t believe in AGW. Firstly, is says that I don’t care about the debate (although it’s hardly a scientific debate to begin with) and secondly I argue that such a debate is irrelevant (because, again, there are so many related issues that one could ignore AGW and still come to the same conclusion).
    So, I never changed my mind – I just finally dipped into the physical chemistry that bores me no-end.
    Cope would be the more correct option. I’ve discussed on numerous occasions the negative impact the observed climate change has had on ecology and how this is likely to exacerbate into the future.

  3. rogerthesurf Says:

    “I also don’t really care about the so-called “debate” over human induced climate change; it’ll all be irrelevant eventually anyway.”

    Your words not mine, but I guess we can all change our minds from time to time.

    To study how we can cope/enjoy warmer weather should be a worth while project though.

  4. mothincarnate Says:

    “Then he claims that he is not a believer in AGW anyway which is strange considering the title of his page.”
    For the record, and following your recent comment on my blog, I never stated that I was not a believer in AGW (as much as you’re convinced it’s a faith thing, in reality, “believer in AGW” is more or less an absurd state saved for the scientifically illiterate).
    The truth is, as I tried to state to you previously, that I am convinced by the evidence. I am not a climate scientist, in fact I’m more focused towards ecology and environmental monitoring. As such, I didn’t (up until our conversations in early May) focus greatly on AGW – but rather tried to highlight that it is only one of a number of related issues that could be addressed with progressive measures to shift human activity away from the use of fossil fuels as quickly and comfortably as possible.
    I’ve since decided to add to the discussion of AGW (as you noticed on my blog), simply because I had a few interactions with people like yourself who suffer from tunnel vision.
    Clear up the confusion, I say, and get on with being productive. Do-nothing attitudes and anti-science hysteria will do nothing but send us to a place much like your feared new dark age, not a serious approach to adaptation and new methodologies to human practices.

  5. mothincarnate Says:

    In your absence, I decided to look over the last entries you placed on the blog where you claim I’m an alarmist.
    It seems that you’ve decided you don’t want to discuss the subject with me anymore, and why? Because you obviously have no intention to learn about the science with which we form our basis of investigation and policies with regards to land management, future planning and indeed why I am personally very much concerned about our immediate future.
    How can you claim that we are alarmists when you are not and refused to be informed on the subject? I could argue that you have demonstrated a classic example of placing your head in the sand when all became too much.
    I know you where hoping for me to rely on one web-based article or one research project and say that I worry about AGW because such-and-such said so here. That’s not good science and besides, there has been such a smear campaign that any such reference could be (and would be by the sounds of you) googled, where you could find some denialist site that ridicules the findings and use their approach.
    And you get upset when others have labelled you unscientific…
    It seems strange to be able to do so, but it seems a number of your statements have come back to bite you in the butt;

    Roger: “Try as I might,I cannot see any coherence in this guys replies. As I said above, he avoided my original questions and then proceeded to attack what he thought my beliefs and character were. He wasnt even close actually”
    Me: I did answer your question, both by stating that AGW is not the focus of my work (indeed I’ve not spoken about it as much as in our conversation) and I provided you a list of excellent references and points of data for you to understand (which you clearly don’t) the science and methodology behind climate science and my own focus on ecology and resource management (relating to fossil fuels and oceanic studies).

    Roger: “My last comment was spammed.”
    Me: may I remind you that the only evidence you provided, contrary to the scientific argument that I put forth to you was spamming me with biofuel newspaper articles.

    Roger: “He seems to have a lot of time to write rubbish (of which I have difficulty relating to my original comment) for a wonderful scientist busy researching to save the world.”
    Me: Rubbish? I’m sure you wouldn’t find medical science important when it saves your life. I was merely trying to point out that this is not a witch hunt – we are professionals and we do work hard to make the world a better place.

    Roger: “I must admit I couldnt resist making the last comment, but the fact is, during this interchange, I never noticed any attempt on our friend’s part to actually make a reply to my original invitation for his views.”
    Me: Your last comment and refusal to read up on basic scientific methodology related to my post does nothing but illustrate your complete ignorance on the subject you came raging in about.

    Roger: “I will post your comment, which can only be described as some sort of parnoid attack rather than any attempt to engage in reason”
    Me: I’ve answered on my professional engagement, as for paranoid attacks, may I remind you of your continuous childish jibes, such as the following (as quick scan);

    “emotional and ilogical morass”, “I just suggest the change of part of the phrase, substitute “seek the” for “will remain in”, “From this non answer which I must say typical of sites like yours”, “your somewhat smug headline” etc etc etc

    Roger: “I’m not surprised you know DavidPJ because he couldnt come up with anything objective either”
    Me: I’ve done so and asked you to provide answered to why you oppose the science on numerous occasions – which all went ignored.

    Roger: “I am not ignorant and neither is anyone paying me.”
    Me: I cannot speak on your employers but your refusal to address the science demonstrates your own ignorance.

    Roger: “so my readers can evaluate your reply or lack thereof and thereby decide how genuine you really are”
    Me: I certainly do hope they look over our exchange. I’m sure any reasonable human being would argue that I am quite within the realms of science (and you being entirely unwilling to even seek it). Seeing as you are unwilling to retract your calling me an alarmist, I suppose it only fair that I provide this conversation on a page of its own on my own space thereby allowing more open-minded and certainly better educated (than yourself) individuals to get a rare glimpse into the bizarre exchange some of us unfortunately get ourselves into with what can only be described (in our case) as the denial camp.

    You have:
    • Failed to offer any reason to doubt the science,
    • Failed to understand or even approach the science,
    • Failed to answer any of my questions or indeed address the vast majority of my statements,
    • Failed in any way to offer any intelligent comments (as you asked from me from the very beginning),
    • Failed to address the fact that I have provided a base of scientific references for you to argue against,
    • Roger: “you certainly dont impress me or anyone else with your claimed understanding”. Me: you’ve failed to impress me with anything logical

    In fact the only two things that I can think of that you have done successfully has been to waste my time and illustrate pure ignorance.

    It’s been such an enjoyable experience that I decided to create for you a little picture to remember the 1st week of May, 2010, by; http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=599

    Cheers

  6. mothincarnate Says:

    Interesting write-up on our conversation, however, rather inaccurate (you really do have a problem of either listening or understanding). The statement I continue to try to explain is the AGW is not my focus; that my write up did not take a stand on either side, rather than this argument is IRRELEVANT as climate change IS occurring REGARDLESS of what you believe or what the science suggests is the cause. I would suggest that it is you fail to understand my point and did so from the very beginning.
    If you consider my last comment to be spam, as I referred to skeptical science, I understand the flaw now in your approach.
    As scientists, we tend to rely on references rather than repeat other people time and time again (although I can see that this may help you eventually understand the science) to save time and space. One can then refer to the noted text by searching through the acknowledgements and then following up on the referred work. This is professional science and NOT spamming. Skeptical science indeed references a vast number of excellent research (of which you can provide NONE).
    However, if you desperately require the journal research, I can eventually provide a vast number of studies and get your expert breakdown on why they are wrong and you are right (based on what?)

  7. mothincarnate Says:

    Denialist, Alarmist, fear monger, etc etc etc; quite frankly, I have little time for such and indeed being “smug” as you suggested in your comment.
    I also don’t really care about the so-called “debate” over human induced climate change; it’ll all be irrelevant eventually anyway.
    My argument is that climate change is occurring (for whatever reason), we are too heavily supported on an non-renewable energy source, much of what we do is unsustainable and the longer we take to address these issues, the larger the cost (to biodiversity, to health, to the environment and to resource supplies). Because of such, we need to change our views and start developing more sustainable practices.
    Call me an alarmist if you will, but it’ll be people like myself who will eventually have to clean up the mess ignorance leaves in its wake and I refuse to do that to my children and those that follow.

    Reading on, that you’re an economist, certainly cleared up a bit for me. There is a major wedge between who an economist and an ecologist sees the world. It seems that you and I both think the others principles will adversely affect future generations, but as I stated above and in the post that caught your eye and in many many other posts (as you hinted; you’re not a fan of linking, so I won’t “spam” you with information); our practices are not sustainable. Our source of energy is not sustainable. Without natural gas being used to create fertilizer, we could not feed as many people as are living today – what happens when that is exhausted? There is an incredible wealth of study out there that shows climate change, acidification of oceans (regardless to yours and others statements about CO2 being treated unfairly by scientists) and again; fossil fuels are a limited resource. I’m not advocating any political views or these ridiculous ETS; I’m merely pointing out the fact that are greater than any of this other discussion.

    Replies to this comment are on https://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/39/ignorance-is%e2%80%a6-a-quick-review-of-pointless-opposition-climate-change-science/
    Cheers
    Roger

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: