I attempted to provide an example of one federally funded high-performance computing facility, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, which is undertaking climate research. Some of it is classified: you need government clearance to work on it. And the facility is under the operational control of Raytheon, a defense contractor. The glaring evidence of the ongoing investment of millions of tax dollars on the science of global warming, a matter of strategic interest to the United States, was passed over without comment. But what do you possibly say if you're a conservative global warming naysayer. Not supporting the Pentagon would be unpatriotic.

The conservatives who don't believe that C02 levels are rising wouldn't be satisfied even if the sun were to engulf the earth, which it will, eventually. It's a waste of increasingly expensive energy to argue with them. Let them argue with the weather.

More BS from publicola on Arctic sea ice extent: “So what part of:

· The general trend since ice extant data has been collected has been a clear decrease of ice extant over time

· Trend rates are not calculated by picking one low point out of many on a graph and then extrapolating a trend line from it, they are instead calculated by taking the data set and doing a linear regression analysis on it

did you not understand, manacker?”

Understood it all, publicola.

What part of May 2008 Arctic sea ice extent is back to the same level as May 1989 did you not understand?

Stick with facts, publicola, not with statements about “general trend since ice extent data has been collected” (1979 with start of satellites) and stupid projections of future disaster.

There’s more ice up there now (extent and volume) that there was 19 years ago. This may not be a “trend” in your opinion, but it is a very salient fact.

BTW, the “linear trend” line shows a decrease of 3% per decade since measurements started, which means the whole Arctic sea ice would be gone in 330 years if the trend continues (reversing the flat trend of the last 19 years). Most recent events (major cooling) indicate this trend may not continue. Who knows? I doubt that you have any real clue on what will happen in the future, publicola, despite your predictions of future disaster.

Ho hum

Regards,

Max

Hey delosgatos,

Instead of relying on RealClimate or other AGW-fundie sites for your info on solar impact on climate, check out the many studies that show that solar activity reached an 8,000-year high in the late 20th century, and that this could account for a significant part of all the observed 20th century warming.

The data are out there for those who truly want to be informed.

For AGW-fundies that have their heads in the sand these studies may be disturbing, since they raise serious questions about their "belief" in AGW.

If you want the links, let me know. I can post them.

Regards,

Max

manacker: "Understood it all, publicola."

Really. So you claim to understand the following:

• The general trend since ice extant data has been collected has been a clear decrease of ice extant over time
• Trend rates are not calculated by picking one low point out of many on a graph and then extrapolating a trend line from it; they are instead calculated by taking the data set and doing a linear regression analysis on it

Let's find out.

manacker: "Stick with facts, publicola, not with statements about "general trend since ice extent data has been collected"

It is a fact that the general trend since ice extant data has been collected has been a decrease of ice extant over time.

You do understand this, right manacker? Because if you don't, as your rhetoric here implies, then you don't understand the first bullet point above.

manacker: "and stupid projections of future disaster."

What "stupid projections of future disaster" are you talking about, manacker? Please be specific; thanks.

manacker: "There’s more ice up there now (extent and volume) that there was 19 years ago. This may not be a "trend" in your opinion,

Scientifically speaking that's not a "trend", period.

And if you really understood the second bullet point above then you too would know that.

manacker: "but it is a very salient fact."

Really. Do tell.

manacker: "reversing the flat trend of the last 19 years"

Bzzzzt!

Sorry manacker, but by claiming there has been a "flat" trend over the past 19 years you have demonstrated that you don't understand the second bullet point above, manacker, repeated here again:

• Trend rates are not calculated by picking one low point out of many on a graph and then extrapolating a trend line from it; they are instead calculated by taking the data set and doing a linear regression analysis on it

Thanks for playing though - you can pick up your concession prize on the way out.

manacker: "Most recent events (major cooling)"

What "major cooling" are you talking about?

manacker: "Who knows? I doubt that you have any real clue on what will happen in the future, publicola"

Are you suggesting that since we don't know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future that we shouldn't bother addressing any future threats to our country's security and welfare, including terrorism and global warming, manacker?

manacker: "despite your predictions of future disaster."

What "predictions of future disaster" are you talking about? Please be specific; thanks.

manacker: "The sun does not drive our climate? ...solar activity reached an 8,000-year high in the late 20th century, and that this could account for a significant part of all the observed 20th century warming."

RealClimate.org:

The sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

More info here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Perhaps you're correct. This entire discussion is probably a waste of time........

Jul 01, 2008

When Prophecy Fails

By Chris Horner, Planet Gore

The Bret Stephens piece that Ed Craig excerpts below also brings to mind the work of Leon Festinger, whose pioneering work on cognitive dissonance theory is so applicable to a movement whose noisiest champions often lead the most incompatible lifestyles imaginable. Festinger co-wrote (with Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter) the 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled a fairly typical cult following: a housewife claimed to be receiving doomsday messages from aliens, who nonetheless offered hope for those who listened to their counsel. (Quick, someone check James Hansen’s immigration status, and bone up on the Alien Tort Claims Act climate litigation.)

Festinger et al. detailed how the failure of a prophecy to come about can often yield the opposite effect of what the rational person would expect: the cult following gets stronger and its adherents ever more convinced of their truth. One reading of Festinger, as to why the rational response should not follow in that situation, is that such prophesying is not rational, or the act of rational beings. We should not have been surprised with the current mantra, of “Cooling"? Why, that’s just another sign of warming.” It is the logical next step of a movement neatly captured by Greenpeace’s Steven Guilbeault’s incantation, “Global warming can mean colder; it can mean drier; it can mean wetter; that's what we’re dealing with.”

Beam me up.

Festinger deliciously penned the following assessment about this phenomenon: A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

As a meteorologist colleague commented to me last night about a recent manifestation of precisely this, “these people are no different than the guys sitting around waiting for the spaceship.”