2011-05-13 04:11:20Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

First post in the Carter series:

Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming

2011-05-13 04:18:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.248

I would think that the $100 Billion is wrong too.

2011-05-13 04:52:51$100 Billion
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Probably.  It's not really integral to the article though, and I'm not interested in wasting the time trying to ascertain what a more reasonable number would be :-)

2011-05-13 05:00:35
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.248

I think it's integral to the emotional impact Carter is making: "These jerks are wasting $100 Billion of YOUR TAXES to get nothing. Can't you think of better things to do with $100 Billion??!!??"

2011-05-13 05:43:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Well, one simple way to address that is to remove the number from the quote and replace it with an ellipsis. That way at least our readers aren't subjected to the faulty emotional argument. Unless somebody can come up with a way to get an accurate estimate of the amount of money spent finding anthropogenic warming signatures.
2011-05-13 06:44:12
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.48.248

If he's talking about Australia, I would be surprised if they've spent $100 Billiion on their entire atmospheric science program.

Any Ozzies with a clue on this?

2011-05-13 08:41:56
mcba

m.ashley@unsw.edu...
129.94.163.229

Hi dana1981,

Maybe it is personal taste, but I would dial back the rhetoric a bit, e.g., "false" rather than "blatantly false", and I wouldn't use "grossly ignorant". IMHO, fence-sitters are going to be turned off by such strong statements. The facts should speak for themselves.

Cheers, Michael

2011-05-13 08:50:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Hmm I don't know Michael, I like to call it like it is, and those are some blatantly false statements.  But I'm open to toning it down.  Any other opinions on the issue?

2011-05-13 09:25:34Strong statements
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Personally, I take Michael's approach. Describe it without the strong adjectives. A mild approach tends to alienate less people, more people pay attention to what you're saying if you say it in a calm, reasonable tone. So long as you still get the message out.

2011-05-13 09:55:07
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Okay, fair enough.  I tend to get riled up when I read nonsense like Carter's, and want to call these guys all sorts of names ;-)  I'll tone it down and get rid of those adjectives.

I was pretty harsh in the conclusion - should I tone that down too?

2011-05-13 13:26:01
Agnostic

mikepope_9@hotmail...
118.208.166.133

Absolutely No!  The Australian government has not spent 100 billion on trying to establish “the human signature in the global temperature record”.  The largest single investment made by government has been $2 billion allocated (not spent yet) for research and development of carbon sequestration technology – not a good investment. 

I would be surprised if all other public sector expenditure on all other aspects of global warming amounted to more than that over the past 20 years and it would certainly not have been allocated to authenticating human involvement.

Australian Federal, State and Territory governments combined would not have spent a brass razoo on that topic since none of them have ever rejected the IPCC view on the subject.  They all accepted the science – even the Howard Government did.  So why would they spend money proving what they already accepted?

2011-05-13 14:33:28
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Well I think Carter is cheating here. I suspect he's estimating the global funding of all climate science research, even though the entire article is specific to Australia, and even though he specifies identifying anthropogenic signatures. I'll add a comment to call him on this dishonesty.
2011-05-13 16:03:50
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.176.230.80

Carter is one of the smooth operators in denialist circles. Live he comes across really mellow and convincing. Just like your old proffessor used to be. Hostile language could alienate those who have been exposed to him - it doesn't jibe with their experience. However if our tone is equally smooth and mellow we don't alienate them, giving them more emotional scope to take on board what we are saying then start to have their own suspicions of 'Honest Bob', well... 

I have always liked an old quote from Robert Heinlein about artistic ways of lying. 'Tell the Truth. But Not All Of It'. You can often lie really well by what you don't say.

So too you can also call someone else a liar by what you don't say. With less risk of litigation too boot. And you are setting up this sort of in, conspiratorial thing with your audience, inviting them to be 'with it' on these unstated understandings that 'we all really know don't we'. If Honest Bob is the victim in all of this, well my heart goes out to the poor fella.

Also Bob Carter is also described as a PaleoClimatologist in most Bio's.

 

2011-05-13 22:53:05
mcba

m.ashley@unsw.edu...
129.94.163.229

Hi dana1981,

I know how you feel, and I agree with your comments on Carter. I also like to "call it like it is" - you should see the first drafts of things I have written! However, when trying to persuade people of your point of view, you have to bring people with you gently. I think in the end you will win by being calm, logical, and not over-the-top. Not many people understand the science, but everyone will react to the manner in which arguments are couched. So we can win many people over simply by not over-reacting to any provocation from the other side.

Regards, Michael

2011-05-14 01:45:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Fair enough, Michael.  I added a paragraph at the beginning about the $100 billion claim.  Like I said, if you think I need to tone it down further, let me know.

Glenn, even Carter identifies himself as "a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist".  He's only started doing any climate-related research in the past couple of years, so I don't want to identify him as a paleoclimatologist.  I think doing so is an effort to give him more credibility than he deserves.

2011-05-14 02:39:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.40.61

Just looking at 2012: The entire budget for NOAA is $5.5 Billion

Of course, it's taken some reduction recently. But 100/5.5 = 18.2, so as a rough guess, $100 Billion is 18 years worth of NOAA.

2011-05-14 18:06:22
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.197

You could go back decades and say that any funding put into fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, radiative transfer, earth observation satellites, meteorology... is money put into detecting human cause in global warming.

2011-05-14 19:17:19
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.12.89

“Furthermore, s Skeptical Science readers know” --> “Furthermore, as Skeptical Science readers know”