2011-09-17 06:00:47Pielke question A2: Jogging ... ATTN: JC & Robert Way
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Our original question to Pielke:

As another example, do you agree with Roy Spencer when he said that as a result of addressing climate change, “Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem“?

 

Pielke's response:

The second question asked is

Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem“? 

This is a “tongue-in-cheek” statement. Of the comments from Roy, why would one be picked that was intended as a joke?

 

Draft response:

Yes, this was a joke. But do you really think it is sensible and responsible for a prominent climate scientist to make jokes like that? There are lots of people (see the newspaper references below) who are willing to believe that the federal government is getting ready to tax them for exhaling. Would they be willing to believe that human exhalation is 10% of the human-generated CO2 issue? As you know (and Spencer knows) very well, human exhalation is far less than 10% of fossil-fuels CO2 production, and it is also inextricably associated with carbon ingestion through the essential action of eating, which cancels out the impact of the exhalation. But an uninformed layman is quite likely to believe an expert who says that exhalation is 10% of the human CO2 problem; and therefore likely to believe that the degree of urgency associated with "the breathing problem" needs a comparable degree of remedy as the fossil-fuel problem. As a site that deals with a lot of climate myths, we are in a position to say that a lot of them believe just that; and they're going to say, "If they're going to tax me for just breathing, then this whole CO2 situation is out of control. Forget the whole thing, we're just going to have to tough our way through it."

Is that the sort of reaction that a climate scientist should be inspiring? Is that the response that you yourself would like to evoke?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/taxing_us_for_breathing.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-pushes-carbon-tax-proposal-that-would-inflict-new-great-depression.html

http://uswgo.com/why-the-carbon-tax-breathing-tax-and-carbon-trading-is-the-mark-of-the-beast.htm

2011-09-17 06:10:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'd add that there are many people who seriously argue that the government wants to tax breathing in response to global warming.  See here and here and here and here and many, many more examples.  Many people won't realize Spencer is being tongue-in-cheek because they believe a breathing tax is a serious possibility.

2011-09-17 06:21:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Should we be putting these threads in the general chat?  I posted the other one in the blog posts area.

2011-09-17 06:24:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

dana,

I've incorporated the URLs.

The phrasing is a little awkward: People take exhalation as a valid contributor to CO2 (as valid as coal); are offended by that; so they want to toss out the tax on coal AS WELL AS the tax on exhalation.

The footwork is a little too fancy.

Got any ideas?

2011-09-17 06:25:56nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Your second sentence is way too long. Break it up into shorter, punchier sentences.

2011-09-17 06:42:09
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This whole breathing thing very much is taken seriously, not just by the general public, but by a large number of pundits and public personalities.  I've seen numerous clips of Glenn Beck making exactly this same argument.  It is the fact that a credentialed scientist has made the VERY SAME claim - without ever offering a correction - that gives legs to such dangerous misinformation.

I can hardly count the number of times I've had to respond to this whole breathing thing in various forums.

2011-09-17 06:50:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

You could start out by noting that as a site which specializes in debunking climate myths, we're very familiar with this claim and have seen many people take it seriously (insert links for examples).  Thus it's no joking matter.  This puts us in the position of expertise that Pielke is trying to co-opt, whereas he looks naive for thinking it's a harmless joke.  It might even be worth specifically noting the naivete he's demonstrating.

2011-09-17 06:54:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

OK, it's better, not perfect. Keep thinking.

Rob: I don't know how to move the thread. If somebody wants to move it blogs/ that would be fine.

2011-09-17 08:15:17
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Good ideas guys/gals,

This is what I said, but a tmore thorough reponse is of course in order:

Albatross at 14:41 PM on 16 September, 2011

Chris@1204,

Come on, please don't try and play it is only "satire" card; this is about science and truth. I am willing to bet you that his target audience would not have seen it that way-- many of his readers at his blog do not believe in the so-called "greenhouse" effect. So they are pretty gullible for the most part and he is preying on that.

And you forget, there is in fact a myth out there on the internet that we humans are contributing to the rise of CO2 by exhaling, and Spencer is feeding that myth in a public forum. Do you deny the existence of the myth?

Spencer knows better, it is inexcusable.

2011-09-17 08:46:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Albatross,

Yes, I think I've essentially said that in the draft response above.

But with less bellicosity.

2011-09-17 08:59:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

I know, just thre it out there for thoroughness.  And yes, yu say it more politely than I did, of course.

You asked me about rumblings about Pielke on another thread.  This is what I've heard.

1)  He has gone emeritus, as the expression goes

2)  He is sssociating with questionable people.

3)  The take down of his cherry picking at RC did not go unnoticed by his peers

4)  That he is more interested in obfuscating, spreading doubt and confusion, than the "truth". 

2011-09-17 09:05:06
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

OK, he is on his way down - and we are our way up.

2011-09-17 09:10:27
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
88.108.224.131

might be worth pointing out that Spencer likes being provocative in that sort of a way, note the polynomial fits on his blog post about recent MSU temperatures, which he says are only there for some fun, but he must know that there will always be those who will reproduce the figure without the caveat and an audience all to ready to swallow it hook line and sinker.   In his position Spencer really should be avoiding anything that could so easily be misinterpreted/misused.

2011-09-17 09:29:12
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.125.111

Dikran,

We are talking to Pielke. This polynomial issue is too remote to bring up with him now. If we were talking directly to Spencer it would make sense.

2011-09-18 19:37:45Attn: JC & Robert Way
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

Just to remind folks: Since we seem to be gearing up to respond to Pielke formally, we should include at the beginning our response to his response to our original questions. These were generally not quite satisfactory. They covered:

A1: On the issue of Christy's misleading testimony: I guess JC is going to address that.

A2: On the issue of CO2 & jogging: The text at the top is the current proposal.

A3: On the dominance of natural cycles vs fossil fuels in recent global warming: We need input on thisi; I thought that Robert Way had volunteered?

Spencer's unsatisfying answers can be found here.

2011-09-19 01:57:42comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.207.122

Sorry for not getting back sooner. My home computer is on the fritz and I was off doing some work related things for the last two days and have not had access to computers and so on. I will try to get what I can get done today... I'll hopefully bring better news next time