Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

“Alex Beam, How Dare You!” OR “Charley, You Never Disappoint” – With Poll

By

I read Alex Beams column yesterday on global warming. Then I waited. And waited. It took longer than I thought, but I trusted my instincts. And voila! Today Charley posted his attack. What took so long Charley?

You see, Alex (one of Ernie’s favorites, right behind Joan Venocchi) had the audacity to try and confirm Al Gore and others’ claim that no one of any qualifications disagrees with anything he is saying.

As Beam tells it,

“Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider’s directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

“I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?”

God Damn Alex Beam for being inquisitive!

You are sooo right Charley. Don’t ever question what a lefty flavor of the week says. Has Alex Beam no decency. “Credulous” you say. Absolutely. There is no need for independent thinkers. There will be way too much Kool Aid left over if people start thinking on their own.

I don’t want to know that today the Artic is as warm is it was in 1940. I don’t need to know that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing. And really, should we care that glaciers have been retreating and advancing for centuries?

We all got the memo. Remember? After the Robert Reich and Howard Dean memo and before the Deval Patrick memo. We have our marching orders. Now get out there and preach. If only we had a thousand more Charleys.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Seeing a program on global warming, back when there was less consensus on the issue (and there is, of course, no such thing as a scientific issue that everyone agrees on, other than maybe the existence of gravity and the earth going around the sun) and the most compelling comment about the relationship between human activity in producing greenhouse gas and the evidence that the earth was warming was from a scientist who did not claim to know, but asked if we really want to run the experiment to find out…we’ve only got one planet. If it turns out that Al Gore is right, by the time we have definitive evidence it will be too late to do much about it. On the other hand, the kinds of changes that would reduce alleged global warming also have the benefit of reducing dependence on petroleum products and making the air cleaner. Even if it was just cleaner air and cleaner water, that would be worth a hell of a lot, yes, it would even be worth giving up a whole lotta money in exchange for being able to breathe fresh air and eat as many fish as you can catch (from your kayak or rowboat, of course). The abolition of power mowers and blowers alone would be worth it.

      • You’re right, Ernie — I was too hard on your pal Beam.

        <

        p>
        Being inquisitive … maybe Mr. Beam (or you) could ask around why Prof. Lindzen seems to be left out in the cold in the scientific community, as it were. Hint: It ain’t Al Gore.

        • Beam only points out that this guy exists and he is a full fledge tenured MIT professor. That seems like, at the minimum, a valid foundation for an “expert” on weather.
          Beam didn’t say he agreed with the guy. I read it as Beam being amused, angry,and insulted that he was told by Gore and others that no such person exists. So don’t even try to find him/her. You’re wasting your time.

          <

          p>
          You read the column with a bias. You then attacked Beam personally – yes personally-  because he had the audacity to tell his readers about this guy.

          <

          p>
          And then of course you call Beam Ernie’s “pal” in your comment. So you can now say Ernie is bias in favor of Beam.
          Uncool Charley.

          <

          p>
          I read the article as a vote for free speech without fear of being sued.

          <

          p>
          GO ERNIE!

          • Beam never says that. This is what he says:

            <

            p>

            While vacationing in Canada, I spotted a newspaper story that I hadn’t seen in the United States. For no apparent reason, [unless you actually think about it –ed.] the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al. have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

            <

            p>
            Without seeing the original article, it’s hard to say, but perhaps the defense is using him as an expert witness, and the plaintiffs want as much information about the guy as possible.  Is that some kind of enviro-fascism, or is it just how the law works? Subpoenas happen.

            <

            p>
            More to the point: as you say, Beam’s article doesn’t even address the actual merits. He doesn’t make a convincing case (to me) that the guy’s being harassed somehow. So we’re left with romanticizing a guy who doesn’t seem to deserve it.

        • You ask me to find out why this Lindzen fellow has been left out in the cold. (nice pun by the way).

          <

          p>
          Chrley my friend, here is my analogy.

          <

          p>
          1. you say there are no skin heads.
          2. I say there are and introduce some to you.
          3. You respond, well if they exist, how come nobody like them?

      • ..that would require acknowleging his existence. I like Alex Beam, not least because he is such a wiseass. Al Gore was clearly exaggerating when he said “not one” about scientific dissent, and he should know better. Still, on the whole, this is nitpicking.

        • Michaels

          <

          p>
          Professor Michaels is a professor at Virginia Polytech, Virginia’s State Climatologist, and a fellow at the Cato Institute.

          <

          p>
          Ok, so technically Charley doesn’t call him a demon.  He’s a science whore employing crackpot logic.  In the referenced thread, I find his logic flawless.  YMMV.

          • Michaels deserves what he gets from me. He is what he is: a liar. Just ask Jim Hansen, NASA’s chief climate scientist: (my emphasis below)

            <

            p>

            I agreed to participate in this debate with Dr. Michaels after learning that he had used (or misused) a figure of mine in testimony to the United States Congress. The figure showed the first predictions made with a 3-D climate model and time-dependent climate forcings — it was a figure from a paper that we had published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1988 and it had been a principal basis for testimony that I gave to the United States Senate in 1988.

            … When Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was “a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty”.

            <

            p>
            As for Lindzen, I’m not yet ready to judge his motives. Michaels actively solicits money from fossil fuel producers for pumping out the crap.

            • Then Dr. Hansen can be criticized for his various charges.

              <

              p>
              When it comes to global warming, I’m no more educated than your average tree-frog, alledged to be croaking out of existance as I type. 

              <

              p>
              I do know this (Bullets!):

              <

              p>

              • There appears to be consensus that the world temperatures have warmed over tha past century;
              • There is some agreement quantifying the causality of man-made carbon emissions to the warming via the production of 2 main gases in the atmosphere: CO2 and water.
              • Clinton, a Democrat must I remind you, rejected Kyoto.  Subsequently, the Senate agreed in 95-0 vote that it was not a treaty to which the US should be a party. i.e. there is some bipartisanship to the current US policy.
              • There is substantial conflict with respect to the warming trend over, say, the next 100 years.
              • There is substantial conflict whether the Antartic ice is receding
              • There is substantial conflict whether the Greenland ice is receding
              • There is substantial conflict whether the warming caused more hurricanes in 2005 and will cause more in the future
              • There is substantial conflict how reducing CO2 emissions will effect future climates.
              • There is a cost to US CO2 reduction.  On this point there is no disagreement. There is, however, great disagreement on the measure of the cost.
              • Al Gore knows how to use Power-Point and did not invent the intranets. No question.

            • Go Cavaliers!!  Virginia Tech has no right to designate someone has State Climatologist.  The Hokies might have a great football program, but UVA rocks when it comes to education.  A Hokie has no idea about climatology.

        • First of all, I hate that this is about Al Gore. Who cares?

          <

          p>
          However, since you brought it up, Gore did not claim that there are no scientists who dispute it. In his movie, he refers to this article in the journal Science (which I’ve linked to countless times now):

          <

          p>

          The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

          <

          p>
          “Materially false statement?” Hell no.

    • Dear Alice:

      <

      p>
      Just a few points

      <

      p>
      The abolition of power mowers would wreak havoc on the second biggest industry in Florida, illegal immigrant landscaping. 

      <

      p>
      Better than outlawing the mower, how about capping all those volcanos?  They spew awful amounts of greenhouse gases.

      <

      p>
      If global warming has you down, move out of gd Florida.  It is hot down there.  Move to Fargo or Watertown, NY or Montreal.

      <

      p>
      Chronic wringing of the hands is the leading cause of carpal tunnel syndrome.

      • No. I complained about noise and air pollution. I complained about the fact that it’s not safe to eat even saltwater fish because of pollution caused by the shit we put into the air.

        <

        p>
        Incidentally, I believe there were several days in July when it was hotter in Boston (and much of the country) than it was here. There have been a lot of those events in the last decade…who knows, maybe it’s a coincidence, but then again maybe not. Many, if not most, scientists think not.

Archives