Lawrence Solomon: No, you don't have it right at all

Sun, 2009-11-22 11:49Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Lawrence Solomon: No, you don't have it right at all

In her on-air dismemberment of the disingenuous National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon last week, Anna Maria Tremonti, host of the CBC radio show, The Current, asked Solomon this:

“In your book (The Deniers), you write that the scientist you talk about are not actually deniers, that most of them quibble with some of the details but not with the fundamental question of whether climate change is happening or whether it is caused by human activity. Do I have that right?”

Solomon responded: “No, you don’t have that right at all.”

Yet, on Page 45 of his book, Solomon says: “”As these dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, I noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers.

“None of them were deniers.”

Solomon then spends a page going over quibbles and concludes that the people in his book are “Affirmers in general. Deniers in particular.”

Which is to say that Tremonti had it absolutely right, regardless of Solomon’s willingness - against evidence committed by his own hand - to try to say otherwise.

Comments

The "Current" program was well worth the listen, thanks for the link on that.

The comment Jim Prall made may be worth a mention in the above article as well. I had been to Jim's site before but hadn't seen the numbers on the pro/con peer reviewed literature imbalance while there.

Pro 601 - Con 14 ..... sounds a bit shocking really.

Here's an aside, which won't come as a surprise here I'm sure. Posted below is a comment made on a CBC article that is currently up on their site. Thought the sleuth's @DeSmog may enjoy a bit of comic relief.

-------------------
“With the release of hundreds of e-mails and documents from Hadley on Friday, that details the fraud and manipulation of data by the climate scientists at the IPCC, to manufacture the entire man made global warming / climate change crises. Demands that we now need full and complete investigation into climate gate. For all the profiteers, smear merchants, fabricators and enablers, it's time to lawyer up and worry about staying out of jail.”
-------------------

The real ironic part of that nonsense is the last sentence. Boy is it ever time for that to happen.

I did submit a complaint on it pointing out that most all of it is totally off the wall and the "fraud" claim might even be considered libelous. No reply from CBC yet but we'll see what happens.

Really wanted to get this up to encourage you folks to keep the pressure on. This type of nonsense really needs to be stopped.

Also thought you would like to know that your work is inspiring others to get involved on squashing this kind of crap.

All the best.

One of the critical tests for libel in Canada is that the person making the comment must have reasonable grounds to believe that the comments are true. In light of climategate their is ample grounds to make statements relating to fraud. However the scientists involved are free to test the legal waters, but they would never venture to do so. If they did then the e-mails would be admissable as evidence and therefore become part of the public record and be able to be published in every jusrisdiction in the world. I think they are sticking to the "Hacker" story instead of the truth that it was a whistleblower to keep a lid on the incredible damage the publication of these e-mails in their entirety would do.

Inside job? now that's much more interesting than some hacker. Lets go with the inside job theory.

Where is this whistleblower? Doesn't the UK have laws protecting whistleblowers? If there is such a person, why hasn't he come forward and corroborated the authenticity of these emails and data? Why hasn't he released everything he has?

Of course if it really was a hacker, I can understand the reluctance to come forward.

The word deniers means different things at different times. It's getting pretty tired as a general label and serves only to cut off discussion.

If there was a legitimate "discussion", with real scientific research being quoted on both sides, these people wouldn't be called deniers. But when all you do is deny, with no legitimate evidence, then the label is accurate.

But if your definition of "discussion" is just the anti-science side making stuff up, then I'm sorry to say the label doesn't seem to "cut off discussion" at all.

I don't know if you guys are aware of the extent or the occurance of hacked e-mails being released over the weekend. I was made aware by my teenage daughter and her friends. The sysonpsis of the whole situation is that climate change is one giant hoax. The IPCC climate scientists themselves revealed that they are not sure that global warming is occurring and if you read the e-mails they are not even sure that the theory of anthropogenic warming is even accurate at all or even materially atributable to man.
In any event this kind of puts carbon emissions on the backburner as far as priorities to deal with. If my eco freaky daughter is now convinced global warming is not worth dealing with it's only a matter of time before everyone else clues in.

I have written an article somewhat related to this fact on my new blog. www.cammackay.com

If you are interested please take a look and leave a comment.

Thanks

Your opening implies that you didn't read any other posts at this website, even though you mention "a favorite blog of mine called Desmogblog.com" in the second post on your own website: http://cammackay.com/?p=5

Your first post on your own website is dated Nov. 6; I don't know if that date can be fiddled with; maybe someone who is computer savvy can check when the website was actually set up.

The only link on the Blogroll is Climate Depot.

You have a cluster map showing no visitors starting from Nov. 23

Did you start your website with the aim of making it a denialist blog? Is it an astroturf blog?

You certainly are suspicious of anyone and anything. I had set up my blog a month ago but I wanted to get some projects completed at work first. Deniers blog, no, global warming is only one topic of many but the coverup is very interesting. Probably the biggest news item that will never be covered by the mainstream.

Astroturfing somehow implies that I'm getting funded by big oil. The only funding I get is from myself and the only motivation I have is to write interesting articles base on factual evidence.

The whole global warming/climate change debate is more interesting now as the leaked documents certainly puts a human face on what has been going on. The leak is also one of the only things that is starting to turn heads and change minds as everyone I have talked to about it upon doing research and due diligence on their own, comes to the same conclusion. What a scam.

AGW is not totally ruined as a theory but it certainly has lost a lot of credibility and will now be examined for the evidence and scientific merit, rather than on personality like it was before. Ie: the consensus is in, all scientists agree with me, your a denier etc...

If you've read it, I think my article on press bias covers a big reason as to why this huge story has been covered by the main stream media as it has.

Sorry, a bunch of private emails stolen by some denialist have very little to do with the actual science which shows that AGW is well underway.

So why does your Blogroll have only Climate Depot on it?

What other blogs should I reference too? I will definately put desmog up there, any other suggestions?

RealClimate, Deltoid, Rabett Run; check out the links on this page, lower right.

CamMacKay wrote:

"What other blogs should I reference too?"

Deep Climate may be a good one.

I noticed you had commented there and someone pointed out your confusion on where these e-mails were "hacked" from and pointed out they were from CRU and not Hadley which are 2 separate institutions.

Also noticed you have your article tagged "Hadley" & "Hadley hacked". Will you be correcting that error?

You may also want to spend a bit of time going through the 74 "long debunked" skeptic arguments Skeptical Science has posted on their site.

If you go through the list you will note there is a page devoted to glacier loss which relates to your article title. The link below will help get you started....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

All the best.

Thanks, for the reply on deepclimate, I think that is the one I'm going to pick as it seems like it is Canadian as well. As for the minor typographical errors relating to the IPCC scientists being uncovered, I think I wll let them stand. The real story is not my spelling or which side of the campus the truth was uncovered, but the fact that the truth has come out.
I can appreciate that some of you have so much vested in global warming. Although in light of the lack of physical evidence supporting the theory, the recent outing of corrupt scientists and the detrimental effects of implementing a plan to fight carbon why are you not giving the whole thing a quick rethink?

No one can really say anything definative on climate change either way although the evidence seems to be mounting in favor of mans impact being very small. I'm not too keen on going broke to fill up a tank of gas but on the other hand my business is carbon neutral and I have no financial interest in fossil fuels other than some small portfolio holdings. I can go either way on climate change, I just want the truth, don't you?
perhaps we should have a royal inquiry here in Canada to get to the bottom of this?

... glad to help out.

re: your comment,

"I just want the truth, don't you?
perhaps we should have a royal inquiry here in Canada to get to the bottom of this?"
-----------

Couldn't agree more. Getting the truth out is something I have been hoping for almost daily since I realized years ago how serious an issue this is and how many million$ have been spent on the dis-information campaign to "hide" the truth.

Royal inquiry is an excellent idea as long as we brought in someone outside our government to conduct it. Can't say I'm overly impressed with those making the decisions at this point, or for many years previous.

Then again it might be better to simply consider who has already signed on showing agreement to the mountains of peer reviewed literature that establishes AGW and save poor tax payers any further burden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_global_warming#Academies_of_Science

I would think any "inquiry" would be more than satisfied with so strong a consensus. I'm actually a little puzzled by folks like yourself who still seem to be having a struggle with that. I would have thought it obvious to a stump by now.

You may want to forward your thoughts regarding your skepticism along to some of those mentioned in the above link though it might take a l-o-n-g time to get through the list.

All the best with your efforts, keep us posted on how things go OK.

Cheers

"The sysonpsis of the whole situation is that climate change is one giant hoax"

Congratulations! Your blogging adventure in right wing paranoia has begun, predictably, with what kids these days call "epic fail".

CamMacKay wrote:

"The IPCC climate scientists themselves...."

If you do a search on Wiki of "IPCC" you'll note that there are NO scientists with the IPCC which is stated quite plainly in the sentence below from that Wiki page.

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself."

The scientists involved work for scientific organizations.

You may want to make note of that on your blog.

All the best.

I think that's the real story, not emails stolen from legitimate climate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/comment-page-2/#comment-143771

P.S. By the way, I wonder what would have happened if it had been Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos National Lab's email system that had been hacked, with the results posted on the web for all to see?

Yes, that would have been called a cybersecurity breach that would require a full-scale investigation by the FBI and other bodies - just something to think about. In contrast, the press has been silent on that issue...

http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/gao-cybersecurity-flaws-los-alamos-labs/2009-11-15

"The Government Accountability Office said in a report that the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico continues to have significant computer security problems, warning that it is having difficulty "protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information stored on and transmitted over its classified computer network."

"The classified computer network of a major U.S. nuclear laboratory remains vulnerable to cyber attack, according to a congressional watchdog agency. The Government Accountability Office said in a report that the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico continues to have significant computer security problems, warning that it is having difficulty "protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information stored on and transmitted over its classified computer network."

Lawrence Solomon has written about his interview and he has suggested a number of questions that Anna Maria Tremonti could have asked James Hoggan in the same program.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/21/lawrence-solomon-what-she-didn-t-ask.aspx

While Jim is writing his replies, I'll be making pocorn.

(Edited to add): Ha, I just noticed that Solomon wrote "My appearance Thursday morning was, to my knowledge, just about the only time that The Current has ever invited a climate change skeptic."

Meanwhile, in the comments, Tom Harris wrote at 3:54 am Nov 21: "Your piece illustrates well why I turned down being interviewed for The Current a couple of years back..."

Forgive my cupidity, but does the CBC radio program 'The Current' have anything whatsoever to do with THE GOREACLE's flagging, recently employee-culled small screen venture 'Current T.V.?'

With all that's transpired, has there been an outpouring of concern for any re-positioning of THE GOREACLE's investment portfolio? I've been scouring EBAY, etc. for a listing of his 100 foot Houseboat.

I see him as the real victim in all this and would like to help in any way I can.

Bill Gates builds hospitals for the needy, the rest of us do what we can.

The Current is a longtime CBC news program. Could your rather immature comments be referring to Al Gore? I doubt that his use of the word "Current" has any connection to CBC's program.

Did you mean to write cupidity or stupidity in referring to yourself?

These are classic symptoms of emotional trauma and grief, though it appears you have leap-frogged Denial (NOT the river in Africa) to Anger. You must commit yourself to cycling through them, like the 12-step programs with which I'm sure you're familiar.
www.helpguide.org/mental/grief_loss.htm

Your heroes, The CONSENSUS (CON US for short) appear to be Charlatans of the first order so your feelings of abject betrayal are entirely valid. I'm reminded of the Reverend Jim Jones so steer clear of the laced grape Flavor Aid.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

The real Heroes are the hackers. One may only hope they're timing the
release of these damning emails like Andrew Breitbart's release of the damning ACORN videos.
www.biggovernment.com
ACORN(on life support)and THE CONSENSUS have a lot in common.

Is the MANTRA still the unassailable, unquestionable "the science is settled and the debate is over?" Maybe you should consider, "yeah we got busted; our bad. But everyone else is doing it!"

Lastly, I've always welcomed personal attacks as they identify clearly
a dearth of reason and a weakness of position.

"Your heroes, The CONSENSUS (CON US for short) appear to be Charlatans of the first order so your feelings of abject betrayal are entirely valid."
...
"Lastly, I've always welcomed personal attacks as they identify clearly
a dearth of reason and a weakness of position."

Really?

I believe he gets through the loop hole here by targeting a class of people rather than a specific individual.

The problem is: here is creationism at work, meaning no arguments accepted, just belief - which, as we know, does not necessarily rely on facts. Cultish repetition, over and over repeated, out of sync with reality. And, as James Hoggan writes in his book: it creates (sic) uncertainty with the (less informed) public.

Anyway, it is pointless to discuss facts with a creationist.

Came upon this while following another AGW related thread elsewhere.

I felt was worth re-posting here....

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

Sure has a familiar ring when you consider the recent announcements coming from certain elected reps that will go un-named here.

I think Tim ball's post on this issue says it best. This is a deathblow to Climate Science. Here is one of Canada's leading climatologists, fighting back for science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyXgjfy6008

I just hope the rest of societies scientific endeavors are not tainted with the same brush as Climate science is painted with.

In any event I guess its time to move on.
No Evidence of Warming
No credible scientific research
No Climate scientists behind the AGW theory anymore
No reason to keep up with the carbon credit parade.

Again and again the same bogus. Does repetation create truth?

Are you denialists completely brain dead? Are your "skeptical intellects" so mesmerized? There is nothing, NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G in this whole matter that changes any of the scientific understanding or evidence of AGW.

By this point you are simply proving yourself deliberately dishonest by making or supporting these claims. This is literally schoolyard taunting on the level of "I know you are but what am I?"

Noted and judged.

Seriously? Tim Ball "one of Canada's leading climatologists"?

You really need to check your sources there. My website ranks authors by number of peer-reviewed works on "climate" and you have to scroll awfully far down to find Tim Ball - or nearly any of the numerous signers of a dozen public letters saying we should stop worrying about climate:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate
This page has the overall listing sorted by number of climate articles (Tim Ball is #1848 in this ordering):
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html
This page lists just Canadians; Tim Ball is #212 of 259, and the last 30+ are dominated by climate skeptics who published two or fewer works on climate in their lifetimes:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html

Also, I think you are off the chart with "No Climate scientists behind the AGW theory anymore". How about the following?

A) 1700 UK scientists, from 67 universities and 55 other research institutes, who just signed this statement defending the integrity of climate science:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html

B) 850 Canadian scientists endorsing this:
http://www.wwf.ca/conservation/global_warming/copenhagen/december2009/take_action/scientists_voice.cfm

C) 1700 U.S. scientists and economists who signed this statement:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you make this kind of over-the-top claim that there are "No Climate scientists behind the AGW theory anymore" (or, for that matter, "No credible research" - this is ridiculous, unless you have a special definition of "credible" that involves "believed by you" rather than "credible to most people")?

(Prediction: any reply will invoke something from Oregon.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

The wall street Journal has blown the lid on climate gate and is suggesting that congress call in some of these rogue climate scientists. So far the climate scientists are evading reporters and threatening legal action. Looks like it's only a matter of time before these people get reigned in to face the consequences of their actions. You can't pervert science like they have and expect to get away with it.