william.scherk

The story of Gleevec is told at Nature. It's a pretty exciting story of targeted research that paid off. Jerry might note that Gleevec is not his usual 'poison,' killing cancer but also other growing cells. This drug does not have that side effect. Caution, however -- this particular cancer was amenable to a targeted drug in ways other cancers are not. I don't think Jerry will get all worked up over Gleevec. It works, it saves lives, it's not poisonous, he's happy.

That's what you and I are doing at this moment. Opinion polls are not good criteria for constitutional law. You asked what difference it makes to me personally? Child custody of an innocent 12-year-old matters, if my wife and I die in a car wreck tomorrow -- and the moral character of our city and state and school districts matter to her future and ours. Homosexuality, like prostitution and drug use, is a public health question. Well, no, OL is not what I would call real life. Forums don't have the ebb and flow of questions and answers. Re opinion polls being criteria -- again I call your attention to the argument made by Ed and extended by me. It is a political criteria, applied to the Republican party. His argument had little to do with constitutional law, nor does yours offer a constitutional correction to overturned DOMA and multiple state gay marriage law. What will gay marriage/gay adoption matter if your 12 year-old becomes an orphan? You see a slippery slope where your child is likely to be sexually abused, prostituted, led into drug use, or otherwise harmed by any gay couple seeking to love and raise a child? Where does this fear and association of danger originate, I wonder. I find the equation containing homosexuality, prostitution and drug use mostly prejudice and not amenable to reason. Is there a reasonable supposition that your orphan will be gay-adopted and then subject to serious abuse or appreciable harm? I don't think so, and there is where your moralism kind of hits home, the gay menace ... that's me. I don't think I will get much traction arguing with Wolf on homosexuality as public health menace or menace to children. I will just mark my opposition to queer menace arguments and move on.

Okay, now we have established that the Gerson therapy is a protracted, expensive regimen for sick people, this sets aside Greg's spluttering. We also set aside that Gerson therapy was being compared with conventional -- that was a particular cancer with the Gonzalez regimen. Now, you say the study was, er, bullshit, anyway. Care to back that up in any way? Care to highlight the similarities and differences between Gerson and Gonzalez for the shut-ins, or are we all past that? You have cited one 1995 article in an alternative medicine journal, Alternative Therapies In Health and Medicine, in favour of Gerson. Some folks at University of Texas Cancer Center took a close look at this. Their review is found here, and is recommended for its scope. There is lots of literature besides that which mentions or cites that one article. Here's a Google Scholar page that returns articles that reference the Gerson review you cited. Dialogue! I won't harry you on this, Jerry. If you think that the Gerson therapy delivers miraculous cures, I'll just say that this is not well-supported by the kind of evidence that convinces me. I do sometimes wonder how you figure questionable therapies will survive a good OL inspection, and how you breeze past evidence that counters your concepts. But it's not like you are MD for the suffering at OL, and I don't think Gerson is the first person OLers will think about should a tumour take root in their bodies, so no harm no foul.

That's queer. To test for preposterous, note that Ed does not put his argument in that form. He is more suggesting that 'liberal' Republicans (and Independents) will drift away if the party continues to court the most extreme, dwindling minority. I take Ed to be talking about political reality. It is unclear how opposing gay marriage serves electoral goals nationally. Without respect to a perfect constitutional regime, but with respect to the institutions as they are. It does no work to decry gay or LGBT-tainted judges having overturned DOMA and state law. State and federal marriage law is changing, and as it changes, so does public opinion. Look at newer numbers, from March: So, Wolf, what's your argument for the Republican party in the face of a softening of a former majority among the entire electorate? How do you want that party to play out the gay marriage issue in the coming electoral season, given the social reality we observe? Maybe, in a not too preposterous future, we will find that Folks generally are just not as morally disgusted as the evangelicals and you are now, and maybe the Republican party will go soft too, and will move on. And then what? Will the freaking sky will fall in? Would anyone argue that the sky has fallen in in Canada in the number of years we have been subject to gay marriage? What is the worst that is going to happen to the fabric of society in the USA, seriously? I just don't get the gravity of the situation. I don't see how Wolf's life will change whatsoever if a same-sex couple down the road has a marriage certificate. Wolf, do you ever talk much to gay people in real life on these issues?

Jerry gave us a peek at what he calls the Gerson diet, saying it "includes" orange juice, green juice, carrot juice, some solid food, some supplements ... I note that Jerry's list is not all complete and tends to deprecate that the 'diet' is not taken apart from the therapy. The Gerson Institute says "The Gerson Therapy is an extremely complex and comprehensive treatment,' even requiring a particular kind of juicer. Indeed juices are the primary component of the diet. Jerry says, "some solid food" is part of the diet part of the therapy, but this leaves out a lot of detail. Some supplements indeed. Instead of a 'diet,' think of a determined regimen. Greg gets a bit hot on mention of good old wholesome juices. I eat a lot of fruit and vegetables, but rarely if ever juice. I like the crunch. The same ingredients go to the same place as with the juice component of the Gerson regimen, so I see no big deal. I don't know who needs, really needs, quart jug after quart jug of Gerson. (in any case, nothing prohibits a cancer patient taking in fruits and vegetables by juice or otherwise) Here's what they say: So, a position dead-set against inflated claims for Gerson miracles in no way obviates nutrition. A position that argues for best-care in cancer treatment similarly in no way argues against nutrition -- for the benefit of the organism. Nor does it obviate against scientific research into nutrition and cancer. Indeed, the organization that provided the video Jerry posted has some fascinating and abundant research on foods that gives insight into how and why vegetables and fruits and other foods and phyto-chemicals can be protective against cancer (and also explains research that explains why some foods are contra-indicated). The chemical names Greg mentions above are mostly powerful and dangerous prescription anti-cancer agents. -- I don't know who the freaking idiots are, stupid things, but am still inclined to be skeptical of miracles attributed to Gerson therapies. Greg, besides the bit of solids food and the hundreds of capsules of supplements, you should know that Gerson therapy also demands anal-cleansing or rectal irrigation at least twice a day -- with coffee. There is also a lengthy compendium of things forbidden to be ingested. Included on the blacklist are such things as all fats, all animal proteins, high-protein foods, protein, all dairy, raw spinach, mushrooms, and about a hundred other things. Each of the classes of items on the forbidden list has a few rationales, but not all. If you wonder why spinach is bad, no clue. If you wonder why you should not drink water, or take coffee but by colon: You can't make this stuff up. I don't believe the rationale or the need for the proscriptions. I believe listening to the science better informs us why we should eat our fruits and vegetables, that we don't really need Gerson concepts to rule our diets or life (or reaction to cancer diagnosis). I know this differs from Jerry's beliefs. I don't know if Greg disagrees with it, despite his brief comments. Below is a video I found fascinating at the Nutrition Facts website, Xenohormesis, or What doesn't kill plants makes us stronger. Cool, rational, intriguing stuff. There is more at the site I can recommend, as the guy -- Michael Greger, MD -- is a clever and practiced speaker. Here's a link to a great presentation on 'Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death,' and a bit of the transcript.

Wolf is opposed to so-called marriage equality, on several grounds. First because -- he says -- it's not government's purpose to "defend queers" (queers here stands for gay males and lesbians, I assume). I don't know what he means by 'individual consent as a first principle.' It's clearly a function of Wolf's beliefs about government, a just state, personal freedom and so on -- that he is opposed to 'queer marriage' from the get-go. But he also sees practical, cultural, and moral issues. One of the moral/practical/cultural issues concerns the harm already done by queer marriage, in Wolf's view. He calls it "enormous harm ... forced on our (USA) society." It would be helpful for my understanding to have the harm identified and further quantified. The harm is likely to be seen in some states and not in others -- unlike in Canada/Spain/Netherlands and so on, where marriage laws function at the national level (I expect Wolf can tabulate some harm from the effect of the federal Defence of Marriage Act being struck down, requiring the federal government to respect same-sex marriages). About 'gay judges' who enforced this harm, it's unclear if this is but rhetorical salting. At least in Canada, that would mean all the Supreme Court judges were gay. With regard to DOMA, the majority judges would be gay. This doesn't make sense to me. 'Sodomites' is a choice old word, with choice connotations that extend from 'queer.' I don't see the argument here, only the conclusion. The USA has had democratic expression, through means of balloted constitutional amendments (or legislation like DOMA) curbed or overturned by the queers (gay judges, sodomites). Some states have had their republican structures damaged, their abilities to legislate reduced. As for Ed Hudgins' assertions that Republicans are hobbled by their ties with evangelical Christianity -- and the moral positions of its constituents -- Wolf assures that the only young folks the Republicans might lose on the queer marriage issue are already or likely to be Democrats (or 'social liberals'). This is not so clearcut; according to historical polling, the numbers of those in support of gay marriage equality (queers) grows even within the Republican and Independent contingents. Several historical trends can be seen in the polls represented at the Wikipedia page: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States. My takehome from demographics is the Ed Hudgins is right: young people increasingly favour legalizing gay marriage, across the parties. Wolf may be right that the young evangelical Republicans hold fast ... but this group does not comprise a majority of the young. I think that there is evidence of a social change, a change in opinion, that gives strength to Ed's argument over the coming years and electoral seasons. If the Republicans champion the most 'rejectionist' candidates, if they consistently work to serve the 'rejectionists' in electoral propaganda and platform, they will tend to lose the votes of the young. Some opinion researchers have spoken of a tipping point, that opinion can move quickly to a large majority in favour of gay marriage. For example, from the same Wiki article: . The article is worth looking at for its breakdowns of opinion by region, party, and other demographics. To my eyes it's Ed's understanding of trends (and his own position on queers or gay judges marrying sodomites) and the shape of things to come that led to his article. Wolf may be right that conservative Christians will not "surrender the Republican Party to strippers, drug addicts, queers, and anti-war isolationists," but Ed's and my point is that the electoral power of the Christian conservative is waning on this issue. On to the more moralistic part of Wolf's assertions. I don't like this part. Although he hasn't put evidence of harm from gay marriage to the fore, he has some scarecrows to set out. First up he takes issue with this assertion: public good requires orphans to be indoctrinated by homosexuals. Where did the orphans come from? I guess we needed to talk about the children, and few are more vulnerable than orphans. We needed to talk about a danger haunting orphans, the danger of being snatched up by queers, for indoctrination. Presumably this means sodomite adoption. Apparently this holds intrinsic negative outcomes, which require attention to child welfare more than another adoption. Perhaps this part is just a visceral rejection of the whole idea of gay parenting. That gays could be parents, good parents. It occurs to me that Wolf may be unaware how many lesbian moms and gay dads might already have children from heterosexual couplings, having come to sodomy later in life. Anyhow, Wolf's reaction to Ed ends on a real sour note for me. The final line, "Parenthood is more than a handshake and anal sex," turns off any charitable or positive reading of Wolf's positions. A simple reversal indicates to me that Wolf might mean: "Sodomite or queer parenthood is little more than a handshake and anal sex." If that is what he believes, too bad for him, because it is not true, of course. Adding repulsive connotation and now entailments of child sexual abuse to gay people/marriage, I thus take nothing away from Wolf's arguments but that gays are disgusting in all their ways and thus inimical to a good society, and so fuck the growing majority who believe no such thing, and fuck the rights of the disgusting outliers themselves. Point to Ed Hudgins. Disgust is not an argument. Wolf may blames America's disgusting marriage laws for a lot of harms, though perhaps he does not hold these laws responsible for atrocities like the Isla Vista killings, as did Republican Ken Blackwell. I'd like to know if Wolf stands with Blackwell to this knuckle-headed extreme. That extreme turned Ed's stomach, which led to a considered argument, which Wolf dismisses entirely. For those curious about where US opinion stands in international context, see this table from a recent Pew Global Views on Morality survey which looks at attitudes to homosexuality. Look especially at the lowest countries in the table. Spain, destroyed by queers, gay judges and sodomite orphan anal sex. Among several notable others, including your northern neighbour, Wolf! Signed, A drug-addict queer anti-war Stripper supporter north of Seattle

No they don't. I don't recognize anything there that is used in Gerson therapy. I didn't say there -were-authentic. I said they -looked- authentic. Ba'al Chatzaf They seem authentic. The labels that can be seen are cancer drugs. As far as the study glimpsed in the video, the whole thing is here: "Pancreatic proteolytic enzyme therapy compared with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer." (the video has a prequel here which focuses on Gerson therapy). The enzyme therapy regimen the study tested against standard therapy is closest to the Gonzalez therapy, which grew from the Kelly treatment. Both share with Gerson therapy some important principles and techniques. A potted history of the therapy is given in the text of the study and at Quackwatch. As with Gerson therapy there are enemas. There are a lot of pills (supplements). There are porcine pancreatic enzymes ... here is a brief description from Quackwatch. Gonzalez himself has had a lot to say about the Journal of Oncoology study being unfair and wrong to his therapy in various venues -- including a book "What went wrong?" -- but it is pretty straightforward comparison. Gonzalez hasn't fared well in the science-based medicine forums: see Orac for a tough treatment. There is also a sober and wide-ranging presentation of the Gonzalez therapy from the National Cancer Institute. -- Jerry remains to be convinced of any effectiveness whatsoever for 'poisons' like gemcitabine, so it's hard to see what might convince him that Gonzalez/Gerson/Kelly treatments are not the best bet. The saddest part of the Gonzalez therapy, as with every other questionable therapy, is the folks who don't experience the miraculous turnarounds (or survival rates). Death from pancreatic cancer is already grim. Finally, the New Yorker did a piece on Gonzalez, "The Outlaw Doctor":

I expected you to bail a lot earlier in the general dogpile. This is one of those situations they call a 'hostile house.' AGW is deprecated here. General opinion blows hard against the scientific orthodoxy. For me, I am grateful you offered your post #258 in this thread. I will likely return to muse on it, so don't go too far if you are taking a break from engaging. At least one person found your posts interesting, and on balance, you weren't a fraction of the hectoring bitch cretin cult worshiping fanatic depicted in some comments. We all get zany, sometimes ranty, sometimes bleakly apposite, sometimes -- sad to say -- sneering. I'd say some of the hostile house took issue with your tone or style. It was seen as either arrogant or hostile in itself. If one is perceived like this, in/out group conflict can take on one of its eerie forms, as scarecrows and effigies come out to play. Not to say it's your fault or your manner induced reaction, just that social effects can multiply. I for one would love to see lower temperatures in OL climate discussion. Ultimately, I hope I live long enough to see this issue become resolved to general satisfaction. As Bob and Ellen have zeroed the discussion, the house is still considering 'how much' putative warming was caused by humans. The youngest among us will see the most data, the graphs playing out in real, non simulated time, against expections. In the fullness of time beyond our individual allotments, we will better understand the 'human experiment' with CO2. There will come a time when we here now will be forced to agree one way or another, even if only as ghosts hanging around these topical threads. Maybe the experiment will actually bring on consequences that are only plausible here now, or maybe CO2 increases works out fine for everyone, and no balance was unstruck, our GW spike but a minor anomaly, an interlude in an otherwise stable interglacial climate.

I am still lurking this thread of endless homework. It's amazing how many roots, trunks, and tendrils of argument over anthropogenic global warming abound in the world. As Michael has noted at least once, any particular strong scientific assertion is likely to attract a discussion, answer, rebuttal, or review. The internets call-and-response/reaction and response looks like a cousin to an allied process in the scientific literature, where reasonable (though passionate) people furiously work to find fault in published research, against a phalanx of information that aims to convince, influence and/or agitate. Then there are the government sites, from NASA on down. Then there is a mass of websites devoted to education or lobbying or countering orthodoxy -- these come in all blends. There is also an enormous blogosphere (ranging from WattsUpWithThat to DeSmogBlog). The roots, trunks, branches and tendrils of all these places faces back at us. Which particulars to attend to, to compare, analyse, trace? Earlier, Michael referred to Dennis Hartmann, who had written a climatology textbook, cited by a certain "AGW truther" who lurks much less than I. I took the hidden dare to click play on the video, though it's 40 minutes, if only to imagine MSK watching these three high priests of the scientific myth cult, speaking on expensive technology live from Stockholm! They should be squirming under scrutiny, no? Officially, they are three of the "coordinating lead authors" of the first chapter of the IPCC (AR5) Assessment Report. The video is long but fairly crisply laid out. The three cult leaders switch off to speak to their own areas of expertise. First the Australian, Nathan Bindoff, he introduces himself and colleagues and tries to describe the fabulousness that is AR5. He fires off some numbers. 110 nations have 'agreed.' The IPCC report has been cooked down: 108 bullets, 22 pages, 18 headline statements distilled out of one million words. Takehome: Earth is changing, it is unequivocal. 110 nations have agreed. Evidence for human influence on the climate system is clear ... Hartmann then gets the mike and takes observational evidence first. He says that warming is unequivocal, supported by many independent lines of evidence. From instruments and various natural recording systems. He says he will give highlights. Highlights Global averaged annual estimate of anomalies (surf temp/atmosphere/ocean). for the average over the last three decades, each of those has been progressively warmer than all preceding records. The most recent 30-year period is the warmest we have been in 1400 years. Warming seen in the trophosphere. In the ocean, we can measure increase in temperature at depth. Arctic sea ice decline. Ice sheet decline. Greenland is losing ice -- the last decade shows recent acceleration in ice loss. Sea level is rising, increasing at a more rapid rate in recent years, rate greater than any time in the two millenium. Approx 2/10th metre rise. We can measure with great precision the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. C02 (Methane, Nitric Oxide) concentrations are 40% more than pre-industrial era (1750) judging from ice-core data. It is estimated that CO2 concentration is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Yikes. He ends with this precis of what he has just said. "A light summary of the observational evidence that warming is unequivocal, based on these multiple lines of evidence that I have given to you ... " Next up of climate zealot professors is Bindoff, who I expect will present "human fingerprint" attributions. Jochem Marotzke is the third corrupt maven of the overlords. I don't know if I will make it to him. Thought I would post this to salt the path as I watch as much as I can of its hideous boring length. I may report on the 'fingerprint' story, as fishy as it sounds from the get-go. Open question for all: is it worthwhile to take acrimony out of this debate? If so, any pointers or best practice? (one could argue that the acrimony is necessary for the debate, but don't expect to see it in replies) To take the mind from musing on climate -- weather, pure weather:

Good points, Bob. I hope you report back if you do some more digging among the literature on Svensmark's findings/theory, and if you find any good counter-Svensmark articles or papers. You ask a decent question. Given that 'no one is arguing' the fact "that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans," you draw explanations into two types: those that properly factor all natural causes (including cosmic rays) and those than don't do so. Given you offer preliminary support for Svensmark's thesis, can you share your reactions to any good research you've read that does not fully support Svensmark's work -- or that offers cogent argument against it? Or at least give us links to reasonable counter-arguments, or otherwise let us know how you advise vetting work on cosmic rays/cloud formation? What data would tend to falsify Svensmark's work, in whole or in part, from your perspective? What 'signal' should we be looking for that will over time offer proof or disproof of the notion that cosmic ray abundance has significant climate implications (that cosmic ray abundance depresses temperatures, lack of abundance removes forcing)? They are using hardcore propaganda techniques, too, like guilt by association for one example. Here's a typical one. People who don't follow their party line are branded "Climate Change Deniers." They like to tout at times that skepticism (which is good for science) is different than denial, but in practice, they are always very quick to level the "Climate Change Denier" charge at a skeptic and they constantly frame the climate change issue in "denier" terms, even with people they, one minute ago, recognized as skeptics and not deniers. Here's a well-known name who styles himself a skeptic, Fred Singer, in an article called "Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name," published in American Thinker a couple of years ago. I do agree with Michael that the internet is full of pretty rank arguments full of ad hominem -- on the subject of global warming. Even our little corner of rationality -- and this thread in particular -- has been full of words that don't always do any work: from fool to bitch to propagandist and worse --though I like the image of kook green radicals being fed Soylent Green. Still, remembering the heightened emotions and rhetoric from OL's first global warming thread, I think acrimony is damaging to reason. Turning the temperature down then serves additional goals. It must be spring, when the sap begins to quicken. I look forward to positive outcomes of sustained, rational, reasonable discussion in this thread: understanding the so-called and disputed "consensus"; knowing what parts of the AGW consensus arguments are relatively strong and which parts are less strong or actually weak, according to best evidence adduced.understanding where my own grasp of climate concepts is weak, very weak, or non-existent.figuring out which questions tend to bear the most fruitful answers. Back to Singer. He eviscerates AGWarmistas as he tends to do in his books and papers and articles. But he also nets errors on the other side, notes particulars of 'denier' opinion, opinion he finds wanting:

William, Does this work for a layman's explanation in your understanding? [video "What is blackbody radiation"] Thanks, Michael -- and Bob. I watched the first short video on blackbody radiation, then this one. I also last night watched the 9-part video Bob flagged today. I am not ready to explain the concept in 140 characters ... but am hoping anyone following along with me understands this statement: The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. I much prefer to start with what Naomi introduced (starting with the first paragraph), but I will answer your proposal. Maybe you could consider again that post, and see for yourself where your understanding dims, or your agreement is withdrawn. My mental sleeve is still caught in the cogs of that post's explanatory summary. -- between the "appearance" of man on the historical fact pattern, the levels of C02 in the atmosphere has varied from what it is today First, 'historical fact pattern' is unclear: I don't know what you mean. I agree with the second clause. Levels of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' have varied from what it is measured at today. If by historical fact pattern you mean a 'signature' of industrial and other human-caused CO2 in our atmosphere, then with the second clause you may mean something like: there is a discernable amount of CO2 in today's atmosphere that is actually the result of human activities; there is a discernible growth in that amount over time. Adam, does that translate in your understanding? Would you tend to agree that a human 'signal' has been found in CO2 levels? For an illustration, here's a historical record of CO2 levels graphed (from Skeptical Science's 'The human fingerprint in global warming') -- this vast and complicated Earth that we inhabit is much more comlpex than a model that a human mind can create at this point in time. Said another way, this tends to a conclusion: humans cannot, at this point in time, figure out what the heightened CO2 levels means in terms of climate 'change' (warming). It implies that nobody can figure out even a small part of any climate puzzle, nor take a good guess (or as with 'blackbody radiation,' agree on definitions or tried and true natural 'laws' as mentioned by both Bob and Naomi). I can't quite agree with that. That conclusion seems a closed door: it doesn't credit protracted human inquiry to figure out which particular claims/theories have been found wrong, nor would that conclusion let us figure out how to falsify claims or theories. Can I turn this back on you, Adam? Do you agree in part or generally with these following factual claims? Maybe you would rewrite it to make more sense in your mind. Given what you have put forward above, how might we decide which parts might be true and which parts likely are not? For fun, Adam, a link to 'Climate of Mars' at Wikipedia.

Bob and Naomi, you each may be interested in this piece by Jeffrey Pierce at RealClimate, "Cosmic rays and clouds: Potential mechanisms." It's from 2011, speaks to the cosmic-ray/cloud data/theory, with some good links to the CLOUD project. As Michael points out, this particular issue (and its relative importance) is a site of dispute among varied groups who study and propose/test theories in this area. I don't think this can be settled by joining Team Svensmark or Team non-Svensmark againts all comers, nor by assuming one 'side' has already won the discussion and so the question is completely 'settled.' As Pierce writes, this is an exciting, interesting field of study in itself. It is nice, straight, non-polemic discussion. Recommended. For another 'skeptical science' perspective, the Svensmark theory is examined and found interesting but yet unproven, with reference to the literature. The page is "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?" It has three levels of explanation, which I found helpful. Bob/Naomi, you go straight to the 'advanced' argument ...

This is a good place to re-enter discussion. It gives an opportunity to define and understand concepts that animate the theory of AGW/Greenhouse Earth. This short summary from the head of Naomi's post may or may not be understood by everyone reading this thread, but it does a creditable job of laying out what many of us probably were looking forward to -- something relatively brief, but with substantive information. That said, the paragraph can be improved for comprehension. For example, "blackbody radiation." I could cut and paste from a host of places that explain blackbody radiation, but I don't have the gift to cut an explanation to size. Ellen and Ba'al are steeped in physics, Naomi a student/amateur. Would any of you tackle 'blackbody radiation' for the intelligent laymen of OL? I suspect that some readers' eyes glazed over in the rest of Naomi's post. It has some heft, even if only in a list of items that can further be discussed. But I suggest that concepts and 'laws' likely to be mis or partly understood get a bit more explanation. Besides blackbody radiation, I expect some of us paused or furrowed the brow when reading "absorption spectra in the infrared range." Also, the law on the conservation of energy (as it applies to Earth's climate system) may not have rang the bell of understanding. Similarly, assuming that the "amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it" may need further explication. I am noting these items because I find climate science interesting. Interesting in an epistemological way (how a theory grows to considered 'knowledge' or 'best guess to date') and in a fact-based way, and interesting socially. I think the rational denizens of this list may or may not find climate science interesting to the degree I do, nor may any two of us understand even such basics as 'greenhouse gases' and 'greenhouse effect' to mutual agreement. But I am interested, rationally, in extending knowledge, and I still have hope that investigating issues together in a forum can push back the edge of my own ignorance and bias. Here's a question that occurred to me after a read through the paragraph. If we replaced Earth with another planet under our scrutiny, how would the paragraph change to explain the differences/similarities? How would one tweak it to apply to both planets? And Venus? _________________ I've been spectating at OL since an earlier cramp of AGWA acrimony sent me back to the stacks to explore a lot of questions and critiques from earlier in this thread. I still feel I owe considered responses to several posts by Jonathan and Ellen, but have been looking for a logical place to re-enter. I have to thank MSK, Ellen, Ba'al, Naomi for keeping so many balls in the air. The earlier AGW thread (itself probably more acrimonious than this one) that MSK has referred to a couple of times is called Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle. It did not, in the end, help me understand a damn thing as much as this thread has, but it shows how this forum deployed itself on the issues in the past, with a different mix of opinion and focus. What is it I hope to find by discussion, overall? Agreement, basically. Find out where we generally agree -- on definitions, processes, variables. From the edge of that agreement, seek further agreement/mutual comprehension in the field of contested knowledge. So, you may find me a plodding bore as I trace my own territory of understanding. Here's a picture of beautiful weather to uplift my readers.

He is out seeding the clouds for the next "climate change" assertion. I am plodding along in the background. There's a lot of questions above that I haven't yet answered adequately. In the meantime, irrelevant weather photo:

I know, I know. The questions in your post are measured and on point. As I wrote to you backstage, my output is languid lately. I mean to answer all your questions as best I can. Wondering to myself about Dan Edge's seeming 'conversion' on global warming. A question unanswered: are there any Objectivish folks who accept AGW? If so, where are they? In the meantime, an example of 'warmist' humour to balance Adam's cartoon, from the Skeptical Science blog (part-cause of the Edge conversion). Data said to be from Berkeley Earth. Figure 1: BEST land-only surface temperature data (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, 1998 to 2005, 2002 to 2010 (blue), and 1973 to 2010 (red).

Sorry, that is no longer enough. Now you must declare yourself and have a label. Since "Java man" is a "homophobe," I guess you have to, now, publicly declare that you are a "homopphile." Had to look it up ... from Urban Dictionary:

William, I once wrote about Anita Bryant on a blog I used for learning Adsense marketing. It wasn't a very good article (I was way too worried about keywords and crap like that) and I never did get the hang of using Google Trends for rapid-fire content. It was a fine article, humane and principled. Thanks for the link. I credited her for galvanizing activism for gay rights. It seems to me there is still plenty of activism left for the remaining US states that bar gay marriage, or otherwise allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I can't otherwise understand the intensity of the flap over Mozilla's CEO's old campaign money. The Prop 8 battle was vicious, so maybe those emotions still sting.

Here's a link to the members of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate Change, and also a link to the February 2014 newsletter of the group; here also the present APS statement and addendum. Here's a link that details the process of the APS statement review: APS to Review Statement on Climate Change. I think I may be getting two processes confused (ie, that the Topic Group is charged with the work desired by the petition).** From the topical group's newsletter, the chairman quotes from its remit: A couple of orientation questions, Ellen. I am thinking you refer to events covered in the narrative found here, from October 2009: Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny. It mentions your husband and five others -- are these the 'group of six persons' you meant? Also, the petition of 200 -- is the Roger Cohen 'petition' the same thing as the 'open letter' described at the link? Emphasis added. I managed to find what I think is the full text of the petition/open letter -- this is what the signatories wished to replace the current one. Please correct me on any howlers in my understanding of the process. Thanks, Ellen for bringing your years of attention to the issues. Here is another illuminating item, at WattsUpWithThat: Roger Cohen explaining his resignation from the Topical Group in October 2012: ________________________ ** see Plans Afoot for Topical Group On the Physics of Climate:

"Fairy God father"! Good one, Bob. I remember Anita Bryant quite well. She was, for a time, a national campaigner against any sort of 'gay rights,' implacably opposed to any law that relieved discrimination on the grounds of 'sexual orientation.' She was also chief promoter of that tangible good thing, Florida orange juice. Among other things, she was and is an evangelical fundamentalist. She did a bit of 'dissing' directly: "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.""If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nailbiters.""If homosexuality was the normal way, God would have made Adam and Bruce."**Her book on the 'gay mafia' and her campaign to save the nation was a piece of shit, IMO: "The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality." Considering her career as outspoken religious anti-gay activist, if we measure by effect, and if we measure against time -- her campaigns were a success. Her efforts in Florida led to laws that stood for 20 years. Surely she had a decline in her career (as beauty pageant winner, popular singer, spokesperson, speaker). Wikipedia puts it so: "The fallout from her political activism hurt her business and entertainment career." Within two years her job to promote Florida orange juice lapsed. This was no doubt a result of the boycott campaign against the juice ... though this did not immediately dim her appeal to anti-gay rights advocates and groups. It wasn't until her messy divorce that she lost the support of hard-core fundamentalists who had firmly backed her. At the time she came to prominence for her activism (circa '77) I thought that her efforts -- to stymie anti-discrimination ordinances, gay adoption, sexuality education -- were very useful -- for gay rights advocates. Her very public campaigns roused an entire class of people and led to organized reaction. At the time I actually felt sorry for her, and considered her wildly misinformed about homosexuality. I always wondered how she might deal with a homosexual son, daughter, grand-daughter, son. As for using the term 'gay mafia' (also 'velvet/lavender mafia'), does the phrase do any useful work? I don't think so. It's more a thought-stopper than an accurate epithet, to my mind, a mafia being a criminal organization, built on corruption, protection, drug sales, prostitution and extortion. A 'mafia whack' is a murder. Mafias work in secret, have a code of omerta, and have a hierarchical structure under authoritarian rule. What I find most problematic in using the term is that it tends to poison the well. Mafia has no neutral or positive connotations, only negative. Adding gay to mafia merely adds the dark connotations. It makes malevolent the entire entity it describes. It over-simplifies. It denigrates a group to be feared, and denotes a group that may not actually exist. (on the other hand, references in popular culture to a 'velvet/lavender mafia' meant powerful Hollywood gay producers. The 'crimes' of this group are rather murky, however). † So, did a 'gay mafia' whack Anita Bryant? It's a stretch for me, unless all pushback is deemed to be quasi-criminal extortion. Opposition, public campaigns, orange juice boycotts -- her effect on gay communities and their supporters was electric. It jolted many folks to organize for the first time, to counter the effect of her public campaigns. As for Maher, I have never enjoyed watching him, due to his arrogance and smugness. Here's just one example to illustrate why I think Maher is a jerk and a sloppy thinker: Yikes. In the end, if we accept that there is such a malevolent thing as a gay mafia, then I am a member of the organization, and my activism in the past proves it. I am a bad bad man. All this said, I am of several minds on the central issue concerning the resignation of Eich. Is it a question of quashing free speech? Is it a question of unfair public pressure? Is it a case of 'if you dirty our brand, you must go'? Is it evidence of too much power in the hands of the 'gay lobby'? Is it political correctness gone haywire? ______________ ** quotes from Wikiquote. See also Wikipedia's entry on Gay Mafia. † -- see Wikipedia's Gay Mafia entry.

You write 'almost everyone' should be agnostic about anthropogenic global warming. Who are those lucky few you let out of this prescription? what kind of people can justifiably be firmly in agreement with AGW? I am trying to get at the warrants for your beliefs. Briefly stated, your beliefs about AGW seem to be that it is likely not happening, is a false construct, is not demonstrated. Breaking it down, I suggest to you that there is solid science behind the notion that carbon-dioxide (and the suite of atmospheric greenhouse gases) contribute to keeping the temperature of Earth far above what it would be if we had no atmosphere at all. I think you would probably agree, upon reflection, that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to the 'greenhouse effect.' Or maybe not. Have you done much reading about the 'greenhouse effect'? This is pretty diffuse, Tony. Sheeple is just a slur. Questionable agendas? Which sheeple have questionable agendas? And 'authorities of all the suspect kinds' -- can you be more precise on this? Without naming anyone or identifying the perfidy, how can your words be checked against reality? It seems to be you are issuing the judgement without having had a trial, and the evidence that led you to your judgement in sealed. To put this in perspective, what if I said something like "what about Arrhenius, Tyndall, Keeling, Revelle, Chamberlin, Fourier?" -- was each or any of these scientists and discoverers 'sheeple'? Are their conclusions questionable (meaning on blance probably wrong)? I don't mean to harry you, but I do want to know 'how you got there.' Knowing what parts of the scientific consensus, which building blocks of knowledge you consider suspect, this is important. Your skeptical bias is fine. It's the inbuilt Objectivish stance, I think. Anyhow. Where do you think you might be persuaded either way? What particular aspects of global warming theory do you want to examine? I've repeatedly touted Spencer Weart's history book The Discovery of Global Warming and associated website. Have you had a chance to read any of it yet? If AGW is indeed happening, how would you know (to your own satisfaction) that it is happening? You doubt it. What would constitute strong evidence, and let you move from agnosticism to acceptance? Another way to look at it: if you were trying to change my mind about, say, the 'greenhouse effect,' how would you go about it, what literature would you have me read, what convinced you that one part or another of the consensus is wrong? The main question back to you is again how would you know? If AGW is 'indeed so,' how would you know? -- one particular suggestion I hope you will take under advisement is that your question "how much is man to blame" can actually be answered. I don't know what you know about the signatures of human-emitted CO2. Are you acquainted with how atmospheric CO2 is measured and by what means are identified the human proportion? No need to answer each question -- they are of a suite, epistemological, meant to add more precision to your stance, to get down to the nitty-gritty of your doubts. Here then is the dark cloud that is the US Climate Action Plan, from the office of the President.

This is a very strong assertion, of two prongs: -- There cannot be (such) a consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (in the scientific community compri sing 'climatology') -- The reason there cannot be a consensus on AGW is because it defeats common sense. Now, you try to demonstrate the non-sensical nature of a consensus by using a rough scale model: First, a 'background of forces' (that influence climate/climate change). I'd like to consider what those forces are by your reckoning. What do you identify as these 'forces'? Off the top of my head I can list 'forces'/influences, not exclusive or pretending to be complete: Solar radiationCosmic raysprecession of the equinoxorbital variance of the earthAtmospheric circulation patternsAtmospheric tranches/levels (ie, the layers from ground to space)atmospheric chemistry (including the so-called greenhouse gases)Water vapour/precipitationOceanic absorption of gases in the atmosphere (excepting water vapour)Great ocean currents (eg, Nino/Nina, north Atlantic current, etc)Polar ice-masses (ie, Greenland, Canadian/Russian arctic, Antarctica)I will agree there is an abundance of items that comprise the 'background.' I bet we are in rough agreement that these are among the determinants of climate change. (in particular, and referring back to Bob's assertions about the coming ice age, there is a kind of 'build-up' of evidences from related fields of inquiry that inform understanding of the ice-age/warm-age cycle over thousands of years. If you are interested in how this understanding developed, I do recommend this chapter of Weart's online book.**) One can measure the 'blip', I'd say. The likening of the climate system to a noisy rock concert is not ultimately helpful to answering your questions about global warming. Consider each of the metaphorical givens: -- a rock concert is loud (~115db) -- a ticking mechanical watch at five-to-ten feet is undetectable against the decibels of the concert. -- a loud rock concert is similar to global climate. -- no one could possibly detect the 'signal' (AGW mediated by 'greenhouse efffect) if one likens the effect to the vanishingly small decibels of a distant-from-ear watch against a huge noise. -- (somewhat implied is that AGW's 'watch' noise could never be measured at a climate rock concert, by analogy, the 'watch' noise could not be measured with precision, let alone ratioed to the painful throbbing from the stage) For an argument by analogy to make most sense, the pattern of similarities between the compared units should be clear and relatively unequivocal. Otherwise we could simply choose an analogy to fit our conclusions or suspicions. In this case we are concluding that there is only lesser or greater noise/music. The noise of a watch versus concert noise. So this rules out relationship, since a small noise can do nothing to effectuate any change in the larger noise beyond tiny, by simple addition. But the climate system is not like rock concert noise, and the effect of the "man's blip" is not a additive to a decibel chart, but an amplifying effect within the energy economy of our earth. So the analogy breaks down when we move to a different level of analysis. Let me make this clear: I could put forward an analogy to detecting a 'poison' or effective agent in a solution. I could also rerun your statement with another set of purported similarities: All in all, this kind of comparisons occlude essential detail, and can lead to faulty, unwarranted, and premature conclusions. ( See Analyzing arguments from analogy. Of note is that one must consider the contents of and dissimilarities between the analogized entities/arguments/systems.) Behind and beneath your assertions are some good questions, questions that I believe can be answered by studying the history and literature of climatology, and not assumed.** How then can anyone be confident ('certain') of the scientific consensus on AGW if man's emissions of 'greenhouse gases' are but a tiny blip of information? That's a question worth pursuing. I would redraw your argument to include a means of testing the previous conclusion (no one can be confident/certain of AGW because humankind's contribution to a 'climate' is vanishing small, if not undetectable). See how that works. It re-frames your assertions so that they could be tested. Regarding 'but a tiny blip' ... if you are referring to CO2 emissions by human industrial activity (including deforestation), if this is a tiny blip in comparison to the complicated machinery of climate writ large, how is it that science can detect this blip at all? More importantly, how could we best acquaint ourselves with the detailed historical science that leads climate scientists to a conclusion you might reject -- that CO2 contributes to warming of the earth and its atmosphere? __________________________________ ** I have touted Spencer Weart's book and website regularly in this thread. I do so for several reasons: first and foremost that it attempts a broad, detailed history. Any part of the story we might wonder about (what the hell is the Milankovic cycle; what led to the proposition that CO2 had any contribution at all to climate; how did they ever come up with 'greenhouse effect''?) -- you can find an answer. It is not a hyper-partisan book. It is not unduly 'alarmist' in tone or organization. It sorts out and fleshes out the various stepping stones or building blocks of inquiry. It helps anyone understand "why some scientists 'believe in' global warming. It answers the 'how did they get there' questions.

On your back or on your stomach? --Brant ~hammer~ ~hammer~ ~hammer~ You are so funny sometimes, Brant. I meant Gulch's brief mention above -- "Is that what the guillotines are for?" If he truly believes there are guillotines (30 - 100,000 in all) warehoused by the federal government, I wonder what he bases his beliefs on, and what other debunked internet rumours he accepts as true. FEMA camps? Reptilians? See this earlier mention, and Jerry's (jts) plaintive question: "What the hell does the USA government want with 30,000 guillotines?" At the time Gulch seemed to be miffed that effort was taken to trace the rumour to source, and exposed the utter lack of evidence for the stockpile. Zany conspiracy beliefs seem to auto-spawn more ...

I want to know more about the guillotines!

What does "no global warming at all (set aside from 'problem')" mean? It makes more sense as "no anthropogenic global warming at all" ... thanks for noting it. I'll fix the phrase. I don't recall Bob straight-up saying "I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming" or "CO2 emissions do not contribute to warming," but retain the impression that he is not sold on any particular ratio of human causes. I am not sure he goes as far as Tyson there. Thus my question on where he diverges from Tyson's statements. On warming itself, Bob acknowledges that we are in an interglacial (warm) period but does not address the purported shorter-term warming signal itself, at least not that I recall. I did an OL search on 'warming' and found a few salient quotes from Bob. He does accept relatively abrupt climate change.

I appreciate the nice comment, Naomi! Back a while, in my late early middle age here at OL, my tone was more barn-burning in re AGW if not nasty. Eg here. Now in my early late middle age, I seem to have softened. I seem recently to tend to other people's arguments more like I do to my own, as something that could possibly bear fruit or flowers, not something to be raked out and burnt. I am also now more aware of where my opinions align with anti-alarmists -- where another thing beyond science takes to the trumpets to agitate for action by every quarter. I also understand the revulsion for the incredible reach of government -- I see the long hideous list on a scale unpleasant to Objectivists: to write and implement policy, levy taxes, fees and penalties, invent such as carbon 'credits,' otherwise fund or direct large-scale national and international "control" systems. Since in an Objectivist world government would be tightly constrained, large-scale command and commandeering of resources by government is already deeply immoral and wrong, so it's not hard to understand disgust reaction to AGW command/commandeering human activities by an already bloated state. I now see more clearly how this antipathy is reasoned and rooted. Objectivist closed-ranks hostility to AGW-pushed big-government proliferation is principled. Your nice comment tells me that taking heat out of arguments goes a long way to make them if not more persuasive, more rational and measured. Bob's comments below transposed from another grobal walming thread: LaFramboise's 'Noconsensus' site is actually very thin on Dyson material. Better are her offsite links, such as his 2007 interview with Salon. Thanks for directing us there. I excerpt some intriguing bits: It seems that Dyson accepts with reservations that, as he says, "Its a real problem, but its nothing like as serious as people are led to believe." Bob I highlight this only because an appeal to authority (Dyson) doesn't actually add any heft to your position: that there is no anthropogenic global warming at all. Where do you think your views diverge from Dyson on this point? Note too his article (paywall) in New York Review of Books. Evidently Dyson is opposed to 'alarmism' while accepting the role of carbon dioxide in warming. The NYRB article and subsequent letters and response suggest that Dyson believes strongly that human ingenuity in carbon sequestration (through engineered organisms and other means) is much more economic than the present emissions-reduction plans and assumptions, assuming a problem. It's waaay down on his list of things to be alarmed about. In essense, he is saying we can deal very well with any warming underway, mitigate the effects of human-led CO2 emissions. I like his optimism, and appreciate the trust he has in our abilities to bioengineer our way past even the lightest 'climate doom'... I think readers who skim the quotes at LaFramboise's site might mistake his actual position as being more hardline than it actually is. Here's another passage, this time from his article Heretical thoughts about science and society: I really enjoyed this one. He had assembled all the arguments that survived from his earlier opinions, and he is not trying to chew anyone's leg off. I add one more bit from Salon that will be of interest -- Dyson on religion/theology and autism (!):