Inhofe’s Global Warming Book Report Continued…

My deconstruction of the logical fallacies in Inhofe’s recent report, titled Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” on Global Warming drew a whole lot of comments on my otherwise thoroughly-ignored blog. I really wish the report had come out at a more convenient time, instead of when I had the blog on auto-pilot for the holidays. I appreciate everyone’s comments, especially the one’s I disagree with, and whom I hope all catch AIDS and die. : )

It’s important to remember that my response to Inhofe’s report is a rhetorical deconstruction, just as Inhofe’s report is a rhetorical device itself. This isn’t a science blog, it’s a science appreciation blog. If that makes me unqualified to write about Inhofe’s report, then Inhofe is unqualified to write the report in the first place.

So Thpppt!!!

The actual science that many of the legitimate scientists apply in their arguments referenced in Inhofe’s report has all ready been exhaustively debated on websites like RealClimate. I’m not going to rehash them. If AGW skeptics have science on their side, then they will need to start publishing their findings in Peer-Reviewed journals. Until that happens, they don’t have science on their side.

So double Thpppt!!!

Tipping points, Carbon Credits, over-hyped alarmism are all valid debates in the overall scheme of things, but what do these issues have to do with the consensus on AGW Theory, which, very simply states (1) it’s happening (2) we’re causing it?

Nada. Nix. Null. Nil. Naught. Zero. Zip. Zilch. A set of reasons that can be expressed with the symbol . Bugger all. Bumpkis. Posting them as responses are purely red herrings meant to distract us from the ridiculousness of Inhofe’s report.

I’m not a Climatologist, I’m a BS detector, and Inhofe’s report is very plainly a great big steaming pile of the stuff. Inhofe’s AGW skeptics are telling us everything, but showing us nothing. AGW theorists have shown us everything, published it, and had it peer-reviewed. That’s what makes it a consensus.

Nah. Nah. Nah.

But to address a few of the rhetorical points made in the comments section:

One commenter took issue with my use of the term “Parrotheads,” which is synonymous with “Dittoheads,” a term NeoConservatives proudly use to refer to themselves. If “Parrotheads” is offensive, then I think Dittoheads need to take an introspective moment and reconsider how they self-identify.

On another note, if calling AGW skeptics “Parrotheads” in anyway invalidates my arguments, then Inhofe’s arguments are also invalidated for refering to AGW Theorists as Nazis. My demeaning and jocular nickname suggests my opponents lack critical thinking, Inhofe’s comparison suggests we want to round up millions of people and exterminate them.

More than one commenter pushed the point that Scientists only push AGW theory to get grant money. Lot’s of AGW Skeptics were turned on to this argument from the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

But doesn’t this rhetoric cut both ways? If AGW Skeptics believe, illogically, that scientific arguments are invalid because the Climatologists are only trying to get research grants in order to justify their average $84k salaries, then Inhofe’s arguments are, by the same illogic, invalidated several times over for the nearly $1 Million in campaign contributions he has received from the Oil & Gas Lobby in order to justify, through reelection, his $165k salary.

The disqualifier disqualifies based on his own fault, as the Hebrew saying goes. If AGW skeptics really want to keep applying this logical fallacy, then I think it’s very nice of them to give AGW Theorists a free debate point. Boo Yah!

Another commenter made the always hilarious, never gets old, point that it snowed this week somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere.

It snowed in Winter??? Boy is my face red. According to Parrotheads, it shouldn’t get cold in winter if Global Warming is real. Of course, the science doesn’t say this at all, and I’ve all ready given this argument a good spanking and sent it home crying to mommy, so I won’t bother to repeat myself. Still, thanks for the chuckle.

Multiple commenters blamed the sun, which a lot of skeptics like to blame for Global Warming, but never produce any scientific studies to support it. Probably because they can’t. A report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, found no connection between solar variation and recent warming, and, in fact, there is less sunlight reaching the Earth due to air pollution. So sorry. Please try again.

One commenter cut and pasted the talking points from a recent publication (PDF) in the International Journal of Climatology purported to disprove AGW Theory. Unlike the commenter, I actually bothered to read the report, which doesn’t dispute AGW Theory in any way, shape, or form. It merely questions the accuracy of predicting future warming trends through observed discrepancies between the researchers’ measurements and the existing modeling data.

It’s conclusions are also in complete disagreement with another report published around the same time. Conflicting reports? That’s not bias, that’s just another day at the office for science.

Black Wallaby makes a counter point to my criticism that there were too many economists in Inhofe’s report by pointing out that a very alarmist report from economist Sir Nicholas Stern caught a whole lot of media attention. So why the discrepancy?

Because there is no discrepancy. Stern’s report has nothing to do with AGW Theory, it has to do with the economic repercussions of what climate models predict. The accuracy of those models, his economic predictions, etc. all fall outside the scope of the debate over AGW Theory’s consensus point.

If I were to say, “Did you hear??? Sir Nicholas Stern supports the consensus on AGW!!! OMFSM! Tee-Hee! LOL! WWJD!!!”

You could legitimately retort, “He’s a $%#&ing economist dorkbutt!!!” slap me in the face, and send me home to cry myself to sleep for referencing an economist as an expert on a scientific issue.

However, if I were to say, “Sir Nicholas Stern believes AGW holds serious economic repercussions for the world!”

You could reply, “Yeah, but he’s basing those economic forecasts on climate models that may be over hyped.”

It’s a whole different argument.

He also cites McKitrick and McIntyre, the former of ClimateAudit. These two AGW skeptics had their comments rejected by the Journal Nature, most likely for making false claims, of which, we can see, they have made several. Unfortunately, if these two have anything real to contribute to the debate on AGW, they have all ready spoiled their reputations with what is either dishonesty or sloppiness.

However Black Wallaby also makes important points that I am being very unfair to economists, biologists, et al, and I was being unfairly dismissive of them. I did, however, make the point that all of these disciplines have something to contribute to the AGW debate. One group I did not at all mean to sound dismissive of was Meteorologists, and I thought I made that clear by lumping them in with Climatologists, apparently this was misinterpreted as having the opposite intention. Dammit. Oh well.

Anyways. I do completely agree with Wallaby’s point that it’s wrong to put the opinions of scientists in Ivory Towers and resort to an argument from authority logical fallacy. As Carl Sagan once sagely noted, in science “there are no authorities, at best, there are experts.”

His post was definitely the most collegiate and persuasive of all. He should have posted it at a more respectable blog.

Beyond Wallaby’s quibbles, there really weren’t any major refutations of my core arguments. Inhofe’s book report remains an uncollaborative effort, many of the quotations cited don’t in any way dispute the consensus on AGW, and absolutely none of them have been officially entered into the scientific debate through legitimate peer-review journals. Of course, that could be because of academia’s vast left-wing conspiracy. We liberal illuminati are the real reason climate skeptics don’t get published.

On a final note, I was really happy to see that all AGW skeptics were apparently way too embarrassed to defend Kurzweil’s inclusion in the report, where he doesn’t dispute the consensus, like many of the scientists quoted don’t, but does say AGW doesn’t matter because microscopic robots will fly in to save us from it in a few decades. I totally scored a solid debate point there, and I’m really glad I so nefariously plagerized the argument from Joseph Romm.

Thanks Romm!!!

Carbon Credits VS Tax Penalties are another, very important, purely political debate that falls well outside the scope of my post. As I’ve stated before, it’s very much where I would like to see this debate progress. Stay tuned to this blog if you want to eventually dispute my opinions on that entirely different subject. I’ll be happy to make you all feel very small and puny against my insanely puerile rhetorical genius.

PS – Thanks so much for the encouragement Sheryl!!! Don’t worry I won’t quit my day job!!! You totally rock the casaba! I’m even down to using using just a few squares of toilet paper with each bathroom break! You would be so proud! I’ve also added your comment to my resume!

XX OO XX !!!