Greg Laden: suggests James Hansen is “a Moron”

Posted: January 27, 2013 by tallbloke in alarmism, flames, humour, Uncertainty

Reblogged from the ever wakeful TomNelson’s site:
Delightfully stupid Daily Kos piece from warmist Greg Laden: He suggests that James Hansen is “a moron” for admitting that global temperature has been flat for the last decade; also “there is more money going into climate science denial than any political counter movement that has ever existed”

Daily Kos: Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism

To state, with a straight face, that the jury is still out, or that we can’t separate natural variation from human caused changes, or that the earth has stopped warming for the last decade, or any of the other things we constantly hear from climate change denialists isexactly the same thing as standing there with a big sign that reads “I am a moron.” 

…Most times, though, the science-denialism comes from a handful of very active blogs, from those charismatic lecture circuit denizens such as “Lord” Christopher Monkton, and a very large number of commenters and their probable sock puppets who show up at every on line newspaper and blog to spew the same exact lines again and again even though every single remark they make … without exception … has long ago been discredited with science and reason.

It turns out that there is a fairly straight forward explanation for this continued craziness. $500,000,000 dollars.

So, at this point there seems to be two likely answers to the question, “Why are you a climate science denialist?” One, is that you are getting paid to do so. The other, is that you really think you know better than the entire scientific community, and you are not personally getting any of of the payola even though there is more money going into climate science denial than any political counter movement that has ever existed.

Flashback: NASA’s James Hansen’s finally concedes ‘flat’ global temps: Hansen’s ‘remarkable’ comments on global warming standstill: ‘The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade…’ | Climate Depot

And for a bonus, here’s a counterblast to Greg’s ….. labelling tendencies:

Contra O’ Reilly says:

On the Idiotic Notion that the Global Warming Skeptics are Anti-Science

It’s absurd. They’re not the ones who’ve a) ignored the geological record, b) constantly mistaken cause with effect, c) ignored the satellite data, d) ignored the radiosonde balloon data, e) failed to understand the basic law of inverse solubility, f) played with and hid the data, g) utilized climate models which violated the basic principles of forecasting AND WHICH PROVED WRONG, g) failed to even entertain the notion of alternative causes (plate tectonics, underwater volcanoes, cosmic rays, sunspot cycles, the Pacific Decodal Oscillation, lunar cycles, increases in the solar field, cloud cover, etc.), h) conspired and thoroughly corrupted the entire peer-review process, i) failed to understand the logarithmic nature of the CO2/warming relationship, j) failed to understand that the earth’s climate is a nonlinear, dynamic, and chaotic system which cannot be readily reduced to the workings of A theory…………………………………………………………….And the fact that skepticism is itself such an integral part of science, that alone should have set off firecrackers. “The science is settled/the debate is over.” LMFAO
  1. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Is this Greg a psychiatrist? With what authority does he use such a technical term as ‘moron’?
    I happen to see the signs of fear of persecution and poverty in that outburst – perhaps he should seek professional support.

  2. w.w.wygart says:

    Greg Laden is an anthropologist and archaeologist.

    From The Daily Kos: “Greg Laden: Biological Anthropologist, Archaeologist, Science writer and blogger, interested in climate change, evolutionary biology, science education, and progressive politics.”

    And WE are supposed to take this kind of abuse from an ANTHROPOLOGIST?!! Talk about lecturing out of your own field!


  3. Craig M says:

    Quite a clear cut case if you ask me 😉

    “[Psychological] Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. ”

  4. mitigatedsceptic says:

    I hate argumentum ad hominum but he started it! Being ‘interested in science’ does not make him a scientist. I was a real scientist and could not have achieved anything without adversarial criticism.
    The idea of a scientific consensus is itself anti-science in spades!

  5. michael hart says:

    “…probable sock puppets who show up at every on line newspaper and blog to spew the same exact lines again and again…”

    I take exception to that.

    I take considerable care to not repeat myself, and in Mr. Laden’s case it clearly would not be worth my time to do so.

    Now if he could just point me in the direction of that “$500,000,000” I would be only too happy to make his other accusations come true.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Contra O’ Reilly correctly identifies what so-called ‘denial’ is really about.

    Expect the paranoia to get worse as ever more hard facts undermine warmist notions.

  7. oldfossil says:

    Good work Greg Laden. Infighting, a crack in the “consensus,” ramped-up hysteria. In just a few hundred words you have provided irrefutable proof that your world-view comes from “Climate Science for Little Folk,” in fact there might be a copyright infringement.

  8. bwdave says:

    I am certain that scientists who say that there is any general effect in Earth’s atmosphere analogous to a greenhouse are deceived, dishonest or deluded. I do wish I could get some of the loot they get for saying it, though.

  9. tallbloke says:

    The word ‘Greenhouse’ is badly chosen, but there certainly is a set of effects which raise the average temperature the Earth’s near surface air to a balmy 91C warmer than the average surface temperature of the moon, which is at the same distance from the Sun as Earth is (on average).

    Finding out what all the effects are, and what their relative contributions are, is one of the major questions this blog investigates. I made a start here:

    The IPCC say of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’:
    “Note that it is essential for the greenhouse effect that the temperature of the lower atmosphere is not constant (isothermal) but decreases with height.”

    Note also that the IPCC don’t claim that this temperature gradient is caused by the greenhouse effect, but the opposite. It is “essential” for it to occur.

    The real cause of the gradient is the higher heat capacity of the denser air near the surface. And the reason the air is denser near the surface is because the weight of the entire atmosphere above it is increasing the pressure as you get nearer the surface. And it does that because gravity acts on the mass of the atmosphere to give it ‘weight’.

    Additionally, the surface level pressure limits the rate the ocean can evaporate at. Forcing it to accumulate energy until its surface is hot enough to lose energy through the latent heat of evaporation and by radiation and conduction to the air, at the same rate it receives energy from the Sun.

    95% of the radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is thermalised within 1km of the surface, and therefore the diminishing radiative flux observed as the column is ascended is the result, not the cause, of the diminishing density (and therefore heat capacity) of the air. This is expressed in the lapse rate, which is pretty much linear until you get to the altitude where water vapour and co2 can radiate directly to space. Convection and latent heat rule the troposphere.

    One of the important questions for the effect of increased co2 then becomes, how much of the ‘greenhouse effect’ is due to the radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, and how much of it is due to the mass of the atmosphere’s effect on the thermal equilibrium of the ocean through setting the rate of evaporation.

    In the context of Makarieva’s paper, Konrad has the issue with those who would oppose it well characterised. On top of the admission by the IPCC that the radiative properties of water vapour and co2 don’t set the lapse rate, it spells out clearly that pressure, latent heat and convection are dominant in causing advection, which is a key player in driving evaporation, and thus controlling humidity, and working through negative feedback to be constantly restoring the TOA energy balance. Small changes in co2 level won’t make much difference to that.

  10. Doug Proctor says:

    A strange attack: Hansen is an activist, but in only one sense could he be considered a “moron”. And that is as a political animal using misinformation to manipulate a gullible public into supporting a socio-political agenda that, truth be known, it would not support, i.e. the radical reformulation of national soverignty and our fossil-fuel energized society: Hansen’s statements undercut the rock-solid certainty of what is going on with the climate as per the IPCC and eco-green alarmists.

    Anger is a response to threats to power; confusion or humour, to foolishness. Laden has self-identified with the CAGW worldview. Anything that reduces the existential threat to which he has committed his core beliefs is a reduction in his importance in his world (not ours, his). You don’t need a medical degree to understand that.

    Laden has and will have a lot more company in his feelings of betrayal. The saddest will be the former Gore-ists, once Al’s underlying devotion to his personal finances rather than planetary salvation become too obvious even for them. He has been claimed as a prophet. His disciples have a lot way to fall to get back to earth. When Hansen is thrown under the bus by a Laden, one wonders how long it will be before the others go under, too, and the eco-green is back as a marginalized, Birkenstock-wearing ranter, just another conspiracist looking for some meaning in his life.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Doug, I think a possibility we need to consider is that Greg Laden is too far gone to realise that the temperature really has flatlined for the last decade and even Hansen recognises that it must be acknowledged. To do otherwise is to be in denial of reality.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Let Greg Laden spend five minutes reading this.

  13. crosspatch says:

    It’s that same old and tired intellectual superiority argument the political left rolls out every time someone points out an inconvenient fact. If you don’t agree with them, you must be a “moron”. You must be engaged in the groupthink or you are to be shunned. It gets tiresome.

  14. Power Grab says:

    Greg Laden is an anthropologist and archaeologist.

    From The Daily Kos: “Greg Laden: Biological Anthropologist, Archaeologist, Science writer and blogger, interested in climate change, evolutionary biology, science education, and progressive politics.”

    PROGRESSIVE POLITICS <– There's your problem…

  15. Brian H says:

    Challenge to Greg Laden: Document the source and recipient(s) of even 1 of the $500 million you allege is going into sceptic research or publications. Counter-hypothesis to disprove: the money doesn’t exist, hence neither do the source or recipient(s).