How stupid is Jeff “Orion” Burhans?

August 16, 2008 in Political Animals | 15 comments

Let’s wander over the the online pukebucket of one Jeff Burhans (who blogs under the nom de moron “Orion”) and have a good laugh at one of his recent upchuckings, entitled Real Global Risk:

NOT Global Warming

Professor Jackson hits the nail on the head – We’re killing the oceans with overfishing and the pollution of nations who DON’T have an EPA (I’m looking at you, China, India, and Russia).

Global Warming is utter nonsense. THIS is a real issue – easily documented without requiring complex climate models that we lack – How about we try to fix THIS?

:: SCRIPPS OCEANOGRAPHY NEWS : : Oceans on the Precipice: Scripps Scientist Warns of Mass Extinctions and ‘Rise of Slime’ ::

Human activities are cumulatively driving the health of the world’s oceans down a rapid spiral, and only prompt and wholesale changes will slow or perhaps ultimately reverse the catastrophic problems they are facing.

Such is the prognosis of Jeremy Jackson, a professor of oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, in a bold new assessment of the oceans and their ecological health. Publishing his study in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Jackson believes that human impacts are laying the groundwork for mass extinctions in the oceans on par with vast ecological upheavals of the past.

Instead, we’ll be wasting billions more dollars on the Global Warming scam. Great.

Poor Jeffypoo. Reading and understanding what he reads is soooo tiring… so he really can’t be bothered to read the whole article. But happily, this lack of stamina actually serves a useful purpose for Jeff: It allows him to preserve his carefully cultivated ignorance. Had he made the horrid mistake of reading the full article, he might have accidentally learned something that would upset his carefully cultivated fantasy world — such as, say, the fact that one of the factors driving the threat of mass extinctions in the worlds oceans is (oops!) global warming!

Here are some additional excerpts from the UCSD article (all emphasis mine):

[Dr. Jackson] cites the synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overfishing, ocean warming, increased acidification and massive nutrient runoff as culprits in a grand transformation of once complex ocean ecosystems.

…

The new study includes overfishing, but expands to include threats from areas such as nutrient runoff that lead to so-called “dead zones” of low oxygen. He also incorporates increases in ocean warming and acidification resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

Jackson describes the potently destructive effects when forces combine to degrade ocean health. For example, climate change can exacerbate stresses on the marine environment already brought by overfishing and pollution.

…

To stop the degradation of the oceans, Jackson identifies overexploitation, pollution and climate change as the three main “drivers” that must be addressed.

Facts are nasty, messy things. Perhaps we should not judge Jeff Burhans too harshly for being so eager to ignore them.

  1. Orion on August 16, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    *dancing* Woo-Hoo!! I get my own POST!!!

    Thanks, Meaty! I didn’t know you cared…

    Actually, had YOU bothered to comprehend what I had said you’d realize that it IS possible to hold TWO concepts in your head at the same time.

    1: Global warming is nonsense.
    2: Overfishing and uncontrolled pollution by nations like China, India, and third-world countries are killing off our oceans.
    3: This is bad.

    Agreeing with Professor Jackson on two out of three ‘aint bad.

    See? That wasn’t so hard after all, now was it?

    Orion

  2. meatbrain on August 16, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Burhans claims in an update to his post:

    He’s carping because I only agree with Prof. Jackson on 2 out of 3 of his causes of the degredation of the oceans – Overfishing and pollution and seems to believe that unless I accept every word of Prof Jackson’s article as gospel, I must not understand it fully – See, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted that this was a real worry. *rolls eyes* He still has a hard time holding two ideas in his head at once…

    We’ll take this apart a little at a time:

    He’s carping because I only agree with Prof. Jackson on 2 out of 3 of his causes of the degredation of the oceans – Overfishing and pollution…

    It’s quite evident that Burhans did not even know that Dr. Jackson had mentioned climate change until I pointed it out. Burhans is trying to cover his ignorance by claiming it is a “disagreement” that he hadn’t mentioned till it became necessary.

    ... to believe that unless I accept every word of Prof Jackson’s article as gospel, I must not understand it fully…

    It isn’t even about understanding. It can’t be, since Burhans was completely ignorant of the fact that Dr. Jackson had mentioned climate change. Burhans cannot even attempt to understand something of which he has remained deliberately ignorant.

    As for Burhans’ comment above:

    Global warming is nonsense.

    BECAUSE! BURHANS! SAYS! SO!

    But not, obviously, because he has bothered to look at the facts. Facts frighten know-nothing wingnuts like Burhans. They cling to their ignorance like a baby to its rattle.

  3. Orion on August 16, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    GRIN Yah, because if I don’t specifically address all possible points of view, interpretations, and Meaty’s sophomoric insistence on absolute specificity, I don’t understand it, or missed it entirely.

    And of course, I’ve NEVER done any research into global warming. Not during my many years with the Green Party, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, not during my Engineering days, surely not during any of the many posts on the subject have I ever done ANY. I simply ignore the facts because I am so very frightened by then. It’s not like I’ve participated in any actual climate research or anything.

    Say, Meaty…Ever hear of something called ‘projection’? And I don’t mean for slides.

    Orion

  4. meatbrain on August 17, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Yah, because if I don’t specifically address all possible points of view, interpretations, and Meaty’s sophomoric insistence on absolute specificity, I don’t understand it, or missed it entirely.

    This is, of course, not what I said. Burhans is employing the well-known straw man tactic so beloved of lying wingnuts.

    Burhans either did not read the entire article, or did exactly that and chose to ignore the fact that climate change is an important driver in the degradation of the ocean ecology. He is either deliberately ignorant, or deliberately dishonest. There is no third alternative.

    And of course, I’ve NEVER done any research into global warming.

    Burhans employs a second straw man tactic in the same comment. Once he finds a dishonest tactic that he likes, he uses it over and over again.

    Regardless of what research he may have done in the past, Jeff Burhans now chooses to lie outright about the facts. His claim that “All recent temperature records point to global cooling”, for instance, is a blatant lie.

  5. Orion on August 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    No, dear one, it’s not what you said. It’s what you implied.

    You have an excellent future career ahead of you in either the used car, insurance, or defense attorney industries. All three make heavy use of insinuation and implication without overtly stating anything and then claiming “But that’s not exactly what I SAID! Read the fine print!” LOL

    In the words of Monty Python, “You’re not fooling anyone, you know.”

    And as to the temp records, I’ll amend that further – the records that haven’t been fudged to show warming, anyway…

    Orion

  6. meatbrain on August 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    And as to the temp records, I’ll amend that further – the records that haven’t been fudged to show warming, anyway…

    Note that Burhans’ original claim was that “All recent temperature records point to global cooling”. Now he is backing off from that claim. It is safe to assume that the original claim was a lie.

    Now he claims that some of the records have “been fudged to show warming”. Can he prove the claim that some records have been fudged? Can he states specifically which records have been “fudged”?

    I shall sit back and watch him run away from that question as well.

    Jeff Burhans is a liar and a coward. I appreciate his cooperation in demonstrating this fact.

  7. Orion on August 18, 2008 at 12:42 am

    GRIN It’s true, Meaty! It was a deliberate LIE! You caught me! It wasn’t a moment of hyperbole or anything like that. It’s part of my paid duties as a member of the giant corporate anti-Global Warming conspiracy!

    Damn…You’re just too clever for me. Now I’ll have to report to my masters at Exxon as we shall have to find another way to destroy all life on Earth -which will be GREAT for profits.

    See, usually most people don’t bother to include distorted data or flat out loons when they say ‘all’ – Like, if I say ‘all data points to 9/11 being caused by a bunch of Saudi terrorists’, I don’t really need to go into detail that there’s a large group of nutjobs out there who have their own set of data and beliefs…oh wait..this is you we’re talking about. Of course I do.

    Orion

  8. billy Joe on August 18, 2008 at 1:22 am

    sigh shaking my head...

    I don’t get it. Is Orion suggesting that he thinks the EPA that bush is gutting is good and helps us save our environment or that it was before bush started gutting it and installing people who are dumber than Alberto Gonzales at the helm of the agency?

    http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=lcfam_KTg4s&feature=related

    Can you imagine someone this dense doing an effective job at anything other than stonewalling? It’s unlikely he’s going to stop any sort of environmental destruction.

  9. meatbrain on August 18, 2008 at 6:44 am

    See, usually most people don’t bother to include distorted data or flat out loons when they say ‘all’ ...

    As predicted, Jeff Burhans cannot cite any specific “fudged” or “distorted” data sets. He is incapable of participating in any discussion that is based on facts. His claim the the Earth has been cooling in recent years is a lie.

  10. Orion on August 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Once again, I figured you were keeping up on such things – You’re not aware of the controversy surrounding James Hansen’s data ‘adjustments’? My bad – it’s something that contradicts your Faith so you probably don’t spend a lot of time looking at it.

    No, BJ, I’m not SUGGESTING that the EPA is good – I’m STATING it. The EPA has – despite more than a few foibles, over-regulation, and major screw-ups, done really, really good work in helping the clean up our environment. On balance, they’ve been a huge success story. They still are.

    What WILL you folks blame for all the ills of the world when Bush is out of office? Oh, that’s right, you’ll no doubt blame him for decades afterwards and if McCain wins, you’ll blame him too. Classic projection and transference behavior patterns.

    See, that’s half the fun of teasing y’all so much. You are so reflexively, insanely, over-the-top left-wing that it just SCREAMS to be made fun of. You seem to be incapable of holding ANY sort of moderate position. You apparently cannot recognize ANY flaw, weakness, or negative in your cherished belief system just as you cannot see ANYTHING positive in the other side of the table. White, Black, nothing in between. Aren’t you the ones who are supposed to be ‘nuanced’?

    Orion

  11. meatbrain on August 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    The adjustments Burhans referred to are discussed here. Those adjustments are statistically insignificant, and do not alter the fact that the data shows that the Earth has been warming steadily in recent decades.

    Burhans provides no evidence that any specific data set has been “fudged” or “distorted”. Once again, he makes a casual accusation that he is incapable of backing up with facts.

    Burhans’ claim the the Earth has been cooling in recent years is a lie. Lying is what Jeff Burhans does. He is incapable of honest discussion.

  12. Orion on August 19, 2008 at 2:16 am

    They seem pretty statistically significant to me – and to quite a few others. That’s why there’s a controversy about them.

    Sure looks like cooling to me. But what do I know? I’m not a High Priest of Global Warming, I am unclean and should be cast out!

    Some fast links from an equally fast google search on global cooling..er…global climate change.
    Skeptical Science (talking about when it will end)
    The Australian interviewing a scientist talking about the earth cooilng since 1998.

    Orion

  13. meatbrain on August 19, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    Statistical significance has a specific mathematical meaning. To say that something “seem[s] pretty statistically significant” is meaningless — either it is, or it is not. I challenge Jeff Burhans to provide the mathematical proof that the adjustments to the GISS data set are, in fact, statistically significant.

    I make that challenge knowing full well that Burhans will tap-dance around his words, and will provide no mathematical proof whatsoever.

    As for the “others”:

    Anthony Watts: Watts merely notes a short-term weather anomaly. Weather is not climate. Watts himself was obligated to disavow the disingenuous claims that a single cool January was “enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years” that were made after his post was picked up by the wingnutosphere.

    Marc Sheppard: Sheppard is merely pimping Steve McIntyre’s long-debunked claims about the GISS data set. Note that Sheppard carefully neglects to mention that the adjusted data affects only the temperature records for the United States (not the entire planet), and that the magnitude of the adjustments are extremely tiny. Compare the plots of the data before and after the adjustments.

    Walter Cunningham: Cunningham is a physicist and an astronaut, not a climate scientist. Celebrity and expertise in an unrelated field are both irrelevant when evaluating the evidence. Cunningham makes a number of flat assertions, but provides no supporting evidence. Furthermore, Cunningham does not discuss the GISS data set in any way.

  14. Orion on August 20, 2008 at 12:14 am

    My….My GOD! A coherent and logical reply! No whining about the links. No complaining about the lack of original analysis! No real insults! Well, OK, one little insult and whine…but still…who are you and what have you done with Meatbrain?

    Sorry – I don’t consider those claims ‘debunked’. The complaint is quite valid.

    And I’ll go with Cunningham over Hansen any day of the week…

    Man, you just like your writing with NO flavor whatsoever. “seems pretty statistically significant” is a bit more fun than “has statistical significance” – one conveys a sense of contempt and snark that the other utterly lacks.

    I’ve provided you with several links from a very fast Google search – there’s plenty of analysis there – and in other locations – that I’m quite disinclined to duplicate.

    Orion

  15. meatbrain on August 20, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Sorry – I don’t consider those claims ‘debunked’. The complaint is quite valid.

    Jeff Burhans plugs his ears and sings LA-LA-LA-LA-LA. He has not even bothered to read the information provided. He has based his beliefs not on facts, but merely on what he wants to be true.

    The adjustments to the GISS dataset are miniscule, as can be seen by comparing plots of the data before and after the adjustments are applied. Burhans, of course, did not allow himself to see those plots. Thus is his ignorance kept intact.

    The adjustments to the GISS dataset do not alter the fact that it shows an upward trend in global temperature over the past several decades. Burhans, of course, has not allowed himself to see any evidence of that trend. Thus is his ignorance kept intact.

    Note that Burhans has provided no evidence whatsoever for his initial claim that “All recent temperature records point to global cooling”. His belief is not based in fact.

    And I’ll go with Cunningham over Hansen any day of the week…

    Cunningham does not address the GISS data set adjustments. What Cunningham wrote is irrelevant to this discussion.

    “seems pretty statistically significant” is a bit more fun than “has statistical significance”...

    The truth of a claim is not dependent on whether it is “a bit more fun”. Burhans has provided no evidence that the GISS data set adjustments are “statistically significant”.

    Apparently, in Burhans’ little fantasy world, the assertion of a volunteer fireman is all the proof that should be required.

    *snort*   *chuckle*   *GUFFAW!*

    I’ve provided you with several links from a very fast Google search…

    And Burhans apparently hasn’t bothered to read the content of those links. One that he mentions above, from the site Skeptical Science, points out an error that Burhans himself has fallen prey to:

    The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long term climate change over a relatively short period of 13 months. Particularly when a large portion of that cooling occured over one month (January 2008). Only over a period of years to decades can you confidently discern climate trends. Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate.

    ...The moral of the story – don’t use short term weather patterns to draw conclusions about long term climate trends.

    Jeff Burhans does not understand the facts, and does not want to understand the facts.