Joe Bastardi: climate expert, idiot or liar?

I'm mostly staying away from YA, but I can't resist the subject of Bastardi. I used to subscribe to AccuWeather Professional edition many years ago, before I had even thought about global warming as an issue. Bastardi has (maybe had) a blog on there, and I used to read it most days. It was quickly clear that the guy was a self-aggrandizing jerk. He constantly would denigrate the National Weather Service forecasts if they got something wrong, but he would NEVER mention when his forecasts went wrong, which was the norm. Why anyone would believe ANYTHING he said is beyond me. And I came to this conclusion before I knew anything about his ideas on global warming.

This gaffe is pretty bad, though. I guess you could say that it's just a "phase" he's going through. He's in business now with Ryan Maue, ultra-right wing hurricane expert Ph.D. You'd think that they'd at least read each other's blogs and point out the obvious boners, but maybe even Maue can't stomach reading Bastardi.

EDIT: Caliserve, the question was trying to point out that something is wrong--seriously wrong--with what Bastardi has tweeted. Rather than prattle on about "ad hominem" attacks, perhaps you should look at the tweet, look at the site where he got it and try to figure out what's wrong with what Bastardi said. It's really not that hard to figure out. I don't want to spoil the fun of the question (although I gave a hint in my answer). Once you figure it out, you really do need to ask yourself Gringo's question: does Bastardi know he's wrong and is lying, or does he not realize he's wrong and is incompetent as a climate expert? If you can come up with some other conclusion, feel free to share it with us.

By the way, I just looked at Bastardi's twitter account and the post is still there, uncorrected.

Another EDIT for Caliservative: You have put a lot of effort into classification of rhetorical arguments, and can label them all with great alacrity. Why not devote 30 seconds into trying to understand what is wrong with Bastardi's images (or his representation of them, anyway)?

If Bastardi tries to sell you swamp land, but shows you a picture of a mansion, and Gringo then points this out, would you still go after Gringo et al for ad hominem attacks of Bastardi? Calling an argument by its rhetorical name does not necessarily invalidate the argument.

Maybe our style of rhetoric does not agree with your sensibilities, but isn't it more important to know that someone you trust has misrepresented the facts (for WHATEVER reason)?

AND to add to Paul's point: Caliservative said:

"it is an ad hominem attack. Not that anyone shoud be suprised...this is the way the left operates. If you don't have the facts on your side, attack the person."

Paul is correct, this is CLEARLY an ad hominem attack--Caliservative could not defend the blatant error (lie?) of Bastardi, so he decided to attack the "left" instead. But as Caliservative says

"If you don't have the facts on your side, attack the person."

AN AMUSING SIDE NOTE: It's funny that Maxx makes the same "mistake" as Bastardi, and Caliservative can't be bothered "ferreting" out the truth. It's no wonder so many deniers deny--they either don't pay attention to details or they're too busy attacking scientists that they don't have time to look at real data.

A SAD SIDE NOTE: I see in Maxx's latest edit that he is persisting with his assertion that Bastardi was right and Gringo wrong, even when having been shown that it's a plot of sea surface temperature and not ice extent.

Where are the honest skeptics?

Final EDIT: Maxx, it's hard to tell because their color bar is small, but the color appears to represent temperatures colder than their coldest specified range. You can barely see it in the small triangle at the end of the bar. Same thing for the color on the right of the color bar. It's clearly not ice cover, because you can compare ice cover plots with this plot, and see that they are not even close.

Sagebrush, didn't you ever make home-made ice cream? There's a reason you put rock salt with the ice.

Like so many online fallacy-ferrets, Caliservative confuses cause and effect, and subsequently misattributes logical fallacies where they do not, in fact, exist. The issue here is that any perceived fallacy in logic, whether it is real or imagined, is associated with a weakness in argument, and used as means to invalidate that argument. This, of course, is fallacious reasoning when the supposed fallacy is immaterial and not an essential premise to the conclusion; i.e. a red herring.

Regardless of anyone's feelings towards them, personal attacks by themselves are NOT an ad hominem fallacy. Simplifying somewhat, Gringo did not attempt to argue that "Bastardi is an idiot and/or a liar, therefore he is wrong", but rather, "Bastardi is wrong, therefore he is an idiot and/or a liar." You see the difference? No fallacy committed.

Unfortunately, Caliservative's digression has derailed this thread from it's original intent -- Bastardi's error. As others have noted, Bastardi has a made a habit out of making false and/or misleading claims. Given his status as a meteorologist -- someone who, generally speaking, should know better -- one begins to wonder about the root cause of his continued confusion on such basic matters as SST graphics. Personally, it's hard for me to believe that he thought he could get away with it if he honestly knew better.

Joe Bastardi

I'll just say that his name is very appropriate for him.

edit

<<This isn't a question; it is an ad hominem attack. Not that anyone shoud be suprised...this is the way the left operates. If you don't have the facts on your side, attack the person.>>

This is pretty funny--your post complaining about ad hominem attacks and attackinhg the person is an ad hominem attack attacking the person. You even scream about him being a liberal or a Jew, or whoever you people want to put in the gas chambers these days.

P.S. I realize I am "attacking a person" in complaining about your persona attacks..but I am not so much complaining that personal attacks are bad as I am complaining about making personal attacks in a post saying such things are intrinsically bad.

edit

<<So...it's an ad hominem attack to point out your ad hominem attacks?>>

That indeed would be an ad hominem argument. You BTW were not talking to me--I guess all us "liberals" must look alike.

And youir deranged rant about him being a fraudster because he is supposedly a liberal had nothing to do with the scientific question...making your attack ad hominem.

<<And, with that kind of (circular) logic,>>

Not only do you not know what ad hominem means, but you do not know what "circular logic" means. You heard it is bad, though.

<<...is both a strawman argument, and an ad hominem attack... >>

Looks like you have added "straw man" to your wondeful vocabulary.

<< I did not state that he was a liberal,>>

Any normal person reading your post would get the impression you were calling him a liberal.

<<, and your presumption that I want to put someone in a gas chamber is both non-sensical and abusive.>>

If the liberals are as sinister as you think, why would you *not* want them killed?

<<Besides, if you folks were true liberals, you wouldn't be trying to silence dissent.>>

I'm not a liberal, idiot. Oh, you are going to replay that you did not claim I am a liberal. And what do you mean regarding silencing dissent? I did not try to have you arrested or to take away your computer. And there are times dissent should be silenced. Go call the ACLU on me...oh, and be sure to scream at them that they are liberals.

This isn't a question; it is an ad hominem attack. Not that anyone shoud be suprised...this is the way the left operates. If you don't have the facts on your side, attack the person.

Gringo:

<It is a pretty straightforward question...>

Now you are being misleading. It is most certainly *not* a straightforward question. If you had asked if Bastardi's position was factual, that would be a more straightforward question...but that is not the question you asked. The stem of the question is highly manipulative, on multiple levels.

<all I would like to know from you whether you believe his claim is indeed factual...>

Not true. That is not the question you asked. Stated as above, I would have no objection. But that is not what you said. The question is a bifurcation fallacy: either way we answer the question we accept the unstated (hidden) assumption, that Bastardi must either be a 'climate expert' or there is something intrinsically wrong with him (idiot, liar).

It is fairly obvious which answer you think is true, so this is not really a question; it is a manipulation.

The hidden assumption contains another fallacy, that of the false cause. That is, if his post is not factual, then he must be either a liar or an idiot. This denies the possibility that there may be other explanations for a non-factual answer. Correlation is not causation.

The question is ad hominem, because the (acceptable) choices all presume negative characteristics on the part of Mr. Bastardi (liar or idiot).

<...factual (climate expert), whether there's a mistake (idiot) or whether it is misleading (liar).>

These are three examples of the false cause hypothesis; the conclusion (in parentheses) in each case does not necessarily follow from the premise.

The assertion that the question was straightforward, when it was not, is an example of 'neutralization'. It is a technique of 'discursive closure', identified by Deetz. It is an attempt to prevent further discussion of the real issues by pretending that a position which is value-laden is value-free (neutral).

The ad hominem serve in Deetz' model as a form of 'disqualification', another means of avoiding an open discussion of the real issues.

Back in the 90's, when I was agnostic on the global warming issue, your side lost their credibility with me by using manipulative communications such as these. Since then, the AGW crowd has increased the pace of ad hominem attacks, and other manipulative arguments. With that, you have sealed the fate of your 'project'.

Paul:

So...it's an ad hominem attack to point out your ad hominem attacks? And, with that kind of (circular) logic, you want us to believe that your AGW position is a 'fair reading of the evidence'?

I am laughing.

BTW, this...

<You even scream about him being a liberal or a Jew, or whoever you people want to put in the gas chambers these days.>

...is both a strawman argument, and an ad hominem attack... and more abusive than most. I did not scream, I did not state that he was a liberal, I did not state that he was a Jew, and your presumption that I want to put someone in a gas chamber is both non-sensical and abusive.

With this, you further validate my point.

Besides, if you folks were true liberals, you wouldn't be trying to silence dissent.

Pegminer:

I am willing to assume that Gringo's critique of Bastardi's position is correct, i.e. the statement is not factual. In any case, it is not sufficiently interesting to me to go ferret out the details. My point is that, even if Bastardi is dead wrong, it is not appropriate to denigrate the person; yet, those who here who argue in favor of the AGW position routinely resort to personal attacks instead of arguing the facts. Nearly every other post in this thread validates my point.

You seem to have no problem with such things...

<Rather than prattle on about "ad hominem" attacks...>

BTW...'prattle on' is an appeal to ridicule.

IMHO the extensive use of invalid arguments, and particularly the ad hominem variety, is a major factor why the polls show the public acceptance of the AGW position has been declining over the last several years.

Never heard of this bozo before, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Bastardi

(1) Track record of weather predictions seems not much better than random

(2) No science qualifications anywhere in sight

(3) Johnny-come-lately denier, probably a recent wannabe responder to Crichton, Lomborg, Wattsup, etc.

But, if you're trying to "understand" science by distance learning, like Maxx at the "North Poll," then whatever Fox says is always to be heeded anyway, whether understanding Fox's deceptions requires passing 7th grade or not.

He claims that seaice has been increasing since August 26. It sounds like winter is coming, assuming it is true.

This is quite interesting. For example, "What looks like ice is sea surface temps below -1.7C. I know this because I emailed the DMI/COI and Jacob L. Hoyer there told me this:" H-m-m-m. When I was in high school I thought I learned that 0 degrees C was the TG for water. Maybe that has changed. Some scientists we have, debating on whether there is ice or water. My Goodness Sake! If you are going to debate a simple matter of whether it is ice or water you all should go back to grade school science. Even my mother could do that and she was no scientist.

If you are going to tell me that the temperatures are not indicative of solidification then what good are they? You can't use it to either deny or support AGW. It looks as though Mr. Bastardi has turned the tables on you. At least he has gotten you out of the closet and exposed you greenies as not fit to decide if a graph represents water or ice.

Notice all you sane scientists: These are the same 'scientists' who defended Mann and East Anglia for purposefully deceiving the world to get laws enacted and increase taxes. This really hurt the world's economy and made Gore, Strong, Soros and people like them richer. These are all the same people who laugh about how you greenies turned off the air conditioning when James Hansen went before Congress to support Global warming. I know you hoaxers got together and exonerated Mann and now want to excoriate Bastardi for merely taking data supplied to him and doing a heretical action of going contrary to your false god AGW. This is reminiscent of the Salem witch hunt trials. Next we will see you getting out your torches and pitchforks and performing mob rule tactics. You call yourselves scientists but act more like gutter mafia. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know you won't because your type knows no shame.

<Now who's got it wrong? Me or liar/deceiver Basta> If you want to see what a liar looks like just look in a mirror.

There is no way you are going to convince me that the North Pole is not covered with ice at this time. Maybe you can work on those dopey congressmen but don't try your crap with a true scientist.

Tell me Gringo, are you thinking that the WHITE areas on this graph are NOT ice?

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

Because you said: "Hint: don't get fooled by the white colour."

I think you are confused, similar graphs produced by the University of Illinois,

Cryosphere Today site use DARK PURPLE to indicate 100% sea ice.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

But the DMI graphs you accuse Joe Bastardi of misinterpreting uses WHITE for ice.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

It's pretty obvious that WHITE is ice on the DMI graph unless you think the North Poll is ice free today.

DARK PURPLE on the DMI graph represents water at zero degrees Celsius.

So maybe you don't want to call Joe Bastardi a liar or an idiot after all? It seems somebody else got it wrong.

And maybe all your Warmists pals that have made derogatory comments about Bastardi in this thread should admit wrong as well.

I won't hold my breath.

---------------------

Gringo - Just admit you got it wrong and move on. You've made a very obvious mistake. You can try to deny it, but anybody that looks at the DMI graph is going to know you are wrong.

---------------------

pegminer - I know it's really hard for a Warmist to admit they are wrong, but in this case it proves that they are incapable of admitting wrong. The WHITE areas on the DMI graph are obviously ICE, there is no escaping that.

Tell me pegminer, what do you think the White areas represent?

---------------------

pegminer - I notice that you refuse to tell me what YOU think the White areas of the DMI graph represent. Is that a difficult question?

---------------------

Hear Ye Hear Ye - I invite everyone over to my new question so we can try to determine what the WHITE represents in the DMI graph. Hope to see you there.

---------------------

See what you mean Grungo.

It can't be true because as all good AGW adherents know, the Arctic ice has just over 100 days to last.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/arctic-...

Oh no! They have moved the goalposts, just for a change, now it's 2016.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1300...

Wonder what wil happen then, goalposts moved again?

After all, tthey'vemoved them before:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_ar...

What nonsense, thank heaven the pub opens in one hour's time