Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Skeptical Science housekeeping: Contradictions, URLs and getting hacked

Posted on 19 March 2010 by John Cook

Probably the most significant thing to happen to Skeptical Science over the last few weeks was the website got hacked! The first time it happened, content was changed in the skeptic arguments and one comment was overwritten (sorry, Peter Hogarth, you were the unlucky victim). A week later, they managed to remove most of the blog posts off the homepage. I am deeply indebted to Doug Bostrom who was able to figure out how the hacker got in, where they came from and offer a mountain of very wise and helpful advice on how to secure the website. Doug also advised there is a possibility the hacker got hold of users' login details. So I strongly recommend to all Skeptical Science users that you update your login password.

To sweeten the deal (as if your account security wasn't incentive enough), I've added another feature to the Update Profile form. You can now add a URL to your profile. Then whenever you post a comment, your username will link back to your website. This is a good way to get a bit of traffic to your website (and sate other users' curiosity about you). Note - if you ever want to update your profile in the future, you don't have to come back to this blog post. Just click on your username in the left margin (look for "You are logged in as Username").

Lastly, to prove once and for all that I'm a tragic data junkie (as if the resources taxonomy page wasn't enough evidence), I've added a new page called Global Warming Skeptic Contradictions. The idea for this page originated when I was discussing with a few other bloggers the notion that many global warming skeptic arguments flatly contradict each other. Someone pointed out a few webpages that already list arguments that contradict each other. For example, Climate WTF, Frank O'Dwyer and Mind of Dan have all posted on the subject.

Then it dawned on me that as Skeptical Science has possibly the largest database of skeptic arguments (feel free to submit any new arguments if they're not listed yet), it would be a simple matter to create a database of "contradiction pairs" - pairs of skeptic arguments that contradict each other. So I set up a List of Contradicting Arguments and added a few examples. But it's set up so anyone can add new contradiction pairs. You can also include a comment if you feel the contradiction needs explaining (but please keep it brief).

Of course, I know what some are going to say in objection to the whole concept of a contradiction page. Not all skeptics think exactly the same - they're not all one homogenous, identically thinking block. This is a fair comment and the fact that some skeptic arguments contradict each other doesn't necessarily invalidate global warming skepticism (there's plenty of empirical evidence to do that). That's not the ultimate point of the contradictions page. The ultimate point is coming later - I have a few other bells and whistles to add to this page once the list of contradiction pairs gets long enough. So please do add some contradiction pairs (browse those other blogs listed above for ideas). The more others contribute, the more it frees me up for other work such as a "Preview Comment" feature that many have been hankering for.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 63:

  1. Well done John, as always, but as your wife would say - time you got off the computer!!!!!
    0 0
    Response: She is, actually, I have to go cut up some vegetables...
  2. Every day, this site becomes a more useful resource. Keep up the great work!

    As regards the hacking, I was wondering what exactly was the content that got changed? Was it obviously vandalism or could a reasonable reader have assumed that it was coming from you?
    0 0
    Response: It was obvious vandalism - I found out because several readers emailed me overnight saying they thought my site had been hacked. A nice surprise to wake up to.
  3. After you have chopped the veges John, how does one get to the contradictions from the Home page (as distinct from the link in your post)? I might be befuddled, having just eaten dinner, but I can't see the link to it anywhere.
    0 0
    Response: No other link yet - will add some navigation drop downs for my next housekeeping session in order to get more easy-to-find links to all those nooks and crannies.
  4. Sorry to hear this John. Still, if they're shooting at you (as it were), you must be doing something right. Small consolation, but I'm sure you'll be keeping up the good work. The fantastic work, actually...
    0 0
  5. This contradiction page is a good idea. The general public often does not grasp when they're presented to conflicting arguments, as the Plimer/Monckton debate illustrate.

    I've even seen one skeptic use the arguments below on the same speech

    "It's not warming - it's all urban heat island contamination"
    "The warming is actually a natural phenomenon from the end of the last Ice Age"
    "The warming is caused by the PDO"
    0 0
  6. WAG has a list of 54 hypocrisies here:
    0 0
  7. sorry to hear about the hack job. i noticed the other day that the website looked like it had been taken back a week, and i thought, "nothing to worry about". i just assumed you were doing some maintenance or recovery. i didn't realise you'd been ransacked ! if i see anything untoward in future, you can be sure i'll be on the blower to alert you. this website is a completely priceless set of information. it's very hard to piece together a summary of the climate change science in every area. it's a constantly moving thoughtship, floating like a UFO in the night above the suburban streets, with lights of certainty flickering on every now and again. we have such a strong signal for evidence of climate change, and clear indications from the past about how it's going to develop; but many people cannot see this because they can't see inside the science machine and they do not trust the cogs and gears and data collection or analysis. keep up the excellent work. that fact that you were hacked is proof that you're getting through to people !
    0 0
  8. John, very sorry to read about the hacking. Not at all nice. Obviously you've ruffled the feathers of a nasty and cowardly person. This has reminded me that my donation is overdue, will rectify this immediately - (small consolation I know).

    BTW I don't seem to be able to log out. I wanted to check my new password, but when I click the logout button I remain logged in. Is it my system or something at your end?
    0 0
  9. I've been perusing the full list of arguments looking for contradictions (I hope I haven't gotten too carried away – you can delete my additions if they clog up the list) and noticed that "It's SSCs" refers to a measure of solar activity. Shouldn't this belong under "It's the Sun"? And “A drop in volcanic activity caused warming” has to do with volcanic aerosols, not volcanic CO2, so does it really belong under “Human CO2 is a tiny & of CO2 emissions”? Also, “CO2 is plant food” and “Ocean acidification isn’t going to happen” don’t relate to consequences of global warming per se, but increased CO2, so perhaps they belong under “CO2 is not a pollutant”.
    0 0
    Response: These are all good suggestions that I've adopted in the Global Warming Links. There are so many arguments and the list was assembled in such a chaotic fashion, it's inevitable that some have ended up sorted not quite right. So I appreciate the feedback and have shuffled the arguments around so the sorting is a little more accurate.

    I very much appreciate all the suggested contradictions added to the Contradictions Page, both by yourself and everyone else. It was quite a pleasant surprise waking up in the morning to find so many suggestions submitted - much better than last week waking up to find the Skeptical Science website hacked! Of course so many submissions means now I have no excuse and have to get working on Phase 2 of the contradiction page (actually Phase 2 is going to be the really interesting part but it's also a bit more work than Phase 1).
  10. John, the "Global Warming Skeptic Contradictions" is a wonderful idea.

    If I'm providing links or resources for people, form both sides, I almost exclusively cite your site now, it has become an invaluable resource.

    The so-called "Friends" of science fell into this trap with an ad campaign against science and AGW last year in the run up to Copenhagen.

    Anyhow, this post by you has reminded me that I still have to donate some funds! Sorry for the delay, I'll move on that today.
    0 0
  11. Unfortunately hacking appears to be the new weapon (climategate anyone?) the anti-science crowd uses. If you can't win on the merits ......
    0 0
  12. Good job. I hope you're trying to track down the origins of the cracking and will pursue it.

    Reminder to anyone who used the same password here and elsewhere, it's time to change _all_ of them to different ones. You don't want them pretending to be you.

    And maybe time to figure out some kind of authentication.
    0 0

    I second this suggestion - do NOT use the same password at different websites.

  13. It's a shame that internet vandalism made its way here. It worries me that anyone would feel the need to attack this resource in particular; you cite your sources well and make very cogent arguments. I suspect that the iPhone app has increased your visibility somewhat, so attempts at this sort of thing might become more common.

    The contradictions page is a great idea. I always found it odd that sometimes the same exact people will use arguments that contradict each other. At present, though, it seems like the only link to the page is from here. Is there another way to get to that page, so that it's still accessible when this post gets a bit outdated?
    0 0
    Response: No other link to the contradictions page yet. Restructuring the navigation links is on the to-do list and will be done with the next housekeeping update.
  14. I like the contradiction page, although it's limited to the drop-downs. ProfMandia's link lists some good logical contradictions, some better than others (some are subjective and arguably not contradictions, particular when science is being compared to economics/budgets). My favorites:

    2. They argue that siting problems (e.g. urban heat island) render temperature data useless, while simultaneously arguing that adjusting for those problems constitutes scientific fraud/ fudging the data.

    4. They advocate skepticism and oppose proclamations that "the science is certain," while simultaneously claiming certainty that all climate science is one big hoax.

    7. They claim that the US temperature record is unreliable when it reports warm temperatures, but have no problems using the US temperature to report cool temperatures.

    8. They say it is arrogant and "elitist" for climatologists to defend their science, but have no problems with the arrogance of laypeople questioning a science they have never studied.

    19. They demand more science/research before we can make a decision, then oppose funding for that research (Tony O'Brien).

    23. They call their opponents "alarmists", but warn of impending economic doom should we try do anything to counteract AGW (anonymous).

    25. They plead for balance and respect of dissenting opinions, and yet they continually insult people who disagree with them. (Steve Carson)

    29. They say climate scientist have a "bad scientific attitude", never criticising each other. And when there is a scientific discussion they claim it proves that "the science is not settled".

    34. They do not trust the reliability of modern instrumental records, citing poor calibration and inadequate coverage, but are quick to point to anecdotes of Vikings or of other early Europeans as evidence that the entire planet was warmer in preindustrial times.

    40. When climate scientists don't speak publically about their work they are accused of hiding in their ivory towers'. When they do talk publically they are accused of politicising science. (Anonymous)

    43. Deniers claim that anthropogenic global warming is a partisan, political line rather than legitimate science, and then argue against it by citing talking heads and press releases from industry front-groups, or "free market" think-tanks. (Wheels)
    0 0

    I like the contradiction page, although it's limited to the drop-downs

    Note that if a skeptic argument isn't yet listed, you can always add it to the list. That's why I opened up the database to user input, to make the list of skeptic arguments more comprehensive.

  15. Isnt hacking the website an admission by the "skeptics" that they cannot win the rational argument on climate science ? On those grounds we should be pleased !
    0 0
  16. How about a section of Gore quotes, which always seems to make the public discourse worse? In any case, his public pronouncements are often nonsense. I'm not a denier but I sure am skeptical of anything from the mouths of politicians.
    0 0
  17. John, you should produce a press release or something about this hack and circulate it to the newspapers, media etc. As I'm sure you know, hacking of the kind your site has experienced cannot be done by just anyone with a second class degree in computer science. The intervention may have been unsophisticated, but the means to achieve it was probably not.
    Speaking as an ex-journalist, I would expect quite a few news outlets to run with the story, in the light of other recent hacks. This should garner more interest in the site. It will also demonstrate in a fairly unequivocal way the kind of fanaticism climate scientists are up against.
    0 0
  18. There are some contradictions that doesn't seem so contradictory (actually a lot of pairs seem unrelated pairs of arguments).

    I guess it is so because the contradiction section is still in construction phase.

    I am right?
    0 0
  19. After the hacking, could someone have stolen my e-mail address?

    I don't want to see denialist propaganda in my e-mail.

    (last time I commented in WUWT I was equated to a maoist terrorist. These deniers have no idea of minimum decency)
    0 0
  20. Um, I did not read where John said that it was skeptics that hacked his site. In reality, it was more then likely an organized trawling group. They look for popular sites/blogs. that maybe are not hard to crack, then try to get personnal info, to create ID theft. A lot of times they will vandalize the site they crack if the "goodies" are not very useful. No need for secrecy then you see.

    Anyway John, glad to hear that you got this nipped in the bud. Have had a small brush with ID theft before and it is very scary!
    0 0
  21. When they've run out of 'scientific' sceptic arguments, some deniers turn to emotional blackmail. This is comment 12 from Richard Black's latest blog post on the BBC regarding the failure to limit the fishing of the endangered blue fin tuna:

    "By concentrating on the just the single dodgy issue of AGW, ad nauseum, we’ve basically killed off the blue fin tuna. ..I hope that you’re very happy with yourselves - Pats on the back all round.......... "
    0 0
  22. This Richard Black guy sounds hilarious John Russell. An intelligent person would have recognized that failure to limit the fishing of blue-fin tuna was driven by the same combination of RealPolitik & economic fundamentalism that drives the refusal to act on Global Warming.
    0 0
  23. 21.John Russell at 10:02 AM on 20 March, 2010

    I'm not sure of the absolute logic of poster #12 on Richard Black's blog but it does highlight something I'd started to notice about that blog. Last year the blog focussed almost completely on climate change. This year it's shifted to a mix of biodiversity/enviroment and climate. The climate posts get maybe 10x more posts than the biodiversity posts. This suggests a far greater interest in climate than environment at least among his readers. Although it's hard to identify cause and effect.

    On the contradiction list. The last paragraph stole my thunder. It's is completely unscientific to set up the two oppositional camps (deniers and warmers) and then highlight the contradictions within one camp. Science is a dynamic ever changing process. Contradiction is the norm, seeking to use all powers to remove it (apart from empirical evidence) srikes me as dogma. It's the political and moral imperative that seeks to setup this strong delineation of ideas.

    Having said that there's no opportunity to show contradictions in the pro-warmer camp.
    0 0
  24. sorry to hear that john. this has become my favorite site to visit daily to get the real science debated. as most will know i'm not in total agreement with all that is posted here but i love the website and am glad you take the time to keep it up. and i'm a fan of doug bostom too! glad you were able to catch the hack and hopefully you've fixed all issues. keep up the good work.
    0 0
    Response: Thanks Gary, I hope I'm able to speak to those I disagree with as much respect as you do - it's a credit to you.
  25. #23 HR -- why not post 'pro-warmer camp' contradictions in the comments here?
    0 0
  26. Steve L: Perhaps you'd be so kind as to highlight any "'pro-warmer camp' contradictions" so that the scientists who frequent this site can discuss them for our benefit?

    The only 'contradiction' that I can think of at the moment is that of the Antarctic sea ice increasing at the same time as the temperature of the Southern Ocean rises -- an anomaly that has been discussed in some detail (see 'No 10' in the 'Most Used Skeptic Arguments' list).
    0 0
  27. John Cook:

    Also, it's time to also check the Skeptical Science iPhone app for bugs.

    -- frankbi
    0 0
  28. #26, JR -- That's what I was asking for! Notice the scare quotes around 'pro-warmer camp'. Anyway, as HR @23 points out, there are likely to be some contradictions in the science and these contradictions focus sincere scientific effort on issues for which solutions are equivocal (rather than on the central question of AGW which is well worked-out). That would be a major difference between the two lists of contradictions -- the AGW-denier contradictions that have any scientific basis are likely to focus on issues that have been resolved long ago.
    0 0
  29. Nooo! Not the 'sea level rise' article, i was only halfway through and havnt bookmarked the references! I looked all over t'net for that timescale graph with no luck. Phew! Still there. Was it another post, or did you get him to put it back up?

    Anyway thank you all so much for all your hard work. This is a regular visit for me now, and i share the link frequently, as the format is so user friendly for less sciency friends to use. And a lot of the comments are very useful to me too, unlike a lot of sites where you have to wade through reams of hobbyist denial rubbish.

    I had to sign on to give my thanks and support, but i have made sure to use a super duper different password that will be stored in my brain only :-)

    I suppose you could take the hack as a complement, it shows you got the denyers worried.
    0 0
  30. Following hank's advice at #12 I checked my Typepad account, and found that I couldn't access it with my password, which was unfortunately the same as the one for I used for Skeptical Science. Whomever changed the password hadn't changed the email address though, so I was able to send a message to my email and get in to change my password again that way - to a unique one this time.

    Hopefully nothing was put up anywhere using my name...

    As others have said, I hope that you track down the low-life who hacked the site. A public naming and shaming at the least is deserved...

    On a happier note, I too love the extras. Skeptical Science is mandatory reading for anyone remotely interested in climate science!
    0 0
  31. I agree the unwelcome attention is more evidence of the ethical as well as logical bankruptcy of the denialists.

    However, how will you rebuff their next obvious move: to claim that you must have hacked yourself, to make them look bad?
    0 0
  32. Cook, can you (and/or Bostrom) tell us more about the cyber-attacks?

    -- frankbi
    0 0
    Response: What do you want to know?
  33. 31.birdbrainscan at 14:12 PM on 21 March, 2010
    I agree the unwelcome attention is more evidence of the ethical as well as logical bankruptcy of the denialists.

    ?Has the hack been linked to denialists?

    I thought of an analogy for the unscientific denier/alarmist imposed split.

    Think of this approach applied to politics in general. We have the 'centre ground' represented by the moderates in the main political parties. Pro-market liberals and social conservatives.

    Outside this 'concensus' we have what might be described as the extremists. Some examples might be religious conservatives, green environmentalist, free market libertarians, leftists and many more.

    What can we say about an extremists position on issues like taxes, immigration, healthcare and so on. Very little because they all disagree. Does this disagreement say anything about the validity of their position? No, just that we should never have grouped them in the first place.
    0 0
  34. Shorter HumanityRules:

    The cyber-attack hasn't been linked to denialists, and even if it has, it's OK anyway for them to attack, because I don't like the label "denialist".

    -- frankbi
    0 0
  35. John Cook:

    Let me think... well, for one thing I'd like to know which IP address(es) the cyber-attacks came from. Also, what were the exploits being used, and did the cracker(s) try to create any hidden backdoors for future incursions?

    Thanks for your time!

    -- frankbi
    0 0
    Response: The IP address of the hacker came from Spain (whether that is the hacker's actual location is another matter, I have had experience before with people spoofing their IP address to hide their location). If you don't mind, I won't go into too much detail into how they did it - don't want to create a roadmap for other hackers (although the security hole they exploited has been secured).
  36. Can I issue a retraction of a contradiction? I thought I read somewhere that the first picture for the Mars climate change was taken in 1998, but then I read your site and found it was 1977.
    0 0
    Response: The contradiction is still valid but I've updated your comment, changing the date to 1977.
  37. On the topic of stolen passwords, would it not be advisable to store a one way hash of passwords rather than the cleartext? Even if the site is compromised, the passwords would still be unrecoverable.
    0 0
    Response: I may just do that - thanks for the suggestion. Back when life was simpler and climate websites didn't get hacked, clear text passwords didn't seem like such a big deal :-(
  38. article states
    " the hacker got in, where they came from..."

    No details... bummer.
    0 0
  39. #33 & 34: Let them define themselves then. And they do -- they define themselves by who/what they war against (and who/what they do not!). When I see AGW-deniers attacking the wrong statements of other AGW-deniers, then I'll start thinking that maybe they're interested in truth.
    0 0
  40. 39.Steve L at 01:42 AM on 22 March, 2010

    You seem to have it upside down. The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'. It's this fact that labels (and excludes) those that have something else to say. I don't see that Pielke et al want the label.
    It's been pointed out many times that 'deniers' very often do disagree with each other, often they are each others biggest critics because they have competing theories. This is the norm for science.
    It's the moral and political aspects of the climate debate that sets up this goodies vs baddies scenario.
    0 0
  41. HR #40: Anyone can just write things and pretend they're true, but you've been asked for examples (see #25). Rather than provide some solid and specific ones, you state something silly about the IPCC consensus not allowing any uncertainty (even though uncertainty and terms describing it are explicitly defined in IPCC documents). Rather than go on at length, I'll just say that I think you've got it backwards, upside-down, inside-out, and in the mirror, and you'll have to cite some good examples to change my mind.
    0 0
  42. HR writes: It's been pointed out many times that 'deniers' very often do disagree with each other, often they are each others biggest critics because they have competing theories.

    Has that been pointed out many times? I'm not sure that it's even true, let alone that it's frequently pointed out.

    I think John's point in this thread is that skeptical arguments often implicitly contradict each other, but it doesn't follow from this that skeptical persons actually contradict or criticize each other.

    And in fact, in my experience, it's very rare for this to happen. When was the last time on this blog that a "skeptic" jumped in and disagreed or corrected another "skeptic"? I spend far too much time responding to even rather obviously mistaken claims by RSVP, gallopingcamel, etc. Personally, I would love it if other skeptics would debunk some of their claims too. Unfortunately, that never seems to happen.

    I think that the reason for this is that most "skeptics" are motivated more by opposition to the consensus view than by any deep investment in any one particular competing view. If someone were really, really convinced by the whole "galactic cosmic rays" argument, you might expect her/him to argue vociferously against AGW, and to argue equally vociferously against other skeptics who claim that the earth isn't warming at all. But you very rarely see that!

    And I think that's OK, actually. There's nothing wrong with being diffusely skeptical in opposition to a more coherent argument. Let's say that one of your co-workers suddenly can't find a book, and concludes that another co-worker must have stolen it. You could quite reasonably suggest a whole bunch of mutually contradictory hypotheses -- maybe she actually left the book at home, or maybe it's buried under the clutter on her desk, or maybe she forgot that she loaned it to somebody. Obviously those alternative hypotheses can't all be true, but that's OK.

    But I think we should be clear on the asymmetry here. The consensus view is, and has to be, very coherent about the big picture (though there's lots of disagreement among scientists about the details, something which many skeptics may not fully appreciate). If a British team claims to have detected a slowdown in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and their claim seriously conflicts with other models or data, that's a contradiction that has to be resolved (generally, by examining other data or other analytical methods or whatever). Eventually, it becomes clear who was right and who was wrong, and the "consensus view" expands incrementally to incorporate that improved understanding.

    In contrast, the skeptical position can tolerate an almost unlimited range of internally contradictory claims. Very occasionally, you will see a higher-information skeptic contradicting a lower-information one, but usually only on a topic that is so far out (e.g., Beck's claims, or Steve Goddard's "CO2 snow at the south pole") as to be generally embarrassing to the skeptic cause.
    0 0
  43. #41 I was replying to your point in #39 but I'll give #25 a go.

    We know enough about the climate system to be confident of the role of CO2.
    We know too little about the climate system to experiment with geo-engineering.
    0 0
    Response: I'm actually writing a post that tangentially addresses this argument. Not specifically geo-engineering but the notion that high understanding in one area means we must have high understanding in all areas. Or conversely, the notion that if we have poor understanding in one area, it invalides all the areas of high understanding.

    But please do keep the proposed AGW contradictions coming, they're interesting to read.
  44. Hacking isn't any better than armed insurrection. Despicable, not enduring, used by idiots, condemned by history (see the "great" revolution of 1917.

    Common sense however does matter, eventhough you AGW supporters consider yourselves above it. You are wrong. Not as wrong as hackers but still wrong:

    Poll: Americans Least Worried About Global Warming

    Americans rank global warming dead last among eight environmental issues to be very worried about, a new Gallup Poll reveals.

    The percentage of respondents who said they worry “a great deal” about global warming was just 28 percent, down 5 percentage points from last year.

    The following are eight environmental issues and the percentage of people who said they are very worried are, according to the poll results released on March 16:

    Pollution of drinking water, 50 percent
    Pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, 46 percent
    Maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water for household needs, 45 percent
    Contamination of soil and water by toxic waste, 44 percent
    Air pollution, 38 percent
    The loss of tropical rain forests, 33 percent
    Extinction of plant and animal species, 31 percent
    Global warming, 28 percent
    For all eight issues, Americans are less worried now than they were a year ago, with the percentage drops ranging from 4 points for “maintenance of the nation’s supply of fresh water” to 9 points for “pollution of drinking water” and “the loss of tropical rain forests.”

    Worry about global warming peaked in 2007, at 41 percent, and stood at 40 percent in 2000.

    “Americans are now less worried about a series of environmental problems than at any time in the past 20 years,” Gallup observed. “That could be due in part to Americans’ belief that environmental conditions in the U.S. are improving. It also may reflect greater public concern about economic issues, which is usually associated with a drop in environmental concern.”
    0 0
  45. Not sure what polls of US public opinion have to do with science. Apparently, according to recent polls, only 39% of Americans accept the theory of evolution. But we're not about to give up on all the biological sciences (I hope) just because a large segment of the general public in one country is misinformed. The same applies to climate science.
    0 0
  46. According to This Poll The majority of Australians still believe that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, is being generated by man-made activity & will be catastrophic if not dealt with soon. I've no doubt that I could find similar polls for the UK & most of mainland Europe-but apparently a single poll in the US is more "proof" than all these other polls from across the globe!
    0 0
  47. #40 HUmanityRules: "The reality is that the people who don't seem to be able to allow any competing arguments or uncertainty in the science are those that support the 'IPCC concensus'."

    Nonsense. Science is all about competing arguments. If you want to see competing arguments hashed out, try going to a scientific conference some time. And I guessed you missed the arguments that the IPCC seriously underestimated future sea level rise (by assuming no contribution from melting glaciers). Seriously, there are so many counterexamples to your claim, and as Ned posted in #42 most if not all of what is now the consensus view started out as a hotly contested argument about competing ideas.
    0 0
  48. Steve L @ 41 - I know most of you people hate this site, but if you want an example of skeptics "attacking" one another, just check out this post -

    It ties in nicely to what John has posted here. Willis, Dr. Svalgard, etc. pretty much go after Goddard quite hard.

    Also, on another recent post about the Iceland volcanoe, a few geologists are trying to "help" certain skeptics, get their geology correct.

    To be honest, I cruise both pro and con sites every day, and find that there is less of a choir on the con sites. Now maybe that is because there happens to be more lay people on skeptic sites that have heads full of crap trivia and the scientists try to show them the real data, or maybe it is just the way of the skeptic side, that all science must be challenged. Don't really know.

    But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl!
    0 0
  49. Oh PS - if you want to see warmers/skeptics and MOR's having some real good discussions right now on ststs, check out Lucia's Blackboard. Very much like this site, in that most of the time, the posters are civil, and trying to show thier view with logic and data. I don't understand much of it, but it sure is great to follow a real scientific discussion in the blog sphere.
    0 0
  50. But for me, what gives me shivers, is to be able to get answers for my silly questions, both pro and con, from some of the worlds leading scientists! Way to Kewl!

    Before you get too excited, I hope you know that Willis is no scientists, and Svalgard is not one of the world's leading scientists ...

    Though at least he's done some research. Actually, i think he's pretty much the only scientist who routinely posts at WUWT, and it's mostly to tell people they're wrong (it's hard to understand his brand of skepticism, actually).
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us