Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Settings

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 Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube 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...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  Next

Comments 53301 to 53350:

  1. New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
    I'm reminded that one needs to take care with terminology, as "extra-tropic" sometimes mean different things, and when comparing reconstructions, one should remember: Relative NH areas are: 0.13 60°N (Alaska, N. Canada, Scandanavia, Polar Urals, etc) Likely to show sharpest swings, ice-albedo feedback. etc 0.50 30°N (to pole, sometimes also called extra-tropic) 0.60 23.5°N (Tropic of Cancer to pole, ~Moberg(2005)) 1.00 0°N, NH (MBH98, MBH99, others) smoother curves expected One can argue about whether or not a given set of proxies actually represents the area claimed, but for sure, one would expect even perfect sets of proxies to differ by area covered.
  2. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    I constantly am scanning environmental news. This list is very helpful, as is the list of scientific articles. Of course, I am careful with the journalistic contents: what matters is solid long term consolidated science. But the broad view gives a hint of what is going on, and what key words to look for further if one wants to stay informed.
  3. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    CBDunkerson, you certainly know more about Muller than I do. It was only last week that I watched the interview “Rihard Muller at Climate One” on You Tube. That's the first time I've heard him speak. And no doubt your stopwatch (3 minutes) is more accurate than my six-year old memory of “An Inconvenient Truth”. The Katrina part SEEMED like ten minutes! I was squirming in my seat, thinking “Oh-oh, he's gone off base here.” It was so unnecessary. Obviously, our expectations differed. I anticipated more of an objective documentary, covering opposing aspects that highlighted uncertainties and something far less political. People walked out with the impression their beach-front real estate would crash in value by 2007 / 2008. (Actually, ALL California real estate crashed in value 2007 / 2008, but that wasn't Gore's fault.) Let me re-watch the film and get back to you.
  4. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    I have made an addition to the article based on a recent article in the Calgary Herald by Mike de Souza. (Hat-tip to John Hartz.)
  5. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    TomPain, Muller made a lot of exceedingly stupid accusations several years ago. Then he put together a study to prove how the global temperature series data was all a big fraud... and instead wound up finding that he had been completely wrong. His science is fine... his assumptions on many issues where he has not done the science continue to be wildly incorrect. "I still remember the film's ten-minute tie to Hurricane Katrina" So part of the problem is that you remember things which never happened. For the record, it was less than three minutes and Gore never says that AGW caused Katrina. Rather he talks about how warm ocean waters strengthen hurricanes and how AGW warms the oceans... allowing a viewer to make the inference that 2+2=4 while carefully not actually saying it. He does not cover a lot of complexities where AGW effects could also weaken or decrease the frequency of hurricanes... but none of what he says in that segment is incorrect. That's the sort of 'spin' I was referring to. The movie is largely true... it just isn't the 'whole truth'. It presents only one side of the issue and doesn't state a lot of the uncertainties. It is absolutely a 'political' argument... but it is not the huge collection of falsehoods Gore haters and deniers claim. Gore set out to issue a call to action against AGW and used every manner of rhetorical and emotional manipulation to achieve that goal... while confining himself to the facts, other than a few minor errors.
  6. 2012 SkS Weekly News Round-Up #3
    the URL for "America's miasma of misinformation on climate change" is missing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/america-miasma-misinformation-climate-change
    Moderator Response: [JH]Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
  7. citizenschallenge at 07:39 AM on 30 September 2012
    Hockey stick or hockey league?
    It would be great to see this post updated to reflect recent findings, which lend further support to the argument you are making in this post. cheers
  8. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith, My position is simple and not personal. As a citizen of the United States of America, I find any curtailment of free speech to be unacceptable and appalling, particularly when exercised by a government on scientists in their own sphere of expertise. This attitude applies to such efforts in my own country (see the life and times of G.W. Bush), neighboring countries, allies overseas or enemies overseas or backwater dictatorships anywhere on earth or in history. I am further appalled by anyone who takes an "ends justifies the means" approach and somehow feels this is acceptable because they share interests with the intolerant/greedy parties involved. Gagging scientists, any scientists, is never an acceptable policy. Period. The facts that he's only doing it to climate scientists, and it's because he's doing so in a bid for the greater glory of Canada, and that the effort is supported by millions of Canadians are all irrelevant. Those facts do not make it right, not in the slightest.
  9. Sea Level Isn't Level: Ocean Siphoning, Levered Continents and the Holocene Sea Level Highstand
    Very interesting Rob P., thanks for pulling all this together. It is going to take some time to digest it all ;)
  10. Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update
    Predicting the future behaviour of any non-linear system (such as Arctic sea ice) is difficult, very difficult. But with that said, it is telling how when the correct approach is used and when one is guided by the data rather than ideology or dogma, then the forecasts made by the true skeptics tend to be more realistic and accurate overall. The fake skeptics (and fake skeptic bloggers) have been trying to reassure themselves (and the gullible and/or extremists who frequent their blogs) that we are due for a recovery in Arctic sea ice any day, or year, now. Yet the long-term trend is undeniably and statistically significantly down. These are the same folks who reassure themselves and anyone who is willing to listen that global cooling is imminent, any month, year, decade now....yet the long-term trend is that of warming, especially over the northern high latitudes.
  11. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Andy, Thank you for highlighting this. It is so very sad that it has come to this. Not in my wildest dreams did I think that science and scientists would be under siege, especially by the government. On a positive note, it is heartening to see that the scientists (and some politicians too) are standing up for what is right. Very good post @ 26 Bob. I concur.
  12. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    Carbon500 missed to quote the first part of the conclusions of the linked paper. For the sake of completeness, here it is: "Temperature and precipitation trends at Labrador over the past half-century are generally consistent with those observed, on average, throughout North America and those anticipated, on average, under a global warming scenario. Temperatures have increased marginally inland, while minimal cooling has occurred along the coast. Precipitation increases have been observed, on average, throughout the region, with regional and precipitation-typing details." This conclusions tells me that - the data from Labrador are consistent with the global warming scenario - that attribution can not be done with data from a tiny region of the globe. None of them is that surprising and surely shouldn't allow anyone to talk about "CO2 hand-wringing". Superficiality, cherry picking and confirmation bias are not good allies of the scientific progress.
  13. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Dana, maybe we can agree to disagree about Gore. I still remember the film's ten-minute tie to Hurricane Katrina. The science was better than its emotional alarm bells. But, enough of that! You live in the Bay Area? I'm in Merced. Give me a call [snip] There is a good chance we'll be cooperating on some rebuttal editing! Ciao. A piu tardi!
    Moderator Response: [d_b] Phone number removed for everybody's best interest.
  14. Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
    (-snip-). So how many other possible causes for the observed changes might there be? "Trends in secondary fields, such as frost and snow-on-ground, are generally consistent with expected results from trends noted in temperature and precipitation. Attributing these changes to 'global warming' or “anthropogenic forcing” does not address the specific meteorological changes resulting in these trends. A preliminary analysis of wind directional frequencies and “days-with” analyses does not provide even a preliminary indication of cause and further work is required to provide a better understanding of the reasons driving these trends." www.iemr.org/pdfs/confer/Waterfowl_Conference_Bruce_Whiffen.pdf
    Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
  15. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Gore's film got all of the fundamental science right. There were a few details that weren't correct, like about the Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers for example, but in my opinion getting the basic science right is the most important thing, and the film did that quite well.
  16. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Thanks Tom. The newest blog posts are listed in the left hand margin of the page, below the list of most popular myths. Otherwise you have to know what you're looking for and use the search bar towards the upper left (i.e. search for "PBS").
  17. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Tom, we cover Antarctic vs. Arctic sea ice here. I believe MarkR is working on an update blog post on the subject too.
  18. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Breaking news of another kind of parasol. Yahoo News just posted this, 10 minutes ago: "Asteroid Dust Could Fight Climate Change on Earth" http://news.yahoo.com/asteroid-dust-could-fight-climate-change-earth-132248031.html The Deniers are already swarming in for the attack!
  19. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    SW, "Annual average sea ice is interesting but not very relevant for albedo" I agree, and said as much above. Antarctic summertime sea ice trends are more strongly positive that wintertime, so the massive decline in summer sea ice (pairing North and South) is really all about the Arctic. It is astonishing to think that I may see the Arctic icecap, a continent sized feature of the Earth, disappear during summers within my life-time.
  20. Sceptical Wombat at 23:08 PM on 29 September 2012
    Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Barry Annual average sea ice is interesting but not very relevant for albedo. The Arctic and antarctic still pretty much freeze over in winter which doesn't keep the sun out because the sun doesn't shine on these places in winter. In fact winter sea ice helps keep the ocean warm by acting like a blanket. What is important is sea ice in spring, summer and autumn, particularly June and July in the arctic and December and January in the antarctic. During those months on clear days the polar regions actually receive more energy from the sun than equatorial regions on similarly clear days. The presence or absence of ice at that time dramatically affects the ocean's albedo. In the arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly in those months and in the antarctic it has barely moved. If you want to see what has been happening to global sea ice I suggest that you try plotting the sum of arctic and antarctic sea ice but giving one of them a six month lag - so as to line up the two winters and the two summers. You will see not much change in winter coverage but a massive change in summer coverage.
  21. PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?
    Great article! Well done. Where would I find an "entry point" to this article from the home page. I stumbled on it via an "author search" for Dana. I'm obviously new to SkS, still learning the ropes.
    Moderator Response: [DB] This page offers a sequential list of every post ever made at Skeptical Science.
  22. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    CBDunkerson, thanks for the link! I'll check it out. Gore's film is “largely accurate”? Debatable. I thought it was 85% accurate when I saw it in 2006. Over time I've revised that estimate down. “Richard Muller on Climate One” (search for it on You Tube) gives it only 50% - the other half = wrong, misleading, or alarmist. Muller is a harsh critic, but many of the best scientists are. On Yahoo News comments, it seems more knowledgeable posters are Gore-averse. 85% accurate was a poor grade for a film of Gore's budget and influence. His star has fallen in the U.S.
  23. Physicist-retired at 21:55 PM on 29 September 2012
    Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    I wonder if anyone has seen this new study from Geology: Mild Little Ice Age and unprecedented recent warmth in an 1800 year lake sediment record from Svalbard. In brief, it shows that, since 1987, summers at Svalbard have been 2C - 2.5C hotter than they were during any time in the last 1800 years - including during the warmest parts of the MWP. While this paper doesn't directly address the video above, I think it must have serious implications for Arctic sea ice in general. It might also be a useful addition to the rebuttal on the 'MWP was warmer' article.
  24. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Tom, the value is for Arctic + Antarctic annual sea ice - or 'global' sea ice. Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the Arctic decline. Not to be confused with the video above, which is mainly about summertime Arctic sea ice. The Arctic sea ice minimum, taken as the average extent for the month of September, has declined by 36%.
  25. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Barry, 6.7% less sea are ice means that much less albedo? Besides the Arctic, what else would this 6.7% include?
  26. SkS: testimony to the potential of social media and the passion of volunteers
    Wow! GREAT video!! Well done, Mr. & Ms. Cook! ("Behind every great man stands a great cook.") You've made me not regret that foolish late night cup of coffee I drank. (It is now 3:35am in California.) Think I'll have another cup & watch it again! :-) (Not really) Good work featuring "The Debunker Guidebook"). That was the first thing I downloaded when I found SkS. Brilliant! Do you mind if I use this forum to wish-list future SkS developments? Such as: * Letters to the Editor (In "About" or "Comments" tab) - SkS-wide remarks (e.g. mission, road-map, topology) * Reviews of other Websites (Real Climate, World Climate Report, WattsUp...) [I have recent example how WCR warps the science and lies about study conclusions.] * FAQ (e.g. “Why is 'climate change' preferred to 'global warming', and ACC preferred to AGW?”) * “Open Issues” section reflecting areas under debate, or SkS entries needing updates to match latest findings.
    Moderator Response: [JH] Be sure to check out the SkS Weekly Digest and the SkS Weekly News Round-up. they plow some of the ground that you have identified.
  27. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    TomPain, see the existing thread on 'An Inconvenient Truth'. As various scientific and legal reviews have indicated, the film is largely accurate with only a few minor errors and a degree of spin (i.e. emphasizing some facts while downplaying others). The skeptic claims that it is 'full of inaccuracies' are themselves false.
  28. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    A skeptic friend who has posted here did the work for me and says global annual sea ice area has declined by 6.7% from the 1979 - 1988 average.
  29. Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
    Could someone add some quotes from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that have been debunked? I have knowledgeable friends, UEs (Unconvinced by the Evidence) and CEs (Convinced by the Evidence) who think Al Gore's film was a "hit alpha amidships". I'm a CE since the 1990s (Lovelock's "The Ages of Gaia"). I'm not an Earth sciences guy (B.S. applied math / physics, M.S. computer science) with only a casual knowledge of climate science, but I spotted many over-reaching claims when "Inconvenient Truth" first opened. Not good! Gore politicized the issue & passed many alarmist messages based on some claims that were not true or misleading. The damage continues... ACC is too important not to acknowledge excesses on more than one side and send out the repair parties.
  30. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    Wow! GREAT video. "Seeing is believing" - even for non-believers, one can hope. I will be recommending this to every UE (Unconvinced by the Evidence) that I know. Thanks, Barry & Peter Sinclair.
  31. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Dana, I don't doubt for a second that WUWT and World Climate Report (WCR) publish flawed science and distort findings. That was obvious within a half-hour of browsing for even a relative amateur like myself. I'd like to see SkS Basic tabs effectively counter those pretty graphs and easy-to-understand slick words from WUWT and WCR that are quoted endlessly by Fox News and WSJ editorials. That may mean simplifying the Basic tabs and moving more precise stuff to Intermediate and Expert tabs. Rob Painting - Thanks! I'll be looking forward to the upcoming posts and rebuttals.
  32. Loss of Arctic Sea Ice ... and of a 'Giant Parasol'
    With all the fulminating in the skeptiverse that there isn't enough attention paid to Antarctic sea ice, I plotted a linear regression for global sea ice data from Jan 1979 to Dec 2011. Global sea ice area has declined by 1.3 million sq km over the satellite period. But I'm an arts guy, so maybe someone with skillz would like to check that out for themselves. Global daily data 1979 to present I wonder what percentage of the 1979 to 1988 annual average this represents. That doesn't speak much to the article here, which is more about the decline in summertime sea ice, and I doubt the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice makes a difference to albedo concerns, but this seemed like a fair place to post this. Is the matter worth a short SkS article?
  33. There is no consensus
    Dana, I was surprised that the threshold for “expert” (20+ published papers) was so high. But I'm not a researcher, so maybe that is reasonable. The authors were admirably clear as to why and how they determined “expert” vs. “non-expert”, which was the main point of their study. Still, trying to play the Devil's Advocate of a contrarian, eliminating (1,372 - 908) of the climate scientists in the first step means that none of these 464 were reflected in the graphs that followed (Fig 1,2,3). Since the UE group is already humbled as being less published than the CE group, not even including them in overall percentages adds insult to injury. Someone may cry “foul”, justly or unjustly. If may look like elitism to outsiders. From the paper: “The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2).” (Doran 2009) I would have preferred the authors go on to include what % the UE group represents out of the full 908, or even the original 1,372. The authors have made it very clear that the most published and most cited researchers are 97% to 98% CE vs. 2% to 3% UE. That's all well and good. But to stop there seems a little too pat and could raise a contrarian's suspicion that it is contrived to match the Doran results of the previous year. It leaves a reader with a simple question, “What are the percentages of CE and UE among 'non-expert' climate scientists?” Simple question, but hard to answer from reading their paper.
  34. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Tom - sunlight reaching the Earth's surface dimmed during the period 2000-2007, yet the Earth continued to warm, albeit at a slower rate than the 1990's. More recent observations are not available, but the "global dimming" evident over this period, does partially explain the slowing of ocean heat uptake during 2003-2008 - especially as the dimming was principally a Southern Hemisphere phenomenon. The climate model projections which Evans "disses" do not factor in the global dimming trend through 2000-2007. A model hindcast using the actual surface solar radiation measurements to constrain it, would no doubt see a much closer agreement with the surface temperature measurements. In short; we would have expected a slowing in the rate of warming over that period. This is dealt with in upcoming posts, and rebuttals will be updated accordingly.
  35. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    I want to avoid dogpiling, so after this comment I will leave the discussion with Smith to Sphaerica, Rob, and Andy - unless there is further discussion of my specific points that warrants my further contribution. In several comments, smith says the following: "I understand that you ... clearly disagree with the support of a thriving economy and security." Straw man and goalpost shift. Nobody said "I don't support a thriving economy", and you're creating the artificial dichotomy between concern for the environment and proper use of science, and economic development and security. "the Harper government has a tight communications policy and that bureaucratic climate scientists are no special case." A good friend of mine is a science manager in Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada. If called by a reporter, he is free to talk to him/her immediately. Afterwards, he is expected to file a report on the interview with the communications people, just so they know it happened. Contrast that with the case of Environment Canada's David Tarasick, who does research on ozone. Requests for interviews with him were refused for months, and when finally granted a communications person attended the interview and controlled the questioning. The Harper government also had communications people follow scientists at an Arctic conference in April. Clearly, certain topics are controlled more than others. "It is expected that those with a vested interest in these particular areas will protest" Ah, the good old "vested interest" canard. You could have equally said "special interest group". Instead of discussing the issue, just call someone a name that is supposed to mean that they should be ignored. "Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains [sic]who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach?" Lanfear has already commented. I will just ask: how many people cast votes for someone other than Harper? [Hint: the answer is about 1.5x larger than your number.] ...and finally, the "tone troll" appears: "I was hoping this conversation could stay civil. I guess that was asking too much." Disagreeing and being blunt is not being uncivil. Even if it was uncivil, that doesn't mean you are right. "He was rude, so he was wrong" doesn't cut it.
  36. The IPCC consensus is phoney
    CRITIQUE of this rebuttal: 1. Too specific (e.g. much focus on Mike Hulme words) 2. Too detailed without a simple summary at the top. 3. Is it current? (Last update 2 years ago.) 4. Should this topic be merged with "No consensus"? 5. If not merged, should there be links?
    Moderator Response: [JH} Thanks for the critique. The SkS author team will review your suggestions and take appropriate action.
  37. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    I am slugging my way thru Alden Griffith's article & see the problem: It reads like a research paper. It is not a rebuttal for the benefit of the general public. While Griffith's work may be first-rate (I'm not qualified to judge), it doesn't seem to fit into the "mission" of Skeptical Science. Wouldn't one expect an overview that links off to a paper like this? Figure 4 has potential for mass-audiences, although it is very "busy". Hard to read the axes, and that thick red line at the bottom is confusing.
  38. There is no consensus
    Tom, the point of Anderegg is to assess the consensus among climate experts, and in their opinion people with fewer than 20 climate-related publications are not experts. You may disagree with that definition of expertise, but it doesn't reflect "bias". I'm not aware of any more recent studies, but as it so happens, the SkS team is currently working on the definitive demonstration of the AGW consensus.
  39. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    jondoig - that spike is left there intentionally. When it was first released, the BEST dataset contained two incomplete points in the final two months, only containing data from Antarctic stations, as I recalled. However, the 'skeptics' retained those incomplete and clearly anomalous data points in order to argue that BEST proved the planet was cooling. If you remove those data points, the recent short-term trend is no longer negative. Thus I left those data points in there because as the graphic title notes, that is how 'skeptics' viewed the data. However, realists knew that the final two points were incomplete and removed them, hence I removed them from the realist frame.
  40. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    You're right that this rebuttal really should be updated though. I'll have to put that on my to-do list.
  41. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Tom - if you're specifically looking for comparisons between model temperature projections vs. observations (including by the IPCC), see the Lessons from Past Predictions series. As a general rule, if you see colorful easy-to-understand graphs on WUWT, you can bet the folks creating that graph have screwed up somehow. Evans for example cherrypicks data horribly, comparing surface temperature projections to atmospheric temperature measurements, and only looks at a few years of ocean heat content, and only of the shallow oceans, etc. etc.
  42. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    The WUWT "Skeptics Case" is written by Dr David M.W. Evans. It vividly compares "Predicted to actually measured" in Figure 3. But is that a fair summary? The Evans article is targeted to non-experts (like me), is well-written and has great graphics. Everything in it may be wrong or misleading, but it tells a convincing story.
  43. IPCC overestimate temperature rise
    Wow! This SkS rebuttal topic really needs to be separated into Basic and Intermediate tabs! I am drowning in data. My quick reaction: 1. Too specific - replies only to Monckton's claim. 2. Too detailed - the uninitiated reader drowns. 3. Is it up-to-date? (No comments since Sep 2010?) What led me here was a perusal of that trouble-maker website Watts Up With That entry "The Skeptics Case". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/ WUWT's article starts with very easy-to-understand color diagrams and follows up with graphs of IPCC temperature predictions vs. "measured temperatures". Does Skeptical Science have a rebuttal for this? Is this topic where the rebuttal should be?
  44. Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
    There's an (anomalous?) spike down below -1 at 2010 in the animated graphic. It appears only in the final "skeptic" frames, and disappears in the realist frame. Can this be corrected please? I'd like to use the image in my talks to Probus Clubs. Thanks.
  45. There is no consensus
    OPEN ISSUES: Does the statement, “From 82% of earth scientists to 98% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.” accurately reflect what the studies show? It is unclear that the two studies cited here (Doran 2009 and Anderegg 2010) adequately represent contrarian views. Does either study eliminate elitism or biased sampling? The Doran study was not a random sample, but rather a reflection of about 30% who took the time to respond to an on-line study. The respondents were almost exclusively American. Are there studies or polls from other countries that show similar results? Anderegg et al started with a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC. “We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC.” Their Materials and Methods explains how this was done. “We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.” They claim this did not materially alter results, but they later state, “researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. In other words, they removed 80% of the initial UE group, and only 10% of the CE, Can we cite more recent studies, or polls taken among climate scientists of other countries and different affiliations? Sites like World Climate Review will throw an elephant through any cracks we give them. PROPOSED DISCLAIMER: No poll or survey is perfect. Error margins should be expected.
  46. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith: Nobody is disputing Harper's democratic right to govern and I am not questioning Canada's right to exercise its sovereignty in the Arctic. But I maintain my right to speak out forcefully on matters that I consider important. I agree with you that it's better to maintain a civil tone and I assume that you were also disappointed with the tone of Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver when he described the opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as "radical groups" with the goal to "to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth". It's worth noting that Christie Clark, the right-of-centre Premier of BC is now a member of that radical group. As for your continued objection to the headline of this piece, I reiterate that any scientist would consider the muzzling of government scientists to be an attack on all of science, whether the suppression of free reporting of results was in environmental science or, say, in the reporting of pharmaceutical trials. Similarly, when the Natural Resources Minister dismisses the people who oppose his views on pipeline construction to be "radicals", I consider that to be an attack on all Canadians. Don't you?
  47. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith@21 "Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach?" Can you be sure that they all explicitly gave the mandate in this particular case as you propose, or do you just commit a logical fallacy by assuming that all those persons who voted for Harper are 100% behind his every action? Were those voters even aware of his intention in this case when they cast their vote? I'm asking this in earnest, since I a) am not a canadian, nor b) have followed Harpers case at any distance.
  48. Philippe Chantreau at 08:08 AM on 29 September 2012
    Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Smith seems to be very adept at using words, a hallmark of the PR and political operators, among others. I was especially amused by the "tight communication" bit. It's a very interesting concept, but rather ill defined. What kind of tightness scale are we looking at? If Harper has it tight, could it be said that Stalin had a "very tight" or "extrememly tight" communication policy? What are the checks and balances on that kind of tightness? So many questions, so little time to listen to the self righteous communicators who get all disappointed when one disagrees. I'm of the opinion that scientists who do not share in Mr Harper's ideology are found apalling enough to be be made non-issues. That's my opinion, Smith, don't be apalled...
  49. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Yes, I am not a fan of the Harper government. Largely this has to do with the obvious consequences of the exploitation of the oil sands. This will have dire implications for current and future generations of life on Earth, not just humans. It is possible, of course, that any other political party would do exactly the same - the lure of that short-term wealth proving too irresistible. I do doubt, however, that other political parties would stoop to the level of muzzling, and de-funding, climate and environmental scientists - simply because the truth is inconvenient.
  50. Rally for Canadian Science in Victoria, BC
    Sphaerica @20: What a disappointing reply. You are appalled by my support of his approach. Are you similarly appalled by the other 5,832,400 Canadains who gave Harper his mandate last year and also support his approach? (-snip-). (-snip-).
    Moderator Response: [DB] Tone trolling and inflammatory snipped.

Prev  1059  1060  1061  1062  1063  1064  1065  1066  1067  1068  1069  1070  1071  1072  1073  1074  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us