Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 Next
Comments 54351 to 54400:
-
Bert from Eltham at 23:23 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Erick I read Alice in Wonderland and dissected the untruths methodically before I turned ten. It was all a fabrication! How could a mere girl do all that without help from one of us boys? Could not even handle a rabbit or cat let alone a red queen! What part of fantasy do you inhabit. What is your next trick? Dissassemble quantum mechanics because it is beyond logic! Bert -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:22 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Eli, as we often discuss here, there is no need for prediction, only modeling with fidelity for accurate projections. As increasing CO2 traps more heat the world will get warmer on average. How much positive feedback we get from increasing water vapor depends on how that water vapor is spread out (and really not much more than that). Weather spreads the water vapor out and concentrates it. Concentrated water vapor (e.g. concentrated convection) is essentially a negative feedback while less concentration implies greater positive feedback. For support for this, please read the thesis abstracts in my link in post #2 in the RC link above.Moderator Response: [Sph]. This is OT. Please take it to an appropriate thread. -
karl at 23:19 PM on 7 September 2012CRU tampered with temperature data
sorry, that had to be: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/ -
karl at 23:17 PM on 7 September 2012CRU tampered with temperature data
I doubt that any of the arguments for adjustments would convince a poorly informed skeptic, who would always point back to the raw data as "true". Isn't it possible to refer to other (european?) data sets who maybe don't suffer the same bias of morning/evening measurements? here's a beautiful data set from the netherlands, going back to the 18th century, showing a nice hockey stick: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/zwanenburg_literatuur.html I don't know about any adjustments on these data, though. -
EliRabett at 23:14 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Eric, since no one will ever be able to predict forcings accurately, you are not going to be able to EVER get global scale predictions much better than what we have today. It's the Arrhenius Dilemma -
vrooomie at 23:05 PM on 7 September 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Captain Pitheart@19: it's way late in this thread, and who knwos when anyone will see this but your link, http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2006/10/beckco2.png ...now is just a 404 error. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:00 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
gws, no, I'm an engineer. But I understand modeling, I perform statistical analysis and am familiar with the science of weather. My skepticism started with models and will end in a decade or two when models are able to model 100 years at 10 minute and 1 square mile resolution to capture convective precipitation processes. Here's some of my posts about it (scroll to comments): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/the-missing-repertoire/ I can honestly say that I was not influenced unduly by Lindzen or others like him. When I started looking at this issue I read Al Gore's book and more material like it. I used my own knowledge to dissect Gore. I still like to read early Lindzen papers along with early Trenberth (they are very similar). -
gws at 22:36 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
@Eric Ok, Thanks, yes I am aware of the argument, something like "there are serious scientists who accept GW but have shown that CS is low. They should not be called (GW) 'deniers'". My next questions for you then are - are you a scientist? or better: are you aware of teh scientific method and how (scientific) knowledge develops and evolves? - has your skepticism always hinged on (low) CS or has it evolved or developed over time? - have you observed people like Lindzen and other proponents of low CS give presentations? Thanks, gws -
mike roddy at 22:30 PM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
You can't say the Sunday Times article was good if it included an interview with Christy, who is widely discredited, as you pointed out. This is just one more example of false balance, and it provides an escape valve for the public- as well as an excuse to do nothing. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:05 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
gws, that is one example, yes. -
geoffchambers at 21:55 PM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
I’m going to stand up for Lewandowsky here. Michael Sweet #127 and Bernard J #129 have a point. Sampling the opinions of human beings is not like like pulling different coloured balls out of a sack. There is no reason to believe that their beliefs should obey a Gaussian distribution, and no reason to reject a respondent simply because his responses are several standard deviations out on a limb. Imagine someone faced with this questionnaire announcing “I make a point of believing every conspiracy theory I come across”, and ticking the boxes accordingly. You may say he’s irrational, or that he’s an awkward cuss who’s going to screw up your carefully designed survey, but -too bad - if the population you’re sampling is humanity, you have to take the rough with the smooth. The point about the two outliers is not that they’re eccentric, but that they’re suspected of cheating. You could even argue that, since a certain proportion of humanity cheats systematically, a representative sample of humanity should keep them in. You could even argue that a warmist pretending to be a sceptic (or vice versa) has as much right to be heard as anyone else. What this shows, I think, is that the feebleness of Lewandowsky’s research lies not so much (or not only) in the weakness of the conclusions, which are sensitive to the removal of a couple of respondents, but that the conclusions are absolutely not generalisable to the world at large. We know practically nothing about the sample - whether they are representative of sceptics or believers at large, or even whether they are representative of readers of the blogs from which they were recruited. (Comments would suggest that they were not). The questions asked were so specific in time and space that the answers tell us nothing, even where numbers are large enough to provide a valid sample. What do I know or care about the Oklahoma bombing? Already I’m excluded from the sample. There is just so much wrong with this paper. We haven’t got to the bottom of it yet. Incidentally, I believe the two outliers Tom identified were close together in the numbered list on the spreadsheet, and that there was a cluster of conspiracy theorists at this point. This suggests that possibly they all came from the same blog. Would someone like to ask Stephan whether he can identify the source blogs for individual respondents? -
Bert from Eltham at 21:46 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
It is worse thn you think John Cook! There are now conspiracy theories about research into conspiracy theories. here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/recursive_denail_fury/ Just check out the comments. wuwt would love to have them on board or do they already? Bert -
gws at 21:46 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
@Eric Quick question: Is your argument that people who think CS is low are lumped in with the "real" deniers? -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:42 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
gws, there are some examples on this forum. I tried to make that case on another thread although I would ask that you not bring the particulars of my argument over to this thread. If you disagree with what I say there, please do so there and I will respond there. -
gws at 21:29 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
@Kevin, my two cents on ... "How are people responding socially?" 1.a they look for expert opinion --> fake experts and their enablers try at all expense to keep the evidence murky 1.b they look for consensus opinions as transported by the media --> failure by the (US) media leaves them in the cold 2. they look for leadership --> it is not provided for various reasons (e.g. short election cycles) suggest looking at the "Global Warmings Six Americas";it probably does not look hugely different in Europe -
Kevin C at 21:20 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
I think there is a huge hole in the reasoning here. It is all focussed on the way people respond as individuals, which is inevitable since it is being studied using the tools of psychology. However, that completely ignores the other aspect of what is going on, which is how people are responding socially. And since the responses we are seeing are not the responses of people in isolated conditions but rather people who are interacting within and across social boundaries, psychology is inadequate to investigating those responses. You need social anthropology. I know only a smattering of social anthropology, and that primarily from single school. But from the little that I know, the response of both the skeptic and particularly the consensus communities to "the recent research linking climate denial to conspiracy ideation" is far more interesting than the research which spawned it. But no-one is talking about it. If I attempt a half-arsed attempt at an analysis I'll only D-K myself, but I don't see anyone else attempting it. -
gws at 21:11 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Eric, can you explain your point a bit better please ... -
Eric (skeptic) at 21:02 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
John, while you made a lot of good points such as pointing out the use of cherry picking, I believe the 97% statistic is being used as a red herring. Briefly, a large majority of skeptics agree with the 97% of climate scientists on AGW. There are some very vocal exceptions, but their "alternative physics" is countered on almost every thread where it is brought up. The worst offenders have disappeared. We (skeptics) can do better, but it does not mean we haven't tried. -
Chris McGrath at 20:52 PM on 7 September 2012A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
Well done John. I felt like I needed popcorn to read the comments to your article. -
Bernard J. at 19:34 PM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Michael Sweet voices at #127 something that has been bugging me for days. What a priori evidence is there that indicates that any index of the psychology of conspiracy belief should follow a gaussian distribution? Much in psychology is non-gaussian, and indeed is multimodal (with highly discrete modes), and it's one reason why non-parametric statistics are often used in the discipline. Think about religious beliefs for a start. I'd certainly be interested in extreme responses in a survey, but I wouldn't be discarding them out-of-hand. Indeed, in a survey that I conducted for a government project the distribution of responses was bimodal, with the two modes at either ends of the response continuum. I suspect that in the survey that Michael alluded to, similar extremes would also exist, and that these would not imply that a majority view lies somewhere in between. Without much more in-depth dissection of the conspiracy phenomenon, I'd not be discarding any response out of hand, simply because it's 'extreme'. Beliefs frequently track in a very different way to something like body size... -
Foxgoose at 19:28 PM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Reply to #120 Bob Loblaw at 09:05 AM on 7 September, 2012 How could Lewandowsky have known that the reply from McIntyre was "unlikely ever to arrive" I wonder? -
michael sweet at 19:13 PM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, We disagree. Landowsky has used an agreed upon standard to delete 20% of his samples. He clearly is willing to delete samples if a reason exists. Outliers are not necessarily gamed, they may exist. The data may be bimodal. We do not know, that is why the data was collected. There is a standard in this research as to how to delete samples and I believe Landowsky has followed the standard. If the standard is to not delete without a reason the statistical analysis is irrelevant. I think we need an expert to tell us how these issues are handled. In the survey I worked on we only deleted samples that were contradictory (for example saying they had smoked 1 cigarette in one question and 100 in another question). Reviewing the data afterward, I realized that the nature of the questions made it very difficult to game since the participants did not know what we were interested in (we were interested in the urge to smoke in people who just started smoking). If you claimed you smoked a lot of cigarettes (the most obvious game)you were eliminated. Lewandowsky had a lot of questions he deleted from analysis. Perhaps these additional questions disguised the intent of the survey. Psychology surveys are more difficult to parse than temperature analysis. Humans are tricky animals. There is the possibility of gaming. On page 13 of the paper this is discussed. The two samples you do not like are not mentioned specifically in the paper. Lewandowsky claims the results relating to life satisfaction and conspiracy are similar to previous work, which suggests that the results are honest. Lewandowsky claims that belief in conspiracy theories in general is correlated with denial of AGW. Is this a surprise to readers who have visited WUWT? I find this conclusion easy to believe, even though the number of responders is low. I thought a poster on this forum regularly performed surveys. Can they come on here with expert advise? -
John Russell at 18:54 PM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Sorry, @Mark, #23, I just got the tweet didn't question it. I'll tweet Ed Hawkins and see if he'll respond here. My own (lay) thought is that as multi-year ice has decreased, volume is more closely becoming a function of extent/area and therefore the distinction is becoming less important. Would that be right? -
Bernard J. at 14:24 PM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Bostjan Kovacec at #70. Given that humans are estimated to co-opt around 40% of net primary productivity (NPP), with a range* of 20-55%, it should be apparent that there's little room to replace the current use of fossil-fueled machinery with additional horse-power, ox-power, donkey-power, buffalo-power, elephant-power, insert-alternative-beast-power. Those extra animals would be in addition to the current working stock, and even though they're grazers rather than carnivores they'd still need additional tapping of PP co-option for their fueling. This would place an extraordinary burden on the remaining portion of the biosphere's PP that's not currently co-opted, and quite frankly I think that the estimation of co-option of humanly-useful PP is in fact out-dated and thus under-estimated: by way of example, consider the parlous state of high trophic-level fisheries, compared with the total marine PP. It's difficult to give a simple, blanket estimation of how much PP would be required to replace fossil-fueled farming technology, but if you're willing to make your own assumptions about standards of living and about proportion of energy used for farming, and replaced, then you can start doing some calculations of your own using the numbers here: http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf [*Some references: mahb.stanford.edu www.globalchange.umich.edu www.eoearth.org www.civilizationsfuture.comModerator Response: [RH] hot linked urls that were breaking page format -
Mark-US at 14:16 PM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
@John(16), were those scientists talking about ice extent, or volume? -
dana1981 at 13:20 PM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
yocta @21 - thanks. Yes, that should be a fun post. -
yocta at 11:55 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Great post. Looking forward to the arctic predictions Vs Reality article, that one will really hold people to account. -
bill4344 at 11:13 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Bert from Eltham: I am constantly struck that so many people who are so passionately committed to the Free Market™ apparently cannot detect a clear long term trend in an unsurprisingly noisy graph. Perhaps this explains the GFC? ;-) -
Doug Bostrom at 10:59 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Well, Ahab's already spoken for. -
Tom Curtis at 10:32 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
doug_bostrom @124, that's a rather self destructive metaphor you've got going. You will forgive me, I hope, if I wish that you neither kill your Moby Dick, nor are killed by them. Besides, which, there was only one Moby Dick, and he was fictional. -
empirical_bayes at 10:30 AM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
That link to plankton report is here: http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?cid=139069&tid=3622 I'm not suggesting I am in favor of such a geoengineering exercise, since there are many unknowns and conceivable lateral impacts on the ecosystem. Don't even know if the carbon remains sequestered. My point is that if CO2 is getting drawn, this might offer a calibration of how much in a natural setting such a bloom might offer in terms of effectiveness. -
Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Bostjan - "Does anyone have any idea how the emissions from animals compared with diesel?" Horses, being animals, are carbon neutral aside from the energy needed to produce their feed. Their major emissions problem is discussed in From Horse Power to Horsepower, namely... manure. In 1894 the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in New York city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure - they were just running out of places to put it, of uses to put it to. There simply was no use (not even fertilizer) for that much manure. And the quality of life for city horses (not to mention the difficulty of pulling dead horses from the streets) was rather too horrible to contemplate. The problem early in the 20th century was (for a while, at least) solved by fossil fueled vehicles, whose emission was gaseous and did not need shoveling. Of course, now we're paying the price for those emissions, and perhaps electric, biofuel, or other options are better choices for the future. The amount of horse manure deposited by sufficient horses to replace diesel powered vehicles for 7 billion people is more than staggering. And not just from an olfactory point of view. -
empirical_bayes at 10:21 AM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
So, there's been a report, possibly on the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) site (although I can track it down with a link if needs be), that there's a massive phytoplankton bloom happening in Arctic because of less ice cover. I wondered if this might serve as a proxy experiment for those geoengineering proposals to increase CO2 sequestration in ocean by inducing phytoplankton with iron seeding. Specifically, I wondered if it might be possible to measure CO2 drawdown in Arctic because of increased bloom and see if it pays. Thanks. -
skywatcher at 10:21 AM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
We also await, with not very bated breath, Astrofos' explanation for day and night, seeing as how the rising and setting of the big yellow thing in the sky appears to have so little to do with Earth's temperature /sarc. Reality must seem a very strange place to some. CBDunkerson #26, nice list of points, except I think for your #6, which might be amended to note that more snow overlying the sea ice can inhibit ice thickening. It's one explanation for why the Canadian Arctic had quite a cold winter yet the NWP opened quickly after the surface snow had melted. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:15 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
They're out there somewhere, Tom, like Moby Dick! Now, pass me my spyglass, and call me Ishmael. -
scaddenp at 10:11 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
If I had to bet, then I would go with "recovery" in 2013 as well. However, I would also bet on a new record low within 5 years. -
Tom Curtis at 10:01 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
doug bostrom @111, while gladly acknowledging that some snark's are boojums, your boojum has just four acknowledged conspiracy theories attached. One of those was excluded for methodological reasons, while a second does not appear in the paper. Assuming that he would answer Strongly Agree (4) for the two relevant acknowledged conspiracy theories; and split between five agrees (3), and six strongly agrees on the other 11, this boojums mean score in the conspiracy response would have been 3.6, a massive 5.5 SDs above the mean. That would place them above the next highest (below the two suspect proxies), but still significantly below the two suspect proxies. Showing me boojums does not prove the existence of super-boojums. -
Tom Curtis at 09:50 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Michael Sweet @117, that's OK. I am a little prickly at the moment as I am under a lot of pressure, so it is quite possible I have over reacted. With regard to your experience in a public survey, just from Lewandowsky's paper we know that he omitted 71 responses because their IP was the same of some other response. That seems a reasonable precaution against the survey being gamed, but some of those responses may have been from other family members, or from work mates. The probability that they are gamed responses is sufficient to omit them, even though it is no guarantee. We also know that another 161 were omitted because either the participants age was considered implausible (95); the provided inconsistent responses to the consensus questions; or because the responses where incomplete. The first two are, again reasonable precautions against the survey being gamed although there is, again, a small probability of their excluding legitimate responses. At least one survey response had consensus responses of 100/100/0.9. It is entirely possible that the 0.9 was intended as a 90%. A similar slip up may account for some of the improbable ages and/or inconsistent consensus responses. The deletions due to incomplete answering are more complicated. Had I taken the survey (I did not), there was one conspiracy question that I would not have answered because I simply do not know, and do not know enough to even assess reasonable probabilities. Because of that, my response would have been excluded. However, I certainly fit the profile of people that the survey was intended to sample, ie, "... individuals who choose to get involved in the ongoing debate about one scienti c topic, climate change." If similarly principled people were deleted for not answering one or tow questions, the sample has been biased towards the more dogmatic or manipulable members of the target population. (Please note, that is a bias of the population, and does not in anyway warrant inferences about any individuals who completed the survey and answered every question.) However, despite that potential bias, the number omitted due to incompleteness may have been small; the unanswered questions may have been relating to age or satisfaction in life, in which case the omission would not bias the sample; or the omitted responses may have been massively incomplete, ie, all but a few questions not answered, in which case their inclusion would not have aided analysis in any way. So, there is a possibility of a problem here, but no certitude, in which case Lewndowsky should be given the benefit of the doubt. That is a side note to the main issue, however. Clearly Lewandowsky was prepared to omit responses given a reasonable suspicion that they were gamed. He was correct to do so. But it follows that he has no grounds in principle to not omit these two suspect responses, given equal reasonable suspicion. Indeed, it is certainly not an unusual practice in science to omit extreme outliers, which, given the sample size, samples more than 6 deviations from the mean in a unimodal distribution certainly are. Of course cutoffs in such pruning must be, to a certain extent arbitrary. That does not mean they are inappropriate. However, you are mistaken if you think I am calling for Lewandowsky to just exclude the data. I think at a minimum he should acknowledge the outliers and state his reason for including them, or excluding them. At a minimum, he should also explicitly acknowledge that the inclusion or exclusion of the outliers significantly affects the conclusions of the paper with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It would be better if he also calculated the results of the paper both including, and excluding outliers. However, replication is not auditing, so that is not compulsory. Of course, it is disputed that those outliers do significantly affect the result. It should be noted, however, excluding the suspect outliers, that if just 4% of responses to individual questions by AGW rejectors had been one point lower, AGW rejectors would have had the same measured propensity to accept conspiracy theories as AGW acceptors. With a sample size of 96, that is a very weak result. I doubt it is statistically significant (although I cannot do the maths to work that out).Moderator Response: TC: minimally edited for accuracy 10:06am -
John Russell at 09:45 AM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
@Bostjan #70 Having discussed with colleagues for many years the question of substituting draught animals for fossil-fuelled machinery, it would appear that if we went back to say, oxen (which are generally thought to be more efficient than horses), around 25% of available land would be taken up in growing the necessary fodder to enable production of arable crops for human consumption on the remaining land. This ratio is based on historical records confirmed by calculations. As things stand, replacing fossil fuels in agriculture doesn't seem so viable in the short term while ever world population continues to grow. As I've said before, any way you look at it, we can expect some significant rises in food prices in the near future. -
Bert from Eltham at 09:34 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Dana I wonder if your very nice animation was a sceptics bank balance or share portfolio would they be as optimistic for total recovery of their money? Bert -
Doug Bostrom at 09:24 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Jeff Masters does his usual good job of explanation at his Wunderground blog. Masters features Jim Pettit's interesting plots of Arctic sea ice, using Pettit's depiction of ice extent. The increasingly obvious cardioid shape is a useful cue to changes in annual behavior, plus of course the graphs have a built-in pun. -
John Russell at 09:23 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
There was a tweet from Ed Hawkins, climate scientist at the University of Reading, UK, this morning to say, "About 80% of scientists at #Bjerknes conf on high latitude climate think there will be more Arctic sea ice in Sept 2013 than 2012". I guess the thinking is that if the last record melt was in 2007 (5 years ago) then the odds on next year being a greater extent than 2012 are around 4 out of 5 (~80%). If that's how the scientists represent the probability then this could very easily become a denial meme that "scientists predict there's an 80% chance ice will recover." Whereas in fact all they're saying is that there's a significant degree of variability overlying the long term trend. -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:21 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
This is turning into the kind of buffoonery that is normally the exclusive territory of Monckton. Let's see: all the temperature records show consistent increases, surface and satellite, the radiative properties of CO2 have been known for fr#%^ing ever, the Arctic sea ice is on a death spiral, extreme weather events are showing up exactly like you'd expect and Foxgoose is arguing about dates. Not even about the meager substance of that marginally interesting Lewandosky item, just some dates. Really Foxgoose, that's all you've got? Seriously? That's where you're taking the argument? And you don't see anything wrong with that? The only thing I take from it all is that there is absolutely nothing of interest on McIntyre's blog; even when something almost interesting comes his way, he doesn't post the link. What was he afraid of, I wonder. And I don't buy that he missed it. It's not like he's busy doing real science, teaching etc. This, among other kinds of nonsense, is why I knew early on what kind of "debate" we're looking at here. Complete intellectual bankruptcy against reality. Who wins? -
Bostjan Kovacec at 09:16 AM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
@Philippe Thanks for that, but I was thinking about warming effect of methane that's much higher compared to CO2. So even though it's not of fossil origin it may have even stronger warming effect on a short term scale than using diesel tractors. -
Daniel Bailey at 09:11 AM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
Perhaps Astrofos is now exercising discretion... -
Bostjan Kovacec at 09:07 AM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Mark-US@69 AR4 predictions for temperature changes are outdated. Now even skeptics are using it to prove that nothing is going on and that if it happens it'll only be in 2100. -
Bob Loblaw at 09:05 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose@115 If you've offered a car for sale, and posted a reminder, and I have never responded at all to your offer or indicated a desire to buy, then you are under no obligation to me whatsoever. You are free to do whatever you want with the car. Do you really think that you'd feel you should have sold me the car when I turn up months later with the reminder, saying that I was cheated? McIntyre was in his rights to ignore the invitation to participate. He has no right to complain (nor do you) that Lewandowsky proceeded with his analysis using the responses he did get without waiting for a reply from McIntyre that was unlikely to ever arrive. -
Tom Curtis at 09:00 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose @113, I was incorrect in assuming you were talking about the relevant first invitation rather than the irrelevant reminder. Beyond that it still remains the case that McIntyre had plenty of time to put up the survey before the 23rd of Sept; and that you have no evidence that the survey was actually terminated on or before the 23rd of Sept. Indeed, the sending of a reminder notice strongly suggests that it was not terminated at that point. I wish to confine myself to rational criticisms of Lewnandowky, in press. Not wild goose chases. -
Philippe Chantreau at 08:56 AM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
Bostjan, the carbon comong from livestock is primarily derived from plants and is all part of the normal carbon cycle. Diesel fuel contains carbon that was locked away for millions of years and is then rapidly and massively reinjected in the atmopshere, so the 2 do not compare. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:51 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Just in case we forget from one minute to the next: Fifth - McIntyre didn't post the link. And again, lest we forget and as the wag elsewhere suggested, too busy with the "other matter" of rummaging in other people's email to read his own email. Obviously it's Lewandowsky's fault. Some features of this affair are not worth exploring, for anybody.
Prev 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 Next
