Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 Next
Comments 54651 to 54700:
-
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. -
vrooomie at 08:47 AM on 7 September 2012Record Arctic Sea Ice Melt to Levels Unseen in Millennia
DB, ModResp@38...first, thanks a heap for correcting my fat fingered, early-AM typos! Secondly, per your well-put codicil to my post..I was *tryin'* ter be polite...;) I'm *breathlessly* awaiting a response from Astrofos, though, I'm not holding my hand on my...well, never mind. >;-P -
michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Tom, I am sorry, I did not intend to come across so strongly. It is my understanding from working on a single public survey that no samples are deleted unless they self contradicted. The deviation from the mean was not considered. I respect that you put in a lot of time to research your posts and cite regularly from the literature. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 08:24 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
@foxgoose - is it time to give this a rest? First off, as lots of people have pointed out to you it was one slide out of many in a presentation. It was preliminary indication, not a final paper. It was for fellow scientists, not the general public. Secondly, let's say McIntyre did finally decide to post the survey - a few days later (unlikely) and another dozen or two people responded. Say this included one full blown conspiracy theorist (probably not even that), half a dozen extreme right wingers, a dozen or so luke warmers of various political leanings and half a dozen who accept climate science, again with a spread of various political leanings. How much difference would it make to the survey results? Very little. At best, they might have grabbed a few more extreme right wingers to help the analysis - which is probably why they tried again to see if anyone from sites that are likely to attract a greater proportion of extreme right wingers would respond. Thirdly, on a blog if something isn't done quickly it probably won't get done at all. Fourthly, on most blogs, articles quickly drop down the list (okay, not on CA so much but I think it was a bit more active back then). If Steve or anyone else had decided to post the link then responses would probably come within a day or two and drop off rapidly. Fifth - McIntyre didn't post the link. Sixth - on the internet, downloads are almost instantaneous. The slide could have been prepared the morning of the presentation. Seventh - no, it was not the final results - and nor was it a car sale. Eighth - it was a single slide on the survey, not a whole presentation about the survey. And it was not the final result. 9 and 10 - it was not the final result. The paper is being published two years later. McIntyre didn't post the link. -
Gestur at 08:03 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Robert Murphy, I won’t subject myself to the nonsense at Watt’s webpage, life is too short for that sort of thing. But I note the following alarming statistics: according to my own simple calculations on the NSIDC’s MASIE data, the average loss of sea ice extent for the first 5 days of September 2012 is running at 87,188 square kilometers per day. According to NSIDC’s write up of Sept 5, the average loss of sea ice extent during August in the previous record overall low year of 2007 was 66,000 square kilometers per day. And in 2008, the year with the previous highest monthly August ice loss, the rate was 80,600 square kilometers per day. Finally, the 2012 August average ice loss rate per day was 91,700 square kilometers. So in the first 5 days of September of this year the loss per day is only marginally lower than it averaged for the entire drastic loss month of August, 2012. But it is substantially higher than the August 2007 average loss per day rate and non-trivially higher than the 2008 August average loss rate per day. To quote George W. Bush (late in 2008 and of course referring to the fate of the US economy at the time): “This sucker is going down.” -
Bostjan Kovacec at 08:01 AM on 7 September 2012Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?
@Lanfear67 Can you be more specific why you think it'd be impossible to feed 7+ population with working animals? I was quite skeptical about it, needed almost a year to get used to it, but now it looks ok. It's not really my idea - my professor asked me during an exam what I thouhgt about it. Regarding how many oxen you need to do the work of a tractor: I'm not sure if this is the right question to ask. I'd start with the area of land available and then ask what the production capacity of it is. How much primary photosynthetic production will go to feed the animals on the farm, how much will be taken as produce and how much will be fed back to soil directly, and if this division is sustainable? Does anyone have any idea how the emissions from animals compared with diesel? -
Foxgoose at 07:59 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Repy to #114 Bob Loblaw at 07:02 AM on 7 September, 2012 No - the key date was the final request. (-Snip-)Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
Robert Murphy at 07:54 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Funny thing is, Bastardi links to a map that is labelled "Sea Surface Temperature". On the same website there is an actual map showing extent, and it shows what everybody else is showing. What Bastardi thinks is sea ice extent "rapidly growing back" What the website actually shows for sea ice extent: -
dana1981 at 07:08 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
It's really astonishing that anyone still takes Bastardi seriously isn't it? -
Bob Loblaw at 07:02 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Foxgoose: Yes, but focusing on the date of the reminder, instead of the date of the earlier original invitation, means you weren't telling "the whole truth". After you get that figured out, perhaps we'll move on to "nothing but the truth". -
Robert Murphy at 06:48 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
Unpossible! Anthony Watts says that the ice has started to turn a corner this week, and he's always right, isn't he? Sea Ice News Volume 3 number 12 – has Arctic sea ice started to turn the corner? And Joe Bastardi says the ice is "rapidly growing back". When was the last time he was wrong about something? :) -
Foxgoose at 06:13 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Reply to #91 Bob Loblaw at 12:00 PM on 6 September, 2012 To put your mind at rest, I did "know exactly what I was doing" when I said Steve McIntyre received the reminder email on the 23rd. I was stating the truth. You may, of course, draw whatever conclusions you like from that Be careful though - maybe telling the truth is part of a cunning conspiracy ;-) -
Alpinist at 05:56 AM on 7 September 2012Vanishing Arctic Sea Ice: Going Up the Down Escalator
The next question seems to be the developing hypothesis that the dramatic changes in the northernmost latitudes are having a significant influence in the jet stream leading to increasing “blocking” events. These blocking events might be responsible for the extremely persistent patterns in the North America this year that have resulted in the damaging drought and fire events in the US and a wetter than normal summer in the Rockies of BC and Alberta. After three weeks of smoke in Western Montana, I’m certainly ready for it to end! -
Foxgoose at 05:50 AM on 7 September 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Reply to Tom Curtis at 07:34 AM on 6 September, 2012 Tom You're mistaken I'm afraid. I think you missed the point that Geoff Chambers and I made in our earlier posts. We pointed out that Steve McIntyre has now specifically confirmed that he received the "reminder" email on September 23rd. Which rather invalidates the rest of your post.
Prev 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 Next
