Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 Next
Comments 57901 to 57950:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:31 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Sphaerica - you have a valid point there, he was included as he has published an article on the subject. However; having thought about it I am not sure I agree with CBDunkerson anyway - all artciles should be judged on their scientific merits (or lack of) rather than the source, so requiring a climatologist to have supported an argument is not a good criterion anyway. -
Bob Lacatena at 22:17 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
30, Rufus9,"...if we give it time and have an open mind to accept that there are limits to our knowledge. And, there's nothing wrong with that."
No, there is something seriously wrong with that if:- 99% of the debate and debating points are grossly inaccurate and manufactured.
- Most people are not educated well enough to see the difference.
- Those manufacturing the artificial debate are laughably unqualified to do so, and yet they are taken seriously by those who are taken in (like yourself).
- You really get your information from blogs and mainstream books by unqualified authors? That's where you put the weight of your faith, or from where you expect to gain a reliable understanding?
- Failure to act, or even delaying action, comes with serious, irreversible consequences in economic cost and human suffering.
-
Bob Lacatena at 22:16 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
35, Dikran, I object to your label of Richard Courtney as a "climatologist". The man has no credentials or accomplishments in the field whatsoever. -
dorlomin at 22:11 PM on 13 June 2012New research from last week 23/2012
"Allan Hills icefield in Antarctica has potential to extend ice core record beyond 800 000 years" This has been an objective for many years, to go beyond the two mile time machine. Hopefully the research is approved and we can get yet more answers. -
Lazarus at 22:01 PM on 13 June 2012New research from last week 23/2012
"Highest summer temperatures in European Alps during 1053-1996 happened in the end of 20th century" It is behind a paywall but I assume that this looks like another hockey stick when graphed. Might be important in providing more evidence that the MWP wasn't as warm as our present. -
funglestrumpet at 20:38 PM on 13 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
So the Monckton 'Misinformation' tour pops up in yet another part of the world. I wonder how many of his adoring fans notice what an exciting life he leads and thus how unlikely it is that he would change his mind, and thus have to give that up, no matter how blatant the facts were that he was wrong. For my part, seeing as he cannot answer Peter Hadfield's points in his debate on WUWT, I suspect that he knows full well that he is wrong and is deliberately not going to put his good life at risk by being forced into admitting it. Seeing as Climate Change will harm his country, I wonder where that leaves him with the authorities seeing as he clearly does not want any action to combat it. In the U.K. had a banker who was so well respected that he was knighted, but then made one mistake and was subsequently stripped of his title. Why Monckton is still a peer is a mystery to me. Though why he was made a peer in first place is an even bigger one. We do live in the 21st century, after all and hereditary peerages should surely be a thing of the dim, distant past. -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:07 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
CBDunkerson There have been some climatol0ogists making the claim that the rise in CO2 is natural, including Roy Spencer (as dana pointed out), Tom Segalstad, Richard Courtney, and now Murry Salby. The flaws in their arguments are pretty obvious, which just goes to show that scientists can have blind spots, just like the rest of us. As I said, the difference between true skepticism and stubborn bias is the willingness to investigate, rather than to simply question (questioning is only of value if you are interested in the answer). -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:01 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9 There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about mainstream scientific views. The question is "what are you going to do about it?". True skepticism involves investigating the issue to find out whether those views are reasonable, just refusing to accept them without taking the effort to look into it is merely bias. I have pointed out to you that there are good reasons supporting my view that papers purporting to show that the rise in CO2 is natural being likely to be a particularly bad, and given a link where we can discuss it. However, you have not responded to that point, which gives the impression that your apparent skepticism is actually (possibly unconscious) bias, as you do not appear to be interested in investigating the truth, merely restating your original point. As to your points (i) it has not been established that pal review is a substantive issue in peer review, other than in isolated incidents. (ii) Of course peer review has its flaws, but like the Churchill quote "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", what would you replace it with that hasn't already been shown to be even more flawed (e.g. live public debate). (iii) observational studies can never prove causation (arguably it is fundamentally impossible to prove causal relationships without making assumptions) - so does that me we should ignore all observational studies? Of course not! Sure we should keep an open mind and accept there are things we don't know or are uncertain. However, it also needs to be accepted that there are things we do know with high certainty, of which I have already given an example. -
JohnMashey at 14:07 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Given human variation, health care is a poor analogy to climate science, and it is a red herring in this discussion. Statistics isn't physics. Some people will die from a lifetime of smoking, some won't. One of drugs A, B, and C will work for somebody, but doctors will have to try them one at a time to see which works. This is somewhat like the disciplinary-error problem I discussed at RC. Analogies can be wrong. -
scaddenp at 12:29 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
I'd say blogs and books "from both sides" of any debate arent much use. You are skeptical of peer-review, but I would say that peer-review is a necessary gate-keeper. If you are not an expert in a field, then faux experts can easily pull the wool and that goes for health care in spades. Just because its peer-reviewed doesnt make it right - but if it cant get through peer-review, then its almost certainly wrong. Sure there are plenty of latter-day Galileo's claiming persecution but for one's I've have read in fields I know, you can see why they cant get it published. Especially if publishing outside their area of expertise. Not a few are screaming because Nature or Science wont publish them - well duh - everyone suffers that. If you think someone is hard done by with a paper, then ask to see their reviewers comments. That said, I would agree with 1 and 2. -
Rufus9 at 12:04 PM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Let me simplify my position. 1. Pal review is one more factor in a long list of known flaws / issues with the peer review system. 2. This analysis is the equivalent of observational studies in medicine - sufficient to identify a hypothesis for further research, but not proof of causation. I obviously picked the wrong quote to illustrate my skepticism of AGW. It is at a much more general level after reading books and blogs from both sides. However, I spend a lot more of my time reading and researching health and nutrition. I can comfortably say that "accepted science" - like saturated fat causes heart disease or salt is bad for you or red meat causes cancer or higher mortality are documented in hundreds of studies. Yet, through the wonder of the Internet, we have access to people like Gary Taubes who research these areas "settled science" and we find the evidence is not convincing. Politics, ego, placebos that beat drugs, drugs that kill people, omitted data, not publishing a report for 16 years because "... we didn't like the result", and many other issues are revealed. Something similar is going to happen in this debate if we give it time and have an open mind to accept that there are limits to our knowledge. And, there's nothing wrong with that. -
Tom Curtis at 10:07 AM on 13 June 2012New research from last week 22/2012
Tenney Naumer @4, it is from Rignot and Mouginot (2012), ie, the second article discussed. -
Tenney Naumer at 09:37 AM on 13 June 2012New research from last week 22/2012
Please, could you provide attribution for Fig. 3? Thanks so much! -
NSherrard at 09:18 AM on 13 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Thanks for the response. I admit to being slightly disingenuous in my question. I think the recent and unprecedented (at least since the late 70s) extreme volatility in oil price is directly linked to the first stages of peaking production. So I guess I'm with scaddenp more on this one - "problems with production/demand in oil will only get worse." Speculation may account for some of what's going on, but as I understand it there is evidence that speculation may actually have a stabilizing effect on oil price as we approach the peak. I guess I am just amazed at the blathering about an oil boom. I just wonder if people ever stop to think WHY there is a sudden oil boom, and WHY prices are fluctuating wildly, and WHY economic growth worldwide is sputtering. I mean, my god, look at that graph of gas prices. But I expect, just as we have done nothing to address climate change, we will do nothing to address this problem either until we are looking back at the top of the curve. Interesting times. -
scaddenp at 08:46 AM on 13 June 2012Glaciers are growing
Henry, you surely arent mistaking articles by right-wing think tanks for science? Looking at published science we note for instance here, we find temperature is the predominant influence. Modelling on the franz joseph when advancing showed it needed a 40% increase in precipitation to offset a 1 degree increase temperature at the terminus. The worldwide glacial retreat is consistent with established climate theory. All of us want to find evidence that supports what we would like to be true. The development of science has showed that we need find a discipline that protects us from this normal human reaction. Try thinking about what evidence would convince that your views are wrong and see if there is evidence to support this. Look for that evidence in peer-reviewed science publications. There is plenty of fairy-dust about on the net for those just want to be fooled. -
pmiddents at 08:27 AM on 13 June 2012New research from last week 23/2012
I could find no indication that Judith Curry participated in the North Carolina workshop on uncertainty. -
CBDunkerson at 03:01 AM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Dikran wrote: "Seriously, there are very good reasons why the possibility of a natural cause can be effectively ruled out completely." Maybe we should establish a standard of requiring that people provide a citation of at least one climate scientist making a claim before we'll entertain it. Or get a list of the published 'skeptic' scientists and check if any of them will put their name behind it. So far as I know there are not any who dispute that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Or that this increase is causing planetary warming. Even with the 'pal review' system documented in this article, there are some claims that are just too ridiculous. Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy, Pielke... they all acknowledge that human CO2 emissions are increasing global temperatures. Yet here we have Rufus professing 'skepticism'. Indeed, one of the few good things with the progress of the global warming 'debate' is the ever shrinking pool of contrary claims which the 'skeptic' scientists are willing to put their names behind. If we could get the online 'skeptics' to observe the complete absence of scientific support for positions like this it could wipe out about 95% of the crazy things they believe (e.g. 'undersea volcanoes are melting the Arctic ocean ice') and just leave, 'ok you are right about the physical process but we are going to assume that a powerful negative feedback will come along any day now and cancel out most of the warming'. That's still crazy, but at least it would match the actual scientific position of the remaining 'skeptics'. -
DSL at 02:31 AM on 13 June 2012Glaciers are growing
Henry, don't you think the title of Carlisle's work is a little, well, ignorant? Decline in glacial mass is not cited as evidence for the theory of AGW. No scientist would say, "glacial mass is declining and this proves AGW." Carlisle: "Glaciers are influenced by a variety of local and regional natural phenomena that scientists do not fully comprehend. Besides temperature changes, glaciers also respond to changes in the amount and type of precipitation, changes in sea level and changes in ocean circulation patterns. As a result, glaciers do not necessarily advance during colder weather and retreat during warmer weather." What a revelation. Glaciers "do not necessarily" shrink or grow in response to changes in global temp, but in general they do, as evidenced by the change in global mass balance. The analogous situation is global sea ice. Area of both poles are subject to regional fluctuations from year to year, but Arctic extent, area, and volume are, across the entire Arctic region, rapidly decreasing. Antarctic sea ice extent is slightly increasing, even while ice shelves show signs of increasing deterioration. -
dana1981 at 02:30 AM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Whoa, I must have just engaged in time travel, responding to CBD's comment a half hour before he made it! -
dana1981 at 02:29 AM on 13 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
CBD @27 - at one point a couple years ago Roy Spencer did question whether the CO2 increase was anthropogenic, on his blog. I don't know whether his position on the subject has changed since then though - I would certainly hope so. Spencer does acknowledge that the CO2 increase is causing warming though. -
keithpickering at 01:38 AM on 13 June 2012HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
Fabulous work, Kevin, both in your analysis and presentation. Found a typo in paragraph 5: "but not the Antartic coverage bias." ... s.b. "Antarctic". -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:34 PM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9 wrote: "So from my perspective, when I see Dikran's comment that seems to question "any paper that argues that the rise in CO2 is a natural phenomenon", it triggers my skeptical self-defense mechanism." As long as the same skeptical self-defense mechansim swings into action if someone claims that the rise is not anthropogenic ;o) Seriously, there are very good reasons why the possibility of a natural cause can be effectively ruled out completely. It is a subject I have looked into in some depth and even ended up writing a peer-reviewed comment for a journal on the subject. I'd be very happy to go over all this with you in detail on a more appropriate thread, e.g. this one. -
Flakmeister at 20:27 PM on 12 June 2012New research from last week 23/2012
This also came out this week.... New evidence supporting theory of extraterrestrial impact found http://phys.org/news/2012-06-evidence-theory-extraterrestrial-impact.html Looks like the Younger Dryas might have had some cosmic help.... -
michael sweet at 19:38 PM on 12 June 2012A drop in volcanic activity caused warming
Henry Justice, Perhaps this is a better thread to raise your volcano questions. (I could not find an ice and volcano thread). I suggest that you calculate how much energy a volcano emits and compare that to how much energy it takes to melt a gigaton of ice. You will find that even if there is a volcano in the middle of an Antarctic glacier the melting it causes is not significant. The energy imbalance in the Arctic is equal to hundreds of unknown volcanoes (would so many volcanoes cause seismic activity?). In keeping with your posts I have provided no references, that is your responsibility. -
MarkR at 19:33 PM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
I'd also point out that Norway has had a carbon tax since 1991. Apparently it's made a difference relative to business as usual, of up to ~10%. But its emissions still increased: this could be due to sheer wealth or due to the parts of the economy that aren't included. Norwegian GDP has increased ~200% since the carbon tax was introduced. -
Dan Moutal at 17:53 PM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
@ actually thoughtful The update is that not much has changed. This year will see the last legislated increase in the rate of the carbon tax. The current political mode (in which the governing Liberals who introduced the tax find themselves in trouble for reasons unrelated to the tax) means that the tax will stay at its current level of $30/tonne for the foreseeable future. Or at least until the next election in 2013; one new political party has vowed to kill the tax if they get elected and there is a chance that might happen. As for what the tax has achieved, that is harder to say. The last BC GHG inventory only has data for 2009 and earlier. The next report to be released some time in 2012 will cover emissions from 1990-2010. The inventory report does show a slight drop but that could easily be due to the global recession. On the plus side BC's gasoline consumption has dropped by three per cent compared to the rest of Canada. This could reasonably be attributed to the carbon tax But like I said in the original article the tax is still too small to have any real effect on emissions, but there is only so much a single jurisdictional can do to price carbon before it begins to export industries that have high emissions (which doesn't do anything to lower global emissions). What the BC carbon tax has demonstrated is that properly designed and implemented revenue neutral carbon tax doesn't in fact hurt the economy, despite what some critics would have you believe. -
Stephen Baines at 15:42 PM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9 It's OK to be skeptical, but you shouldn't be reflexively cynical of all of science based on a few select audits. That is equally naive, in my opinion, and it produces a false equivalency. As your Begley article shows, it is possible, with due deliberation and experimentation to separate the wheat from the chaff in published science (although he oddly dissociates himself from the whole scientific process by tying himself down to non-disclosure agreements.) Thus, it is not because of one flawed paper that that humans are believed to be the cause of the rising CO2. There are in fact many papers using different lines of evidence that come to the same consistent conclusion. The analyses rest on basic principles that have served us well for centuries, like conservation of mass, radioactive decay, dissolution chemistry, etc. To question the role of humans in CO2 would be akin to challenging these principles. Similar statements could be made for the evidence for increasing surface temperatures, the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the role of greenhouse gasses in current warming. I think Begley would applaud this kind of reproducibility. The same cannot be said of skeptic papers. They typically do not address the larger body of data and the implications of their findings, choosing instead to focus almost exclusively on details that appear at first blush to cast doubt on one aspect or another of AGW. When analyzed properly or placed in context we see over and over that they do no such thing. The mistakes and the bias are often so obvious that any reasonable review process should have uncovered them. That is dana and John's point...they were forced to engage in pal review to get through peer-review. It is exactly this kind of thing that Begley is decrying in your example. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:50 PM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9: Let's look at it another way: Michaels et al have accused the mainstream scientists of "pal review", arguing that friendly reviewers and editors make it easy for the "pals" to get papers published with the "accepted" viewpoint. If we accept that this is true, then we can ask the question, "What would we expect to see as a pattern in the publishing of papers by this group?" I think we'd expect to see: - more papers by the "pals" appearing in "friendly" journals than in "unfriendly" journals - a higher ratio of papers from "the pals" appearing in these journals than papers by "outsiders" (in the same journals) Do we see evidence of this? Yes we do, but it is in the papers from the skeptics that we see the evidence, not in the rest of the discipline. To say that this pattern exists in the authors outside of the "skeptics" group, you'd have to argue that the "pals" control virtually the entire publishing industry, and that gets you into fairy-tale conspiracy theories, not objective evidence. As is pointed out by John Mashey, feel free to search for such evidence, but it will have to be as strong as John's evidence is against the "skeptics" to have any hope of turning the pointer away from the "skeptics" and towards the mainstream consensus position. Are we certain? No, but there is more evidence to support Michaels et al of this behaviour than there is to support saying this about the mainstream scientists. Neither is certain, but we're a lot less uncertain about the "skeptics". As for the statement of Dikran's about "any paper that argues that the rise in CO2 is a natural phenomenon" - I agree with him completely. At this point in the science, to think the rise is not due to humans burning fossil fuels is pretty close to claiming that falling objects are not under the influence of gravity. Most of the rest of your discussion appears to be of the form "we don't know everything, and aren't always right, so I get to act as if you know nothing and you're always wrong". -
Henry justice at 14:40 PM on 12 June 2012Glaciers are growing
Here are my requested references : For the undersea volcanoes: (-Snip-) For the Under-Ice Antarctic Volcanoes and its effects: (-Snip-) Finally, here is a reference for a good discussion on melting glaciers: Behavior of World's Glaciers Fails to Prove Global Warming Theory by John Carlisle, Feb 1999.Moderator Response: [DB] Please note that volcano's have been determined to be off-topic on this thread. -
DaneelOlivaw at 14:35 PM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
Oh, boy. Be on the lookout for deniers cherrypicking data on this one. Delawarre and Maryland saw electricity bills increased by 22% and 29%. Also Rhode Island's unemployment rate increased by 4,7%, much more than the US average. Plenty of room for cherries. -
dana1981 at 13:56 PM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
I'd like to see an update on how BC is doing with their carbon tax. The timing was about the same as the RGGI implementation. -
Henry justice at 13:37 PM on 12 June 2012Glaciers are growing
Tom Curtis at 22: "you are assuming that Otzi died in an ice free area that later became glaciated." Here is what I stated: "Does this indicate the present melting of the glaciers are now back to the level where they were when this mummy was first frozen?" This does not state or indicate an ice free area! -
Henry justice at 13:19 PM on 12 June 2012Glaciers are growing
If I can't defend my comment by posting a reference, then would you please delete comments 26, 28, 29 and 30 in their entirety. Especially comment 30, since I see no mention of anything about the Arctic. -
actually thoughtful at 12:55 PM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
Dan Moutal its been over a year since your article - is an update in order? Using individual states and regions as a test case for the concept makes sense, and now that the data is coming in, at a minimum it proves the ideas work, and seem to provide some evidence for the case I have been making - the non-monetized benefits of renewables exceed any nominal cost, and indeed, renewables are, even at face value, cheaper than fossil alternatives.Moderator Response: [DB] Changed ALL-CAPS to bold per Comments Policy. -
scaddenp at 12:33 PM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Bad science gets published all the time, no doubt about it. The question is though whether there is any good science published at all that seriously challenges modern climate theory? The "skeptic" papers are mostly very bad science that can only get published in journals with low standards or via pal review. The perception is not helped by dubious paper sneaking through (McLean et al, Soon & Baliunas) which are then trumpeted in press statements as saying (incorrectly) more than in fact is possible. -
Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 12 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Martin @13, it is not clear how, and to what extent Knorr et al, 2011 disagree with LaRivierre et al, 2012. Knorr et al. discuss the mean global temperature in the Late Miocene rather than just the NH mid latitude Pacific as discussed by LaRivierre et al. Therefore there is may be no contradiction between their respective estimates of the temperature anomaly, ie, 3 Degrees C for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly by Knorr et al, compared to 5 to 8 degrees C for part of the NH Pacific Ocean for La Rivierre et al. Like wise, the explanation for the anomalous global warmth may well be, primarilly, changes in albedo; while the explanation of the greater anomalous warmth in the NH Pacific may well still be ocean currents, as it is a different (although related) phenomenon. However, yes, the science of Mioncene climate is certainly unsettled. This is not because of a problem with the physics of climate, however. The same physics which predicts rising temperatures with increasing anthropogenic emissions can explain the anomalous warmth in the Miocene, as is shown by Knorr et al. What makes the science of Miocene climate unsettled is the restricted observational data set. To give one example, LaRivierre et al rely on just two data sets for their analysis of Miocene CO2 levels. One is an analysis of alkenones by Pagani et al, 1999 showing just 33 observations over the 7 million years discussed (panel a):
The other is from Pearson and Palmer (2000), which shows just six observations over the 7 million years:
(Note, I have set the CO2 concentrations as determined by Pagani et al as background for comparison.)
With such limited information, several hypotheses may remain consistent with the data. Of course, those several hypotheses are consistent with the physics of the greenhouse effect as determined from better observed times.
No doubt, of course, we are about to see an entertaining display from the fake "skeptic" community as they take the limited and partially conflicting observational data from the Late Miocene as being above reproach so they can falsely claim a counterexample to the known physics; while of course they insist the thousands of modern direct measurements with thermometers are not an adequate basis to determine that the Earth is warming.
-
Rufus9 at 09:18 AM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
John - nice admission that "... we really don't know." What is true of your study as well as many others is that it has established correlation but not causation. As such, the results are sufficient for generating hypotheses, but not "proving" anything (I'm not saying that was your objective). Similarly Dana notes that " Michaels for example got 7 published in CR and 7 published in other journals at the same time." Without some additional information, it is hard to know how to interpret that statement. Does it mean that there were 7 other journals that were also susceptible to "pal reviews", or does it lend credibility to Michaels because he was also published in those other journals. Once again, we can generate a hypothesis, but cannot prove it one way or another based on your work. If you listen to the Econtalk podcast I linked previously, there is a very good discussion of the pitfalls of scientific studies, and we should not be so naive to think that bad research is limited to once side of the climate debate or the other. As Dikran (14) noted, "The major problems with peer review is the "publish or perish" nature of academia, which means there is great pressure on all of us to publish in quantity often at the expense of quality. This is becuase it is hard to make an objective metric that measures quality (at least hard to make one that operates without a delay of 5+ years). This means that (i) there are many more papers published than there used to be (ii) academics have less time to review them than they used to do (iii) comments papers have little or no value, so academics have pretty much stopped writing them. The result is an explosion of the number of journal and a reduction in quality control." In other areas of science, for example cancer research, it was recently discovered that 47 of 53 "landmark" studies could not be replicated, and yet they were cited over 200 times by other researchers. http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/04/03/lack-of-repeatability-of-cancer-research-the-mystery/ Quote from a Reuters article: "During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated." So, while we might expect there to be some honest error in any field of research due to the limits of knowledge, an 88% non-repeatability rate is certainly shocking. Does this extend into other fields of research? It most certainly does. I'm a big fan of Gary Taubes, whose work often highlights flawed research in the area of nutrition and health. (he's written in other areas as well). For an enlightening view into this world, I suggest reading "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy" or, more recently, his commentary on Harvard's latest "correlation study" showing the supposed dangers of eating red meat (which has been severely critiqued upon review of the actual data). See garytaubes.com So from my perspective, when I see Dikran's comment that seems to question "any paper that argues that the rise in CO2 is a natural phenomenon", it triggers my skeptical self-defense mechanism. It does not matter to me if Harvard says red meat causes increased mortality or if a stack of 500 climate research papers supports the AGW theory because it is simply naive to believe that all of those papers are correct. And, if 5% or 10% or 88% of them are flawed or not repeatable, then the skepticism is warranted. I think you've actually done some interesting work, but at the end of the day, as you said, we don't know. -
Alexandre at 08:57 AM on 12 June 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Hey, the Brazilian president on the toon of the week! That doesn't happen very often. BTW, is there an online source with a list of emission targets and actual emissions of each country? The most recent Brazilian emission inventory I've found has data from 2005. -
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
NSherrard - while speculation is big on volatility in oil pricing, the line that the price wriggles around is dependent on production versus demand. Production can be producer whim but also under-investment in new production as older production peters out which is certainly a problem in Middle-East/North Africa at moment. Of course, getting new production on stream gets harder all the time. However, since problems with production/demand in oil will only get worse, and since there is only so much damage we can do to climate via petroleum, the real issue for climate is coal. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:44 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Dana and Phillippe, I think arguing the semantics of "theory" and "proof" is the wrong approach to take with Mr. Rauch, and will probably just leave him rolling his eyes in exasperation, feeling that you are missing the point. The fact is that he said that global warming was "at best" an unproven theory, suggesting that he dismisses all aspects of the science, not merely its certitude. In that event, I would suggest that a better approach with Mr. Rauch would be to point him towards the wealth of information available here, along with the fact that the only people who contradict the position of every major national science academy in the world is a small, loud, vocal cadre of outliers and an equally loud cadre of PR firms and personalities (Forbes writers, not-exactly-lobbyists, weathermen, not-exactly-Lords, etc.). Just because they have his attention, and keep hammering their misinformation at everyone who will listen, does not make what they are saying true. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:41 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
"there are myriad reasons to begin adopting alternative energy resources" Most definitely. It is plain that fossil fuels of all kinds will be exhausted if mined to, well, exhaustion. Then what? This question by itself is enough reason to do all the work we need to do to get away from fossil fuels, now that we are enjoying the unprecedented comfort and ease of living that these same fuels have allowed and that we can afford to do that work. We have a small window of opportunity; with billions of people wanting to enjoy the good life like we do in the West, it will not last very long, and the aftermaths of the big carbon release will call for some serious flexibility on our part. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:23 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I think Marc Rauch is right, that there are myriad reasons to begin adopting alternative energy resources. There are national security issues, domestic jobs issues and many other fantastic and meaningful reasons. But I believe he is misguided in his desire to see AGW and alternative energy sources to be separate issues. The science for man-made warming is overwhelming, and very often it's very difficult to convince people in his position of this. I think there is extreme exasperation within the scientific community to find ways to explain to people like Mr Rauch exactly how overwhelming the research is. There is no doubt at all that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the planet. There is no doubt that reduction of those gases is absolutely necessary. There are uncertainties with regards to how severely the planet will respond but even the lower estimations are very concerning. How to make this clear to people like Mr Rauch is an issue that is keeping lots of scientists awake nights. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:55 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Mr Rauch, I certainly do not want to impinge on SkS comments policy that precludes "dogpiling." However, I have to point out, seconding Dana, that "unproven theory" in the context used in your post indicates a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Quantum theory is also an "unproven" theory, whose implications are at odds with the General Relativity theory. Yet both of them are very successfully applied together in GPS, where electronics put Quantum to use, and where General Relativity allows for the accuracy that newtonian physics would not permit, considering the velocities and distances involved. It should be noted, however, that Relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics, only changed its domain of application. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. This misunderstanding appears to be common in the US because of the pervasive deceitful argument made by creationists that "Evolution is only a theory." It works well with that part of the public that does not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. The consensus model of Earth climate as it has been experienced by Humans is a well supported theory, not a hypothesis. -
dana1981 at 06:38 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Mr. Rauch, first of all, all scientific theories are unproven because theories cannot be proven. Saying "unproven theory" is redundant. It's also no different than saying "evolution by natural selection is just an unproven theory." Secondly, the best case for supporting alternative fuels is that they are a key solution to human-caused global warming, which is one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced. Bringing up absurd conspiracy theories of 'fraud' and the like only harms the case for alternative fuels. While you might prefer that the two issues be treated separately, that's not going to happen. Most of the people who oppose alternative fuels oppose climate science for the exact same reasons. -
Dan Moutal at 06:00 AM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
Remember here in British Columbia we have had a carbon tax for the past several years. And if the economy was destroyed, I haven't noticed. I even write an article about it here as sks. -
marcrauch at 05:26 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
One of the biggest problems with acceptance of alternative fuels and energy is that so-called man-made global warming has been lumped together with it. If man-made global warming is real and if the use of non-fossil fuels would impact the effects of global warming then there would be a reason to put the two issues together. But, even if man-made global warming is happening, there is nothing but conjecture to support the theory that alt-fuels can mitigate it. However, there are sufficient good reasons to support the wide-spread use of alt fuels without taking into account man-made climate change. In fact, because man-made global warming is at best an unproven theory, tying the two issues together drastically hurts alt-fuel acceptance. The issues should stand on their own, which I believe would make arguing for alternative fuels much easier and more palatable for the vast majority of people who believe that man-made global warming is a fraud. On the other hand, if man-made global warming is real, and if the production and use of non-fossil fuels are a helpful solution, then fine, both issues are addressed. But if we can get alt-fuels accepted then everyone wins. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President THE AUTO CHANNEL -
Martin at 05:05 AM on 12 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@12 Tom Thanks for posting Knorr et al. It seems to me that Knorr disagrees with this nature article regarding the causes of a warm, low CO2 Miocene world. Knorr emphasizes a change in albedo due to a change in vegetation distribution whereas the Nature article focuses on changes in ocean circulation. I'm tempted to believe that the science isn't settled at least with respect to the Miocene. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:10 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
NSherrard, most of the (very large) volatility in the price of the oil barrel is owed to speculation. "Pure" oil speculation consists of buying and selling oil without ever taking possession of a single drop of it. It does, in fact, represent a problem for the purpose of working our way out of oil dependence. Right now there is no political will to regulate the parasites cashing in on the system without adding any value to anything. As push comes to shove, which will inevitably happen, low-hanging fruits for easing oil prices will be picked first and the enormous speculation will be eliminated, giving everybody the impression that oil is cheap and pllentiful again, for a little while. As with other kinds of speculation, it is a far greater threat to economies than any large scale action to curb GH gas emissions. As a matter of fact, it is easy to demonstrate that the behaviors of the important actors of Wall Street and other big markets are largely responsible for every major depression or recession that has happened since, and including, the Great Depression. -
NSherrard at 02:40 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Slightly off-topic, but related to the post, how can the increase in crude oil price from $35 a barrel in 2004 to $144 a barrel in 2008 have anything to do with "unrest in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East" which began in December 2010? The price and future (and future price!) of oil is inextricably linked to the fate of our climate. I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation from any government report of the behavior of the price of oil over the past decade. Someone somewhere is obfuscating. -
JohnMashey at 02:17 AM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
re: 16 Tom "directed their submissions almost exclusively to him, and ceased submissions after their "gig" was discovered. " Note that we don't actually *know* that, although it seems likely. We don't know anything about papers submitted, but rejected, only the ones actually published. I'd guess your conjeecture is true, but we really don't know. "published almost exclusively through him, and essentially ceased publication after their "gig" was discovered. "
Prev 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 Next
