Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 Next
Comments 58001 to 58050:
-
Composer99 at 13:28 PM on 14 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9: Having read through your comments on this thread, I fail to see how what you are arguing pertains to the OP. It appears to me that you are attempting to argue two things. If these are not reasonable summaries of your claims please clarify. (1) On account of documented issues in peer-review and retraction of papers, the conclusions of mainstream climatology must be considered far more provisional than they generally are. (2) In addition, the Earth climate is just so, well, complicated and doesn't that make for (more) uncertainty about the conclusions of mainstream climatology? Frankly, as far as I have seen you have not managed to substantiate either argument with direct evidence. In addition, argument (2) is off-topic for this thread. Meandering forays quoting Hayek or discussing medical science are certainly not going to do the job. Bringing up the latter almost certainly qualifies as a category error since the mainstream conclusions of climatology depend on our knowledge of the radiative properties of a handful of atmospheric gases, which as individual molecules or as aggregates are vastly simpler than any living organism. -
Rufus9 at 13:07 PM on 14 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
And you allowed Mashey's 32 and 39 and not my response.Moderator Response: TC: Rufus9, your discussion was rambling, incoherent and repeatedly off topic. I completely agree with DB's assessment, and quite frankly, am surprised he did not simply delete your post because of its multiple comments policy violations. -
indulis at 12:05 PM on 14 June 2012It's microsite influences
This needs to be updated to include the results of the BEST (Berkely Eartth Surface Temperature) study, which shows that there was no significant influence on the measured long-term temperature due to the siting of temperature stations. And that the temperature rises from BEST's analysis match the other temperature analyses closely. -
Rufus9 at 12:01 PM on 14 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
[needlessly long blockquote snipped] ***** [0ff-topic snipped] Hayek - from the Nobel speech: [off-topic snipped] I did not take up the debate on Dikram's CO2 post, but 1) I did read it 2) I did say I chose the wrong point to challenge. However, the context of the limits of knowledge, your formula looks simple enough: En - Un = C' - Ea Just 4 terms - almost anyone could just plug in the numbers and get the right answer. However, how many assumptions are buried in each of those terms? Aren't they actually a set of summations of multiple factors all with differing measurement characteristics and error rates? "annual emissions from all natural sources and annual natural uptake by all natural sinks." [argumentative snipped] [off-topic snipped] As to whether I made an appropriate case regarding flaws of peer review, I made reference to Retraction Watch and the rise in retractions. I think that case was made sufficiently previously, but here are two articles that describe the issues in more detail. http://io9.com/retraction-watch/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?_r=1 Finally, the complexity of the global climate and the complexity of the human body seem quite comparable to me. Certainly, this "pal study" is not complex, but even so, it is the equivalent of an observational study (as I said before). Sometimes, observational studies are useful. [off-topic snipped] So, while some may see AGW as the 20-fold risk of smoking, there are credible sources who do not see it that way. For example: [off-topic snipped] I hope the critique of this is neither empty or vacuous (which are synonyms).Moderator Response: [DB] Please do a better job of staying on-topic to the OP of the thread and adhering to the Comments Policy (link kindly provided next to every comment input box). -
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 14 June 2012Glaciers are growing
In the very few places in the world where glaciers are advancing (or have some oscillation), then for most it is due to more precipitation in the neve overwhelming the increasing temperatures at the terminus (which by definition is where temperatures are too hot for ice to persist unless its terminating into water). The ones I know about are in NZ Alps and southern Andes where warmer oceans are increasing precipitation from westerlies blowing onto the mountains. With precipitation, temperature and flow rate monitored, you can model the effects of changing terminus temperature and changing snowfall. Will it last? Will if the amount of radiation warming the surface increases, then yes it will. With increasing GHG concentrations, then that is a measurable increase. For it not to continue in face of increasing emissions, then you must have either less sunlight entering or more sunlight reflected (higher albedo or more aerosols). The sun going into really deep minimum would cive us a reprieve but if we didnt use that time to reduce GHG concentrations, then we would suffer badly when the minimum was over. -
Henry justice at 11:29 AM on 14 June 2012Glaciers are growing
scaddenp at 34: Thanks, you have restored my confidence. Yes, I seem to remember that. But I thought that the terminus ice not being compacted melts much faster. My take on glaciers is that of a hard tongue of ice where temperatures may be 50-80 or more degrees F below freezing: i.e. Greenland and Antarctica, the bulk of the world's frozen water. The temps, density and melt rate of snout ice glaciers are all different. Rapid retreat is expected in "shallow iced" glacial areas (i.e.compared to Greenland or Antart.) So, yes, climate is changing for now and the glaciers clearly indicate this. But will this trend last into the upcoming decades? Anyway, I will make an effort to shake off the fairy dust. Thanks. -
Henry justice at 11:04 AM on 14 June 2012Glaciers are growing
DSL at 33: Yes, I do agree. However, come lately, the glaciers, via mass balance analysis, are disappearing at an alarming rate due to increasing air temps, lack of snow and shifting jet streams. Water supplies are adversely affected. While in Arequipa, Peru, I watched the 19,100 ft snow cap disappear. Water is a big problem down there and elsewhere. The mass balance analysis is now supporting the retreat of the glaciers. This is so bad in Peru that they are painting the rocks white. -
Dclark at 08:56 AM on 14 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Dana, interesting sidenote on the book: Elsevier advertised it heavily leading into last years Geological Society of America national meeting, then rapidly removed it from display after getting a slew of complaints from participants there that it did not belong at a scientific meeting. -
dana1981 at 08:44 AM on 14 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Dclark - I recall hearing about Elsevier publishing Easterbrook's climate book, and the first thought that occurred to me was "what on Earth are they thinking?". Credit goes to Tom Curtis for tracking down the source of Easterbrook's purported IPCC temperature graph though. -
Dclark at 07:24 AM on 14 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
I've wondered for a long time where easterbrook got that temp curve, which he has long insisted is from the IPCC. Its been the lynchpin straw-man for all his talks on the topic during the past decade. For what it's worth, I've called him on it at his two most recent talks at the department (using most of the reasoning given in Dana's post, minus the background detail...kudos to him for digging up the source!). Neither confrontation seemed to register at all with him, though. He refused to acknowledge any of the points, that the curve in no way represents an actual "prediction" of the IPCC, that his claims 1 C prediction by the IPCC by 2011 is egregious cherry picking in any case, or that his own predictions are fairing poorly (in addition to not being based on any rigorous physical process). Case in point: all the concepts in his Heartland talk (plus some) are in his new book published by Elsevier. The latter is really a travesty because its getting presented as "peer-reviewed literature (it isnt) and b/c it was published by the "science" division at Elsevier. It's all very unfortunate. -
vrooomie at 03:44 AM on 14 June 2012Greenhouse gases are responsible for warming, not the sun
Just finished reading Bart's original paper, Varenholt's response, then Bart's response to that, and I must say, it's refreshing to see a thinly-disguised denier at least make some attempt to seem reasonable. Bart's rebuttal was precise, entirely devoid of anything even remotely smacking of *argumentum ad hominem* and to the point. Well-done, Bart! It is, at least in part, a shame that so many of us on the 'science-y' side have to spend so much time refuting these contrarians; a friend of mine at JPL-NASA does this constantly. I've learned so much here, and from him, that it is difficult to heap praise high enough! Thanks to the moderators here at SkS who do such a yeoman job, the contributors who bring ever-greater depth to the subject, and thanks to Drs. van Dorland and Verheggen for making clear how to combat these attacks on rational thought. -
JohnMashey at 02:50 AM on 14 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
re: 38 DSL Yes (if you've read some of my recent pieces, such as Fake science, I've studied this quite a bit. I'll say it again, stronger: 1) The evidence that smoking causes {cancer, heart disease, etc} is overpowering, even if one cannot be absolutely sure any given case case was caused by smoking, that other things can cause similar effects, and that one cannot predict which smokers at age 18 will die of it. The statistical evidence is very powerful. 2) The evidence for AGW is at least as strong and in some ways stronger. -
dana1981 at 01:14 AM on 14 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
funglestrumpet @13 - to be fair, the 'carbon pricing will destroy the economy' myth was pervasive before Monckton took it up. I do agree it's rather ridiculous that anybody still takes Monckton seriously on climate issues, but he's only one of many propagating this particular myth. -
DSL at 00:17 AM on 14 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
John, I can, however, bring the two temporarily together in a single number. About 10 years ago, the US CDC found that of those people having small/oat cell lung cancer, 97% were or had been smokers. 97% - a familiar number for some reason. Correlation is not causation. My dad did die of lung cancer, still smoking, still claiming that the smoking killed the cancer. -
Kevin C at 23:38 PM on 13 June 2012HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
Thanks! I've fixed that and a couple more typos. -
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.
Prev 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 Next
