Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 Next
Comments 60701 to 60750:
-
dana1981 at 06:42 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Arguments like "Earth will be fine" and "humans won't go extinct" really bother me. Personally I'd like to set the bar a little higher for our species than 'not going extinct'. -
muoncounter at 06:40 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
SciSkep#25: "I think the threat from AGW is rather exagetated " And this opinion is based on ... ? For a counter opinion, based on actual research, see Trenberth's latest: The average anthropogenic climate change effect is not negligible, but nor is it large, although a small shift in the mean can lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. ... It is when natural variability and climate change develop in the same direction that records get broken. Perhaps you will ask: What records get broken? Heat, drought, fire, flood, famine... Exaggerations, not. -
william at 06:21 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Perhaps it is time we put the record of our times on clay tablets, fired them and concealed them all over the world. Our paper won't survive and likewise our floppies, stiffies, DVD's and flash drives. Perhaps the best thing we could do for these people of the future is to record the greed of our bankers and CEO's and the role vested interests played in our society. Dark ages have happened repeatedly in the past but this time it will involve the whole world. Perhaps we can keep the next organized society that rises from the ashes from making the same mistakes. We aren't having much success with this one. -
bibasir at 06:04 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
jimb Not magicians, rather tv wrestlers. -
John Mason at 06:03 AM on 27 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
It is a fine example of science in progress, with actual skepticism applied. Huge difference between that and "I don't like this so I'm not gonna listen!" It's interesting to note how some activists who oppose a lot of climate science are moving towards acceptance of the century-old physics behind the greenhouse effect and the notion that rising greenhouse gases will cause warming: yes there is a debate WRT overall sensitivity including feedbacks both in the literature and in the blogosphere, but even so, to me the bottom line is how big a risk are we prepared to take? -
scaddenp at 05:38 AM on 27 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
If it has unknown driver, then why do we see something like MCA in forcing-based models? (See the AR4 discussion). That is not to say that there is a strong consensus of mechanisms, especially for the regional distribution, but its not a great mystery. -
Geo77 at 05:19 AM on 27 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
J Mason- Thank you for a very interesting post. When reading about the various research articles on the pro and con side of the impact theory I could not help but think - now this is how science really works (as opposed to the political back and forth plaguing the AGW "debate"). This would make a fascinating module for a high school or college earth science class, to expose kids and young adults to how critical thinking plays out in the world of science. Especially since it is playing out in real time. Though the latest evidence appears to be tilting in favor of an impact hypothesis the questions raised by the follow up papers on the Murray Springs site (regarding such things as background iridium levels)appear to have been the true kind of skepticism, well informed and asking reasonable questions. Having been a geology student during the time when many of the details of plate tectonics were being fleshed out I know form experience that very good scientists asking very good questions can later be perceived as having been on the "wrong" side of some of the issues being explored, which I think is unfortunate. As long as the questions are asked in the true spirit of scientific inquiry (ie you have to accept data that goes against your ideas and rework your hypothesis appropriately)there is no such thing as being on the wrong side in a scientific debate. That's why it's so sad to see such an important and fascinating topic as climate change subjected to the political hucksterism and deliberate disinformation that we have so commonly seen in recent years. -
Albatross at 05:10 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Hi Dikran, As you know, AGW is real (not a prediction) and it is happening now (again not a prediction) and it is already having costly impacts (e.g. Coumou and Rahmstorf 2012, Nature), both in terms of lives lost and fiscal losses. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence that a global disaster is in progress, some continue to deny that we have a serious problem on our hands (e.g., the poster at #23 and #25). -
Bob Lacatena at 05:06 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
25, ScientificSkeptic, You have it backwards. You are being asked to gamble your comfort and lifestyle in about 20 years, and that of your children and grandchildren and all their descendants, against your "thought" that "the threat from AGW is rather exaggerated" (an opinion not shared by scientists, the people who actually know) and the unfounded fear that taking action is somehow going to "gamble our lifestyles." Mitigation now is not nearly that expensive or that bad. The Inhofe's and the Monckton's of the world want you to think so, but taking adequate action now is not going to cause suffering. Failing to take action that is required anyway due to increasing energy demands and falling fossil fuel resources, so that the people who hold those resources can make maximal profits before everything comes crashing down, that's the "gamble" of "our lifestyles." I suggest you use this site to learn more about the facts of the issue. Stop looking for the Hollywood extremes and pay attention to what the science really says. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:24 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Dana... Anthony's issue was with the interview Hadfield did with Sinclair. There is no transcript of that. In fact, I just got an email from Anthony rejecting my offer to transcribe the interview for him. -
jimb at 03:53 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
re 41- and my apologies to those magicians who can pull a real rabbit out of a real hat. -
dana1981 at 03:42 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Hadfield provided a transcript - it's also provided in the above post, below the introduction, before the video. -
jimb at 03:16 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
I have been wondering if Monckton, when he gets back to his hotel room after the applause has died down, feels even slightly embarrassed by the quality of the audience he attracts. For some reason, it made me think of a professional magician who will not show his tricks at a magician's conference, but has to find an audience that is still amazed that he can pull a rabbit out of a hat. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
ScientificSkeptic I don't think AGW will be the end of us as a species either. However I rather doubt that many people will think that is a good reason not to worry about it. I think it will almost certainly be the end of many human beings, whos life is worth exactly the same as yours or mine. I think it is also likely to cause a lot of hardship and misery in many parts of the world that don't have the resources to adapt to change as easily as we could. Most codes of behaviour are quite familiar with the concept of the "golden rule", i.e. treat others as you would wish them to treat you. I very much hope this will still be an important foundation of societies in 3000 years time. If not we will undoubtedly have regressed. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 03:04 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Just keep at it - your excellent work is obviously having an effect. -
Biophilia at 01:39 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Ha, I guess this sucks, but at the same time, my response is "Oh no, people will know I care about climate change!~" In the next few decades and beyond, I highly doubt this will be problematic for me. "Shoot, people know I care about the well-being of future generations." -
martin at 01:36 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@John Cook #81 Thanks! No, the email address is no longer valid (since Dec 2011). Is there anyway, I can send you my email address without posting it openly? I would like to avoid spam attacks. Cheers, MartinModerator Response: [DB] Send me an email here: profpbody at yahoo.com -
AnotherBee at 00:23 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
This may be slightly off-topic, but i have a question triggered by the Toon of the week... This is a Weather question (but with a climate underpinning). Currently, the UK is experiencing an unseasonal heatwave. The proximate cause is a jetstream blocking event, so we are under perpetual high pressure. I note ( from NSIDC that Arctic Sea Ice extent is relatively high (compared to the last few years only!). Is this a flipside of the same jetstream cause?
Moderator Response:[DB] If you look at the areas where the ice is concentrated, you'll note that much of the recent gains in ice cover are in those areas about to melt out abruptly in the next 6 weeks: The Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Kara Sea, portions of the Barents Sea, Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay.
Get your popcorn ready, the show is about to begin (best watched from here). Relevant discussion is here, as well.
As for the other part of your question, Real Climate has a post up on this here and Dr. Kevin Trenberth also has a paper out on much the same topic here.
[Sph] Personally, I think the best show is here (only in the 21st century)
-
Sceptical Wombat at 00:00 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I'm with adelady - quality is more important than quantity. If you can increase quantity without sacrificing quality then go for it. I read all posts and all comments that are there at the time I read the posts - and sometimes go back to see if any one has added a useful comment. I occasionally comment.Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. -
SoundOff at 22:22 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
jyyh at 15:41 PM on 26 March, 2012
"Format Your Quote?
Would you like us to format the text you copied?
Format Text More Options
Powered by Curate.Us"
Is that a pop-up that should happen? Part of the investigation?
No, jyyr, it seems to be a new kind of block quote feature as demonstrated above. -
Bern at 19:45 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A very nice tool, thanks. Great work on putting that together. It's useful to see the uncertainty bounds for the different datasets over different time periods. -
Nick Stokes at 19:42 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin, it looks great, and it all worked for me. And thanks for the kind words. I found a discussion here (near the end) of how to convert a canvas image to a PNG file. -
Kevin C at 18:03 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
OPatrick: Thanks! It didn't occur to me check browser compatibility of save-as. This feature depends on the browser providing a tool to turn an HTML5 canvas into a virtual image. A quick check now shows that it works in Firefox 3.6 but not in google Chrome 17. If it doesn't work in your browser, I'm afraid you'll have to fall back on using a screenshot tool. -
Chris G at 17:24 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
This looks really cool; I may or may not want to play with it a little later. I may not because I'm already disheartened by this bit of news about "...global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario...". Man I hope they are way off; relative to _1961-90_ and _mid-range_ forcing caught my eye. I know, a bit OT; only thinly connected. -
OPatrick at 17:09 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A great tool, thank you. At first impressions very user friendly and clearly explained here. One possible problem, though it might just be me - you say "To save a graph, use right-click/save-image-as." However this doesn't work for me, it's not recognising it as a separate image. I can select the section and copy it, but this doesn't give me the scale or axis labels. -
Marco at 17:02 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Daniel #39: Watts is indeed hearing-impaired. He even used that as a defense when he made false claims about the initial BEST analysis. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 16:18 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Watts says "While I can’t hear what Hadfield is saying (he sounds like a British mumble to me)" And it is because of people like Watts that they replace Sir David Attenborough's distinctive clear voice with American actors thereby taking a superb documentary and turning it into just another bunch of pretty pictures with nothing to distinguish it from other nature films. I saw 30 seconds of Frozen Planet while visiting friends and it had Baldwin narrating--it was turned off quite quickly. Without saying anything to each other we all agreed it was much better to wait for it to air in Canada as they'd keep Attenborough's voice in it. On some consideration, I wonder if Anthony needs a hearing aid?? My dad started complaining that people with accents mumble (he's British so pretty much everyone he met in Canada was "mumbling"), but once we talked him into getting hearing aids--only took five years--he could understand people quite well again. Peter H certainly doesn't mumble. He enunciates quite well and is easily understandable.Moderator Response: [RH] Anthony Watts does have a hearing impairment which would cause this video to likely be somewhat unintelligible for him. I sent him a private email (cc'ing both Peters) saying I would take the time to transcribe the video for him. I have not heard back from him. It's one thing to not be able to hear it, but it's quite another to not want to and to come to conclusions about what is being said without actually knowing what is being said. -
Bern at 15:50 PM on 26 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
markx @ 119: "Whether it was precisely co-incidental is perhaps not of great importance" Actually, I think it is of great importance. If there were warm periods, but they were at different times in different locations, then that is merely evidence that the earth's climate is somewhat variable. On the other hand, right now, it's warmer everywhere at the same, which seems to be unprecedented for at least the past six or seven thousand years. When it comes down to it, though, it's not just about whether the climate was warmer / cooler in the past. It's about what caused those warmer / cooler periods. And right now, there's only one explanation that stands up to scrutiny for the current warming (hint: it doesn't involve the word 'natural'). -
jyyh at 15:41 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
"Format Your Quote? Would you like us to format the text you copied? Format Text More Options Powered by Curate.Us" Is that a pop-up that should happen? Part of the investigation? -
Albatross at 15:22 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Peter Hadfield deserves a medal for holding Monckton accountable for his nonsense. Peter's efforts have placed Monckton (and those who aid and abet Monckton's fallaccies and misinformation) between a rock and a hard place :) A very sincere thank you Peter! -
markx at 15:09 PM on 26 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 9 February, 2012 ".....the implicit claim that the MWP was globally warmer than the last two decades for the entire period of the MWP is refuted by the same comparison..." Tom, I'm not sure that IS the claim. The argument is that there exists in various worldwide proxy records some evidence that there was an unknown driver of a temperature elevation which was evident globally within a certain time bracket.(and referred to as The Medieval Warming Period). Whether it was precisely co-incidental is perhaps not of great importance, should a spate of extreme high temperatures such as that be observed today, surely we would label it as evidence of "Global Warming"? -
Bern at 14:54 PM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I'm in two minds about the # of articles. I'll just say that I'd prefer SkS prioritised quality over quantity. I try to read every article on SkS. This can be difficult to squeeze around other commitments at times, but it's always worth it. I've learned a phenomenal amount about climate science since finding this site. Comments I sometimes read, sometimes not (depending on available time & whether that particular topic interests me). I post comments when I feel I have something to contribute. And I must say, it's easy to do so here on SkS, because I know that if I get something wrong, the inevitable correction will be a gentle one. :-DModerator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your humor is also appreciated. -
DSL at 14:54 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Barry - speak in code, man! Doug H - that's the obvious difference between the denial-o-sphere and the science. It's all open here. When the professional doubters get cranked up and try to push untruth onto the open side of the ledger, we get Scafetta, Michaels, Lindzen, Spencer, and the usual second-tier oddballs publishing mathturbation at WUWT. This hacking is a milestone for SkS. The range of possibilities is limited: private conversations twisted out of context, a chilling effect (fat f-ing chance), or the possibility of finding something juicy that 99% of the posters here know nothing about. John Cook, you are actually the clone of Friedrich Engels. Gasp! Or perhaps this is some sort of bizarre "payback" for Gleick's action. This is either childish (I know a number of net technicians who have a slim grasp on adulthood, despite their thinning hair), desperate, or just another move in the "yes, my integrity is for sale" game of opinion-making and economic manipulation (probably a combination of all three in different parts of the action). It reminds me of putting someone in a bad position on the chessboard and having their response be "accidentally" tipping the board over. -
barry at 14:25 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John, I hope you deleted my emails about the eco-warriors' brave struggle to cleanse Gaia of capitalism. Please let me know if otherwise and I will advise the Earthplight underground to sanitise the old safe houses and set up new ones. Long live the Earth-mother. -
actually thoughtful at 13:53 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Look 16% of the population is rational and analytical by birth For the rest of the population, it is an ill-fitting suit. So roughly half of the non-rational are going to get it right, and half won't - maybe 75% of the rational will get it right (GIGO). so right now it appears we are losing. But CA and BC and Australia and most of Europe are already preventing climate change. We are due for one wallop of an El Nino - polling data tells us people "believe" in climate change more as it gets warmer each summer. So a particularly hot summer could turn this whole thing around, and these ignorant-on-purpose folks will find something else to be silly about. We just need that hot outlier soon, ideally in a US election year.... -
adelady at 13:43 PM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I reckon the number of items published is pretty good. Yes. I read every post and every comment. There are some I might skim over, though. I do take more time with particular topics that interest me. Commenting? Not being a scientist or a statistician or any other useful occupation, I'm more interested in what some of the really knowledgeable commenters have to contribute. I limit my own comments accordingly.Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:27 PM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
- From your perspective, does SkS publish too many, just the right amount of, or too few, articles per week? I read as much as I can find on the topic, here and elsewhere. More would be welcome.
- Do you typically read each article that is posted? Yes
- Do you typically read the comment threads? Yes
- Do you typically post comments? Not often, as I am not a scientist, so have little to add to that side of discussions. I do post when I think I have something relevant to say
Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated. -
Doug Hutcheson at 13:18 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
I met my first honest-to-God conspiracy theorist on Saturday, while handing out 'How to vote' cards for our State (Queensland) election. He genuinely believes that 9/11 was a USA conspiracy and that there is a small group ruling the world, amongst a raft of other ideas. I didn't engage him on AGW, not surprisingly. Up until then in my life, I have been treating everyone as reachable and teachable. Not any more. I now know there are genuine conspiracy theorists, who sincerely believe propositions that I regard as completely insane. For that reason, my attitude toward the Mighty Monckton has mellowed a little. Previously, I regarded him as an intelligent person who is deliberately spreading misinformation for reasons of his own. Now, I have to admit there is a possibility that he is like my voter: a simple soul who genuinely believes what the voices in his head are telling him. If so, it would explain his religious zeal in spreading the Word to the masses. -
william at 12:25 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Snake oil salesmen are good entertainment as long as we understand the joke. When they are believed and stop us from taking the medicine we really need, the joke is wearing a little thin. -
Doug Hutcheson at 11:49 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Sadly for the SkS hacker, I have nothing to hide. I stand behind everything I have posted here and any emails exchanged with John. Wow, that'll make exciting reading for someone! "Look. look, Doug thinks the Earth is warming!" Big deal. Not. -
climatehawk1 at 11:40 AM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
SkS is great. I tweet a lot of the material and I learn a lot from the articles and comments. Very helpful and a tremendous contribution to the continuing discussion with those in denial. I don't comment much because I don't feel scientifically versed enough.Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Please don't be shy about posting on our comment threads. You do an excellent job of defending climate science on the comment threads to articles on The Huffington Post. -
andylee at 11:39 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
John, I have solved all the problems you are dealing with many times before on the social networking sites that I run, and would to help you with my experience and tools. This testimonial on my linkedin page is quite apposite: "Andy is a multi-talented iconoclast. He's exactly the guy you want on your team when Russian hackers decide to take down your server. However, don't be surprised if you discover him playing piano late one night (or early in the morning) at your local watering hole. I'm 100% certain that Andy has capabilities that I haven't even considered. What I do know is that he is honest, loyal and hard working - the right kind of guy to have in your corner." -
bill at 11:30 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
FWIW, Over at Hot Topic this issue arose, and a regular poster (from the other side - one who has considerable expertise in this area, however) has downloaded the zip file and tells me the following:The user.csv file contains usernames, date of joining, user level (an integer 1-14 or so) and email addresses The email addresses are not really redacted as such. They seem to drop the last part of the domain (e.g) .com) Example would be joe@gmail,so therefore it is pretty easy to deduce the full email address in most cases. There are no IP addresses in the user csv, but I have since noticed that IP addresses are logged against user names in the forums (these are the “private” forums where mods and other power users are discussing SkS strategies etc). There are no passwords from what I can see. John Cook posted on SkS that passwords are encrypted on his website, so a hacker would have to get hold of the encryption key.
(Or crack them via the method andylee discussed above, I suppose, but it's really hard to see any great benefit being derived from this.) Anyway, he echoed Gareth's statement, as reiterated above, that it would be prudent to change any passwords, especially if you share your SkS password with any other websites. I've certainly not noticed any influx of spam or hatemail, thankfully! -
Same Ordinary Fool at 11:06 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Why didn't I think of that?..........Caerbannog's #10 and #18 accounts of Monckton's chosen venue of an unpublicized appearance to an underworld-from-reason of the right wing could have been predicted. When the debunkers are always there after every public appearance, correcting his errors, for all interested people to see - it was always inevitable that he would some day have to retreat. And leave the lecture circuit of simulated scientific discussions for something else. Here, to that of rabble rousing applause lines. Even so, it is depressing and scary now that it has happened. These are people who don't believe in evolution. Despite the obvious proof that every single fossil has been found positioned in evolutionary order. And none in creationsist order - no giraffes amidst the dinosaurs. Think about how much harder it will be for creationists to learn from experiencing global warming's consequences - which will always be interspersed with the occasional old fashioned cold spell (resulting from weather variability). However, though we decry what comes next, this is progress, and a success for the debunking community. The more he's quoted from such appearances, the less welcome he will be at semi-serious-science occasions, to spread his climate science errors. After watching all of Potholer54's Youtube videos..........I'm inclined to give Peter Hadfield (and Peter Sinclair) much of the credit. Video, Marshall McLuhan's "hot" medium, is best for exposing the errors of a denier like Monckton. Typeface on paper or screen is better for presenting ideas or science. A reader can proceed at his own speed, go back, repeat, scan forward, and generally jump around. It is also simpler, less labor intensive, and cheaper: since all one needs is a keyboard. However, it cannot convery as much as quickly [that picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words thing]. Show, don't tell..........Peter Hadfield, in his 5 part Youtube series, amply demonstrates that video is the best medium for Monckton. And that it can be effective without resorting to the boring scientific details that might be misinterpreted by a general audience. .....Him misstating a research paper, followed by a visual of the paper and the contradicting statements in it. .....Him misstating a quote, followed by a visual of the original source of the quote. .....Him misusing graphs, as by cherry picking. Which is quickly demonstrated, by showing the correct graphs. .....Him being contradicted by himself - via videos from his other presentations. .....Him denying in emails that he'd made the mistakes pointed out by Peter Hadfield, followed by examples of same. Monckton's non response..........could also have been predicted by anyone who had just viewed those 5 videos. It's obvious that it has always been a mistake for Monckton to engage with Peter Hadfield. Because Monckton would always be expected to lose the least gullible among his potential believers - if they actually watched the videos. -
bill at 10:22 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Good point, Dana @#32! And, similarly, they just can't get The Word out properly because of the suppressive impact of all the co-conspirators and their masses of dupes. I've been surprised by Monckton's leaping right in on this, because he's been relatively cagey on the Birther thing previously. Sure, he said this to a Tea Party Rally in 2010:“America!Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!”
But then upbraided upstart journalists who dared credit the English meaning of these words; this was, after all -what we on the Right call “A Joke”
- and it's also what the crowd wants to hear. If he's really decided to nail the Nutters' colours squarely to his mast on the basis of Arpaio's 'research' I'd suggest he's made a significant tactical error in what 'I on the Left' might call "the Real World". ;-) Because it's such a clear indicator of the quality of 'evidence' on which he is prepared to make the most outlandish of claims, and his capacity to critically examine that evidence. And the parallels to other aspects of his position on climate are also clear, as pointed out by Dana. Now, holding this example in mind, anyone with their critical facilities somewhat intact is bound in turn to be somewhat leery or similar Lordly pronouncements... The base won't care, of course. -
Alexandre at 10:12 AM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I like the amount of SkS articles per week. I don't read most of them anymore, as now I feel I have covered the basics of the issue. But I like to see what kind of news are coming up, so every now and then an article gets my attention and I read it through. My comments have also become more sparse and shallower in content, as my patience with 'skeptics' diminished. I like the cartoon. Maybe a big victory of the manufactured controversy is making global warming a touchy subject on the media. Maybe this was the whole point of the manoeuvre. I was listening to an interview with David Attenborough at BBC these days and he mentioned global warming as a serious danger. The interviewer, Mike Williams from One Planet (an otherwise great reporter, IMO) was quick to point out that "many people don't agree with that". I wonder what kind public service they would offer if BBC said, similarly, that abestos causes a number or diseases and quickly added "but it's controversial, since this and this doctor claim otherwise".Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback. It is indeed difficult to deal with the deniers on a continuing basis without losing one's temper now and then. -
caerbannog at 10:02 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Reposted with editing corrections: The claims that I saw Monckton present could all be easily shredded by students at UCSD/SIO. The professors wouldn't even need to bother. Franky, I didn't see Monckton present anything that would be worth even a minute of a busy professor's time (unless it was to use as an exam question intended to start the grading-curve somewhere above "0"). The scientific community is not kept on the "up and up" by asking scientists to waste their time correcting freshman blunders. -
Albatross at 09:51 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Now that I think about it some more, Hudson's claim is extremely egregious, it is sickening to see people in the media continuing to misrepresent the science. Someone ought to insist that Hudson correct the blog post or a complaint will be filed against him and/or the BBC with the ombusdman. -
dana1981 at 09:43 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Here's what I don't understand about Monckton's birtherism. He says he's not a birther because he doesn't know where President Obama was born, but he's certain the birth certificate is a forgery. Well, why would Obama create a fake birth certificate unless he wasn't born in the USA? Monckton's position is akin to saying "I'm not a climate denier, I just think climate scientists are falsifying data." Oh wait, that's his position on global warming too. Well, at least he's consistent. -
Sarah at 09:39 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
SKS donation link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/donate.php
Prev 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 Next
