Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  Next

Comments 63951 to 64000:

  1. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    #51 KR : Apologies are mine, I was all but clear in my expression. Thank you for your explanation about D'Araso paper. For a non-physicist, theses questions of energy may seem simple at first glance, but become very complex when you try to deepen your understanding.
  2. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Alexandre@2: I have not read any evidence that the range would be flat or negative. Last night I was researching TOA measurements, and came to the conclusion that we do not have the ability to measure these with great confidence. The above post confirms this. If there is no open source for this paper, I will aquire a copy of it to read and absorb for a better understanding of the conclusion. My gut is telling me that the number that seems most reasonable is approx 0.2W/m2. That is based on other papers dealing with issues that are not central to this paper. The L&P effect comes to mind tho.
  3. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @40 asks:
    "Once again might I ask, why if Monckton was completely wrong in his rebuttal, why Abraham did not respond to any of Monckton's questions?"
    Because an adequate rebuttal already existed in the form of his pre-existing presentation (duh).
    "And why did he edit out his video by 10 minutes?"
    I don't know. However it is certainly not as an admission of error. He still promotes the original presentation on his page with not caveats or other admission of error. Therefore the most natural interpretation is that he still stands by what he said therein (except for misquoting Monckton as saying he was boring).
  4. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    Camburn 0.5 ± 0.43 W/m2. That means a range from 0.07 to 0.93 W/m2, probably in a Gaussian distribution. Which range would you bet on? Maybe 0.00 flat? Or even some negative amount?
  5. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Talk about hijacking the thread with outrageous claims...
  6. Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
    The error bars presented in the above post of +-0.43 W/m2 indicate that the climate is virtually in balance or substantially out of balance. Time will tell which it is. Is there an open source to Loeb (2012)?
  7. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    John Russell "C.Monckton's attempts to create a smokescreen in order to divert attention away from what John Abraham had uncovered in 2010." Once again might I ask, why if Monckton was completely wrong in his rebuttal, why Abraham did not respond to any of Monckton's questions? And why did he edit out his video by 10 minutes? I cannot comment on the personal research that you have done on Monckton's presentations, since you did not give specific examples. But might I point you to this list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments The arguments made by skeptics (including Monckton) are indeed supported by hundreds of studies in the peer reviewed literature. chris "Abraham has contacted several of the authors who point out that Monckton's presentaton is a misrepresentation of their work. " Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors. I'm not familiar with Huang's work, so cannot comment on it, but might I point out that is just one study. Co2 science has gathered hundreds of studies supporting the existence of the MWP http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php Owl905 Millenia or Milenia is the plural of a Millennium meaning 1,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenia Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future. dhogaza "Of course Abraham didn't, because Al Gore in AIT didn't give a timeframe. How does Monckton's claim that the Greenland ice sheet won't disappear for a long time refute AIT when AIT didn't give a timeframe?" Have you seen 'An Inconvenient Truth'? He shows these expensive computer generated images of all these major cities getting flooded by his supposed 6 metre sea level rise. No, he didn't give an exact timeframe, but he clearly implied that this was going to be happening in the near future. CBDunkerson "he has yet to cite even one specific issue where Monckton was correct." "nor respond to any of the numerous issues cited by others to demonstrate otherwise." If you can point out with direct quotes from Monckton's reply where any of his major claims were wrong please do so. I do not believe anyone on this thread has made any credible argument against Monckton's reply to Abraham. And you also keep avoiding my question of why, if you are so sure that Monckton is wrong, why Abraham has not responded or even acknowledged Monckton's letter. All I wanted was to simply point out that John Cook was being unfair in his article by citing Abraham 's presentation, but ignoring Monckton's repsonse.But it seems we're getting nowhere on this thread. All of you have obviously made up your minds that everything Monckton says is wrong. We're never going to resolve this discussion, so therefore there doesn't seem to be any reason to continue with it.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You asked for specific examples where Abraham was correct and Monckton was wrong. More than one was provided for you, your ignorance of the work of Huang is not an adequate response, nor does pointing out that it is one of many studies. Asking questions and not treating the answers seriously is clearly trolling.

    Warning #1

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  8. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Those interested in local connections (to Australia, that is), don't forget SA's own Senator Cory Bernardi. He was funded for travel an accommodation by Heartland to speak at their 4th ICCC in 2010, and then had accommodation provided for him again later that year. For more (with video; get your head-vice out!) see my comment over at Hot Topic.
  9. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    I find this “introductory” post interesting because the author, John Cook, was recently subjected to a slur by a WUWT blogsite “moderator” as a receiver of money from a WW2 Nazi collaborator. This style of attack is Monckton’s par excellence because the Viscount either evokes the Nazi symbolism, as he did with Professor Ross Garnaut and lots of others, or he’s calling them communists; now there’s a contradiction in terms. This “debating” style has become the climate denier’s hallmark, and a common chorus emanating from the ranks of climate conspiracy theorists. But without it, they really don’t have much to talk about, and certainly not when it comes to the peer-reviewed science.
  10. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Monckton has most definitely stated in writing: "global warming has stopped". His stand on that point could not be more clear. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
  11. Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
    re: 204 Not much surprised me, although details filled some holes in spreadsheets and certain details clarified the almost-certain identity of A.D. [Don't ask.] Also, I was slightly surprised to see Big Tobacco still well-engaged, $50K from Altria, $110K from Reynolds American in 2011. The tobacco archives had nothing I could find after ~2001, and it seemed like they were trimming, but they were still on the cigarette dole, even higher.
  12. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adding to JMurphy and chris - from Moncton's reply: "We now have confirmation from the UK Met Office that there has been no “global warming” to speak of for 15 years."
  13. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Please note that while Adam has now posted to this thread five times he has yet to cite even one specific issue where Monckton was correct... nor respond to any of the numerous issues cited by others to demonstrate otherwise. Further, the 'meta' issues that Adam has raised (e.g. 'Abraham has surrendered') are absurd on their face given, for example, the previously cited 'John Abrahams takes a stand' article from St. Thomas just last week. This would seem to constitute a tacit admission that Abraham, in fact, was correct. Otherwise Adam would be able to talk about actual instances to the contrary... rather than metaphorically sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, 'I cannot hear you! Monckton is always right! He has never made any mistakes! All hail the one and true non-voting member of the House of Lords!'. The only person I've ever seen provide more evasive and 'fact challenged' answers than Adam's performance here is Monckton himself. Though Monckton at least provides specific falsehoods.
  14. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    We, the convinced, read these things but need no convincing. The question is how to get such information to the public. Does anyone out there have the ability and funding to produce a cartoon that could go viral. Here is an example on a different subject of the sort of thing that might just inform a wider audience than us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM It combines humor and information in a very palatable form.
  15. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    whoops, now I'm doing it! I meant to say: "The paper from which the data is supposedly taken is Huang et al (1997) which contains no data for the 20th century".
  16. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    A troubling addendum to my post just above that illustrates some of the misrepresentation of "data" presented by Monckton. In Monckton's mish-mash response to Abraham's lecture (see link in Adam's first post on this thread), Monckton redisplays the side that Abraham's calls CM #24, and which contains a series of pictures that Monckton uses to misrepresent current understanding of historical global temperatures (the slide is on p 18 of Monckton's mish-mash). The top left hand corner picture is labeled (Huang et al 1998). Further on in Monckton's mish-mash (page 20) the Huang et al picture is presented in a full figure, and this time it's labelled (Huang et al, 2004). However that picture that Monckton continually mis-cites, isn't from any of Shaopeng Huang's papers. It's a made-up figure, and I suspect that's why Monckton is careful not to properly reference it. The paper from which the data is supposedly taken is Huang et al (2007) which contains no data for the 20th century (see my post linked to in top of this post). Someone has rather arbitrarily made up an x-axis with made-up dates to make it appear that the data extend to 1990.
  17. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    I'd better qualify my accusations against Monckton above (just to counter any wriggle-room for his fans) by stating that when I state what "Monckton DID say", I am backing Abraham (no 's', unlike what I wrote above, unfortunately) in his statement that if you were to believe Monckton, you would have to accept that "the world is not warming", "sea levels are not rising", etc. Monckton's 'arguments' DO claim all of these and more. (Hope that makes sense !)
  18. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Eternal Sunshine, actually while I agree that it should be blatantly illegal, they may have some cover on that issue. The whole 'money is speech' / 'corporations are people' movement pushed through by 'conservative' judges in the US has included several rulings that money spent on 'issue' campaigns does not violate the prohibitions on interfering in politics... even if these 'issue' ads clearly support or oppose a specific candidate. So, if Heartland can make a case that their focus was to weaken collective bargaining (which, is likely true) and any support for specific candidates was motivated only by their position on that issue they might very well be on solid 'legal' grounds.
  19. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Having dragged my way through the first 40 'questions' in Adam's WUWT Monckton link, I'm astounded by the waffle, self-regard and posturing of the man. The only real substance there is word-play over things he actually said, but which he is now trying to backtrack from by delineating his meaning to a highly specific interpretation. For example : (In all the following, where Monckton states what he is being of accused of, the actuality is that Abrahams stated that if you were to believe Monckton you would have to accept that...) Monckton says he has been accused of saying "The world’s not warming". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that the world had been cooling since 2001...he displayed a graph showing a longer-term warming. I.E. Monckton DID say "The world’s not warming". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "Sea levels are not rising at all". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years...he displayed a graph showing a longer-term rising. I.E. Monckton DID say "Sea levels are not rising at all". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "Ice is not melting". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that stated that Arctic sea-ice had reached a 30-year low in 2007, from which it is recovering...well, he displayed some picture with a title stating that Arctic Summer sea ice area was "just fine". I.E. Monckton DID say "Ice is not melting". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "polar bears are not threatened". Monckton prevaricates by now saying that he said they "are doing fine". I.E. Monckton DID say "polar bears are not threatened". Next up comes his definition of what he actually meant by "no such thing as ocean acidification" but I lost the will to carry on...
  20. DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
    While it would be interesting to see the NIPCC’s ‘science’ tested in court, surely what should be tested in court is whether these people have the right to their freedom, considering the fact they are prepared to risk the lives of future generations.
  21. Eternal Sunshine at 07:20 AM on 19 February 2012
    DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    No one has commented yet on the $610K to Operation Angry Badger - it exists to resist Republican state legislators in Wisconsin from being recalled, a consequence of their voting to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. That is a cause that is widely reported to be supported by the Koch brothers, who have funded the political career of Governor Walker, who has led in the attempt at disabling the public employee unions. In any case, though the climate connection appears to be non-existent, the overtly political donation would seem to be blatantly illegal.
  22. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam: "Well, as one example of the errors in the video there is Abraham's claim regarding sea level rise. He basically claims that Al Gore was correct regarding his claim of a 6m sea level rise in AIT. But, as Monckton pointed out in his reply, the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia yet Abraham made no reference to this in his presentation." Of course Abraham didn't, because Al Gore in AIT didn't give a timeframe. How does Monckton's claim that the Greenland ice sheet won't disappear for a long time refute AIT when AIT didn't give a timeframe? AIT: "If the greenland ice sheet melts, sea levels will rise 6m" Monckton: "The greenland ice sheet won't melt for a long time, therefore AIT is wrong". DIsconnect. This is typical of Monckton's technique of lying by refuting something not actually said by the person he claims was wrong. Strawman, in other words.
  23. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Surely this Heartland Institute has committed a far larger crime than footling tax infringements. The have to be aware of the dangers posed by not combating climate change. It would be an interesting spectacle to watch them defend their deliberate attempts to hinder action to reduce those dangers. Especially when their position is contradicted by 97% of all bone fide climate scientists. I just hope that the court concerned has the death penalty available to it. (And I disagree with capital punishment!) I sometimes wonder it these people think it is all a game, a game that their grandchildren are not going to be pawns in.
  24. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Just came across this post about a press release from Republicans for Environmental Protection. Quote: "Let’s have a public debate that is based on truth, not truthiness, with a sound basis in science rather than the propagation of skewed “sound science”. This is a perspective that the vast majority of Americans would likely support." A timely reminder that global warming is -- or should be -- apolitical. Too many try to cast concern for the environment as left versus right (or vice versa).
  25. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam wrote: "the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia " 'the IPCC doesn't (gr sic) expect' ... is vague misrepresentation, and misdirected. The forecast for Greenland was the responsibility of the scientists contributing to the Projections Section of AR4. What is a 'a millenia'? Do you mean 'a millenium' or 'millennia? Or is that "irrelevent" as well? In fact, AR4 makes no timeframe statement, or even a projection of complete disappearance. "If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html Additionally, AR4's shortcomings on an evaluation of the stability of both the Greenland icecap and the Antarctica shelves was and is a major source of uncertainty. Not only do you miss the actual statements and conclusion, you falsely attribute claims to the wrong group. And like the criticism A made of M, you threw down a bogus accusation without a valid source for that claim.
  26. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, I'm curious about your thoughts on Monckton's slide #24 (a selection of 9 assorted graphs purportedly suggesting a warmer Medieval Warm Period (MWP) compared to now). Monckton asserts (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists agree that the MWP was real (no one disputes this by the way) and that it was warmer than now. Abraham has contacted several of the authors who point out that Monckton's presentaton is a misrepresentation of their work. The graph in the top left corner of Monckton's slide which Monckton erroneously labels Huang 1998 (it's actually Huang et al 1997) is known not to include any 20th century temperature data since Huang et al did not use the top 100 metres of borehole data to avoid non-climatic artefacts. Therefore this work clearly has nothing to say about temperatures in the MWP compared to now since it omits the entire warming of the 20th century and beyond. In fact if one reads Huang et al.'s later work, they not only reiterate this explicitly but also present their full borehore data that indicates that current temperatures are warmer than temperatures during the MWP. That's pretty straightforward isn't it Adam? Monckton is using as one of his pet examples of a supposed evidence base for a "warmer-than-now" MWP, a piece of data that says no such thing. There's no getting away from that reality. Monckton says a lot of irrelevant stuff about his incorrect slide without at any point rebutting this very simple and straightforward reality.
  27. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    actually thoughtful & nealjking I'd suggest writing to the CUNA and just tell them that you're a member of a credit union and want them to know what you think of their funding of the Heartland Institute. Ask them to confirm that they've terminated the sponsorship. You don't need to tell them whether your union is one of their members or not: they'll probably just jump to the conclusion it is.
  28. Philippe Chantreau at 06:15 AM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam does not get to decide what the subject at hand is. The OP determines that. It includes mention of Monckton saying the opposite or different from the sources he quotes, it mentions Abraham, Dennis, Dana, and calls on future posts with more details. All of this is the subject at hand. Since Mr Hadfield summed up quite well numerous instances of Monckton contradicting his sources and himself on quite a few occasions, I will repost here links to Hadfield's excellent presentations, which are very much on topic. I'm sure a casual reader wondering about that Mr Monckton will find them enlightening. The part where Monckton talks about Dr Pinker as if he knew "him" well is especially enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1xx5h1KNMAA
  29. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam I have just read this post and the thread down to this point. It appears that you tried to change the subject of this thread starting at your first comment, #1. The post is about specific examples of where C.Monckton has misrepresented the science; and what the science actually says. It's not about what you seem to want it to be about: C.Monckton's attempts to create a smokescreen in order to divert attention away from what John Abraham had uncovered in 2010. Two years before John Abraham first rebutted a lecture, I too went through the start of a lecture by C.Monckton which had been posted on You Tube. Every one of his slides -- which he races through at a hell of a lick -- I froze and transcribed his spoken words. I then hunted through the literature to find the facts for myself. In every case Monckton had either misunderstood the science, or cherry-picked data in order to prove that there was no warming; sea ice was not melting; CO2 was plant food; it was the sun... or any number of denialist memes, many of them even being contradictory; most being the opposite of reality. After about ten slides I gave up because I'd proved the point to myself and to the friend who'd sent me the original link to convince me that my concern for global warming was misplaced. Can I suggest that rather than hero-worship this charismatic speaker, you take what he's said in one of the recordings of his lectures and investigate it with a truly sceptical mindset. If you can do that I think you'll surprise yourself.
  30. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @ 18. Take a look at point 154 for example. What Monckton labels the 'IPCC' projection with suggested errors is not, in fact, the IPCC projection. It's one he made up. Would you call making up a projection and attributing it to someone a straw man, fraud, or is this justified if Chris does it? Around that point is full of moved goalposts and the classic hoofprints of a gish gallop. In 149-150, for example, he swaps between global trends, and central England. The entire section from 150-158 is just desperate skipping around trying to avoid physics and statistics. And that's just a page worth. We see in this SkS post that Monckton also regularly misrepresents elsewhere.
  31. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    the only think to debunk all those myths - be them from whoever - is to kind of attack each individual personally. this requires a lot of investigation ... from the scientific community ... here in Germany there is a new article in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" about financial support of IDSO (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/vertrauliche-akten-veroeffentlicht-die-geldquellen-der-klimaskeptiker-1.1287309) by some US-companies ... even Microsoft is amongst them, however they said they only gave a piece of software and are fully aware of AGW ... therefore possibly a misfortune ... :)
  32. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, a lot of the stuff that Monckton states in his presentations are deliberately vague with cherrypicking of tiny bits of a subject or citing old papers that have subsequently been shown to be wrong or incorrectly interpreted (even by the authors themselves). However the direct accusation by Monckton of lying and presentation of a fabricated quotation by Monckton in the example I gave just above, is quite typical of Monckton's style of misrepresentation and is a rather blatant falsehood. I can see why Monckton would be unable to "rebut" this! However can we assume that you condone Monckton's false accusations? It would be helpful to understand you're odd support of a clearly deficient presentation if you could be clear on this...
  33. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    chris the example you state has nothing to do with the science presented in Monckton's rebuttal. Therefore it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
  34. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    "if you think Abraham has not adequately responded to Monckton's criticisms, may I suggest you to Abraham's response, so that there is no question that it is on topic " Tom Curtis you seem to have missed what I said in my previous comment. Abraham's reply was in response to Monckton's CFACT article http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/ not his 84 page rebuttal Abraham has never even acknowledged Monckton's letter (unless you can give me a link to where he does) "go through the criticisms one at a time, and one slide at a time." "So, again I specify, one supposed misrepresentation or factual error by Abraham at a time." Well, as one example of the errors in the video there is Abraham's claim regarding sea level rise. He basically claims that Al Gore was correct regarding his claim of a 6m sea level rise in AIT. But, as Monckton pointed out in his reply, the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia yet Abraham made no reference to this in his presentation. There are many more errors and misrepresentations like this in Abraham's presenation. Once again, I suggest that you actually read Monckton's reply.
  35. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam - have to say I find it astonishing that anyone reading Monckton's appallingly non-scientific and unpleasant mish-mash (the thing you linked to) would consider it a valid response to Professor Abraham's lecture. I decided to have a look at the first thing that Abraham said in his lecture. He pointed out that Monckton's third slide showed a picture of Sir John Houghton wth the bold statement "We're all going to lie" (i.e. a direct implication that Houghton tells lies or promotes lies or advocates lies or is otherwise associated with lying). This is accompanied with a fabricated quotation that Monckton ascribes to Sir Houghton. Abraham very straightforwardly highlights the fact that Monckton's nasty and false insinuation about lying is based on a fabricated quotation. That could hardly be clearer. Adam, please show me where (in the Monckton thing you linked to) Abrahams's straightforward setting of the record straight is "rebutted". If you give us the page number of the pdf that would do fine...
  36. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @18, we know exactly how much Monckton's apology is worth from his ignoble performance just prior to, and during his last trip to Australia. The answer is nothing because it is never sincere.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody involved keep the discussion to the science and avoid the topic of motives. We can have a productive discussion of whether the claims and counter claims are correct, but any discussion of the latter will inevitably be speculative and probably not very productive.
  37. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    actually thoughtful: I contacted the CEO of one of my credit unions. Unfortunately (?), she said they had not been a member of CUNA since 1999, so she didn't have a clue. Maybe it's worth writing CUNA directly.
  38. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @12, if you think Abraham has not adequately responded to Monckton's criticisms, may I suggest you to Abraham's response, so that there is no question that it is on topic, and go through the criticisms one at a time, and one slide at a time. If you just drop a gish gallop on us, I will take that as clear evidence that you do not want to discuss the merits of the case, but only to create a false impression that Monckton has valid points. So, again I specify, one supposed misrepresentation or factual error by Abraham at a time. It will be very entertaining exposing Monckton's squidding* maneuvers when they are exposed step by step so that there is nowhere to hide. *squidding = disappearing in a cloud of ink, ie, spouting so much empty verbiage that your debate opponents do not have time to discuss and rebut all your comments. Monckton's original lecture was a Gish Gallop. His various responses to Abraham have been squidding in that he is trying to cover his tracks.
  39. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    "Monckton's replies and Gish Gallop of questions shifted the goalposts (in almost every question), presented yet more myths, misrepresentations, and other 'm's, many along the "when did you stop beating your wife" lines.....And that is for every single Monckton response and question I looked at." Please give direct examples of this. And might I once again point out that it has been nearly two years, and Abraham has still not replied to any of the points Monckton raised in his letter. "Monckton's verbiage is littered with them (as in "he looks like an overcooked prawn")" Monckton apologised for that statement in his letter.
  40. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    Heartland is paid to do the dirty work that these companies and individuals do not want to do themselves. Secrecy means that their contributions go for actions that they might not want to be seen doing. Now they are caught and named in funding anti-science curricula and distractionist science. It is just business... and this means they have to spend lots more on PR to recover in the future. Or find another organization with information thugs.
  41. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    If Monckton's claims held any water he'd be published and win the Nobel.
  42. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam - Monckton is making some extraordinary claims, namely that all of the data and conclusions of climate science are incorrect. Extraordinary claims require, if not extraordinary evidence, at least some evidence. The burden of proof therefore rests with Monckton. So: can you point to a Monckton claim that you feel is actually supported? If so, I for one would be more than willing to discuss it - although I haven't seen a Monckton claim of that nature so far. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time chasing 400+ throw-away questions lacking evidential support.
  43. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam @12, SkS has a strict comments policy in order to keep discussions on topic. As part of policy, moderation complaints are deleted so that discussion does not become bogged down debating the merits of moderators decisions. Consequently, your last paragraph is of topic and is likely to be snipped (and the post is likely to be deleted on the same grounds). However, when you make a post and then include of topic discussion, you place it entirely within the moderators discretion as to whether the take the trouble to snip the offending section, or the much easier path (as it involves just one mouse click) of deleting the whole post. The do not owe it to you to take the more onerous route. Therefore, a word to the wise, do not give them reason to make that decision. Keep the snarky remarks and out, and keep the comment on moderation policy of any sort out unless you are happy to have your post deleted. Alternatively put, if you include such comments, it is reasonable to assume you want your post deleted and you should not complain about it.
  44. Dikran Marsupial at 04:42 AM on 19 February 2012
    A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam, I didn't say that Monckton is wrong, I just pointed out that he was using rhetorical devices. Now if you want to discuss his questions, then as I said, pick a thread and I will happily discuss them with you.
  45. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Adam - I've looked through both Abraham's and Monckton's presentations. I'll admit I did not go line-by-line, as I have a Real Life (TM) outside the blogs, but I looked over a representative sampling of each. From my reading and research: Abraham clearly found multiple misquotes, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations in Monckton's work, as supported by asking the scientists who Monckton quoted. Monckton's replies and Gish Gallop of questions shifted the goalposts (in almost every question), presented yet more myths, misrepresentations, and other 'm's, many along the "when did you stop beating your wife" lines. In addition, while claiming Abraham had engaged in ad hominen's (which he did not), Monckton's verbiage is littered with them (as in "he looks like an overcooked prawn"). And that is for every single Monckton response and question I looked at. --- Abraham supported his arguments and criticisms - Monckton did not. Abraham is a scientist, and approached the matter in that fashion, Monckton is a rhetoritician depending on verbal tricks. It's as plain as that.
  46. DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
    Yeah, I'm not counting on a Kitzmiller-style outcome for this. ID got its day in court because of the violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't see how the HI's curriculum could be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. Pretty much the only hope we have is that the bad publicity and attention that's been drawn to the plan on account of the leak will cause most decision-makers to shun it. Given the blatant politicization of policy in cases like the Texas Board of Education recently, that's nowhere near as secure a hope.
  47. A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
    Mark R, Bernard J, Dikran, Alexandre, Enginerd, Stephen Baines, pbjam Have any of you actually read Monckton's reply to Abraham? He clearly went through point by point every single one of Abraham's claims and showed they were wrong. If Abraham's presentation was entirely correct, then he should have engaged with Monckton on the points he raised. Dikran "Adam, a "84-page letter and 466 questions", sounds very much like a Gish Gallop to me, which is a well known rhetorical device that is intended to evade topics that one does not want to discuss by presenting a profusion of other topics in the hopes that said opponent will either be distracted by one of them or not have the energy to address them all and as a result not bother to reply." I'm sorry Dikran, but that's a strawman argument. You can't simply 'assume' that Monckton is wrong, simply because of that statement. If you genuinely believe that Abraham was correct and that Monckton was wrong, please give specific examples of where Monckton is wrong in his reply. "Note also that if Abraham has retracted statements that he couldn't substantiate, then that doesn't necessarily present him in a bad light. One of Monckton's greatest problems is an inability to concede when he is in error, again this is something associated with rhetoric rather than science. " First of all, there is no "if". Abraham cut his whole presenation by 10 minutes this is basically acknowledging that Monckton was right about those issues. And you can't just claim that Abraham is 'good' simply because he acknowledged the errors. Many times in his talk Abraham knew full well he was wrong, yet stated it in anyway. He didn't really have any choice, but to admit he was wrong after Monckton's reply. Alexandre, how about actually confronting the arguments, rather than just saying demeaning insults. Tom Curtis Abraham's reply was not in response to the link I gave above, but to this article here http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/ The link I gave above was a much more detailed and extremely thorough critique of Abraham's presentation. Abraham has not responded (or even acknowledged) Monckton's 84 page letter. It's not good enough that he simply acknowledged those particular errors. Abraham has never explicitly acknowledged the numerous major errors pointed out to him in Monckton's reply. "The expectation that Dr. Abraham should respond to 466 questions is comical." Enginerd, Abraham has had nearly two years to respond to Monckton, yet he has not done so. When Abraham did his presentation, he had the responsibility to reply to any critique. He stated himself at the beginning of the video that if anybody had any questions regarding his presentation they should contact him. But moderators thanks for letting my comment stay, as this hasn't always been the case for SkS http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please do not try to provoke the moderators into deleting your post, as you did in the last paragraph. Comments directed towards the moderators are off-topic and as such are deleted (after being read). Please acquaint yourself with the comments policy.
  48. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    I noticed that too. My guess is that the contributions were in kind services of some sort, like the microsoft ones. But I have a hard time imagining what those services would be.
  49. DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
    @ RyanStarr #9: The funding provided to arch-conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute is not the only money spent by "Big Oil" to influence public policy and public opinion in the US and Canada. "Big Oil" spends big bucks on: 1. lobbying the federal governments of both the US and Canada, 2. donations to candidates for offices, PACs, and super-PACs, and, 3. "sublimibal messaging" about the benefits of maintaining "business as usual" thorough purchased advertising on the mainstream media. Of course, "Big Oil" is only one copmponent of the fossil fuel industry making these expenditures.
  50. Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
    skept.fr - My apologies, there is a terminology issue involved. When you said "dissipation", I interpreted that as heat energy leaving the climate system. The D'Araso paper you reference is speaking of dissipation in terms of energy shifts between various scales, from mass movements of the ocean currents to centimeter level turbulence (~9 orders of magnitude). Note from the D'Araso paper that wind is the primary energy input for mixing, upwelling and downwelling: "Although the basic characteristics of ocean circulation have been well known for many decades, a detailed understanding of its energetics has emerged only recently. The energy sources are well understood: Wind stress acting on surface currents (or “wind-work”), particularly in the Southern Ocean, is the dominant energy source, with little net input from heating/cooling or precipitation/evaporation. " D'Araso is primarily discussing how that energy of circulation moves from large-scale (10-100km) ocean movement into small-scale turbulence, the fluid dynamics of turbulence generation. One reason it's an interesting question is that a first-pass naive look at the dynamics seems to indicate that large scale kinetic movements are self-stabilizing, whereas as observed large scale movements cascade down into small scale turbulence - and that's the process D'Araso is exploring. This has implications in mixing ratios and heat distribution, which should be helpful for improving ocean circulation and energy distribution models.

Prev  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  1279  1280  1281  1282  1283  1284  1285  1286  1287  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us