Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 Next
Comments 65601 to 65650:
-
norenstein at 07:52 AM on 1 February 2012Just Science app shows climate change is happening in pictures anyone can understand
@Hank -- Not just the video speed, but also the back/forward increments. So, for example, if you're curious what every August looks like, you can change the increment to yearly and get a sense of your local summers -
Kevin C at 07:41 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I think the second plot addresses Daneel's (in my view interesting) question: it provides an additional source of evidence for the apparent production cap in the first plot. The sharp change in gradient and the distinct clustering of the data points provides independent evidence of a change in the elasticity of supply or demand (just as for example satellite energy balance readings provide an independent test of whether the earth is still warming). Of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that production can be introduced at the $100+ price point but with a lag longer than 7 years. -
keithpickering at 06:57 AM on 1 February 2012New research from last week 4/2012
Hmmm. "We additionally find the presence of a 28-month period of oscillation in the Δ14C record at La Jolla." The QBO also has a 28-month periodicity. Coincidence? -
Albatross at 06:54 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Phila @29, "I do have a grudging admiration for its grasp of human psychology." That is my understanding-- they learned a great deal about how to fool people and play psychological games in the tobacco and creationism wars. They have well over 50 years of experience at it. So I fear what you say is true. The big question is what do about it and how do we effectively convince the public that about the reality and urgency of the situation? -
Composer99 at 06:51 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
In case anyone is getting upset at Skeptical Science's supposed lack of neutrality or balance, I should like to emphasize two things: Denialism in Action Denialism is a bit ill-defined as it is a fairly recent concept (despite longstanding examples such as tobacco industry re: smoking, asbestos health effects, HIV/AIDS denial, anti-vaccine crankery, and others), however most people who review it professionally (psychologists & sociologists) or as a hobby (such as ScienceBlogs' denialism blog) would include some or all of the following behaviours: 1- Cherry-picking evidence 2- Fake experts 3- Misrepresentation of opposing positions, arguments & evidence 4- Unsupported allegations of conspiracy on the part of those who hold opposing positions 5- Logical fallacies 6- Goalpost shifting The OP clearly documents the use of elements 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Possibly element #6 is in there, too. So the Wall Street Journal letter is a textbook case of climate science denialism, allowing all & sundry to refer to the signatories (and the publishers) as denialists. Crime & Comments There are, to be sure, a few comments on this thread suggesting criminal sanction may be called for or is otherwise appropriate for a number of climate science denialists. In case you, dear reader, think this is unfair, consider Daniel Lewis' statement upthread that much of the behaviour undertaken by climate science denialists was shown by Oreskes, in Merchants of Doubt, to be indistinguishable from demonstrably criminal behaviour (in the sense that it led to indictment & conviction on criminal charges) undertaken by tobacco companies. -
John Hartz at 06:46 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I have alerted Professor Murray about this post and have invited him to participate in this discussion thread. -
funglestrumpet at 06:40 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Further to David Lewis @ 19 Thanks in large part to their own actions, climate change is probably going to take a long time to reach a point in public opinion where these 16 'experts' and their comrades in arms can be brought to book. In the meantime there is the danger that vital evidence will be lost if bank details are automatically destroyed when some statutory time period elapses before that moment. With that in mind, are there any mechanisms in the various home countries involved that will ensure that any payments received by the denialati from the fossil fuel industry are not lost before they can be presented in evidence? Perhaps it is something the IPCC could consider exploring via the U.N. thus possibly making it apply globally. I suspect that a good few of the denialati treat climate change as just another politcal game and are not mature enough to realise the potentially serious consequences of their actions, not only to the world's population, but to their own personal freedom. I am sure that SKS computer material is well backed-up. I sure hope so, because it will be an excellent source of evidence should criminal proceedings result at some future date and I am sure it will be in the cross-hairs of denialati hackers. -
CBDunkerson at 06:18 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel, your question is flawed in construction in that it suggests it would be accurate to say 'global warming has stopped' but for the timeframe chosen. That is not the case. It is invalid to say 'global warming has stopped' because it hasn't. If you take a trend or moving average of global temperature anomalies over the past 15 years it shows warming. If you take a trend or moving average of oil production over the past 5 years it is essentially flat. In short, they are described differently because they show different results. -
scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel - you can also do accounting. Tally up production heading for retirement and tally new scheduled production to get an indicator of how much production you will have in the future. IEA does that - and they are sounding warnings. Actual oil production depends on political factors as well but it cant exceed the total productive capacity. Unfortunately it is hard to actually estimate this when SA wont lets its reserves be audited. -
Martin Lack at 06:14 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Many thanks for this excellent summary. I am particularly interested to learn that William Nordhaus has seen the light; and that he denounces this latest attempt to dismiss climate change as environmental alarmism (I have clearly been out-of-date in criticising his denunciation of the Stern Review). -
Tor B at 05:53 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Further to Stephen Baines In addition, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) - see Dec 20 2011 report is SkS - showed that by adjusting the global temperature anomaly for ENSO, volcanoes and solar cycle effects, the resultant composite global temperature upward trend appears to have statistical significance over a time span much shorter than 30 years (only 11 years). -
logicman at 05:48 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel When your car gets the hiccups it is probably running out of fuel. The longer the hiccups continue, the more certain you can be of being stranded. It is not, however, certain that you will end up on foot in some backwoods place where creepy people with genetic defects do nasty things to strangers. -
Trent1492 at 05:37 AM on 1 February 2012Ice isn't melting
So I just checked all the sources for Lindzen in the Climate Mythscolumn and there is the same problem with all cites for the April 6, 2011 source. -
Stephen Baines at 05:34 AM on 1 February 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
muoncounter Ugh...Those threats are disgusting and, I would guess, actionable. Hayhoe is understating the level of misogyny in some of them. -
Stephen Baines at 05:22 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Daneel One (the atmosphere) is a dynamic system bouncing chaotically around a mean set by the planetary energy budget, and the other (conventional oil) is a depleteable resource whose state can be inferred from other information besides the time series (reserves, price behavior, production trends). In short, there are physical reasons to believe these systems are different and consequently there will be different standards for assessing them. It would almost certainly be foolhardy to apply to the same criterion to both of them. -
DaneelOlivaw at 05:06 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
I'm much more interested in the climate science side of this stuff so my question may be out of place but... Why is not valid to say that "global warming has stopped" based on 15 years of data but it's ok to conclude that "oil production has stopped" with just 5 years? I understand that we are talking about two whole different systems here but still... it doesn't feel right. -
muoncounter at 05:01 AM on 1 February 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Texas Climate News posted some excerpts from the hate-emails Dr. Hayhoe received. Don't read if you have a weak stomach. -
Jeffrey Davis at 04:59 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
In the US, our politicians are obviously in the pocket of the carbon barons. Whether for climate reasons, economic reasons, or to extract ourselves easily from volatile Middle East politics, developing alternate energy is an obvious solution. Instead, all we get is "Drill, Baby, Drill." It feels a bit like Rome in 477 AD. -
Phila at 04:56 AM on 1 February 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
If this is the best today's climate fake skeptics can do, perhaps, as Patrick Michaels suggests, they are losing the battle. The quality of the arguments doesn't matter because they're not intended by consumption for knowledgeable or even curious people. The point is to give people who don't want AGW to be real a reference to cite. It doesn't matter what the reference is or what it says; what matters is that it's a "reference" by "top scientists." And that it confirms misinformation that the readers have already bought into, like the Trenberth quote. In articles like these, it's not just acceptable but also beneficial to present a mishmash of contradictory arguments; the more excuses for disbelief you can provide, the more readers you can reassure. Different claims appeal to different readers, so toss 'em all in! It's not like they're gonna compare notes. It also doesn't matter if the authors lack any real authority, because the people who want to believe this stuff will magnify the authors' credentials beyond all bounds for the sake of their own credibility. And that's what it's all about, ultimately: Convincing people who are desperate to be right that they're not only right, but smarter than everyone else. Which is very light work, of course. They know they'll get no serious criticism from their audience because that would require a level of self-skepticism that their audience can't afford to have. Much as I dislike this industry and its cynical approach to rhetoric, I do have a grudging admiration for its grasp of human psychology. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
I've been a regular reader since almost the beginning of the site's existence. I found it either following a link from Real Climate or by researching a topic on climate. As the site grew I acted as a moderator for a little while before time constraints prevented me from doing so any longer. Not to mention that the level of scientific expertise required of moderators has increased quite a bit since the early days. I visit daily, even if briefly perusing to see what's new. The site is exemplary by many accounts. If I have any remark, it would be a concern similar to that of David Kirtley above in post #8. -
CBDunkerson at 04:54 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Like the renewable power industry there is a lot of speculation about how much 'new technology' will bring down costs of fossil fuel extraction. Until recently tar sands, shale gas, deep water oil, and other 'alternative' sources were all prohibitively expensive. New technologies and methods of extraction (e.g. 'fraking') have changed that, but it still isn't clear how much additional fossil fuel this will make available at prices lower than those of renewable power (which is also benefiting from technology improvements). What is clear is that we've passed the peak of 'conventional' oil. Without the new sources we'd now be facing massive economic consequences. This article suggests that 'alternative fossil fuels' will not be able to continue to support the demand gap and that their costs will drop more slowly than renewable costs. However, neither of those is a sure thing. Research funding, government regulation, and 'luck' will play a part in which technologies have the biggest economic breakthroughs. For purposes of avoiding global warming it would be nice if we could write off fossil fuels as economically unfeasible, but the reality is that we just can't know how the 'R&D race' is going to play out. I think there is some cause for hope in the fact that fossil fuel producers are just trying to keep costs from growing too much while solar power is projected to drop below current 'grid parity' over the next decade (it already has in some places). That should make a transition to renewables inevitable, but leaves alot of uncertainty about how much GHG levels will increase before we get there. -
Esop at 04:08 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
1) Since late 2008 2) Through a link posted on a Norwegian climate science website 3)30-40 4) I think the extremely rapid changes in the Arctic is the most interesting topic right now. It will play a crucial role in getting the world to open their eyes in the coming years, especially when Santas' home is nothing but open ocean sometime before 2020. When that happens, and we can point to the deniers earlier (2008-2012) claims of imminent rapid and dramatic cooling, the disinformers will have nowhere to run, and the public might finally see them for the dangerous clowns that they are. It might turn ugly, but I can't help looking forward to it. -
Biophilia at 04:02 AM on 1 February 2012Climate change policy: Oil's tipping point has passed
Very interesting stuff. I'd just like to add that these more extreme sources of oil, oilsands, shale oil/gas, deep sea drilling, coal-oil conversion, all produce significantly more CO2, and also have significantly detrimental environmental externalities. These are not amazing technological breakthroughs, they are a path to climate suicide. The IEA says the world needs the oilsands at the same time they state that we will have locked into a path of catastrophic climate change by 2017. IMO, we need drastic, immediate changes to the current outlook for the next ten years. P.S. love reading climate news from tomorrow, today. What an amazing planet! -
Lazarus at 03:25 AM on 1 February 2012Katharine Hayhoe, Intent to Intimidate
Dikran Marsupial, I notice that you have been posting regularly on 'Real Science'. Is there any chance you could get in contact with me here; http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/p/comments.html -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:57 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
First comment was 22:14 PM on 25 May, 2010 so I started reading some time before that. That thread, on polar bears, was subsequently revised to include some discussion of hunting. The link that brought me here may have been on polar bears but many links brought me here posted by "walter in falls church" on the Capital Weather Gang blog. I don't have enough time for much extra reading for a month or two, but I'll read daily when I do. These weekly wraps are good, I would not change much. -
wonderful world at 02:35 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
1 a couple of years 2. dobn't recall exactlt, maybe a dorlomin link fronm the guardian 3.10-20 4. maybe doug cottons dichotomys, or can we chuck in to raise some money for his counsellors counselling -
David Kirtley at 02:32 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
1. About 2 years, ever since "climategate I" 2. I don't remember how I found the site. At the time when "climategate I" broke I said, "WTF" and started looking around the web for some real answers. It didn't take me long to find them at Skep Sci. 3. I visit the site daily, or try to anyway. 4. Can't think of anything. One small nitpick: When I first found this site what really impressed me was the even, measured tone of the posts. It was very refreshing to just read the scientific arguments clearly stated, as opposed to the bloviating and bluster of the denier sites. But lately, it seems to me, the posts have become a little more biting in their tone (a bit more like Tamino's site). I know it is very frustrating to have to constantly counter the unending stream of disinformation spewing from the deniers. And sometimes it's best to fight fire with fire. But what I love best about this site is when the science is presented as a rock-solid bulwark against the stream of denier nonsense. Like I said, it's just a small nitpick. Keep up the great work. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:06 AM on 1 February 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
DB at 94 I don't have and have never had a required reading list. Yes, the link was there along with other links presenting both sides of this issue. Which you conveniently failed to mention that. It was left over from an Honors Chemistry course I used to teach. The students were presented various viewpoints and asked to write critiques of them. If you wish, you can go check my PowerPoint presentation for Climate Change and tell me if you have any issues with it. I doubt you will. If you need the link, let me know. I am not sure if I am allowed to provide it here. I can also provide you with my consulting companies website if allowed. Thanks -
heijdensejan at 00:27 AM on 1 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
1. I visit on a regular basis since about 2 years. Not posting here but I do use information found on other blogs / newspaper sites 2. I read something somewhere (other blog don't remember which) 3. Daily normally morning and evening 4. Requirements? not really. Keep on doing the good work! -
dorlomin at 00:18 AM on 1 February 2012New research from last week 4/2012
The Esper paper is probibly going to kick off another minibunfight with various people making claims about what it means. -
CBDunkerson at 23:59 PM on 31 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
Whupps, missed 'how often'... around 15 times per week. Also, for discussion topics, it might be good to talk about what myths people are seeing most often recently and/or what data/evidence people think makes the most compelling case on AGW and might be good to 'feature' more prominently somehow. -
CBDunkerson at 23:57 PM on 31 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
How long reading SkS - Today is my two year anniversary How became aware - Google Future topics - Would be nice to hear about the results of these little surveys. Were any changes made / planned to the comments policy based on the discussion of it? Are any of the features / design changes suggested under review for possible development? Et cetera. BTW, one of my comments was that it is sometimes difficult to find old features... just before this post I ran across an old article mentioning the 'Settled Science' button... which I now can't find. :] -
CBDunkerson at 23:45 PM on 31 January 201210 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change
Trent1492, there is some disagreement on whether and how much ancient humans contributed to atmospheric CO2 levels through deforestation and other 'land use' changes. If we set that aside and accept the pre industrial revolution value of about 278 ppm as a starting point it gets much simpler. Given that we know (see below) from multiple lines of evidence that humans are responsible for all of the increase from that point, calculating the 'human percentage' is just a matter of dividing the current level (about 392 ppm) by 278 ppm... which gives about a 41% increase. The 39% figure you cite was probably based on 386 ppm atmospheric levels a couple of years ago. A good overview, with links to source papers, of how we know humans are responsible for the recent increase can be found here. -
Bern at 23:45 PM on 31 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
John, a good talk so far. I had to pause to post a comment when I heard your comment about "I wonder how many 'Sydney Harbours' Greenland is losing every year?" When I gave a global warming talk at work early last year, I used the 2011 Brisbane Floods as my yardstick, and came up with a figure of five and a half times the peak flow rate of the January 2011 Brisbane Floods. Non-stop, for five months. -
JMurphy at 23:34 PM on 31 January 2012New research from last week 4/2012
This is an interesting paper, only published this week : Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks Good BBC article on it too. Could be useful to counter the so-called skeptics who reckon we're only now "coming out of the LIA" - whatever they mean by that ! -
JMykos at 23:31 PM on 31 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Well dudes the carbon tax changes to an emissions trading scene in 2015. When the tax stops, the revenue to pay compensation stops. The big polluters like power stations and airlines will have no choice but to go renewable energy. Yippee!!!! Bring it on Julia. -
The Skeptical Chymist at 22:53 PM on 31 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
@ Michael Whittemore The impacts of the Australian Carbon Price will be much more modest than you expect. For starters there is nothing in the policy about stopping the compensation. The compensation is funded by the polluters paying the carbon price and they do this no matter if it acts as a tax or a market trading scheme. Much of the compensation is through income tax cuts, so is permanent, unless a future government was to increase income taxes across the board (which seems unlikely). Secondly, we won't be seeing a $50 or $100 carbon price anytime soon. Partially it's because the scheme simply isn't that ambitious, but there also price caps etc which will prevent it. Lastly, while "forcing" power companies to green the grid may seem attractive, such a measure would decrease the incentive to reduce carbon pollution throughout the rest of the economy. Like a carbon price we would see increases in electricity prices, but unlike the carbon price there would almost certainly be no household compensation. -
philipm at 22:51 PM on 31 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
Of course it doesn't matter how many signatories there are on any one letter. It only takes one to prove anything wrong. It's the weight of the evidence that counts, not the length of the author list. And of course these people have no evidence. That's the real bottom line. The biggest failure in climate change policy development is the failure of journalism. Journalists should have well-honed BS detectors, and spot a shill a mile off. That they don't after other anti-science campaigns like the ozone hole and tobacco (and even AIDS denial, though the motivation there is less clear) invokes the old "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." -
Piet R. Zijlstra at 22:23 PM on 31 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
SkS issue of the week (2012 -4) a. 3 months (just retired) b. I discoverd SkS by walking around on the web c. now SkS is part of my daily routine d. I use to search and judge with two questions in mind: 1/ is this scientific based information 2/ what is the intention / agenda of the writer e. SkS does address these two questions f. I am now looking for mass and heat balances of the climate system Moderator: please remove post #4 -
chek at 21:20 PM on 31 January 2012Bilal Bomani, Cutting Edge Biofuels from NASA
It often gets depressing that most articles on most climate science blogs tend to be about countering denialist drivel. This article however is the polar opposite and actively raises hopes for the future that talented people are addressing the multiple problems we face with innovative research leading to practical solutions. Thanks Dr. Bomani for brightening my week. -
JMykos at 19:13 PM on 31 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
It's fairly obvious that many global warming deniers should know better. There is only one conclusion. They are being paid off or have special interests. Would love to be able to rummage through their bank accounts. That would be real transparency. Another csuse for the Wall St occupiers? -
Fran Barlow2 at 17:12 PM on 31 January 2012Public talk: Global Warming - The Full Picture
Interesting point re carbon being in CO2 and CH4. If I'd thought of that, I would've mentioned it :-)
I've lost track of the number of times I've wandered away from a conversation or presentation and thought of something I should have said. ;-) I might have added that even CO, which is not a GHG, does indirectly force climate change, through its interaction with CH4 and Ozone via the scavenging of the hydroxyl radical. Eventually, it oxidises to CO2. There are also some other less well known carbon-based GHGs (eg CFCm, HCFC, CF4, C2F6; More broadly though, the precise nomenclature of GHG-abatement CO2e with the "e" standing for "equivalent". So even non-carbon-based anthropogenic GHGs (such as Ozone, N2O, NF3) are expressed in terms of "carbon" equivalent. In some ways, the objection is a little like someone who claims that the tomato is not a fruit but a vegetable. From a botanical point of view, the tomato is the fruiting part of the tomato plant, but from a culinary point of view, it is a vegetable. So too, "carbon" here doesn't refer simply to the fact that most of the drivers of anthropogenic warming are carbon-based, but that carbon equivalents is the measure used by policy for reconciling these matters. -
New research from last week 4/2012
Thank you, Ari - this is a fantastic resource. Look - squirrel! Now if I could just somehow generate more time to read all the papers... -
Doug Hutcheson at 15:35 PM on 31 January 2012Ice isn't melting
Got it now. Moderators, the problem is the source for the second Lindzen myth, which points to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/redirect.php?u=http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8613 As Trent1492 says, it comes up with "Media Player You are not authorized to view this resource." I am running Linux/Firefox 9.0.1, if that makes any difference. Looks as though the resource has been secured, or moved IMHO. -
sauerj at 14:37 PM on 31 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #4
Issue of the week (2012-01-30): 1) Member for 1month ... Amazing site. Great articles! Emphasis on clear/critical thinking so refreshing; fair to all; extremely professional/civil commentaries compared to typical internet. Before, I was very frustrated, groping for positive civility; this site is a gold mine! I'm still extremely frustrated with our public attitudes, so just knowing this site actually exists gives me some newfound hope. 2) (like @1) found via happen-stance google search this last New Year's weekend (2012); also like @1 mistook the name for a denier's blog. 3) Read daily, no doubt! Look forward to every article! 4) Desired articles: 4a) I really like @1's tipping point suggestion. This moves toward putting deniers in a corner and seeing if they are so deluded to actually annihilate their own future children. The next hurdle is getting deniers to believe these tipping-point dates. 4b) Zoom in on the Vermeer, 2009 Figure 6 chart between years 1990-2040; show grid lines. Determine what year (looks like it would be somewhere between 2020 - 2030) when the Vermeer model (Eq#2, which accounts for ice sheet degradation) separates enough away from the thermal-expansion-only projections (roughly the linear extrapolation of the past data, i.e. the red line) to clearly demonstrate that with 95% confidence that the 75cm model projection in 2100 (least offensive boundary limit) will in fact really occur or be exceeded. When this year comes (say its 2025), and sea level is in fact at or above this level, then the demonstrated sustained success of the model (thereby promoting it to high confidence, 95%, of projecting future levels) might actually sway some real public opinion and force some real non-greenwash political change (though I know I'm being optimistically naïve by this last statement). 4c) Recommendations on best AGW 101 educational video. John Overpeck's video is best I've found so far, but he mishap's on one point (putting the avg temp rise for the whole globe in the same apples-to-apples comparison plane with the 2x temp rise for the higher northern latitudes) and, in addition, I'm looking for something a lot more polished. I want a 60min video that 1) succinctly explains the science (with top-notch computer graphics) and with 100% accuracy and exactness so to shutdown any denialist fodder, 2) dispels the major denial myths, and 3) projects future climate consequences if we follow BAU. Are there any such videos out there? 4d) Like to see articles that dig into understanding public opinion so to determine what it is really going to take to move people and ultimately society from 1) Denial, to 2) Apathy, to 3) Willing to listen (mildly interested), to 4) Interested in learning, to 5) Versed on the subject, to 6) Vocal activist. I work as a chemical engineer at a corn wetmilling company in Indiana. The sad reality in my local world is that 25% of the people are vocal deniers, 60% are apathetic about it, 10% are mildly interested, 4% are interested in learning and maybe 1% is versed on the subject (these being my educated guesses). And, those that might be sustained vocal activists, in technical position, would, no doubt, be quickly shown the door. Even the timid 'versed' are quickly ridiculed and put in their place if they dare say anything that marginally leans toward AGW. The published 50-60% of the people believe in AGW is certainly from a completely different planet. I'm very serious when I say that I think the 50-60% figure (for people who really fit in categories #4-#6 above) is completely delusional. For a poll that would ask the RIGHT questions, I'd put this figure at 5% (not 50-60%). The ONLY way something real (other than greenwashing) is going to happen is for >25% of the US population to feel some REAL SUSTAINED PAIN or be bowled-over by some biblical event that they witness with their own eyes & therefore come to stark realization what is in store for them in the future. Sadly, I predict that this sort of radical event(s) and subsequent transformation won't happen until 2035-2040 (requiring two more solar cycles and two more presidential cycles: Dem4yrs / Rep8yrs / Dem8yrs / Rep8yrs). Only then will enough real accumulated mass US pain reach its own tipping point, or else the scales will finally start to come off our eyes as we look upon biblically-scaled global events. Even then, like the Civil Rights movement, it will still take unprecedented marches and hunger strikes before finally the lies and greenwashing really stop, and people, governments & corporations fundamentally accept that they ALL have to change. To this end, I'd like to see an in-depth sociological study on this phenomenon titled something like "What is it really going to take before the US public really changes concerning AGW?" played out in various optional scenarios. Not only would this be an extremely interesting read, but it would help give some light to those of us who are so frustrated by the slow-death that is playing out before us. -
pbjamm at 14:22 PM on 31 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
@Dana69 was an obvious troll comment meant to distract from the subject at hand. It has no merit at all since the SkS 'staff' is is in the business of presenting and explaining what the research of expert scientists says, not doing research themselves. The WSJ op-ed was a just 16 ill-informed non-experts saying "nuh-uh" to the scientists and for some reason being given space in a major news paper to say it. -
JoeTheScientist at 14:13 PM on 31 January 20122011 Hottest La Niña Year on Record, 11th-Hottest Overall
Thanks Tom C@15. I was trying to find that, without success. -
owl905 at 13:55 PM on 31 January 2012The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
@Dana69 - None of those names who hold up ever over-reached themselves to phony up a joint statement published in the Wall Street Journal. Your comparison of the two groups is a disgrace. You owe each of them an apology for the implication that any of them misled or misrepresented their credentials the way the '16 scientists' did in the WSJ. It comes across like the little child going "Well, he did it too." -
pbjamm at 13:46 PM on 31 January 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Tom Curtis@166 Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is my favorite web comic. Lots of sciencey comedy. -
Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 31 January 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
SirNubWub @162, if you are going to show they article as an example of poor journalism, you should highlight the following poor journalistic practices: 1) Failure to report the consensus scientific opinion. In journalism, assuming the truth of political far from consensus opinions, such as, for example, those held by the communist party, is considered bad journalistic practice. In science this attitude is well and truly justified in that theories reach consensus support based on overwhelming empirical success relative to other candidate theories. 2) False balance. In journalism, balance is assumed to require giving equal voice to opposing political opinions, but only opinions held within mainstream political parties are sort out. This can be justified on the basis that balance should be proportionate to the relative support of the opinions. In science, however, the relative support must be the relative support among scientists expert in the field. "Balance", therefore would require reporting of opinions in proportion to their relative support (in this case) among climate scientists. 3) Failure to report a balance of veiws at all. Indeed, rather than simply falsely balancing scientific opinions, the paper reports the views of five climate change deniers, but fails to report the views of mainstream climate scientists (even though we now know that they were provided by the Met Office). 4) Failure to report the provenance of opinions reported. The climate change deniers whose opinions where sort where not identified as climate change deniers in the article. By doing so the author has taken away from the reader the right of judging the trustworthiness of his sources by depriving them of obviously relevant information. 5) Cherry Picking of Data Obviously. You could also point out that Rose has a track record of writing propaganda in preference to pursuing journalism, as reported by George Monbiot and Tim Lambert. Tim Lambert shows a cartoon that adequately encapsulates Roses' approach to science reporting:
Prev 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 Next
