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  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  Next

Comments 68901 to 68950:

  1. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    tmac, Sadly, it would be lucky if it only takes as much energy to scrub the atmosphere as we got from burning fossil fuels. The laws of thermodynamics rather almost require that it will take more energy (rather than merely the same amount) to reverse the process. Remember, in a nutshell the laws of thermodynamics say:
    • You can't win
    • You can't break even unless it is very, very cold
    • It never gets that cold
    • You can't quit the game.
    Getting the atmosphere back to where it was but at no net expense is trying to break even. You can only do that if you return to a snowball earth, and you can't do that.
  2. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    tmac, I have no problem at all with the "Skeptic movement" as represented by the links you and Tom supplied. In fact I pretty much adamantly agree with whatever I read there... it looks more to me like level-headed common-sense than any special attribute like "skepticism." [Which perhaps doesn't speak well for the gullibility and education of the common man. :) ] That said, I don't really spend much time worrying about the debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories or how the world might end in 2012 and such. I didn't find much meat there to sink my teeth into, just because most of the subjects covered struck me as "what, someone actually has to spend energy on this?" With that said... if there is a body of true skeptics who label and view themselves as such, they need to go on the offensive against deniers, and be rather timidly accepting if those involved in discussing climate science fail to recognize the distinction, because in my interactions in the past two years, the deniers are the prominent (and until today sole) owners of the skeptic label.
  3. It's the sun
    Muoncounter - Agreed. A 30°/month shift of the Earth magnetic field would not be a "drift", but more of a "spin". And as someone who quite frequently uses magnetic compasses in navigation, I'll point out that this would be more than noticeable. It would render compasses useless...
  4. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    14, DB, Looks more like a "Death Undertow" than a death spiral, in this case.
  5. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica-I understand your frustration,but keep in mind that these Skeptics are not solely dealing with climate change.They have a very wide range of topics of all kinds of pseudo-science that they are tackling.Also,I think that there aren't too many that are actual climate scientists,so they do more reporting on current issues like so called Climategate,the BEST report,and such,but leave the analysis to those who do the science.I actually found my way to this site from a link that a commenter on Neurologica gave,while arguing against a denier. Keep an open mind about the real Skeptic movement,we are your ally,not an enemy.We cannot help it if the 'skeptic' name has been hijacked by the deniers,and we do very much resent it,and reject their claim.They are pseudo-skeptics,and science deniers.
  6. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    Thanks to all DB and others for the resources.That's why I really enjoy SkS,everyone is so willing to help with answers and link to good educational material.
  7. Climategate 2.0 in Context - Solar Warming
    I don't think David Appell can be regarded as a 'denialist'.
    Response:

    [dana1981] Thanks, I shouldn't have assumed.  Text revised.

  8. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Another graph from PIOMAS:
    "Total Arctic sea ice volume from PIOMAS showing the volume of the mean annual cycle, the current year, 2010 (the year of previous September volume minimum), and 2007 (the year of minimum sea ice extent in September). Shaded areas indicate one and two standard deviations from the mean."
    [Source] Yup, the Death Spiral? Still happenin'...
  9. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Sphaerica - I think we'll do our own similar analysis at year's end, so you can nitpick us at that point :-)
  10. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    Dr. Schmittner - I chose 67% simply as a very rough estimate (equilibrium sensitivity is ~3°C for 2xCO2 and transient is ~2°C for 2xCO2, according to the IPCC), but I don't think the ratio is constant with time (among other things I believe it depends on the magnitude of the net forcing). Figure 4 is merely meant as a rough approximation, but it should be reasonably close to reality.
  11. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    I'd like to see the first graph with the El Nino years in red. Being a bit of a nitpicker, I'd probably actually prefer that the bars be divided in half for color representation (often only one half of one year is La Nina/El Nino). To keep deniers happy one might also change the base color from pink to gray (pink is too warm a color, so you are subliminally saying "warm, warm, warm" to their tiny, unconscious little brains).
  12. IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
    CBDunkerson and Rob Painting - Thank you!
  13. Economic Growth and Climate Change Part 2 - Sustainable Growth - An Economic Oxymoron?
    adelady Well yes it's possible to technically do it with enough subsidies. I presume it is Iowa you live in? It's analogous to Denmark because they can rely on larger surrounding states/countries to buffer the variability in supplies with conventional sources. I also recall the mid West is one of the best areas in the world for consistency in wind speeds, this is more important than average power. Unfortunately we in the UK have been driven offshore!
    Response:

    [DB] Please restrict image widths to 500 pixels or less.

  14. It's the sun
    KR: Or one could use actual physics, which gives the earth's magnetic field's westward drift at 0.2 deg/yr. Mr. Gaddes' "migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,)" would be quite noticeable - and could hardly be called 'drift'.
  15. It's the sun
    I now present the work for 'peer review.' But that means you all have to read it!
  16. It's the sun
    I have on occasion considered running curve-fitting between global temperatures and (for example) observed cicada swarming. Should be easy - cicadas have swarm cycles from 2-17 years, with heavy emphasis on prime number values. Given a stated time period of temperature data, and treating cicada cycles as sinusoids or impulse functions with delay effects, I am certain I could find a regression weighting that would match observed temperatures. Of course, that would have exactly zero explanatory value regarding the climate - cicadas do not have a causal relationship forcing global temperatures. And my 'predictions' outside the fitting range would be completely worthless. The only way to obtain a real prediction of future climate behavior is by looking at the actual physics in operation - forcings, feedbacks, etc. Such as (again, for example) greenhouse gases, El Nino variations, observed insolation, etc. I don't know if I ran across this idea on Tamino, or elsewhere, but I rank things thusly: - Physics are better predictors than statistics - Good statistics are better predictors than bad statistics - Bad statistics are a toss-up with "Just So Stories" This is the real problem with "climastrology", such as Loehle and Scafetta's curve fitting, or (IMO) numerology such as the astrological 'cycle' fits recently commented upon. No physics connection to the climate, no mechanism, and hence correlation without causation - and no predictive value.
  17. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    skept.fr @61, I'm sure Pierrehumbert means no such thing. The difference between AOGM's and the UVic model, however, is that over ice clouds are definitely warming agents. So, when modeling the LGM, we can be sure that whatever discrepancy is caused by the lack of clouds in the UVic model will be increased. In contrast, with AOGCM's, they may well not capture cloud effects accurately, but there is no reason to think their distortion will change between industrial and LGM conditions. Further, I am sure that Pierrehumbert would agree that this style of study would be best done with an ensemble of AOGCMs if funding permitted, to avoid distortions that arise from any given model. In this context, it should be noted that Schmittner et al acknowledge that the UVic model performs poorly over the Antarctic ice sheet. That is not reason for confidence in its performance over the continental ice sheets of the LGM. However, this is beside the point for me. It is not the failure to represent clouds, but the fixed lapse rate and the lack of a hydrological cycle which is relevant to the issue of land/ocean warming ratio. Pierrehumbert, or course, has broader concerns.
  18. It's the sun
    Actually, DB, I thought it might be the lost chapter to Foucault's Pendulum or, given the overuse of capitalization and other features, a supplement to Mason & Dixon. Don, are you saying that the 'Dry Cycles' have caused the Recent Spike in global average temps? Are you also saying that CO2 does not absorb and emit at a well-defined set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the same infrared range at which the surface also emits? Are you also claiming that the observed stratospheric cooling trend is a result (somehow - physical mechanism? I don't have to show you no stinking physical mechanisms!) of these dry cycles? I'm beginning to hear a catchy tune . . . the Music of the Spheres?
  19. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    36, Lloyd Flack, If she actually got bogged down in any details enough to learn about them, she'd start to see what I saw long ago, which is that each and ever skeptic argument is a house of cards. When enough of them collapse, one starts being very wary of the next stupid argument they trot out. That your friend hasn't reached this point suggests to me that her thinking stops as soon as she arrives at a conclusion she likes -- and that is archetypical denier (not skeptic) behavior.
  20. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    37, tmac57, Interesting. But now I'm upset that they are not far more vocal and livid with deniers. How can they have allowed such non-skeptics to adopt and so redefine the mantle of "skeptic." Every one of those sites you and Tom have given should be all over WUWT and other denial travesties. From a climate science perspective, however, such skeptics have no standing, exactly because they have been invisible. In the realm of climate science, skeptic is a code word for denier, and until that changes, my first (and correct) instinct in dealing with anyone who is self-identified as a skeptic will be to deal with them as a denier (because 9,999 out of 10,000 of such people in climate science are deniers).
  21. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphareica- To add to what Tom and oneiota posted: The CFI http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ (heavy emphasis on secularism/humanism) The JREF http://www.randi.org/site/ (famous for issuing a million dollar challenge to anyone who can demonstrate any "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." Science Based Medicine (SBM) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ From those starting points,you can follow the links to other Skeptical blogs and podcasts such as The Skeptics Guide To The Universe and Richard Saunder's fine podcast The Skeptic Zone from Australia. In Canada theres Skeptically Speaking http://www.skepticallyspeaking.com/ and Skeptic North http://www.skepticnorth.com/ In the UK Ben Goldacre's http://www.badscience.net/,and I second Oneiota's recommendation for Sense About Science. You will find the content and tone different at these various sites,but you should find something that suits your sensibilities.
  22. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica #28, I know the individual. It is mostly misleading experience and consequent intuitions. You see experience in some fields can make it easier to get boged down in the details and harder to see the complete picture.
  23. Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    #53 Tom : Hard for me to understand why we disagree about proxy/model discrepancies... I think I'm OK with your point : "one of the model warming ratios, the land proxy temperatures, the sea proxy temperatures, or both, are in error because of the discrepancy between the Warming ratio found by Schmittner et al, and that from models in Sutton et al." For the Pierrehumbert critics about cloudiness, does he mean that AOGCM correctly simulate the cloud? It would be a great surprise for me (see CFMIP last considerations about that, still large divergence among models in CMIP5). Of course UVic model have major simplifications (the authors acknowledged), but as AOGCM models have major uncertainties in cloud simulation, I don't see clearly whose would be the more robust for telling us with a reasonable precision the cumulus / stratus latitudinal amounts 10, 14 or 20 ky ago!! Inapprehensible for me, we would correctly realize in past climates with much more unknowns (like total aerosol load) what we poorly realize with present climate, far better observed?
  24. It's the sun
    919 - Gaddes "We believe in 'Gravity' though we don't know what it is." I believe this, along with your predilection for epicycles, is clear evidence that you have been transported here from the medieval period. Since your time, there have been some advances; most notably Einstein and The Internet/google/Wikipedia... you can use the latter to learn about the former and discover that we know very well what gravity is.
  25. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Figure 1 is a great graph. Better at showing the steady warming of the last 30 years than the usual rolling average graphs. Making a distinction between El Nino and La Nina years is a great addition.
  26. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    adelady#33: It's much simpler to use the term 'denier' as 'one who denies the evidence.' That fits the bill for just about any subject.
  27. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    @ Tom Curtis " if there was a strong el nino in 2013, we would hear the denier refrain for the next 5 years that it hasn't warmed since 2013" Don't you mean for the next 13 years, and counting? That's how long they have been hanging their hats on 1998 as prime cherry to pick.
  28. Climate Solutions by Daniel Bailey
    My personal solution - move to Japan. It's cut my emissions by about half. My wife and I dropped from one car (a Prius) to zero. Our apartment shrank by a third. Like most Japanese, we have no clothes drier. Food here tends to be more local and farmed in a more sustainable manner than in the US. Our rice and most of our seasonable vegetables, in fact, are grown on my wife's family plots. We using less heating and cooling, partly because we need less (moderate climate, smaller apartment) and partly because that's just the way things are done here. We use less electricity as well, for the same reasons. We are typical for Japanese, but that automatically implies that we have about half the environmental impact of a typical American. And you know what - the quality life here is completely comparible to the quality of life in America, all across the income spectrum. In fact, I would argue it is quite a bit better for the bottom third. But that is another subject entirely. Either way, this country proves that there is no substantial trade-off between the good life and drastically cutting one's emissions.
  29. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    newscrusader @8, if there was a strong el nino in 2013, we would hear the denier refrain for the next 5 years that it hasn't warmed since 2013, so global warming has stopped and global cooling is about to start.
  30. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    I wonder what it will look like when we have a strong El Nino?
  31. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    I tend to agree with what Tamino wrote about skeptics recently on a post at Real Climate, as follows: Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong. Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong. The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort. Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong. Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong. Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again. The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic. I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate. Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ 7:03 PM It is these "Fake Skeptics" I would refer to as deniers.
  32. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    The funny thing about using the term "skeptic" is that I find I have to shift mental gears when moving from climate discussions to medical topics. When it comes to medicine, the "skeptics" and skepticism are about SBM, science based medicine - as against those advocating non/anti-scientific ideas about cancer therapies, anti-vaccination and the like. Me? I'd rather refer to climate deniers as self-styled skeptics to indicate a judgment that I/we don't accept the skeptic characterisation, but we politely refrain from clearly pejorative qualifiers such as pseudo or fake to express our non-acceptance.
  33. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    I'm glad you liked it! I know he's just talking about the weather but you need to start somewhere....understanding what drives the weather leads to understanding what drives the climate. Everyone (including the layman) is interested in the weather because the forecast informs our decisions about what to wear. As the weather changes so does our response...so should our informed response be to climate change.
  34. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    oneiota. Thanks for that. It doesn't really belong on the debunking threads, but this is an outstanding example of science communication. Everyone who hasn't already read it - go for it.
  35. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    oneiota, that you for that link to the Australian rain assessment. It was both entertaining and instructive, a rare combination. Well worth the read.
  36. Changing the Direction of the Climate
    tmac57 @17, Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to end up using as much energy to 'scrub' out the Co2 from our atmosphere,as it took burning fossil fuels,to put it there? I agree, reasonable balance of things means that the reversing of the reaction of burning C requires as much energy as was released multiplied by the efficiency of the reversal process. Natural processes are inefficient by far (i.e. photosynthesis is only at some 10% max, maybe even less I don't know) so forget about any help from nature to do that. That is confirmed by the studies above. So it's not just ironic but simply obvious that to "fix" that imbalance we need to reverse the energy flow. But there is some good news: human ingenuity cannot be included in those models. Who knows, in some 100y someone (a modern-day "divine savior") may invent an "artificial photosynthesis" working at close to 100% efficiency with which our descendents will start pumping extracted C directly into the empty holes (mines) we left to them as our heritage. And there is plenty of sun energy to do that. Of course it's SF but at least some hope that AGW is reversible in theory and humanity does not need to be cursed for 10-100ky.
  37. AndreasSchmittner at 19:04 PM on 1 December 2011
    Schmittner et al. (2011) on Climate Sensitivity - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
    dana: yes, I overlooked that, and I apologize. I guess for a blog you don't have to justify the choice of your number (67%). I'd still be curious. Will it be constant with time?
  38. It's the sun
    I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work.(See his References) The data was able to be extrapolated after his death, because of the 'Ratios Principle.' It involves basic maths and is a perpetual equation. And yes, the Rotation and Gravitation of the Sun/Moon/Earth do include 'Physical Mechanisms.' The 'extraordinary burden of proof' you seek will be provided in the onset of future 'Dry Cycles' (if you do not wish to bother with the historical record.)How will the GBR react with an extended period of 'run-off' in 2013-14? Or how will Australian agriculture fare with a Five Year Drought From 2015-19? South-East Queensland will be in a severe state of water deprivation. pbjamm (917) mentioned the absence of Global Average Temperature prediction. This is relevant with the AGW hype surrounding the recent BEST Report. If the 'Dry Cycles,' are migrating longitudinally around the planet,(30 degrees/month with the westward drift of the Earth's Magnetic Field,) then the surface temperature will fluctuate as the cycles pass over the various measuring stations, (increasing while under the influence of the 'Dry Cycle' and decreasing in the subsequent 'Wet'/ Normal period. These fluctuations would be also subject to any volcanic (or other) 'albedo' effect. As these 'Cycles' last from one to five years, it does not seem relevant or possible to make generalisations about surface temperature.(see also Convection Still.)
    Response:

    [DB] "I'm saying there were no 'peers' working in the field of 'Dry Cycle' prediction. A S Gaddes sought and followed the advice of many scientific 'peers' at the time and many of them provided him with important papers and discussion pertaining to his work."

    Now you resort to "termastrology".  Uncontent with the standard definition of peer review, you redefine it to make the term more convenient to your position.  By not publishing the work in a peer-reviewed, scientifically relevant journal the work by definition is not peer-reviewed.

    This is a forum in which the science of climate change is discussed and explored.  By science meaning peer-reviewed articles published by working scientists in the field in scientifically relevant papers.  Nothing you have presented thus far meets those standards.

    Thus, the reader of this blog will be unable to differentiate between what you have presented thus far and the works of Hapgood, Velikovsky, Burroughs (my favorite is where the famed scientist Tar Zan exlores the inner world of Pellucidar) and Hubbard.  But lacking the entertainment value.

    If you wish to further explore your claims, pick the ONE mechanism you feel most strongly about (the one you wish to "hang your hat on"), use the Search function in the upper left corner to find the most relevant thread and initiate a dialogue on it there.  You waste everyone's time here with this Gish Gallop approach.

  39. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    And indeed this accessible assessment of what's coming in 2012 for those of us south of Asia comes from the BOM. http://www.bom.gov.au/social/2011/09/chalk-cheese-cats-and-dogs/
  40. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Being skeptical is a discipline (not an ideology) practiced with both eyes open. When the "ism" is added to the word skeptic one should blink both eyes to make sure that one isn't looking at the world through a prism (or an ideology).
  41. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Thanks Alex, yes the information I have is the La Nina started to emerge in autumn (southern hemisphere). The information also said because of the strong La Nina, the 2010 record was a surprise to some. The information came from the Australian BOM.
  42. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Further to the comment at 10. I think the opening statement on SkS could be a bit confusiing. Instead of reading like this: Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming I would suggest it be changed so as to read something more like this: Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. These 'skeptics' vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming To me that sentence isn't clear that it is the "Climate Skeptics" (or whatever label to give them) that are being referred to here.
  43. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    Brian: I think though that temperature tends to lag ENSO by about half a year, so while La Nina started in 2010, it was really toward the end and beginning of 2011 that it started to take effect. The drop is visible in GISTEMP's December value for instance: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
  44. 2011: World’s 10th warmest year, warmest year with La Niña event, lowest Arctic sea ice volume
    The La Nina formed during 2010 but last year still tired with 2005 as the hottest year ever recorded globally. It was one of the strongest La Ninas observed since records started in the late 1800s. This strenght lasted into 2011, as witnessed by record high rainfall across much of northern and eastern Australia. This near record La Nina would have had a large natural cooling effect and even though it has weakened, 2011 is still up there with the hottest years. This should send a strong message to the Durban climate conference but are governments’ listening?
  45. It's the sun
    This is like using epicycles to explain the motion of the planets. It is an overly complicated explanation that is required a for dogmatic rather than scientific reason. A much simpler explanation that explains *more* is avaialble if you abandon the premise that it must be cycles within cycles within cycles. If you stick with the Epicycle Theory of Climate you still need to account for the radiative characteristics of CO2, Water Vapor, CH4, etc since those are real and measurable.
  46. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Further to Tom's 29, I am also aware of a UK based organisation called Sense About Science . Whilst not calling itself "skeptic" it never-the-less practices skepticism across many areas including Climate. Sense About Science works with scientists and members of the public to change public debates and to equip people to make sense of science and evidence. Sense About Science responds to hundreds of requests for independent advice and questions on scientific evidence each year. We chase down dodgy science and mobilise networks of scientists and community groups to counter it. We also invite scientists to publish corrections of misreported research in our 'For the record' section. The composition of its board is very interesting...the Chair is a real Lord.
  47. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    Sphaerica @26:
    "The term “Skeptics” or “Sceptics” has been in the news a lot more than usual in the past few years. Often, this has been linked to ‘climate change scepticism’ which is a position that claims that some or all details of the theory of human-induced climate change are false. ‘Scepticism’ has also been linked to political opposition to specific measures, regardless of the science. Australian Skeptics is an organisation dedicated to the promotion of science and reason. We are not associated with the climate change scepticism movement, and especially not with political groups that use that term to indicate their position. It has always been the Australian Skeptics’ position that people should make up their minds based on the evidence. This position becomes even more important when what should be a completely scientific issue is used by politically-motivated groups to further their causes, often in the face of contradictory evidence. People who are not experts in fields related to climate science should seek the best available evidence, as judged by those who are experts in relevant fields. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not everyone is entitled to be taken seriously. On the very important and very complex questions of climate change and its causes, only the carefully formed opinions of relevantly qualified experts should be taken seriously. As in all fields of science, expertise emerges out of experience and through the peer-review process, not through media appearances or political connections."
    http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/announcements/australian-skeptics-position-on-climate-change-sceptics/ http://www.skeptics.com.au/latest/blog/climate-debate-opinion-vs-evidence/ http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/ Oh, and those other skeptics: http://www.skeptic.com/
  48. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    25, Lloyd, The person you describe is not excessively skeptical. She is instead excessively gullible and un-skeptical. She believes without question the denial tripe that she reads. A skeptic looks into anything, no matter what it is, because they believe nothing without proof. Believing uncritically in denial lies is not only as un-skeptical as believing in the science without questioning it. It's equivalent to putting your faith in the cancer-fairy instead of radiation treatments, because you don't trust those dang doctors with all of their fancy titles and letters after their names. Her excuses for not taking the time to look into things do not make her a lazy skeptic. They make her a lazy denier, which to me is even worse than the usual kind. At least rabid deniers put a lot of energy into reinforcing their chosen belief system. They also have at least some small chance of stumbling across and understanding something that opens their eyes.
  49. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    23, Marcus, Spot on.
  50. Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release
    tmac, Tom, I honestly have never seen these Skeptical societies. Can you point me towards them? And can you explain why they are (at least to me) so difficult to find that I am completely unaware of them?

Prev  1371  1372  1373  1374  1375  1376  1377  1378  1379  1380  1381  1382  1383  1384  1385  1386  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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