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  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  Next

Comments 73601 to 73650:

  1. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    tblakeslee @107, Quite compelling graph that Willie Soon produced for the Arctic there ;) Have you been truly skeptical about the data and methods he used? I have, and I suggest that you might want to be a true skeptic before uncritically posting stuff that supports your beliefs. Nowhere in his paper does Soon make reference to cosmic rays or GCRs, so odd that you are citing a paper to support your assertions about GCRs that does not even mention GCRs. Why would one expect regional temperatures to mimick CO2? A more appropriate measure of the influence of solar would have been the incident solar energy over the Arctic. Regardless, why use TSI reconstructions from Hoyt and Schatten (1993) when those data are at odds with those form Lean et al. (1995), Solanki and Fligge (1998) and Lockwood and Stamper (1999)? Why choose an outlier? And for the record, Willie Soon has, shall we say, a rather dubious track record when it comes to publishing papers. So citing him does not do one's credibility much good.
  2. Philippe Chantreau at 07:24 AM on 30 September 2011
    CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Usually dust free? Funny, another skeptic argument is that soot particles are the main culprit in the meltdown of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap. That would ahardly qualify as "dust free." But then again, skeptics using that argument always fail to show if there is any kind of trend in BC particles deposition in said regions. Oh well. Looking at these graphs Tblakeslee, I wonder how they look like with another 10 years of data? Don't we have a number of interesting data pieces on the "it's the Sun" threads?
  3. CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate
    Muon 104 The effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation has a threshold and interacts with other conditions such as temperature, humidity and dust particles. That's why the Forbush effect is robust when you work backward, starting with abrupt cloud changes. There are parts of the world that don't need cosmic rays for cloud formation because of dust or pollution. The arctic and the mid pacific probably account for most of the effect. If you look at contrails in the sky and ship trails on satellite photos of the ocean you will see how cloud formation often needs some seeding to make clouds. To really see the strong effect of cosmic rays you need to focus on areas that are usually dust free. Here are temperature anomoly graphs from a paper that focuses only on the Arctic. First, plotted with solar irradiance: Then plotted against CO2: "> http://www.epi-us.com/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf Which horse would you bet on?
    Response:

    [DB] Your 2nd linked graphic has no URL.  It is considered good form to give a source (and a link where it exists) to outside sources used.  Example:

    Your first graphic is from:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image023.gif

     

    And the last is from: 

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence_files/image024.gif

     

    BTW, appinsys.com is well-known to be a disinformationist site.  Original sources are best.

  4. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Ok, it's practically impossible to completely drain "1" and "0" of semiotic content (it would involve brainwashing anyone who's ever used the signs), but in theory it is possible.
  5. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Actually, muon, if "1" is not applied to anything, it is effectively the same as "0."
  6. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN-TUM "this cannot be ignored in a "model" indeed it's not. As for the cosmic rays, take a look and comment here.
  7. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN TUM: "we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming." I agree with the first part of the statement. Will you support this endeavor with your tax dollars? You should really move the modeling comments and questions to the appropriate threads, though. Water vapor, by the way, is not ignored in the models. It has a short atmospheric residence time, though, and the quick cycling stabilizes it as an element of the long-range atmospheric dynamic (climate). Take a good read here and here, and reply on those threads.
  8. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    PHAN-TUM @75, Both of these topics are covered on this site, along with a legion of others. There is a search function, and a helpful list link "Arguments" on the top left of the page. 1) Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works 2) Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
  9. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    Phan-tum. Why do you believe we need 1000 times more points?
  10. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    muoncounter maybe 2+2=5 The Lukewarm? Ok, wildly offtopic, sorry :)
  11. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
    okay, 1) water vapor has a much broader absorption in more regions than any of the GHGs addressed here; it cannot be ignored!!!! H2O covers 70% of the Earth's surface (plus a lot of it in the vapor phase as well), it therefore is hit by most of the incoming solar radiation (uv or high-energy) - the H2O absorbs uv and emits it as IR, this is undeniable. therefore, the radiative energies coming from the H2O are well outside of the 298K band. so the water on the surface and in the ATM has a massive effect on the temperature. this cannot be ignored in a "model" - the biggest part of the system must be included in the model. 2) what about the interaction of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields (solar wind)? this effects the temperature as well. maybe we should be more worried about the things we cannot change than the ones we can. we cannot accurately study a system so dynamic and not completely understood, and ignore the major contributors to an effect while having a limited amount of sample data. we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming. the Earth is larger and more dynamic than the model(s) account for.
  12. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Riccardo#18 I'm glad you figured that out. What next, a proof that 1 = 0?
  13. Understanding climate denial
    rcglinks#106 illustrates a frequently used climate denier tactic of shfting the discussion from climate science to policy options to address climate change. Personally, I prefer to keep those discussions separate.
  14. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Critical Mass @51 - Thanks. Sphaerica - I'm not so sure about all the mechanisms of ocean heat transport because some are only very minor players, and many have yet to be quantified in any meaningful way. As for OHC uptake and transient climate sensitivity. I'm reading through some papers at the moment. I'll get around to discussing that too.
  15. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    There may be gravitational effects due to the mass of the sea ice. When the ice is formed then the local sea level will be higher in the arctic when the ice melts then this may cause a relative lowering of SL there and a corresponding further increase further away at distance.
  16. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Excellent. Should have been done much earlier. Love the time line. I think that that is a standalone item for SkS... bigger expanded and hyperlinked... everything. so.... missing last evidence... 5. The Vatican recognizes GW and disruptive CC.... and that we should act. Vatican on climate: Pray for science http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/11/208071/vatican-on-climate-pray-for-science/
  17. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    muoncounter wait a minute, I'm confused. We have some (AGW) deniers claiming that they're like Galileo and some other (heliocentrism) deniers claiming that Galileo was wrong. If the latter are right, the former are right that they're are like Galileo but wrong on AGW. Conversely, if AGW deniers are right, the heliocentrism deniers are wrong and this means that going against the estabished science is not enough to be like Galileo. Hence, either you're wrong like Galileo or you're not like Galileo just because you're a denier of something. Right? :) Anyway, although I'm quite familiar with scientific denialism, the link you provided is new to me. Thank you.
  18. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Professor Pielke explains his reasoning of the 26% here What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2? Dana #30 did suggest to me that we keep this subject for the 'Disagreements post'.
  19. Understanding climate denial
    I think the root cause of denial is the political aspect. Most folks have only ever heard of climate change in the context of energy policy. The policy prescriptions are learned of first, then after the listener says "wait, you want to do what?" the justification is offered. People think "I can find a problem with that," and then set about nitpicking everything. The fact is in a vacuum no one (except the financiers who will make billions) would ever want to establish a carbon permit market. No electricity company would ever build a wind tower without massive government subsidies and in a vacuum the public would not support the subsidies. Global warming policy prescriptions as they stand right now - major new taxes that effect a huge transfer of wealth to financiers combined with reliance on intermittent and incredibly expensive electricy sources - really are a bad idea. The solution here is not to call people names or analyze their psychology. The solution is to come up with a good energy policy. Imagine how a layperson would respond to the following: "We need to put substantial taxes on gasoline so people don't drive nearly so much and pay more for new cars with better mileage. This is necessary to prevent damage to coastlines which will not happen in your lifetime." VS. "We need to invest in biofuel technology. With the right breakthroughs we could engineer algae that eat wastewater and produce ethanol. It will keep the price of filling your tank lower in the long run and let us reduce reliance on foreign oil." or "We need to put a high price on carbon emissions, that way we raise the price of electricity and transport to the point that massively inefficient alternatives become economically competitive." VS. "We need to develop 4th generation nuclear technology. If things go as promised we can produce energy at half the price of coal. Your family's electricity bill will go down, your children will be healthier, and America's natural beauty will be preserved." There is a debate over climate in this country and it is not a debate about science, it is a debate about energy policy. In the first half of my two examples the energy policy is basically indefensible and the speaker must fall back on defending the science of climate change. In the second half of each the policy is a good idea and the speaker can defend it on its own merits.
    Moderator Response: See "Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science" for direct quotes about climate science made by American politicians. In the US, there is an ongoing public debate about both climate science and energy policy.
  20. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    One of the factors that prompted the Church to take action against Galileo was because he published some works in Italian rather than the customary Latin. Had Galileo restricted his science to the cognoscenti he likely would have been left alone. Unfortunately, this history is again being played out. Those climate scientists who restrict their publications to scholarly journals are mostly left alone, but those who indulge in public outreach risk being harassed, or worse. I think it's a stretch to identify anyone in climate science with Galileo, either in terms of their stature as scientists or the amount of persecution they are suffering. However, if I had to nominate somebody, I would submit James Hansen.
  21. Understanding climate denial
    Jacoby has long been the Globe's token RWinger.
  22. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Jim @ 15... Oh, believe me, it already is. The phrase I've seen a dozen times already is, "See! Relativity was accepted science until just a week ago."
  23. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    The Galileo argument is so ridiculous it's hard to take seriously. I'm going to make a prediction. The recent discovery that neutrinos appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light will somehow be used by AGW skeptics.
  24. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Dear “Google” Galileo: five reasons we know why you are not a scientific genius
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please avoid link-only posts. Provide some context so readers may decide if they want to follow your link.
  25. Understanding climate denial
    #99 sout, agree absolutely on "discussions help inform those who accept the science but might not understand it well, thus empowering more people with knowledge and influence." For me it is even a sufficient win. But there's another: one always learns something relevant during every discussion. Well, at least I don't think I get dumber :)
  26. Understanding climate denial
    John, looking at all his columns, not just climate change, I would say "populism". George Will is always a bit too pompous-sounding to be a good populist.
  27. Understanding climate denial
    "It seems to me to be key to denial that people will most deny facts if those facts carry implications that they are not in control of their own lives and destinies, or implications that some people have no regard for human life." - logicman in #37. Hear, hear. So my brutal conclusion was for years: 'facts are taboo' (usually appended with 'logic is poisonous'). Logicman explains why this is true. Taboo, according to Erich Fromm*, is anything one can't determine whether it belongs to 'self' or 'rest of the world'. Control, no control. --snip--. Including facts (whatever they are). -- * - Erich Fromm
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] I know that dealing with those in denial about AGW is frustrating and that venting is sometimes required, but the snipped text goes too far.
  28. Understanding climate denial
    @Eric(skeptic) #100: What's motivating Jacoby to write these columns? Is he trying to become the second coming of George Will?
  29. Understanding climate denial
    John, in a previous column, Jacoby polluted his argument with misleading quotes from Happer, who as I pointed out above, is a denialist. To answer your question: no, it is not a new meme, it is unforunately more of the same.
  30. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Let's see, 400 years: we've seen one Galileo, one Newton, one Einstein, one Hawking. All of a sudden everybody who has a 'different' view of established science claims to be another Galileo. What are the odds of that? And even here there is a 'skeptic' view: Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos. By 'skeptic' logic, these folks are the real Galileo and mainstream physics (you know, most of us on earth) are the oppressors. Only on the internet.
  31. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    Jose, If the IPCC did in in fact skew the results of FG06, then they should have reported such when using their results. Looing at the figure in the AR4 report, the curve is definitely skewed, while the original report argues for a Gaussian distribution. If they believed the data was biased, then the data should have been omitted instead of altered in the graph (that would be my choice, I would never alter anyone else's data).
  32. Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 03:03 AM on 30 September 2011
    Understanding climate denial
    To my mind the purpose of discussions with hard core deniers is not to influence the deniers themselves. They aren't going to change their mind. It's to help inform others who are listening in or reading the discussion. On blogs and in discussion groups there are many lurkers who don't take part but do take note. And every now and again someone you do engage with will be sincere in trying to get an understanding of the facts. There's only one 'win' that I know about for sure from my discussions - but I'm hopeful there are more that I don't know about. In any case, discussions help inform those who accept the science but might not understand it well, thus empowering more people with knowledge and influence. (In my case, much of what I've learnt has come from doing the research necessary to combat denier memes.) Looking forward to more tips (I assume the last para means more articles on this theme are in the works).
  33. Understanding climate denial
    I encourage everyone to take a gander at a recent (Sep 25) op-ed by Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, “Climate skeptics don’t ‘deny science’. “ After reading this tome, the average person could very well conclude, “Yup. The science is not sttled.” Does Jacoby’s column represent a new denier meme? To access Jacoby’s op-ed, click here.
  34. Understanding climate denial
    #95 meegan, in #83 Dale touches your excellent point: "If nothing else, you have to give credit to the sceptics by going over the AGW theory with a fine tooth comb looking for any and all gaps." While I think those 'skeptics' have actually contributed far less material than plain noise to help fill those gaps, I do believe they play a role in 1. getting attention from the public, usually laymen, to climate change, that is: put the discussion where it needs to be: the entire society; 2. forcing the people who know AGW to bring the message as clearly and strongly evidenced as they can.
  35. Understanding climate denial
    John #91, #92, we did some cross-posting here. As you see, I am at least partially in agreement with Hamilton. Did not read the book though, thanks for the primer. Within the realm of blog climate warfare I sometimes get the impression that very rationality already counts as extreme-left politics...
  36. Understanding climate denial
    I agree very much with cynicus @3 about the large group of deniers who are just ill informed and can actually be swayed.
    One issue I haven't seen mentioned is that poorly informed arguments on both sides can be very confusing to a layperson. Most people are not debating AGW with experts but with neighbors, coworkers, etc. and even people who believe in AGW can represent the science very badly. I'll sometimes bring arguments to a screeching halt by admitting that I'm not well versed enough in a subject to be able to able to argue effectively, but I know many people will just keep going even though they're out of their depth. This leads to arguments like "Look around at all the wildfires this year - global warming is real!" which can lead people to believe the science is actually that flimsy.
    SkS has been an invaluable reference in helping me understand the many "skeptic" arguments and as a resource I can send others to when I'm not familiar with a particular argument. Thanks so much to John and everyone who works on this site!
  37. Understanding climate denial
    alan_marshall @71 Here is a very good study done by Temple University: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 "Abstract: The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication."
  38. Understanding climate denial
    #87 John, actually, not really. Actually the climate talks phenomena may be in the process of eliciting such literature. A thread like this provides quite some material. Besides this, I partially disagree: a lot of denialism is not at all backed up by any ideology, or the 'ideology' is so thin it doesn't deserve the name. So-called libertarians have pounced on the 'debate' while not realising they are actually betraying that school of thought. Maybe bells ring with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism . What I do not call an ideology but others do is cornucopianism by e.g. Julian Simon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian . This flag is presently carried around by e.g. Björn Lomborg. Laymen-denialists never even heard of it even if they'd like to practise it.
  39. Sea level rise due to floating ice?
    This is a two-parter. 1 -- I recently thought about this sort of experiment and made the same mistake (of not realizing we were in a sense talking about two different liquids), so I see this as a timely article. One way to help see the effect more clearly is to assume the liquid bath is some super dense liquid. Approximately, that liquid is like a solid when you put the ice on top because almost no liquid is displaced, as only a tiny volume of it is needed to match the weight of the ice. The ice cube would basically just sit there almost entirely above the surface line. Once the ice melts, of course, almost all of that water will go to raise the level of liquid on the beaker, with the increase almost matching the entire volume of the ice. 2 -- OK, with the on-topic material out of the way, I want to ask, has the Forster/Gregory 2006 paper discussed in this article http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/#comment-115656 or the article itself been analyzed on this site? The article is a critique of the IPCC and the peer review process. In that critique, the author (apparently someone practiced with statistical analysis) makes a fair (if subjective) point from a mathematical analysis point of view but appears to ignore the context of the data. To mention one side point that hints at the author's mentality, he attacks other climate studies that use models and data instead of just data. However, I think it makes lots of sense in many cases to prefer conclusions that take into account the result of models that have been proven to some degree over simply flying blindly with a limited data set. This is particularly important when the data set is of a rather short time period on the climate scale, deviates from historical averages, and so could not really make honest conclusions too far out into the future. The specific link I gave is to one of a few comments I made that gives my (amateur) interpretation. In short, it seems to me that the IPCC may have done the right thing if they were going to use the FG06 results. A normal distribution assumed around average slope values calculated from temp/flux global data points going back only a few decades (ie, the FG06 results for Y) can easily point in many directions and even potentially towards strong climate cooling, just as would be the case (to use an analogy) if we focus on a short-term Dow Jones Industrial hill (local maxima) near the top of that hill. The right thing to do to make future predictions using slopes based off a curve biased by short-term behavior is to place those average slope values in context. For example, we could rely on models based on physics and shown to have fair predictability over longer time spans. To continue with the stock market analogy, we'd want to use models and analysis that recognize that the DJI has always been headed upwards over the longer trend decades due to factors such as inflation of the currency upon which it is measured. Predicting long term off a local effect is bad. To conclude, that critique appears to be rather new and appears intended to make the IPCC look bad (dishonest or at least somewhat flawed). The author (Nic Lewis) assumes the results of FG06, the Y value, should be centered inside a normal PDF. I think that is wrong because the data is biased; thus, whatever the IPCC did to "skew" the S value PDF shown in the IPCC report, it was in effect adding context missing from the FG06 Y results.
  40. Understanding climate denial
    Has anyone read Clive Hamilton's book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change"? If so, what did you think of his assessment?
  41. Understanding climate denial
    The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change." In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the 'angry' parts of the United States." “Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism." Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here
  42. Understanding climate denial
    An interesting quote from a Univ of Delaware physics prof's blog: The stakes here are that a person who writes regularly for a respected conservative journal is embracing in a very public way utterly crackpot ideas about science. That tends to bring discredit on conservatism. If [name] weren’t writing for the American Spectator, I wouldn’t care, and neither would anyone else. Is it vicious to call a crackpot idea a crackpot idea? 'Crackpot' is a synonym for 'crank'. But in keeping with the principle of describing the idea rather than the person: A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.
  43. Understanding climate denial
    "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton. He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign. Source: “The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?,” AP, Sep 26, 2011 To access this in-depth and timely article, click here.
  44. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    pbjamm@11, I gave up on the BBC forum a long time ago. they have a huge troll and AGW denier infestation and seem to have no interest in dealing with it. One of the house rules is not off-topic, so that immediately should mean most of the posts should be deleted..... So to avoid being OT,I really hope that people pay attention to the text in the green box: If Galileo were alive today, watching climate scientists being dragged into court on baseless charges, is there any doubt whose side he would take?" Anyone wish to hazard a guess who the advisors are for the "Galileo Movement" in Australia (whose sole purpose is not science but to oppose the carbon tax)?
  45. Understanding climate denial
    Dale @83, "If nothing else, you have to give credit to the sceptics by going over the AGW theory with a fine tooth comb looking for any and all gaps. " Correct, but I expect history would agree with you but for very different reasons. Real skeptical scientists have been looking at the theory for a very long time now. In fact, their peers were very skeptical when Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar first spoke about the role of CO2 in the 1800s and 1900s. Many of the questions and doubts that scientists had back then were of course addressed, and ultimately a theory was born. Sadly, however, today's generation of self-professed skeptics keep rehashing/recycling issues long addressed by truly skeptical scientists many decades ago. That is not "skepticisim", that is denial.
  46. Understanding climate denial
    What motivates most climate deniers is ideology. I suspect there is a extensive body of scientific literature about why people become ideologues.
  47. Understanding climate denial
    The Climate Denial Spin Machine wins the propaganda war by creating the illusion of vigorous and ongoing "debate" about the science of climate change. Smoke and mirrors are part and parcel of their overall strategy. Websites like WUWT provide a seeming endless stream of "straws" for climate deniers to grasp at. Many climate denier drones are more interested in playing the game of "Gotcha" on comment threads than they are in engaging in adult discussions of the issues at hand.
  48. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    On a somewhat related note, the BBC is running an article on the 150th Anniversary of John Tyndall's publication of "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction" The comments section reads a bit like the Most Used Arguments section of SkS. Sad.
  49. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    One of the take-aways from Galileo's encounters with the Catholic Church: Never mock the Pope during an Inquisition.
  50. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    #5 @Harald Why couldn't the sun create two high tides a day even if there were no moon?

Prev  1465  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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