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  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  Next

Comments 73651 to 73700:

  1. 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.
  2. 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'.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Understanding climate denial
    Jacoby has long been the Globe's token RWinger.
  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 :)
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  16. 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).
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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...
  20. 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!
  21. 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."
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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?
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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)?
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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?
  35. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob, You talked about doing a post on La Nina. Could you also do a post (if the information is there) discussing all of the mechanisms, known or proposed, that are responsible for getting the heat deeper into the ocean? Has anyone made any effort to quantify this into an expected rate-of-warming?
  36. Ocean Heat Content And The Importance Of The Deep Ocean
    Rob Painting @50 I will look forward to your post and the latest information on OHC and how well it is measured.
  37. Understanding climate denial
    #69 skywatcher, you say "even the most respectable 'skeptics', such as Spencer, Pielke or Lindzen must deliberately ignore or disregard part of the body of evidence in order to maintain their positions" You would need to show examples of "deliberate". Here is a concrete example. Happer's testimony http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public-works-committee/ in which he uncritically and unskeptically parrots numerous fallacies about climate, physics, history, etc. Happer has sufficient education and intelligence to research those areas. He has had plenty of time to do so. But he has not, so he is not a skeptic. It is a deliberate refusal and denial.
  38. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    [ Note to Mods: Footnote links are broken. First, the anchor names don't match, e.g. "#_edn5" in the link versus "#_ednref" in the anchor. Second, the <a> tag for the anchor needs to use the "name" attribute, not the "href" attribute, and without the # symbol. <a href="#gohere" >link</a> <a name="gohere" >anchor</a> ]
  39. Antarctica is gaining ice
    A recent paper suggest that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that ice loss from Antarctica is accelerating. The paper is open acces and can be found here: Zwally and Giovinetto, 2011 It seems to be in conflict with the statements in this post as well as he recent paper by Rignot et al, 2011 Does the Zwally paper hold any merits and should it be incorporated in the post?
  40. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    Anyone following the link to RealClimate on Dr. Pielke's 265 (in #41) should read through the comments. There is a fascinating back and forth between Gavin Schmidt and Dr. Pielke. What's also fascinating is that the tone between Dr's Pielke and Schmidt is to my ear entirely different than the tone that transpired here. It seems to me that Dr. Pielke treats (as he should) Dr. Schmidt as a peer and an equal. My ear heard Dr. Pielke treat the SkS group as anything but...and that to me is part of why the whole conversation blew up.
  41. Understanding climate denial
    Dale @83, a small point, but it was neutrino's rather than molecules. And it is likely to be proven false, but we can hope it won't be. The problem with the deniers is that they do not go over the theory of AGW with a fine tooth comb. Most denier arguments are based on a simple failure to comprehend the theory they criticize, and of a refusal to understand or accept very basic principles of physics (like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or conservation of mass). Consequently these arguments have essentially zero probability of either falsifying AGW; and zero probability in resulting in a improvement in the theory of AGW in responding to their "challenge". There are a very few genuinely scientific arguments against AGW that have not yet been definitively refuted. My favourite example is Svenmark's theory; but those theories are themselves very much on the verge of falsification. Still we like them because they do produce a genuine challenge to AGW which does enable the theory to be improved.
  42. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    'Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce climate skeptic, launched a criminal fraud investigation of a prominent climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann.' You could also mention the highly irregular 2006 congressional hearing into the 'Hockey Stick' and the oddity of the recent Charles Monnett investigation.
  43. Understanding climate denial
    @81 John, Einstein denialism..... I believe the Italian police clocked a molecule doing 6km over the speed of light not that long ago. Woops. ;) Einstein famously said, 'it only takes one man to disprove a theory'. Maybe that's what the sceptic scientists are hoping to be? 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.
  44. Understanding climate denial
    One "skeptic" won't engage in the science when I debated them on this blogger website instead resorting to personal insults, accused me of plagiarising my own words and threatens physical violence. Here's what he recently wrote ... I would be crapping in my pants, too, if I were you! You do not like my style? Too bad. I do not like your anti nova site. You have jumped to the top of my to do list. Although I am a few pounds heavier then when I was a regional light heavyweight champion I am in good health and I do not have a colostomy bag. Great news, if all is well I will be taking a vacation in Australia. Maybe we can meet up and have a few drinks and take it from there? Just forward your address to Jo and we can”discuss” the matter further in person when I get there. That's in reply to my reposting of this analysis at the nova blogger site. Whilst I don't feel like this guy is posting much more than an empty threat, it does demonstrate the anger some of these people feel about AGW. I have no doubt this denier really believes his position despite being unable to critique my analysis or post alternative theories on what is causing the warming. I'm no psychologist but I am guessing his threatening gestures are his way of coping with the inability to debate the science. Feeling frustrated, he lashes out.
  45. Understanding climate denial
    The psychology of "skeptics" interests me a lot. I think that some people find the idea of AGW distasteful, and therefore they oppose it, becoming "skeptics". Could it be that they thoroughly understand the science and that has informed their opinions? It seems unlikely, because most "skeptics" do little more than parrot stuff they read on blogs. Denialism is not new. In the first half of the last century, there was a lot of "Einstein denialism". Just like todays denialists, the Einstein denialists did not understand the science, but were sure that it was wrong. What annoys me is the undue influence of the "skeptics". When you can't hope to become the Republican candidate for US president if you accept the science of AGW, you know its gone too far. I just wish that I didn't have to hold an opinion on AGW. The scientists would outline the problem, and suggest the solution. Economists and others would help, and we'd get on with it. Trying to develop the level of understanding needed to sensibly discuss AGW is just too hard! I do think that there are similarities between climate "skeptics" and extreme greens. Both are only too ready to accept stuff they want to hear, and too ready to impugn their opponents with base motives. In both cases, I think their extreme views are a projection of some personal discomfort. For the extreme greens, their world is not perfect, but it would be, if only greed and capitalism and competition were gone, and we worshiped nature. The "skeptics" have been held back by governments, taxation and political correctness gone mad. Without those things, their world would be perfect. So I can't see how you can change the mind of someone who has decided that they are a "skeptic". Unless perhaps they start to feel better about themselves, and lose the need to project stuff.
  46. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    I've mentioned this before elsewhere, but I really can't recomend strongly enough "The Sky's Dark Labyrinth" by Stuart Clark for a very readable trace through the worlds of Kepler, Galileo and all the gang... to flesh out the historical context and facts around this story; also enlightening for today's debates (AGW, evolution etc.)
  47. Harald Korneliussen at 21:43 PM on 29 September 2011
    Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    Yeah, Galileo was hardly the model scientist this article incidentally makes him out to be. He believed tides were proof of heliocentrism despite that even by his own inertial explanation of tides, there should be one high tide per day, not two. The idea that tides were caused by the moon, as argued by Kepler he ridiculed as superstitious nonsense (although as we know, that theory was consistent with observations, because it was the right one!) The main reason for his suppression by the church, too, was not his heliocentrism per se, but the fact that in his polemic for it, he had a thinly-veiled portrayal of pope Urban VIII as a dunce.
  48. Review of Rough Winds: Extreme Weather and Climate Change by James Powell
    Could the moderator(s) suggest a better article to discuss the development of a quantitative methodology for comparing PDSI disparity than this book review?
    Response:

    [DB] The only other thread to deal extensively with PDSI is this one:  The Dai After Tomorrow

    Your call on which is more appropriate; I am not impartial on this one ;)

  49. Modern scientists, following in Galileo’s footsteps
    In Siderius Nuncius, Galileo suggested that the dark areas of the moon were water. In this we now know that Galileo was wrong. Galileo was a scientist, making observations and from them making testable propositions. Some of these propositions were famously correct. Others were wrong and proved to be so by later science. I have yet to see any testable propositions from the self-proclaimed Galileos of climate scepticism that have stood-up to scientific scruitiny.
  50. Pielke Sr. Agrees with SkS on Reducing Carbon Emissions
    And here is the response from Real Climate. (But I'm just parroting sources now.) (Link fixed. Sorry editors, I'm getting sloppy with my posts. Will try and improve.)

Prev  1466  1467  1468  1469  1470  1471  1472  1473  1474  1475  1476  1477  1478  1479  1480  1481  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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