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  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  Next

Comments 74901 to 74950:

  1. Dikran Marsupial at 04:57 AM on 18 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof Pielke You may well feel that Spencer and Christy do not deserve the titles associated with their series of articles, however I don't think that Al Gore deserves to be called an idiot either, which as I pointed out is the categorisation of threads relating to him at WUWT. Do you think that is wrong as well. If it is O.K. to level ad-hominems at anyone you think deserves it, then indeed you are being one-sided. If on the other hand you are against ad-hominems, then how about directly criticising WUWT for the labelling of Al Gore as an idiot?
  2. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat, the statement "given that we're here to ask" suggests that you have an incorrect understanding of feedback effects. There is nothing inherent in positive feedbacks which would prevent us from 'being here'. My guess is that you are mixing up 'positive feedback' with 'runaway feedback' or assuming that feedbacks continue indefinitely and thus 'require' a "strong negative feedback" to kick in at some point and 'overwhelm' the constant positive feedback. That isn't how it works. Once a forcing stops the feedbacks associated with it perforce will do so as well unless they are so powerful as to be continually self-perpetuating (which no one has suggested is currently the case for AGW feedbacks). Basically, when the orbital forcing behind the glacial cycle ended the CO2 and ice albedo feedbacks it was causing also ended (not immediately, but relatively soon thereafter). At that point there were no significant positive forcings or feedbacks and thus no need for this "strong negative feedback" which you hypothesized. Instead, the subsequent cooling came from the orbital cycle shifting the other way... causing a cooling forcing and the same CO2 and ice albedo feedbacks then working in reverse. The negative feedback of "this cycle" is already under way... the orbital forcing has switched from warming to cooling. Nobody is 'expecting it not to engage'... it already has. If all else had remained unchanged that would result in slow cooling and another glaciation 10s of thousands of years down the line. However, human CO2 emissions have introduced a new, and much stronger, warming forcing.
  3. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Roger, It is quite possible that there will be a follow-up post regarding the specific issues you raised.
  4. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Regarding the moderator comment - "Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We are very happy for you to discuss the science with us here at SkS, however please do so on the appropriate thread. SkS is organised this way in order to keep the discussion focussed. As we are unable to comment on the article on your blog it seems reasonable to have an article here devoted to the issue of your accusation of ad-hominems, so on this thread, please restrict your comments to that topic and that topic only. If our reporting of the science is incorrect then I strongly and sincerely encourage you to join the discussion on the relevant threads, your contribution will be greatly valued." You post a "rogues' gallery" on your website ["Christy Croks"; "Lindzen Illusions!"; "Monckton Myths"; and "Spencer Slipups" and are then surprised a number of my colleagues, as well as myself, consider this as degrogatory. I do not necessarily agree with all of their statements, but you are not going to broaden the appeal of your weblog unless you move away from this approach and just focus on the science. Such labeling of individuals is not constructive. I raised the issue on my weblog that I view the SkS labeling as ad hominems because I have published with John Christy and have directly interacted with Roy Spencer. They do not deserve such labeling. If similar rouges' gallerys were made of any other colleague who I have recently published with and/or closely worked with, I would also post on my website alerting the community who reads my blog of such a derogatory presentation. This is the last statement I will be making on this thread, since, in response to the SkS request from Dikran Marsupial, the discussion of science issues on this thread, that some of your commenters have made in response to my questions, is discouraged. I will defer from further involvement at SkS until (if SkS chooses) there is a separate post on the specific science issues I asked about earlier in this thread and on my weblog. Please alert me when you do if you are interested in a scientific discourse with me. I do appreciate, that you did not exclude any of my comments in this thread.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The discussion of the science is only discouraged on this particular thread. I (and I suspect many others here) would be very happy to discuss the scientific issues with you on the relvant threads). Your further participation here is very much encouraged.
  5. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    John Hartz#7: Are you suggesting that cosmic rays are a meaningful source of heat? On the scale of the diagram (fig 4), how big would that cube be?
  6. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    mlyle@5: I looked at a few references to see what the proportions of heat come from radioactivity compared to the three other proposed sources of heat (initial formstion, gravitational fractionation and latent heat coming from ongoing growth of the solid inner core). The precise numbers seemed to vary considerably, which is why I settled on the imprecise "Most comes from radioactivity". Wikipedia cites 45-90% coming from radioactivity but there's no reference given for the low end of the range. If you, or anyone else, could point me to a definitive reference on geoneutrinos, or a recent review paper on sources of internal heat, I would be most grateful. MarkR@6: You're correct about the reflected energy and I thought about including that that in Fig 4. The reflected energy is shown clearly in Figure 6. With all these figures there's a trade-off between getting the basic message across and rigorously including all the factors. And yes, we do plan to put Figure 4 in our figures area.
  7. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass: "The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position - both as students and maybe practitioners of the science. There is a natural tendency to protect this edifice from skeptic hordes." That, Dikran, is a comment on motivation and a violation of the comments policy, but I urge you to let it remain, because it's an excellent example of how many people might misunderstand the climate science communication situation. Critical mass, you're assuming that the theory can't defend itself. That's all anyone here does with the theory: point out and explain the specific studies that form the foundation of the theory. There is no protecting. There is no attempt to conserve an ur-version of the theory. When a study emerges that requires fundamental changes to the theory, that study is given a hard critical look and then either rejected with reason, modified with reason, or accepted--and so the theory changes. While the basics of AGW haven't changed in decades, many of the fine details have. It's open to change, and nothing is rejected without consideration. I'll use religion in a different way, just to irritate DM, in order to suggest that AGW as a theory is not accepted in a universal form. Like the major religions, there are core features that are accepted, but there is great variety in the details. Thus, your perceived edifice lacks solidity, and where it is solid it doesn't really need defending (except to keep people from repeatedly running full speed into it and hurting themselves, ala the 2nd Law thread).
  8. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, I'm also curious about your comment that John Hartz has just highlighted, i.e.: “If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance.” The concept of "balance" in the context of climate science seems a curious one to me! In my field (molecular biology/medical biophysics) such a concept hardly exists - the fundamental imperatives are scientific rigour and good faith in one's interpretation and dissemination of scientific data; "balance" seems more appropriate to political arguments! My experience is that good faith efforts at scientific rigour are what make this site (and others like RealClimate that focus rather stringently on the science) great value as sources for education and communication. And one can hardly accuse this site of not giving due consideration to papers and presentations that apparently cast doubt on the prevailing evidence-based views of particular elements of the science, since that seems to be a particular "house" speciality! The fact that a robust but essentially polite and on-topic discussion is actively encouraged in comments, means that any errors of fact or logic, and alternative interpretations are highlighted or given an airing. So, in your opinion, what elements are lacking which would otherwise "provide more "balance"?
  9. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    In short I agree with the comments above. 1,100 cubic km of excess latent heat will melt the 2010 min of 4,200 or this year's min of c4,000 cu km in less than 4 years. So 2015 is a totally ice free Arctic ocean August-September on current trends and is likely to be sooner. This month a team reached the magnetic north pole entirely by boat. One can expect to reach anywhere in the Arctic by boat in 2015. Reduction of the 2011 maximum ice volume 22,000 cu km by 1,100 cu km per year suggests a maximum of 20 years for a totally ice free Arctic year round on current trends. It will certainly occur much sooner than that.
    Response:

    [DB] One can also visually see the demise of the Multi-Year ice when viewed as in this graphic:

    MY Ice

    "MYI recovery observed in recent years shows a delay relative to
    thermodynamic forcing indicates that MYI is resistant to recovery"

    [Source]


  10. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Let us not forget that Watts piled onto Keith Briffa along with many others (McIntyre, Morano, etc.) while Keith was laid up in a hospital unable to defend his reputation and Watts also accused NOAA scientists of using station dropouts to intentionally manipulate data to show warming. SkS holds to the highest standards of science but when the Spencers, Christys, Lindzens, Watts, and Moncktons try to fool themselves and others about AGW, they deserve to be called out. SkS provides good science and corrects bad science. I call that balance. I suggest that Dr. Pielke be very careful about who he puts hims arms around.
  11. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    Where is the cosmic ray cube?
  12. Arctic sea ice low – what does it really mean?
    Thanks for these very interesting graphs and comments The last graph in #24 shows 1979-2001 average max 30 to av min 14 thousand cubic km. On average therefore 16, 000 cu km of ice melts and refreezes during the 1980s and 90s. From the graph we note that 2010 max to min was c23.3-4.2 ie 19,100 cu km melted. Max in 2011 volume was 22,000 cubic km compared to the 23,300 in 2010. So maximum ice volume declined from 2010 to 2011 by about 1,100 cu km. Assuming the same amount of heat input in the two years, we have an excess latent heat to melt 1,100 cu km available to melt more ice or to warm the surface waters in 2011. Since the latent heat (heat to melt a unit quantity) of seawater is about 80 times the specific heat (heat to raise by 1 degC a unit quantity), then we can expect increasing ice melt this year and in successive years. Graphs show this accelerating trend as one would expect on average other things being equal. We would expect this from the excess latent heat from one year to the next. On this basis it is clear that once we reach zero ice volume, then heat goes into raising sea surface temperature. This will be rapid given the ratio of 80 latent to specific heat. In addition we know that global temperatures are increasing and that polar regions average SST is increasing by twice the global average, we can expect less and less ice to form during the winter season. This will result in a warming arctic ocean. Remember also that heat capacity/specific heat of water is over 4,000 times that of air. So arctic air even at forty below zero has little effect on the huge ocean heat capacity and heat loss. There may well be winter ice but seawater does not have the 4degC maximum density that freshwater lakes have at the bottom. Freshwater lakes cannot be compared to seawater lakes and seas for this reason. Maximum density of seawater is below its freezing point. Moreover the great majority of global warming is in the oceans for reasons because of the high heat capacity. This will have huge effects climate. Springs will be much warmer as less and less ice melts taking heat less heat from air during breakup and ice melt seasons. It will be fascinating to watch the UW APL graphs as we journey through these interesting times.
  13. CO2 lags temperature
    Where in the chart can you show me "amplification of original warming by CO2"? There is none. [accusation of dishonesty deleted]
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please read the comments policy (link provided below) and adhere to it in future. In general posts that contravene the comments policy are deleted rather than edited, I have been lenient on this occasion.

    Welcome to Skeptical Science! There is an immense amount of reference material discussed here and it can be a bit difficult at first to find an answer to your questions. That's why we recommend that Newcomers, Start Here and then learn The Big Picture.

    I also recommend watching this video on why CO2 is the biggest climate control knob in Earth's history.

    Further general questions can usually be be answered by first using the Search function in the upper left of every Skeptical Science page to see if there is already a post on it (odds are, there is). If you still have questions, use the Search function located in the upper left of every page here at Skeptical Science and post your question on the most pertinent thread.

    Remember to frame your questions in compliance with the Comments Policy and lastly, to use the Preview function below the comment box to ensure that any html tags you're using work properly.

  14. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke You conclude your most recent post with the following admonition: “If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance.” You obviously believe that SkS has an official “view on the climate issue.” What do you perceive the SkS view to be? Please define what you mean by “climate issue” in your response.
  15. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass, you're absolutely correct to say that: "We should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or wilfully publish what they know to be incorrect." The entire process of scientific peer review, dissemination of scientific results and publishing of scientific papers is underpinned by the presumption of good faith. Sadly the presumption of good faith is occasionally abused. It's obviously not ad hominem to highlight examples, and we'd be remiss not to do so given the efforts to misrepresent particular fields of science in pursuit of dubious agendas. Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the scientists who has a section here ("Spencer's Slip Ups") that you disapprove of, has recently published a paper that seems not to conform with our expectation of "good faith". In fact the Editor of the journal resigned upon realization that the fundamental expection of good faith has been abused. That the presumption of good faith has taken a serious knocking is sadly supported by the fact that Dr. Spencer participated in a press release that constitutes an appalling misrepresentation of the science (see also post on this site describing these events.) As you say "..evidence of error or incompetence is not evidence of bad faith". Quite so. However sometimes (and happily quite rarely), we have to recognise that certain specific examples of flawed analyses and misrepresentations are more than simply errors or incompetence...
  16. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    I like the figure. A better representation would be 240 W m-2 for the solar figure though, since ~30% is reflected without doing anything. And we're on course to get more like 7 W m-2 from CO2 alone by 2100...
  17. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Further to Eli's comments above, a few months ago, Dr Pielke engaged in a debate here on OHC using Argo data. As I recall Dr Pielke posited that the data was so accurate that a month by month comparison was an appropriate way to analyse it ie we now understand the Earth's heat balance on a monthly timescale - and that there was no significant noise in the signal(!) Mods - I can't find the thread but perhaps you could have a dig through the archive and redirect the debate Dr Pielke is attempting to start here there. Dr Pielke - I'd be most interested in whether you have reconsidered your position on that. However, on the relevant thread rather than this one please!
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] I think this is the thread that you are looking for.
  18. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Actually, "Joe Bob is an idiot" is an insult, not an ad hominem argument. Insults do not add to the discussion, and in fact generally detract, but are not part of the process of logical argument. If you state "Joe Bob is an idiot, hence his statements about global warming are wrong", then you have committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. You have used an insult rather than evidence/logic related to the issue to attempt to dismiss an argument. If on the other hand, you state "Joe Bob has been wrong on A, B, C, and D due to W, X, Y, and Z", where those are logical statements, and then state "Hence I consider Joe Bob an idiot", that is not an ad hominem argument. Rather, it is a judgement based upon past behavior. That kind of judgement can be an influence in reviewing further work by Joe Bob, as in the Trust but verify statements made earlier. You do have to be wary of the Poisoning the Well fallacy - dismissing further arguments from a person you hold a negative opinion of without actually judging those arguments. But judgement statements such as "Christy Crocks", "Spencer Slip-ups", and "Lindzen Illusions" are supportable by the long list of repeated errors, focus on inadequate models, quickly refuted papers, and public presentation of flawed conclusions by these people. Just be careful not to use those labels to shortcut actual evaluation of their work! --- I will further note that Dr. Pielkes initial accusations were that SkS was dismissing the UAH satellite data based upon ad hominem arguments. That is demonstrably false, and he has presented exactly zero evidence to support that statement. Shall we move on now?
  19. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Anyone not able to see from a mile away how this dialogue be recast elsewhere? I can already see the statements: "I went to their own site attempting to discuss the science with them, but all I was met with was rhetoric and personal attacks!" Mods feel free to delete this comment, i just think you deserve fair warning in the event you didn't already know this is how this is almost certainly going to be misrepresented. In the meantime, Dr Pielke i would really like to see you prove me wrong by not doing exactly what i expect. It's unfortunate to me how few people are ever able to rise above such games. I would like to see the topic at hand addressed cordially and appropriately.
    Moderator Response: [Albatross] Ken, this is not a "game", not for SkS at least. I am not aware of anyone attacking Dr. Pielke here...the word "attack" is unfortunately used commonplace on the internet nowadays and seems to often get confused with "challenged" or factual critique. Recall, that Dr. Pielke initiated this dialogue and has made some unsupported and false accusations in the process. He has also repeatedly evaded some very pertinent questions as they relate to the topic of this thread, "One-sided skepticism". As for your concerns of this exchange being misrepresented by some. I trust that Dr. Pielke and Mr. Watts being men of integrity are above misrepresenting or "spinning" what has transpired thus far. Moreover, please note that while Dr. Pielke is certainly entitled to his opinions, as a scientist of repute, he is not entitled to his own facts when it comes to speaking to the science and those conducting the science. The facts, history, do not support his claim that "and he [Anthony Watts] is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness", for example. We have been very accommodating and given Dr. Pielke much more lee way and flexibility in terms of staying on topic. We have also urged people, as frustrated as they are, to be polite. And I have offered to condense the many questions directed at Dr. Pielke into a few pertinent questions so that he is not overwhelmed. He has not indicated (yet) that he is open to that offer.
  20. Dikran Marsupial at 01:07 AM on 18 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass wrote "The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position". Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Scientists tend to be rather odd people who actually don't mind being proved wrong, as it is usually a pretty interesting experience. Certainly we would generally prefer to be proved wrong rather than continue in ignorance. Anybody who can't handle critcism and takes it personally really ought not to be in science. Real scientists go where the science takes them, the climatologists I know are no different, and I'm sure they would like nothing more than to be wrong about the projections. Whether a scientific argument is correct or not doesn't depend on whether it comes from a formally qualified scientist or not. An ad-hominem against a politician is just as much a logical fallacy as an ad-hominem against a scientist. The number of peer-reviewed papers someone has published is irrelevant (otherwise what would someones first paper be worth?). For Prof. Pielke to be consistent, he needs to acknowledge that WUWT does go in for ad-hominems and labelling and he needs to be equally critical of WUWT. Note that "Christy crocks" and "Spencer slip-ups" refer to arguments made by Christy and Spencer, not to Spencer and Christy themselves. These arguments are shown to be incorrect based on their content not their source. "Al Gore is an idiot" on the other hand is a criticism of the person, and hence actually is an ad-hominem.
  21. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    critical mass: Yes, "we should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or willfully publish what they know to be incorrect." But these series of articles are focused on specific errors and misrepresentations so egregious that it is not credible that they were simply mistakes. The people involved are too knowledgeable and too skilled to make those kinds of errors by accident. Go to any one of these series and read the articles. These are not differences of opinion or honest mistakes; just as a safe-cracker doesn't end up with the cash by just fooling around.
  22. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    #117 DM I think the issue here is one of over-reaction on both sides of the debate. The authors of this site have a lot invested in the AGW position - both as students and maybe practitioners of the science. There is a natural tendency to protect this edifice from skeptic hordes. This also applies to the more extreme skeptics, who give the Lukewarmers a bad name. When one's strongly held beliefs are attacked by those who one regards as unqualified, then over-reaction and ad hominem are a slippery slope away. However, evidence of error or incompetence is not evidence of bad faith. We should all expect that anyone who publishes as a 'scientist' must act in good faith and not knowingly or wilfully publish what they know to be incorrect. Labelling individual scientists work in mocking tones (rather juvenile and lacking in wit or subtlety to boot) is not quite a personal attack but more properly marked as bad manners which debases the currency of this site. Al Gore is not a scientist and I don't believe has ever published a 'peer reviewed' paper. When polemic is the topic of discussion then political positions become fair game and the bounds of free speech short of libel should apply.
  23. Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
    In discussions or debate over climate science, “denier” is a pejorative term ambiguously accusing a person of denying: * 1) that “global warming” is occurring, * 2) that “anthropogenic global warming” is occurring, or * 3) that “global warming” is unquestionably caused by anthropogenic causes. This is an illogical ad hominem attack rather than addressing the substance of the argument. Long term global warming: I and most literate people I know of, recognize, and do not “deny”, that long term “global warming” has been occurring for about 11,000 years since the last ice age. Anthropogenic global warming: Similarly, I do not “deny” generic anthropogenic causes to “global warming” or “climate change”. Anyone having a basic understanding of solar energy and “albedo” recognizes that converting a forest to a field or ploughing the prairie is decreasing the albedo and increasing absorption of solar radiation. The consequent US “dust bowl” caused significant climate effects. Burning coal generates sulfate aerosols that cool the planet while “clean air” legislation reducing sulfate emissions will reduce this cooling. Thus, to accuse a person of being a “global warming denier” per se is a knowingly false libelous accusation inferring moral and scientific perfidy. The key scientific issue is whether “anthropogenic” causes dominate natural causes for the “global warming” of the latter half of the 20th century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 AR4 Summary for Policy Makers Sect. 2 p 5 concludes: Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. (The IPCC defines “very likely” as at least 90 percent certain.) Conversely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered in the Excutive Summarycites other evidence and concludes the opposite: It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a major cause of twentieth-century warming, with anthropogenic GHG making only a minor contribution. Whether the global warming from the mid-20th century to the end of the 20th century is caused primarily by anthropogenic causes is thus a scientific issue that is subject to scientific contention and evaluation. The environmental movement has made “anthropogenic global warming” a major political issue. Heated political advocates try to use “denier” pejoratively as meaning ignorantly denying the scientific evidence. Emotions run high from beliefs that opponents are “destroying Mother Earth” and killing millions of people in Bangladesh etc. Any scientist using “denier” is in effect making a pejorative political ad hominem attack rather than objectively addressing the substance of the scientific facts hypotheses, models, and theories.
  24. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    jpat, your assertion that "there must be some strong negative feedback...." is an evidence-free assertion. Why "must" there be such a thing? And what's your logical train that deduces a "strong negative feedback" from the observation that CO2 lags temperature changes in ice cores? I would have thought the ice core data is rather strong evidence of positive feedback.
  25. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    "Why would anthropogenic CO2 now be the first forcing that doesn’t engage net positive feedbacks?" But isn't their a corollary to this question? Given that we're here to ask it, there must be some strong negative feedback that engages at some temperature, especially since CO2 lags temperature at every point in the ice core data. Why do expect this cycle to be the one that doesn't engage this negative feedback?
  26. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Sorry, here's the link to the Dragic paper
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Dragic et al 2011 is discussed here and here. Please move any follow up comments on that paper to the CERN thread.
  27. Dessler Demolishes Three Crucial 'Skeptic' Myths
    Camburn, the paper you referenced in another thread is completely at odds with the step response presented above. Look at Fig. 5 which is akin to the cloud system impulse response to an FD event. We would expect then that the step response (the integral of time series presented in the lower pane of figure 5) to have a time constant measured in days, not years. Both analysis can not be right. Which do you believe to be true?
  28. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dikran, perhaps I should have more explicitly differentiated "science" and "scientific method." Science includes the politics required to decide where to apply the scientific method. It includes the interpretation of the results as they apply to the human world. It includes decisions of how to go about studying particular phenomena. It includes the social construction of knowledge, and that is a human affair, as much as scientists might like it to take place in some perfectly scientific language. All of that context is required for the scientific method to be of use. The scientific method in isolation is incredibly inefficient (slow) at achieving its objective, an objective that is prerequisite: to make a prediction of the future that is useful to a human(s) (i.e. to know things with reasonable confidence so that one can act). The social body compensates Roy Spencer for the performance of science, not simply the scientific method. His decisions to apply the scientific method in such and such a way, to interact with the scientific community in such and such a way, and to communicate his results to the public in such and such a way have been unavoidably shaped by his politics, and that includes those political areas that shouldn't be discussed among family and friends. SkS is about the science, not simply the scientific method. If it were just about the scientific method, it would be simply a journal (or perhaps even less than that) and then somewhat redundant. Since it attempts to communicate science to the public for reasons that are totally political (and intensely important), questioning the politics of other climate communicators (Spencer) is appropriate--at least where the politics of those communicators affect their science. And one more point on Spencer: implicit and occasionally explicit in the comments on Spencer, Christy, et al. are the questions "Why did they choose that method?" and "Why did they say that?" We keep asking these questions. To answer them, though, requires a less-than-scientific approach.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The comments policy explicitly forbids criticism of peoples motives (and discourages discussion of politics).
  29. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    The issue of land use has always been of interest to Eli, but there is one problem with thinking that it is the major issue today, better put two, Australian and North America. The nature of the land changed completely over those two very large areas in the 19th century. There were observable effects on climate, but the global change was not nearly as large as in the last century when land use changes were not as large. That being said there are two huge and threatening possible land use changes out there, destruction of the Amazon and central African tropical forests driven by conversion of land, but also by anthropic climate change. We lose, we lose.
  30. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    "On the ocean data (particularly the upper 700m) it is considered spatially well sampled and robust since 2003. It will replace the surface temperatures as the diagnostic to monitor global warming. Surface air temperatures will always be important, of course, (e.g. growing season length etc) but it is not a measure of heat by itself." Just of course, as the satellite records have replaced the surface temperature records? Why is Eli strongly tempted to modify that to "It will ADD to the surface temperatures". Perhaps because of experience. It took what, 10-15 years before the satellite records approached the accuracy of the surface temperature records. As is natural the folk who were creating the records thought they were perfect and resisted those who thought there might be some problems. Sometime back, before Prof. Pielke had retreated into his commentless shell, but just about the time when the first Argo results were released and immediately picked up by Prof. Pielke as the bee's knees, Eli advised him to wait. And indeed there have been several revisions since.
  31. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    "Now you may feel that (for instance) a history of making mistakes is reason to be skeptical of their current and future work; I'd say that is common sense. However whether their current and future work is valid depends on the assumptions and internal consistancy of that work, and the personal chracteristics of the originator are irrelevant, and so at best are a distraction from the substantive issue. " True, but when a group is well known for being sloppy their work is validly treated with suspicion. Lest somebunny accuse Eli of being hard on Roy Spencer, Carl Sagan's work was treated similarly by those in the field. It was recognized that he was extremely creative, but it was also recognized that anything he published had to be carefully checked. On balance, Sagan's creativity strongly outweighed the negative sloppiness, but, as Reagan said with Sagan, you had to trust but verify. The situation in the public sphere is very different. There, because the only possibility for most people is trust the kind of issues discussed in this thread become dispositive, and the kind of attack that Prof. Pielke let lose have a very specific goal. Make no mistake, it will be picked up by others and therefore it is very important to show that the meteorologist has no cloths.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Yes. However one of the nice things about SkS is that it concentrates on the science (where the personalities are irrelevant). There are plenty of other excellent blogs that I could mention that do discuss the sorts of issues you raise, but IMHO at least it is better for SkS to retain its primarily scientiic character, so such things ought to be resisted here.

    Rather a coincidence but I happen to be watching "Cosmos" on DVD this afternoon, nostalgia just isn't what it used to be! ;o)
  32. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    Very nice post, and hope you put Figure 4 in your figures area. One other interesting point you might mention is that about 50% of the total heat flow from the earth is 'primordial', i.e., remaining from the heat generated by gravitational collapse of the proto-planet. See all the articles on geoneutrinos.
  33. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Anthony Watts devoted to the highest levels of scienctific robustness? You owe me a new keyboard for that one... Have you actually read the postings on Watts' blog with a critical eye (let alone the comments)? You're happy with thatstandard of climate science reporting, yet claim SkS fails to be 'balanced'? Wow. Do you approve of John Christy misleading Congress? Do you approve of Watts revealing users details on his blog, of which there are many examples, including one in the comments here and here, let alone approving of the kind of pseudoscience crackpottery presented by Monckton? Watts' most recent post is a clasic example of this, with selective Arctic ice data presentation, not least a spurious correlation found by Soon between the Suan and Arctic temperature, the graph conveniently ends in 2000, when the correlation breaks down. Yet you accuse SkS of not being balanced with respect to the real science. SkepticalScience provides a clear assessment of the real science of climate, well organised by subject, and is in total contrast to the pseudoscience peddled by Watts (many debunkings by Tamino linked here. It's a real shame you can't or won't see this, as you can make the world a better place by clearing up misrepresentations of science. Watts' Al Gore comments in relation to the Climate Reality Project are lovely, just not personal at all ... do you defend them, Dr Pielke? As an aside, I cannoet recommend highly enough that you watch the Climate Reality Project videos Dr Pielke - you might find them extremely enlightening.
  34. Dikran Marsupial at 21:39 PM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof. Pielke wrote: "The comments keep bringing up Anthony Watt's website ... Second, he does not have boxes with derogatory labels on them identifying individual scientists." He does however have a category labelled "Al Gore is an idiot", which if selected takes you to the url http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/al-gore-is-an-idiot/. Are you going to criticise that?
  35. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Glenn Tamblyn - Thank you for a response on the science. On the ocean data (particularly the upper 700m) it is considered spatially well sampled and robust since 2003. It will replace the surface temperatures as the diagnostic to monitor global warming. Surface air temperatures will always be important, of course, (e.g. growing season length etc) but it is not a measure of heat by itself. With respect to your comment "In the long run, CO2 levels unaddressed will become the dominant driver where as currently it is just first among many." I agree; added CO2 will remain a major concern. However, land still has many locations that can be altered, and other climate forcings, such as nitrogren deposition is accelerating and will be accumulating on land and in the oceans. The length of time to "purge" the system of this excess nitogren is unclear. The human role in climate system is more complicated than just the added CO2 and a few other gases as we summarize in Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. C hahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf Now on the moderator's admonition "[Daniel Bailey] Glenn, Dr. Pielke is exercising a ploy to divert this thread from its central focus: Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. Which he still fails to own and address." I thought Skeptical Science was about science issues, as Glenn has done. I have discussed on my weblog "the ad hominems towards" Spencer and Christy on SkS, since SKS is not accurately reporting on the quality of their science which they have posted in peer reviewed papers. The comments keep bringing up Anthony Watt's website. First, I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness. Second, he does not have boxes with derogatory labels on them identifying individual scientists. SkS does. Anthony even has a link to SkS on his weblog. If you want to be taken more seriously by others outside of your view on the climate issue, you should be provide more balance.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] We are very happy for you to discuss the science with us here at SkS, however please do so on the appropriate thread. SkS is organised this way in order to keep the discussion focussed. As we are unable to comment on the article on your blog it seems reasonable to have an article here devoted to the issue of your accusation of ad-hominems, so on this thread, please restrict your comments to that topic and that topic only. If our reporting of the science is incorrect then I strongly and sincerely encourage you to join the discussion on the relevant threads, your contribution will be greatly valued.
  36. Dikran Marsupial at 18:14 PM on 17 September 2011
    One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Prof. Pielke wrote: "I object to personal attacks by anyone on any side of this issue.". I am glad to hear it. However, as far as I can see the only evidence of an ad-hominem against Spencer or Christy at SkS is that groups of articles presenting scientific criticisms of the work of two climate scientists under the labels "Christy Crocks" and "Spencer Slip-ups". I have some sympathy over "Christy Crocks" (as it is a bit rude, rather than because it is an ad-hominem), however there is not an ad-hominem to point out that a scientist has made "slip-ups". We all do, and any scientist that thinks there are immune to slip-ups is setting themselves up for embarassment. Personally I think Prof. Pielke should withdraw the accusation of an ad-hominem (an appology to John is in order as well) as he has been unable to substantiate the existence of the ad-hominem. Wherever Spencer and Christy have been criticised it has been their scientiic work that has been criticised, not them personally. Unless Prof. Pielke can demonstrate a post where a genuine ad-hominem has been made. Perhaps as a gesture of good faith, Prof. Pielke could post an article on his blog condemning the ad-hominems at, say WUWT, where they are frequently made, demonstrating the truth of the above quote.
  37. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Critical Mass @ 110 - ".....then the only explanation is that the CO2 and other positive forcings have been overestimated (or Solar cyclical effects underestimated)" I know Kevin Trenberth disagrees, but there are several papers awaiting publication which support global dimming, through Asian aerosols, as the cause of the warming slow-down in the 'noughties'. The dimming occurred in the Southern Hemisphere, which would explain the slow-down in ocean heat content over the last decade.
  38. Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate
    The rounded figures are much more comforting. 0.9 of a watt per square meter imbalance does not sound much, yet that tiny imbalance is going to give us so much grief.
  39. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke @104, "I will wait to see what the responses are to the science questions I have asked. As I have written, this is where the discussion should be focused." Actually, you initially chose to focus on making false accusations against SkS that were not scientific in nature. I concur that the discussion should be focussed on science, but regrettably Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer often times make a point of not focusing on science. Regardless, SkS has addressed the claims made by Christy and Spencer by discussing the science, so please do not try and suggest that we are not interested in discussing the science here at SkS. We are really trying to accommodate you here, and do appreciate you posting here, but we need your cooperation to make this work, and frankly your reluctance to speak to the subject of this thread and the subject initially raised by you, is not being constructive or helpful. The fact remains that you made some accusations and claims that need to be dealt with before we can move this forward, and you have been informed a couple of times now that we do intend to deal with your questions and are working on that. But please remember that we did ask you questions first, and that that issue has still not been resolved because of you continually evading questions. A lot of questions have been directed at you here, so I was wondering if it would be helpful if someone condensed them into a few key questions (many of them are quite similar)? Please let me know, and I will gladly do that if you wish. All the best.
  40. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Perhaps "Spencer Speculations" and "Christy Curios"?
  41. Climate's changed before
    scaddenp, Thanks. I can grasp what you're saying. Also, thanks for the links. I'm gradually getting the picture.
  42. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Glen Tamblyn #106 A very good summary. In other words the debate over CO2 induced global warming will be decided in the oceans. Dr Pielke is saying much the same thing. The real issue is whether or not planet Earth is gaining heat energy (Joules) over time. This is where the current disagreement between Drs Trenberth and Hansen about the last 5-10 years OHC changes is most relevant. Dr Hansen suggests that Asian aerosols and other effects have reduced the heat gain by accepting the current OHC measurement as accurate. Dr Trenberth does not believe that 'for a minute' and thinks that the 'missing ocean heat' will be found by more accurate measurement over time. Given the complex nature of the time lags in surface temperature measurement and heat exchanges with the oceans, it is hard to say who is right here. That temperature 'stasis' and reduced increase or flattening in OHC over the last 5-10 years has occurred together, points to Dr Hansen being right in accepting the reduced OHC numbers. In that case the underlying CO2 and other GHG warming signals might be simply offset by underestimated cooling forcings (Aerosols etc) or poorly understood feedbacks. If Dr Trenberth does not find the missing heat in the oceans and does not accept the Dr Hansen's enhanced aerosol cooling effects, then the only explanation is that the CO2 and other positive forcings have been overestimated (or Solar cyclical effects underestimated). If the planet configures itself to gain little or no heat for a 5-10 period whether by ENSO-La Nina, aerosol or other effects, when CO2 forcing and related water vapour feedbacks are at post industrial peaks; - the challenge is to explain how the expected heat gain is being lost to space.
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] This thread is about Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS. FYI.

    Trenberth's and Hansen's points and positions are still being discussed in the literature (and Trenberth has a paper in press detailing his case).

  43. Climate's changed before
    "Please let me know if I missed something." No, I think I'm beginning to get a better grasp of the climate picture. We'd be headed for another glaciation. Instead, I think we're gonna be headed in the other direction. I'm a truck driver. I drive an 18 wheeler all over the continental USA. I see rush hour in every major city. For a long time I've thought, "This must be gonna have a big effect...on something...one way or another."
    Response:

    [DB] And this, then, the most telling graphic of all:

    CO2

  44. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke, as soon as you entered the arena of climate science communication to the public at large, you became an explicitly political entity in addition to a scientist, whatever the integrity of your expressed desire for everyone to stick with the science. Most people tend to assume that an ad hominem attack is simply an attack on the person rather than the ideas expressed by that person. This is not strictly true. Ad hominem is an attack that uses as evidence personal characteristics and beliefs that are unrelated to the theses being presented (and the fallacy lies in the relational disconnect). However, if the thesis claims a connection between personal characteristics/beliefs and an idea, then there is no ad hominem--as long as the case is well-evidenced. What you see as an ad hominem attack on Spencer, Christy, et al. is explicitly an attack on their scientific production. The buttons may be the only evidence for the charge of ad hominem, but if so it is implicit. The buttons are the result of the recognition of repeated errors and unsound theory combined with the influence of the individuals in the arena climate science communication. Each of the individuals has either made non-scientific statements about the integrity of climate scientists that have currency within the arena of climate science communication or has stood by without comment while such comments have been made. You've attacked SkS using a weak ad hominem claim. At the same time, you, Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, and others highly critical of established climate science have stood by without comment and allowed the most ridiculous claims to be trumpeted in every comment stream. The internet is no longer the realm of geeks, Roger. The opinions of hundreds of millions of people are shaped every day through its content, and the rapidly changing climate--yes, I currently support the IPCC outlook--is arguably the greatest challenge for the whole of humanity in the last 30-40k years or more. Surely you understand that keeping a clean lab allows science to progress much more quickly and confidently. You probably do understand that, but why not point it out to Watts? I can only assume that Watts, based on the way his blog is moderated, is not interested in progress. As for the tone of the buttons, that may be regrettable, but as I recall it started with Monckton, and if there's any adult who deserves to be publicly treated like a child, it's "Lord" Monckton. I would be satisfied with "Spencer's Arguments" or "Christy's Claims." Dikran, I disagree re Spencer and his beliefs affecting his science. I argue that it could happen. If the man believes that the Earth is less than 6000 years old, then he is forced to view the paleo record and the very idea of natural cycles with some doubt. If the man says that his job is to defend the free market, then I have doubts about his scientific integrity. If the man is shown his errors repeatedly and in great detail and he gets petulant and bitter about it, then I have doubts about his ability to produce relatively bias-free science. Bickmore has done more than enough to call into question the man in addition to his science.
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] In science in order to reject an hypothesis you need to show that the assumptions on which it is based are unreasonable or demonstrate that the chain of logic used to obtain the conclusion is flawed. The religious beliefs of the originator of the theory, or his past history of scientific errors is entirely irrelevant. Now you may feel that (for instance) a history of making mistakes is reason to be skeptical of their current and future work; I'd say that is common sense. However whether their current and future work is valid depends on the assumptions and internal consistancy of that work, and the personal chracteristics of the originator are irrelevant, and so at best are a distraction from the substantive issue. That is why scientists (rather than rhetoricians) try to keep the discussion impersonal and avoid ad-hominems, whether they think they are justifiable or not.

    Ad-hominems are also a slippery slope. Like Christy and Spencer, I too am a Christian (although I am comfortable with the mainstream scientific position on evolution and the age of the Earth). There are those who would reject my scientific arguments because I have an "invisible friend" (I have seen it happen before). The difference between their position and yours is only a matter of degree, rather than substance, where should the line be drawn? I'd say that drawing the line such that there were no such ad-hominems is the best policy, and indeed it is the policy that science has adopted, becuase it has proved effective.

    I won't moderate the final paragraph as it would be a conflict of interest, seeing that I am a participant in the discussion. However I would strongly reccomend that there be no further discussion of the religious beliefs of the scientists, or any other such ad-hominems.
  45. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr. Pielke I must say, I'm very disappointed in your attitude towards this "discussion". You seem to think it should be on your terms and only your terms. That's not how a discussion works. You started this discussion with an inaccurate, unsubstantiated criticism of our site. Now that we've proven it was unwarranted, you suddenly want to change the subject to what you deem is "where the discussion should be focused". I disagree with your opinion. I think that when your colleague John Christy grossly misinforms the American public and Congress about climate science, that is one area where the discussion should be focused. Especially since you seem to have nothing but glowing comments about your colleagues despite their long history of misinforming the public and policymakers on climate issues. You claim that your goal is to accurately inform our policymakers about climate issues, and yet you tacitly endorse their disinformation by your colleagues. I think that's one place you need to focus some discussion.
  46. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Insisting on something that we don't have a long enough record for being useful is simple sophistry. It reminds Eli of two things, one is Roger's very long insistence that the UAH MSU record was THE preferred diagnostic, at least until it was corrected and showed an increase, rather than a decrease, and the other was from Thomas Knutson ------------------------- Michaels et al. (2005, hereafter MKL) recall the question of Ellsaesser: “Should we trust models or observations?” In reply we note that if we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time. ---------------------------- In this case we don't have reliable ocean heat content measurements from the past, and it is unlikely we will get them from the Argo floats
  47. Climate's changed before
    Stonefly - the change in the solar forcing from 6000 years is small especially compared to the anthropogenic forcing. Even without these forcings another iceage would not have happened for around 50,000 years. Berger & Loutre. The increase is CO2 that goes with the Millankovich forcing is a slow feedback and at any time is close to equilibrium. Once you are at peak, then as the solar forcing wanes, the feedbacks work in reverse, removing CH4 and CO2 and amplifying the cooling. If you are asking why not working at the moment with solar in decline over last 6000 year, then you need to look at the magnitude of the respective forcings. Milankovitch is very slow - at least 10 times slower than present rate of CO2 forcing - and small by comparison to CO2 from FF burning. Note also that Milankovitch cycles still happened in pre-Quaternary times but only have much affect on climate when CO2 is low enough for NH snow pack to form. When the earth was last at 450ppm, we didnt have the glacial cycle. You might also find the article at Are we heading into an ice age helpful.
  48. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    Dr Pielke Thank you for taking the to discuss issues with us here at SkS. Let me assure you that we at SkS are motivated by a deep concern for the wellbeing of our societies and future generations. Although we try to keep the discourse polite this is an extremely serious subject so the critical views we sometimes express of some individuals is motivated by that seriousness. To the questions you have posed and comments you have made, let me give a composite answer. In principle Total Heat Content of the climate system, predominantly the oceans IS the metric we would use to assess whether climate warming is occuring. However our capacity to measure the various sinks that make up this is varied, with measurement of the oceans being, historically the weakest link. With the deployment of the Argo array this situation is improving, extending area and depth coverage. We still have very limited data on the abyssal depths and thus are still poorly equipped to assess heat fluxes to the ocean bottoms, particularly in regions of significant downwelling are not adequate. Certainly the common use of the surface & satellite temperature records as a metric for climate change as a whole is inadequate. That said, the surface temperature record is what constitutes 'climate' for 7 billion of us here on Earth so for the purposes of broad communication with the general public the surface record is still a reasonable metric for Communications Purposes! However the common phenomena of many people trying to slice and dice the surface record to prove some point - 'It hasn't warmed since 1998', 'It was the Great Climate Shift of 1976' etc based solely on the surface record is invalid. The appropriate metric for Analysis of climate (as distinct from illustrative communication about it) is THC. So to time scales for significance. The IPCC has adopted 25 years as the appropriate timescale for measuring climate change, the WMO standard is 30 years. This reflects the fact that the metric's we have had available to measure climate have only very recently included ocean heat content. Certainly I would disagree that any timescale less than 25 years or so is particularly meaningful for assessing climate change based just on the surface record. If we are using Total Heat Content then in principle we may be able to use a shorter timeframe for assessing it since by looking at the total we are factoring out so called 'internal variability' that really constitutes varying fluxes between the separate sinks that make up the whole. If you want to figure out the dog by just looking at its tail you need to look at the tail for longer. However, how much shorter the appropriate timescale is when assessing THC depends very much on the quality of the data available. THC may in principle substantially remove 'internal variability' from our analysis. But in its place there is now much higher measurement uncertainty - we are measuring the right thing but the quailty of our data isn't as good. So the appropriate timescale for use with THC needs to be studied very seriously using the best statistical techniques, having regard to the character of the measurement uncertainties. Until such time as we can get a sound answer to this, my view is that we should continue with the use of 25-30 years timescales, even when assessing THC until such time as we have a robust statistical basis to guide us on how far we can dial those numbers down. To Hulme's 2 Hypotheses, firstly I can only assume that his use of the word 'climate' in this context refers to surface measurements. He appears to be differentiating between a focus on GH gases alone, or considering all the climate forcing, including GH gases. Of course in the sense in which he has framed the options, his 2b is the MORE correct. However it is still not an adequate hypothesis. Say rather that there are a range of human induced forcings and then there are a range of feedbacks that follow as a consequence. However the various human forcings need to be given some relative ranking. Both of their current climate impact and also of there future impact. These main forcings are CO2, Other major GH Gases (Methane. Nitrous Oxide), truly minor GH gases (CFC's etc), Aerosols, Various land use changes. CO2 is a major component currently with the other GH gases less so. Aerosols are also quite significant although it has been harder to quantify this (we NEED that satellite aerosol data). And land use changes have been signifiant as well. When we look to the future (assuming no action by society) CO2's impaact just keeps growing. We can perhaps manage Nitrous Oxide to some extent but this is difficult without devastating world foor production. We may be able to manage human methane emissions but increases in natural emissions such as from permafrost and clathrates are a wild card here. Unless we intend to repeal all the worlds Clean Air ACts, aerosols are unlikely to increase too much. And if we take action on CO2, CO2 levels may stabilise but that does not mean fall. But the actions we would take will hugely lower aerosols. Land use could continue to contribute but eventually will drop as we simply run out of land to 'change'. In the long run, CO2 levels unaddressed will become the dominant driver where as currently it is just first among many. To Hulme's two perspectives, I would say neither is completely correct and would reword the proposition thus: “The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes and aerosol pollution are resulting in climate change (defined as a change to the THC of the Earth) that cannot be explained by natural causes. Climate change is real, we are causing it, it is happening right now, and will certainly get worse in the future if current human practices continue.”
    Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] Glenn, Dr. Pielke is exercising a ploy to divert this thread from its central focus:  Dr. Pielke's selective and one-sided skepticism and misplaced accusations of ad hominems towards SkS.  Which he still fails to own and address.

  49. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    I will wait to see what the responses are to the science questions I have asked. As I have written, this is where the discussion should be focused. To respond one more (and last time)to the comments on this weblog post on the ad hominem issue, I object to personal attacks by anyone on any side of this issue. If you want to see an example, look at my defense of Andy Revkin in 2005 where I wrote [http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2005/08/26/response-to-andy-revkin/] "It is clear now that the misrepresentation of my views on climate change in the NY times article were entirely inadvertent. There was no political or other motive, which needs to be recognized by everyone. The politicizing of the disagreement on other blogs and in the media that has occurred is completely inappropriate and any derogatory personal characterizations by others from this event are abhorrent and have no place in this issue or associated with my blog in any way."
    Moderator Response:

    [Daniel Bailey] I must perforce remind you of KR's previous summary comment:

    "I'll remind you of the sequence of events. You initiated this particular discussion by accusing the SkS site of ad hominem attacks on Dr.s Spencer and Christy. (which I am not alone in considering an unjustified accusation). This particular thread was written in response, noting that (a) the posts you criticized actually address the science (and shortcomings) of various works, and are not ad hominem, and (b) your criticisms don't appear to apply to those you agree with, such as Watts and in fact Spencer himself.

    In my view you have neither addressed that apparent double standard, nor supported your original accusations re: SkS, and are now refusing to discuss those issues any further. I consider that unfortunate."

    This summary you are now further cementing with your reticence to rectify.

  50. One-Sided 'Skepticism'
    @Rob102 - Then say that, don't pass it off as if he seriously thought those things. Plus the excerpt purposefully misquotes him in order to fit the crackpot meme. He did not predict that jogging would be outlawed, he (jokingly) advocated it!

Prev  1491  1492  1493  1494  1495  1496  1497  1498  1499  1500  1501  1502  1503  1504  1505  1506  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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