Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Next
Comments 7601 to 7650:
-
michael sweet at 22:28 PM on 10 April 2020Deep emissions cuts this decade could prevent ‘abrupt ecological collapse’
The results of this study suggest that fast action will help a lot compared to BAU. That is good news.
Last August I was able to log a few SCUBA dives on the North side of Cuba and at Cozumel. These are reputed to be among the best dive locations in the world. In both locations over 90% of the coral was dead. In Cozumel they closed the main wall to diving in hopes it would recover. The surrounding areas were very dead. There was also little fish life considering that Cozumel banned all fishing decades ago.
It was recently reported in the Smithsonian Magazine that the Great Barrier Reef is facing its most widespread bleaching event ever, the third in 5 years.
Perhaps coral reefs are the first to go and other locations will not be as bad. I noticed that North Cuba and Cozumel are in the few areas hit hard in the RCP 2.6 graph in the OP.
-
nigelj at 16:54 PM on 10 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Eclectic @22, for gems of imaginative denialist madness try the crank case and bore hole at realclimate.org. Or even their main pages comments section, for example comments by Victor and Ken Maynard.
-
Eclectic at 14:17 PM on 10 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Nigelj , thanks for the link (climatescience.org.nz ~ a marvellous example of unintended irony in title, as is often the case for science-denier websites).
Although we don't live in Venice, this 2020 is a sort of Year of the Cholera . . . so I shall certainly take time to look through some of that website, for entertainment.
A quick glance at its First Page listed articles does appear depressingly banal for denialism. I see that the very-emeritus Professor Happer gets a mention. And kind of disappointing there's no prominent mention of Feynman or Galileo (those names are usually a nice marker for the presence of scientific-pretentiousness in denialism sites).
Here's hoping there are some unusual gems of madness to be found there. Sadly, all too many such science-denier sites are filled with nothing but ordinary "cut glass" madness . . . so, rather boring for the gem fossicker.
-
nigelj at 13:17 PM on 10 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Eclectic @20, well I'm stuck at home in covid 19 lock down of severe proportions, so I have a bit of time to read long screeds and respond. You say denialists dont use their intelligence I say its deliberate stupidity, perhaps these are different sides of the same coin. And thanks for your screed its definitely of interest.
I've only visted WUWT about 5 times, and it was an awful experience so that was enough. I do still like to see both sides of the climate issue, but I tend do do it on our local denialist website that I linked above.
Several posts in the comments section of WUWT comments section were similar, in that were very technical and definitely from people with a good science education, and quite correct looking at the start, although not terribly germane, then you got to the last paragraph which was usually the "punch line" and it invariably had a huge blunder that a secondary school student should be able to see, and it null and voided all their previous points. Its mystifying how someone can be so technically well versed and then make such a huge obvious blunder. Perhaps this is them doing your "suppressing seeing the bleeding obvious", and just why they do this is not clear but its certainly a notable phenomenon.
The denialists so often have extreme political views that one suspects this is the underlying reason they "just dont see" plus perhaps some people are psychologically hard wired not to see. Political tribalism and ideologies can become fervent and extreme and could switch off part of the brains logical centre without the person even knowing. As a result they spout rubbish absolutely convinced they are right.
My politics is a bit tepid and centrist so probably doesn't strongly influence my evaluation of science in that way, at a guess. But those on the right seem "just not to see" with alarming frequency.
-
David B. Benson at 13:10 PM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The site is moderated.
-
David B. Benson at 12:55 PM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
And another error: the BNC Discussion Forum is moderated. Post facto, same as here.
-
Eclectic at 12:32 PM on 10 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Since the SkS scene is a bit quiet at the moment (a covid-19 effect?) , I take the liberty of doing some more waffling about the notorious WUWT website. So my apologies for this long post.
WUWT claims to be the world's "most viewed site" for global warming and climate change ~ and I have seen no evidence disproving WUWT 's possession of the crown for most popular Climate Denial echo-chamber website status.
As mentioned above, WUWT has a rapid churn of headlines to keep its fans interested & clicking-on frequently. Proprietor Anthony Watts claims WUWT receives no subsidy from the fossil fuel industries ~ I don't know if this was so in its early days, but it could well be so nowadays. (There are of course many ways in which secret sponsors can covertly channel funds indirectly to WUWT or associated entities . . . but that's not immediately relevant to the site's anti-science activities.) Judging by the large range of of on-line advertising at the WUWT site, it seems there is no shortage of dollar income ~ and it also suggests that the on-line advertising agencies have examined & confirmed a high rate of traffic going to the website.
Nigelj and OPOF ~ my earlier wording that many of the regular WUWT commenters "are thick as two short planks" . . . was a colloquialism, and was not meaning that Denialists are of lower IQ than the general population. AFAIK, there is no evidence that Denialists have an average IQ lower than logical thinkers have. Yes, most of the WUWT commenters are "pretty average" [another colloquialism!]. But as always ~ it is not whether you are intelligent but whether you actually use the intelligence you have.
And there are indeed [a few] highly intelligent commenters at WUWT. My favorite is Willis Eschenbach. Very intelligent, and he has a sense of humor I like . . . but despite his analytical skills, he nevertheless has a "Dark Side" twist in his psyche ~ such that he always fails in the end to reach the destination of logical synthesis of the full context of the climate issue. I reckon he has a combination of Motivated Reasoning and Doublethink. Like so many (all?) Denialists, he somehow manages ultimately to suppress seeing the Bleeding Obvious.
# There are certain neurological conditions [often, from stroke] where the brain fails to identify the human face, or other objects. Climate Denialists achieve that status, sometimes wilfully perhaps . . . but eventually it becomes an automatic mental habit to "not see" what their emotions don't want to see.
Nigelj , as I mentioned earlier, it surely must be that the WUWT Moderators allow Nick Stokes as a token example of their "non-discrimination" policy. But there is yet another example ~ Steven Mosher. Mosher does not come from the strong scientific background of Stokes . . . but over the years he has gained his stripes as a scientist (in a de-facto manner). IIRC, Mosher was at first rather climate-skeptical, and joined the original BEST project in a sort of literary capacity. And when the BEST project eventually confirmed the mainstream climate science data, he accordingly "converted" to become a mainstreamer.
As a convert from "skepticism" , Mosher is loathed and hated by the bulk of WUWT commenters. Mosher's style is usually not to go into details on how the OP or fellow commenters have messed up or been stupid . . . but he more often issues a one-liner to point out an error, or he merely says [in effect] : "Sigh. You've gotten it wrong again." Unsurprisingly, this enrages many of the Denialists.
Stokes is hated too, and is hated also because he is unfailingly correct , and the Denialists can find no chinks in his scientific armor ~ not that the Denialists at WUWT would ever change their viewpoint merely because someone publicly proves them wrong !
In the past, WUWT had a system where registered commenters could vote a Like or a Dislike to any post in the Comments column. Run-of-the -mill Deniaist comments sometimes garnered one or two or a handful of Likes. But I always found it amusing to see how every comment by Stokes or Mosher was immediately garnering 20 - 50 Dislikes ! (In a way, it's pity this Like/Dislike barometer got scrubbed.)
# Over my years of observation, there have not really been any other "anti-Denialists" to stay the course in the hostile environment at the WUWT comments columns. Some appear for a little while, then disappear ~ mostly by being censored I think (but doubtless, a few have become tired & disgusted). Yet I also detect a few who (after banning) resurrect themselves under a new pseudonym. However, in recent months WUWT has introduced a new stricter regime of registration to make resurrection far more difficult. ( It also raises your risk of being doxxed.)
And no, I myself don't post at WUWT. The denizens there are largely rabid political ultra-extremists, quite uncharitable to humanity as a whole. There are also some (apolitical or non-partisan) scientific crackpots. But all are hard-core deniers of climate science, and they show zero inclination to become sane.
# If you examine the bulk of WUWT posted articles, you see a strong undercurrent of petulant and childish propaganda slant. Clearly WUWT is essentially aiming at the Lowest Common Denominator of everyday Denialists. (Some Denialist websites exist, which are slightly more high-brow e.g. Judith Curry's and Roy Spencer's .) But for rampant psychopathology, my "vote" goes to WUWT.
My apologies once again for the long post. I hope readers have found elements informative and/or entertaining.
-
David B. Benson at 10:28 AM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It is time to move beyond the linear no-threshold theory ...
-
David B. Benson at 10:25 AM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The BEIR VII Executive Summary is the only part with the serious statistical error which is used to support LNT. The body of the report states that there is no evidence of the effects of low-level ionizing radiation.
I will attempt to send one of the supporting links from my prior, but 29 entry, not 100+, link to BNC Discussion Forum. It will, I hope, be in the following message.
-
michael sweet at 09:04 AM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
David Benson:
The BIER VII report was comissoned by the National Academy of Science to provide a summary of current scientific consensus. A group of experts in the field reviewed all the recent data. They concluded that LRNT is strongly supported by the data. Linking to a 100+ response list on a blog is not a refutation of a NAS scientific consensus report. Please link to the relevant comments instead of making us read all the chaff on your unmoderated site.
The Executive summary contains a summary of the information in the report. Even if there was a minor error in the Executive summary that would not invalidate the netire consensus of experts.
-
David B. Benson at 07:05 AM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Possibly this works.
-
David B. Benson at 07:02 AM on 10 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
With regard to the biological effects of low-level ionizing radia9tion, there continues to be the mistake of using LNT, the Linear No Threshold assumption of the effects. LNT is simply wrong. Towards the end of the BNC Discussion Forum thread on Wade Allison ' "Radiation and Reason", there are many links to the recent, largely peer-reviewed, literature. Unfortunately I don't know how to provide a link here as the usual copy & paste doesn't work for me.
Here I will just point out that the Executive Summary of BEIR VII, the latest NRC supported study of the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, contains a serious misapplication of Pierson-Nyman style statistical inference. This sets up the hypothesis to beat as the so-called null hypothesis. BEIR VII uses LNT as the null hypothesis. For lymphoma the nonlinear hypothesis beats LNT but not for solid cancers. The authors of the Executive Summary thereby make the error of concluding that LNT is the best model.
But it is easy to see that when placing the nonlinear hypothesis as the null hypothesis LNT cannot beat it. A standoff.
The better statistical method is to compute the Bayes factor of the two hypotheses to discover that the preponderance of the evidence favors the nonlinear hypothesis.
Unfortunately the federal regulatory agencies do not appear to be able to move away from LNT and so large sums are simply wasted and possibly public health is lessened.
-
nigelj at 06:00 AM on 10 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Came across this litle gem on debating tactics: The Argument Pyramid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:10 AM on 9 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
I commented on the recent "A History of FLICC:..." post with what I think accurately describes Deniers (of any improved awareness or better understanding):
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are unwilling to learn - including people who have a lack of interest in learning - especially people who sense that learning would require them to change their mind about something they have developed a liking for.
Everyone else, including the most knowledgeable of experts, are:
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are interested and willing to learn.
Deniers are not Dumb or Incapable of learning. They lack an interest in learning, maybe because there is so much they learned that would have to be corrected that they are happier to carry on believing what they developed a liking for - no amount of effort to increase awareness or improve understanding will make much of a dent in those types of made-up minds.
Tragically for the future of humanity there is a lot of developed Liking that needs to be corrected but resists being corrected because the corrections would be detrimental to many developed Impressions of Superiority Relative to Others. Massive denial resistance easily Drummed up by misleading marketing appeals to people willing to be easily impressed by it is to be expected.
Sites like WUWT and Dr. Roy Spencer's are like Pied Pipers for people desiring to be misled, not wanting to learn how to be helpful, liking excuses for being harmful. As are all the misleading YouTube bits that this OP is concerned about.
-
MA Rodger at 06:39 AM on 9 April 2020Could the Atlantic Overturning Circulation ‘shut down’?
william @2,
The SLR on the US East coast appears more often in the literature. The SLR on the West coast of Europe has been seen in models. See Kuhlbrodt et al (2009) 'An Integrated Assessment of changesin the thermohaline circulation' which is likely the source of the 50cm figure.
-
nigelj at 06:06 AM on 9 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Eclectic @16, the other reason WUWT keep N Stokes on is probably so they can't be accused of censorship and being anti free speech. As long as they have one regular warmist they can maintain their charade of free speech.
Psychopaths are self centred and dont like rules, so they are going to be annoyed with the whole climate change mitigation thing, so they will be attracted to the other side. Psychopaths are intensely dishonest so this explains their ridiculous and contradictory denialist rhetoric. They just don't care, as long as they think they can fool people, and they have a captive audience that is easily fooled.
-
william5331 at 05:30 AM on 9 April 2020Could the Atlantic Overturning Circulation ‘shut down’?
Not mentioned in the article on the destabilization of the WAIS is the effect of the 'ice pump'.
https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-ice-pump.html
Moderator Response:[DB] Self-promotional advertising snipped.
-
william5331 at 05:11 AM on 9 April 2020Could the Atlantic Overturning Circulation ‘shut down’?
No mention is made of why sea level would rise '50cm around the Atlantic basin' if AMOC shut down. Am I correct in assuming this is due to Coriolis no longer trying to pull the water away from the Atlantic coast of America. If so, wouldn't this effect only be seen on the East Coast of North America and not on the west coast of Europe. In fact, there might be a slight decrease in sea level along the West Coast of Europe as water is released to rise along the Eastern Seaboard of the USA and Canada.
-
Eclectic at 23:08 PM on 8 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
MA Rodger , the marvellous WUWT that you call rogue planetoid, is not a planet nor a planetoid. It is more of a moon or lunar body, orbiting the real universe yet not truly part of it. Yet it draws sustenance from the real universe, just as a tick draws sustenance from its unwilling host. (You can see that I am laboring to get lunar & tick into the same sentence, to describe WUWT . . . but sadly the intended pun is an uphill labor, and I had better retract it, and move on.)
For my sins (and for the pleasure of Schadenfreude ) and for my education in the field of psychopathology I am often reading parts of the comments columns at WUWT. (Of the lead articles there, I would say that 80% of them are not worth reading or maybe just worth a very high-speed skim.) But the comments columns are a goldmine of mental pathology.
Not every commenter there is intellectually and/or morally insane. There are a few notable exceptions ~ pre-eminent is Nick Stokes, who is always worth reading. Nick is a very well-informed scientific thinker who is regularly (and blandly) correcting the the usual errors & inanities of the run-of-the-mill commenters at WUWT. He is balanced and scientifically accurate . . . in short, he is the complete opposite of the typical on-line Denialist. And they hate him for it, and bay for his blood. Most non-denialists are quickly booted out by the website proprietor (Mr Anthony Watts) and his Moderators. Yet Nick Stokes endures, year after year (and AFAICT he is unfailing correct in his observations). I am sure Anthony Watts keeps tolerating Nick Stokes ~ partly as a demonstration of the [cough] civilized & open-minded nature of the WUWT website . . . as a token "contrarian" [i.e. mainstream scientist] . . . and possibly also as a piece of raw meat to keep inflaming the rabid dogs who frequent the WUWT columns (and who keep the website hit-rate high, for the benefit of the routine on-line advertisers).
And yes, just recently WUWT has been serving up quite a bit of Covid-19 headlines ~ that's out of the ordinary for the site, but surely no worse than all other media outlets at present. The usual WUWT articles are sourly scoffing or sneering [e.g. anti-Thunberg] or generally anti-renewables . . . spiced up with the occasional mathematical clangers from Christopher Monckton as he comes up with his bi-annual mathturbational "proofs" that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is only 1.1 degrees or 0.5 degrees or whatever (or that the scientific Consensus was not 97% but actually 33% or 4% or whatever). And sometimes other scientific Mc Experts demonstrate (in completely different & incompatible ways) how the mainstream scientists are all wrong about climate.
WUWT puts up several new headlines each day. It's important to keep the flock supplied with fresh clickbait. And I must admit they occasionally have a brief but interesting article of general interest, including astronomy news. After all, this is a serious science-based website !
-
MA Rodger at 19:45 PM on 8 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Eclectic @13,
Your mention of that rogue planetoid Wattsupia prompted me to give the place a quick fly-by. Strangely for a place that brands itself as being "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change," there aren't many of their grand proclamations nailed up there at the moment that are actually "on global warming and climate change." The flavour of the place is far more Covid-19 with actual AGW coverage presently reduced to a single posting (about modelling black carbon which apparently, with the publication of Fierce et al (2020), can be seen on Wattsupia as showing "Once again, “climate science” fails the tenets of basic science").
-
nigelj at 17:26 PM on 8 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Eclectic @13, you are definitely not wrong. I see the same parade of denialist charcters in our media and comments pages and on our own climate denial website here, although I rarely visit it these days. Same old same old.
And talking about conspiracy theories and thick as two short planks this article on covid 19 is a perfect example. But I still maintain much of the climate denialism is in the deliberate stupidity department and lack of wisdom and objectivity, rather than a low IQ or bad education as such.
-
Eclectic at 13:55 PM on 8 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Nigelj ,
a large part of that "short-term" thinking is just plain selfishness.
In my travels in the land of WattsUpWithThat website, I see many commenters who are thick as two short planks ~ and who are still today in full denial of any planetary warming, and are in full denial of the GreenHouse Effect and especially the role of CO2. But also a smaller number of reasonably intelligent commenters too (of whom only some are in denial about CO2).
But once you get past the "total denial of AGW" crowd, you also find the partial deniers : the lukewarmers who assert the minimal & severely-restricted amount of current Global Warming. Or others who flip over entirely and assert that the present & future warming can only be a blessing for humanity (as in the allegedly halcyon days of the Roman Warm Period and the MWP). #More CO2 and CO2 plant food please!
Now, what is behind these unsupported, unscientific views? Some of it is sheer "tribal thinking" ~ people who are angry with our changing social world, and who wish to revert to an earlier golden age (in their eyes) of perhaps half a century ago. And the more intelligent, do indulge in all sorts of convoluted Motivated Reasoning to negate the scientific evidence & scientific assessments.
And then there are the paranoid ~ the Conspiracy Theorists holding various insane views about all the scientists worldwide being in a century long plot to overthrow Sacred Free-Market Capitalism and install World Communism & an oppressive freedom-destroying undemocratic oligarchy. The scientists all being "useful idiots" or willing tools of Mr Soros et alia.
Scratch deeper ~ and you find Money & Selfishness. Bigger government must surely mean bigger taxing of my money . . . and a World (Socialist) Government will surely mean redistribution of my money to the undeserving poor of (my) America, and even worse, the redistribution of my money to Third World countries (or any country which isn't the USA).
So in that way, it comes back to : money & selfishness. Which are just two sides of the one coin.
Nature or Nurture as the cause of selfishness? The larger proportion of such selfishness (expressed as climate denialism) in Americans, is unlikely to be simply genetic traits of personality. Surely culture & upbringing must be a component : possibly aided (at the local national level) by much much more Oil Industry propaganda along with the ever-present modern enhanced Tribalism.
From what I can see in the WUWT comments sections, with all their anger & resentments about climate science [presumably just the visible tip of some larger unknowable iceberg] . . . it is especially the redistribution threat which is getting up the nose of the middle class right-wing in the USA. A selfish group, comprising (at an educated guess) about 15% of the population ~ plus some hangers-on who are just going along with the Tribal slogans.
And yet, against that [and as we see in today's Coronavirus emergency] there are many others who are acting nobly & charitably & unselfishly to help their fellow citizens & the community generally. Three cheers for them!
-
SirCharles at 09:07 AM on 8 April 2020Could the Atlantic Overturning Circulation ‘shut down’?
-
nigelj at 07:13 AM on 8 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
factotum @10, interesting article. Of course it depends how you define "dumb". Clearly many deniers are quite intelligent as MAR points out. But perhaps we can say the denialists are deliberately dumb in the way they reject science and even reality. Then its a question of why do they do this? I would say its because they feel threatened by the effects of climate mitigation in case it restricts their freedoms and short term profit making, just read their comments and its kind of obvious.
And its fair to say making money is a survivalist thing, but its a near term survivalism focused on immediate profits and freedoms that risks longer term obliteration even of their lives. It's akin to the smoker needing their tobacco hit, furious about big governmnet taxing tobacco, very concerned about personal freedoms,and suspicious of the science even although the habit could kill them. So are they dumb in an evolutionary sense? Sure looks like it. Yet one can also see some level of sense in their concerns and suspicions.
The question is then why dont the denialists take a wider view of what climate change might do to them further down the road, and why don't they seem to care very much about the effects of climate change on "others"? Perhaps its because thats the way people are, in that evolution has lead to groups of people with different brain structures some very focused on the here and now, some of whom take a longer view. There is in fact published research suggesting this easily enough googled.
Both long term and short term views are self evidently useful in a survivalist sense, but too much focus just on the immediate here and now can be suicidal, so we have to try to persauade people to look more broadly and longer term, even although changing their innate mode of thinking is hard work. We really have no alternative.
-
John Hartz at 05:13 AM on 8 April 2020Sea level rise is exaggerated
Recommended supplemental reading:
Global data contradict claim of no acceleration in sea level rise, Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Apr 1, 2020
-
MA Rodger at 23:50 PM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
factotum @10,
I had a read of your "AGW Deniers are Dumber than Plants" article and can't say I agree with it. Okay, I won't begin by asserting that the first three sentences are flat wrong, but beyond the pedantry of say, subjectivist epistemology, the overall thesis that "deniers are dumb" is simply incorrect. Similarly, the OP's YouTube video isn't correct in describing denialism as simply presenting a never-ending pack of lies. It is more complex than that.
I did have in mind linking to a particular OP I read some time ago but in trying to track it down I found this one instead which I'll share here as I rather liked the way it begins by saying that a google search on "Why are climate change deniers..." found the 'number one hit' was "Why are climate change deniers so stupid?" I ran the same search myself and found the following ten top of the search results:-
♣ Why are climate change deniers using the same twisted strategies as Big Tobacco to instill doubt?
♣ Why are Climate Change Deniers Bullying a 16-Year-Old Girl?
♣ Why are climate change deniers more likely to be racist?
♣ Why are climate change deniers still so prevalent?
♣ why are climate change deniers almost always awful people?
♣ why are climate change deniers so stupid?
♣ Why are climate change deniers like Stephens [Bret Stephens, a columnist for the New York Times] more interested in possible but unlikely scenarios like nuclear attacks by rogue states rather than the real and ongoing threat to national security and global stability posed by climate change?
♣ why are climate change deniers so dismissive of science and so ready to embrace continued subsidization, aka corporate welfare, for big oil billionaires?
♣ Why are climate change deniers like the Roman emperor Nero?
♣ Why are climate change deniers unjustified in their high standards of "skepticism"?This OP I link-to sets out the question "Are they just a bunch of idiots who are ignorant of science and incapable of understanding it?" and answers it saying For the most part “No.” Its a usefully brief account although I feel it fudges one point when it says:-
"Research has proven that humans are distinctly uncomfortable with events or phenomena without clear causes, and when we don’t know something, we tend to fill in the gaps ourselves."
Myself, I would take out the bit about "without clear causes". I see denialism as being powerful enough so as not to be restricted to issues "without clear causes," especially in this age of the interweb.
Of course the interweb isn't that powerful a tool as I failed to locate that article I had in mind about denialism.
-
factotum at 08:23 AM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
I may have sent this before, but I am moved to send it again:
http://dnusbaum.com/AGWdeniers.html. I suppose that it is possible that giving evidence that AGW deniers can not do logic (thus are dumb/stupid) is an ad-hominem attack. I consider it to be descriptive.
However, you may feel free to take the article and edit it as you see fit. I grant you complete freedom to do that.
-
dudo39 at 07:26 AM on 7 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Moderator,
rn
Thanks but no thanks for not posting my previous message, and for all the ridiculous comments.
rn
So much for "scientific discourse".
rn
Bye
Moderator Response:[PS] Your comment was deleted because it was offtopic. Scientific discussion is welcome on the appropriate thread. Scientific discussion contains links to evidence and arguments derived from them. Unsupported opinion is just sloganeering.
Moderation complaints are always deleted.
-
nigelj at 11:15 AM on 6 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
dudo39 @8
Your comments are mostly misguided. Sorry about that, you will get over it.
We already know and accept water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but you have to be able to explain why its increased in the atmosphere in recent decades, and the IPCC has determined this is because of the CO2 forcing causing evaporation. The proven underlying thing driving the warming is CO2, with water vapour as a feedback. We know the spectral properties of the water molecule so know how much warming this water vapour causes in comparison to the C02 molecule.
The one area of doubt is the effect of clouds, but most published research finds they have a slightly positive warming effect overall or are neutral. They cannot be sharply negative or there would be no warming.
You do not need one million argo floats to sufficiently sample ocean temperatures. And ocean temperature trends are broadly similar to atmospheric and land based trends which you would expect so this provides evidence there are more than enough argo floats, and that 'drift' is not a significant issue.
The issue with weather stations in northern Russia obviously has little significance for global temperatures, and you provide no link to back up your assertions about Russia. The urban heat island effect is taken into consideration and temperatures are adjusted downwards where its an issue. And research has determined its not a huge issue anyway.Regarding temperature adjustments, Read this article.
Since you are so conerned about facts, the global temperature dataset as a whole has been adjusted down because of a known issue with ships buoy issues. This is the reality, and is the complete opposite of the false denialist claims that global tempertaures have been adjusted upwards. Read this article.
Now go away and spread your useless, badly informed doubt somewhere else preferably in a hole in the ground.
Moderator Response:[PS] Enough. No more dog-piling please.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:14 AM on 6 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Dudo39,
"As far as I know"...
How far is that? How much exploring have you done?
Judging by the content of your post, nowhere near enough. Climate models are not statistical models, they are physical model. Plenty of info on that on the appropriate thread, and from NASA. Water vapor and cloud feedbacks have been extensively studied and figure in models. There are nunerous papers published by NASA and NOAA on their methods to adjust data, the reasons to do so and the benefits that it yields. Hint: it does not make temperatures look warmer. Appropriate threads for that also, not difficult to find, use the search function.
-
Eclectic at 13:09 PM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
Dudo39 , the scientists are well aware of the actions of the various cloud types & differing latitude effects. Atmospheric humidity changes (in time and place) are patchy, but nevertheless have a long-term averaging which is well known. Likewise the cloud alterations have a long-term averaging ~ which has such a small marginal effect of change on climate, that the scientists are quite correct in pointing to the far greater importance of the rising levels of GreenHouse Gasses for AGW outcome (and so their prognostications of future change are largely correct).
If you wish to discuss this further, then you should post in a more appropriate thread i.e. not this thread, which is about "denial" specifically.
More on topic here :- As far as science denial goes, you seem to be assuming that if you don't understand the climate science, then the science must be wrong. That is the mark of a denier, not a skeptic.
Sauerj points out how easy it is to educate yourself on AGW / climate matters. It takes some time (more than just reading a few "denier" crackpot blogs on the internet ~ where some blogs misinform you, and others deliberately give disinformation ). You will also need to achieve a truly skeptical state of mind (something apparently difficult for those who start with pre-conceived ideas of the denier sort).
Moderator Response:[PS] Indeed. All further comments about cloud feedback to this thread please. Further offtopic comments will be deleted.
-
sauerj at 12:24 PM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
dudo39 @4:
Much of the science (on water vapor net warming contribution & cloud cooling/warming net contribution) has been long largely hammered out and is settled science (in fact, everything about AGW is pretty much fully settle science). In order to get an inside track on the depth of the science, I would suggest you contact someone at NASA (you could "like" their FB page NASA Climte Change, and start to inquire with them on how to seek extremely indepth help on this or any climate subject).I have seen posts on the NASA Climate Change FB page where NASA moderators provide posts that often contains massive lists of links to scores of reports. And, they seem to be able to do this on about any climate topic and at a drop of the hat. So, if you can garner someone's attention there, they should be able to supply you with tons of reports to more than satisfy your quest to know the truth on any part of climate science.
For starters, I'm sure you've already thoroughly read the SkS Intermediate article on water vapor (HERE). If not, then please read it carefully (it isn't too long) b/c it pretty much touches upon the points / questions that you have. Next, you could go to the much longer CSSR2017 report. It touches on water vapor and cloud influence quite a bit thru-out that long report (note that high clouds cause warming, and low clouds cause cooling ... not all clouds cause cooling).
Again, there will be realms of other science and reports on the subject of water vapor (and its net warming and positive feedback effect), and on clouds (and its net effect). Again, the above two articles are helpful, but best of all if somehow you could sit down with or talk to a scientist for just a few mins (or via email), then I am sure that they will quickly answer all of your questions. I would think someone at NASA might help, or else a good climate scientist or grad student at any university might be happy to help, especially if you had all of your questions lined up and sent to them in advance. They want the public to really understand the science, so any decent scientist should be more than happy to help you.
Hopefully, some of the more science repot savvy follks who read this blog will also help supply you here with even more reports to satisfy you on this water vapor subject. Maybe that person would also be kind enough to answer any other questions you have on a separate emails or two (as other questions of yours might get off topic).
Bottom-line: The totality of AGW science is extremely well settled at this date (in every which way). All you need to do is ask the right person, and you will get more stuff to read than you will ever have time to read to answer your questions in every possible way. It's all out there, it's just a matter, for the general public, to find a good source for getting help on getting answers explained answers both very well and very quickly. This SkS blog site is good, but there are also many, many others (such as NASA people). Just keep looking, the answers are all out there.
-
dudo39 at 11:05 AM on 5 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
You talk a bit too fast....
"Climate denial" to me is a negative and counter-productive label: To me, Science, by definition, implies arguments on both sides of an issue, and it is somewhat naive to assume that either side is right or wrong.
In so far as climate change / global warming is concerned, to me there is insufficient knowledge and understanding of the sciences behind either one, as well as insufficient reliable/accurate data. Also, it appears to me that the models used to prognosticate the future of the biosphere's thermal balance/imbalance utilize statistical methodologies to manipulate data, and as such the results are nothing more than a prognostication, albeit an opinion, and do not represent a solution to a problem.
Take, for instance, atmospheric H2O content: it is pretty much a fact that it varies over a relatively wide range (say from <<1% to about 3 to 4%) just about anywhere on earth over a period of 24 consecutive hours (no wonder why do temperatures can vary for up to and over 50 C during a 24 hr time span anywhere on earth) . It is also a fact that atmospheric H2O content contributes to over about 65% of the greenhouse effect (GHE). Thus, if in fact the temperature is rising, then more H2O must be being added into the atmosphere: the question is then, what is the net effect of this additional H2O on the thermal balance of the biosphere? Note that while H2O has a warming effect both because of its GHE as a gas and cloud droplets, it also has a cooling effect by the clouds reflecting the incoming solar radiation. As far as I know, this question has not been answered.Moderator Response:[PS] Offtopic. Also science is by definition the investigation of the natural world by logic, experiment and observation. Pseudo-skepticism relies on selectively ignoring observations that don't fit a value-based point of view. True scientific debate is about either interpretation of observations or the merits of alternative models which equally agree with observation.
"to me there is insufficient knowledge and understanding of the sciences behind either one, as well as insufficient reliable/accurate data." is argument from personal incredulity ignoring the vast amount of observation and study which constrain the models. Put up data or papers to back your position in an appropriate thread otherwise your comment is sloganeering and in violation of comments policy.
-
John Hartz at 09:16 AM on 5 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
Jonas: You're welcome again.
Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, there has been a significant drop in the number of views and engagements on the SkS Facebook page because of the Twilight Zone period we are living through. We have accordingly decided to reduce the frequency of posts from eight to four per day. This change will be evident in next week's edition of the Weekly News Roundup.
I just rechecked the metrics this morning, They are back to "normal" for all posts of the past few days. I suspect that Facebook had a glitch in its reporting system and has now corrected it. I'll now resume posting links to articles on a three hour cycle, i.e., eight per day.
-
Jonas at 05:36 AM on 5 April 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14
John, I want to say thank you again, for continuing to collect and post the news roundup even in these times of short term crisis .. the mid to long term crisis does not go away .. but I can imagine that even SkS gets less page views these times.
-
bpl1960 at 02:01 AM on 5 April 2020Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
There seems to have been a discussion about how to calculate the greenhouse effect on Venus, Earth, and Mars. I published a paper in 2011 where that was an important part of the argument. Here's a link:
Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened link breaking page width formatting.
-
MA Rodger at 21:14 PM on 4 April 2020Models are unreliable
Whilst the comment @1158 has been snipped, it may be worth pointing out to the commenter OH YES that the court case for libel by Mann against Ball and co-defendants 'Frontier Centre for Public Policy' resulted in 'Frontier' apologising and settling out-of-court while the action against Ball was terminated by Ball pleading that his aging witnesses who would enable him to argue hs case were dead and dying and that he himself was old and irrelevant and so no damage was caused by him to Mann that could justified the much delayed court action against such a vulnerable defendant. Those in denial over AGW have little difficulty in denying the actual legal situation and so feel they can celebrate the 'dismissal' of the libel action as a victory.
-
OH YES at 08:08 AM on 4 April 2020Models are unreliable
Dr Michael Mann produced his "iconic" hockey stick graph ( model ) while working with the IPCC , which showed an exponential increase in global temperatures predicted .Dr Tim Ball publicly stated " Mann belongs in the state pen , instead of Penn State , because his model is a fraud , and his work was paid for by American taxpayers .Mann sued Ball for libel , in the supreme court of Canada ( Ball is Canadian) .Mann refused to show his raw data to the court , after 8 years of proceedings .Mann was charged with contempt of court for this . Ball was awarded all court costs , because he won the "Truth decision". Why was this climate change "trial of the century not " widely publicized ? It does not fit the government's agenda ! See the entire details at " Principia Scientific" .
Moderator Response:[PS] Multiple breaches of comments policy
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:40 AM on 4 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
YouTube in-platform corrections are not really a solution. Effective external correction of what is incorrect needs to be happening. YouTube could help by forcing someone who clicks on a misinformation containing message to first watch an ad with corrrect information. But even that will not effectively address all the nonsense.
Leadership legitimacy should depend on consistent actions to correct incorrect claim-making.
Sustainable helpful changes to the ways that Leaders are selected and rejected would be most helpful.
Everyone's actions add up to become the future. Everyone needs to constantly have expanded awareness and improved understanding with the learning applied to help achieve lasting improvements for Others, especially for the future of humanity.
A diversity of perspectives would be beneficial. But interests that are contrary to, or distracting from, achieving and improving on important objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals would need to be excluded from consideration by Leadership. Leadership would be expected to be the most aware and understand the need to dismiss disinformation and misinformation and publicly present the correct awareness and understanding.
Helpful Leadership pursuit of those helpful objectives should not be compromised by Any Other Interests. That would be helped by having "Leadership Representative Recall Rules" based on the actions of the leaders having to be consistent with what is required of Helpful Leadership. The mechanisms would be designed to remove an undeserving Leader based on evidence of their incorrect lack of Helpfulness, no need to wait for the next election.
Of course, there are now some developed political groups that would be expected to oppose that type of helpful corrective actions because they have developed their parties to be full of people who would be unable to maintain a Leadership position unless they reversed almost every political position they currently espouse in pursuit of popular support.
-
DavidOwen100 at 19:57 PM on 3 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
A few weeks ago I logged back into Facebook after many months' absence (I know; don't judge me). I started getting "recommended for you" notifications and the bulk of them were denialsts. Now, as I have never visited such posters on FB before, or anywhere else except very, very occasionaly to do a lot of teeth-sucking, why was that?
-
nigelj at 16:15 PM on 3 April 2020YouTube's Climate Denial Problem
You tube's tendency to publish blatant and serious climate 'misinformation' is very frustrating, but you tube like facebook is a profit driven enterprise, and to maximise this means having as many users and as much content as possible. Imho Asking them to self regulate and not publish misinformation is asking them to reduce their profits (although probably only slightly) and they just aren't going to want to do this because it goes against their duty to maximise shareholder value. Or they will make token gestures.
And these guys are also strong freedom of speech advocates and so are a bit hard to time
We can and should put pressure on them and shame them, but I fear it will only go so far. Zuckerberg has basically thrown up his hands and said its too hard, the government need to set some content rules. And he's right. Only when you tube and facebook feels some pressure from rules and penalties will they sharpen up their act.
These platorms are no longer play things just for cat videos and sharing photos. They have the reach, influence and impact of news media organisations, so need to be accountable and subject to a regulatory framework like news organisations mostly are, that demands honesty, accuracy and accountability at the very least.
Right now they spew a lot of poison hiding behind freedom of speech principles and claiming they are just a provider and not responsible for conent, the same weak excuse the music file sharing websites made. Governments need to get tough while still allowing them room to breathe and not punishing everyday people for minor infringements. There's a balance to be had, but right now its tilted to far in favour of self regulation.
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
I suspect most "fence sitters " are really denialists that just don't want to be labelled denialists. In my experience that turns out to be the case because when pushed they tend to start attacking the agw consensus more than they reinforce it.
Perhaps some young people are legitimate fence sitters and need more information and I dont disagree with OPOFs categories, but the older generation has more than enough information to have made up their minds unless they have been living under a rock.
-
Mal Adapted at 00:12 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
Heh. Here's a comment by one "derpmochump", on a Carbon Brief interview with climate experts titled "Coronavirus: What could lifestyle changes mean for tackling climate change?" He's all in for nefarious intent:
Evil old gits of the technocracy, wielding political power using a hoax virus to launch a terrorist attack on the first world's standard of living. By the time you've empoverished the western way of life and stolen the future of all children not comprised of the ruling class, you bastards will be dead and in your graves and will have escaped justice.
Your crimes are endless along with the abuse of the slave classes minds, damaged by social engineering and the brainwashing of mythologised 'facts'. Truly disgusting and evil, you have no right to wield such power over the entire world, you are the great satan, liars and murderers all.
Sounds like derpmochump is a contender for the "World's Crankiest Uncle" title 8^D!
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:11 AM on 3 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
"I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated"
Actually, it's not very complicated at all. The scientific debate-train left the station, decades ago.
In the discussions around global warming and its anthropogenic causation, there are those who focus on the science using the scientific method and logic, seeking reproducible evidence that best explains what we can empirically measure.
Then there is everyone in the extreme minority, those who ignore the above in favor of slander, innuendo, unsupported assertion and character assassination in favor of promulgating false equivalence to support the ephemeral facade of "debate" and "sides".
But it is not about the science, the bulk of the science was settled, decades ago. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science.
A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.
Truth, science and reputable journalism all sacrificed to the unholy alter of false equivalence under the guise of promulgating a fallacious "debate".
There is no debate. All that remains is the informed and the uninformed.
-
scaddenp at 14:18 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
Well duncan61, so which do you trust most? Information derived from a consensus of peer-reviewed scientific literature, even it is an unwelcome point of view; or information coming from non-climate scientists, non-scientists even, but which conform to what you would like to beleive?
The difficulty for laymen is, that unless they are willing to delve into the science (and learn it from impeccable sources), then you are having to decide what sources to trust.
A good start for critical thinking, is to decide what information/data would change your gut (value-driven) point of view. Scientists have no trouble telling you what measurements would change their mind on AGW. A pseudo-skeptic is more inclined to require the impossible, something science predicts cant be true (eg linear rise of temp with CO2), or the unmeasurable.
-
John Hartz at 13:29 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
duncan61 @7: You wrote:
I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.
What "debates" do you watch. Please provide some links to them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
JoeZ @5,
I believe it is more important to distinguish between:
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are interested and willing to learn.
- People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are unwilling to learn - including people who have a lack of interest in learning - especially people who sense that learning would require them to change their mind about things they have developed a liking for.
All skeptics are in the first group. And every scientist has to be a skeptic to be a successful scientist.
Given the depth and breadth of expanded awareness and improved understanding that is summarized in the IPCC Reports (since the very first IPCC Report), it is unlikely anyone today has a basis to be Skeptical of the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports.
Many people claim to be skeptical of some specific details of the science that is the basis of the IPCC Reports. But because of the massive diversity of investigations with consistent findings there is not likely to be a new validated learning that changes the Generally Understood Conclusions. If those people claim that their skepticism of a detail in the IPCC Report justifies dismissing the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports, they are clearly in the second category of people.
Some people even continue to try to claim that things like "already admitted typos in an IPCC Report" or "A few carefully selected Excerpts from a massive packet of stolen emails from climate scientists that are presented out of context" prove that the entire IPCC process and every bit of research that is referenced in the IPCC Reports of the Compilation of constantly improving understanding justifies being skeptical of the entirety of the IPCC. Those people are Conspiracy Theorists - Outright Deniers. And the people who arranged for the stealing of the emails, and organized the sifting through to find a few nuggets, and directed the development and dissemination of the misrepresentations are worse than Deniers.
So there are:
- Skeptics who would all accept the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports. Some of them just need to do more learning.
- Deniers who resist learning.
- Misleaders who know better but want to encourage Denial. They are the worst. And many of them are very wealthy, or have very powerful positions, or are both (the worst of the worst).
-
duncan61 at 12:02 PM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
I still believe that there are a lot of people that are seeking information on the entire concept of AGW.I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.We have deniers and skeptics can I suggest a new group called middle earthers that are us layman that have an interest in this subject and are still on the fence.
-
Wol at 11:37 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
All the above is relevant to what we might call "professional" debaters - the Monctons, Delingpoles, chat show hostd etc.
What most of us encounter though is the thousands of deniers in the comments columns of the likes of the UK Daily Telegraph. The problem here - in addition to the list above - is the aptly named gish-gallop. Since we are dealing here with an arms-length, non simultaneous "debate", what always happens is that refuting some false argument leads inevitably either to the lack of any counter-rebuttal (so they think they've won) or a change to some other (well worn) false argument.
Ninety nine times out of a hundred the denier and his followers imagine they have "won" and therefore their argument is proven true. Since any reply might be hours old it's actually impossible to hold any meaningful exchange such as one might in say a radio chat show.
-
JoeZ at 06:17 AM on 2 April 2020A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial
It might be useful to distinguish between deniers and skeptics.
Prev 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Next
