Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 Next
Comments 77951 to 78000:
-
Stevo at 16:32 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, a little context here please. 'Sanction' means action to prevent the intentional repeating of demonstrated falsehoods. 'Legal action' and its limits have been discusssed here before. Neither sanction nor legal action constitute persecution - else the civilised world would not tolerate laws or regulations, which are exatly the things which make the civilised world civilised. If I have to choose between being the victim or a drive-by shooting or having to wear a revolving bow tie I'll take the tie every time. -
Dale at 16:29 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I'm not advocating one action or the other, but honestly IMO the ad hominum, insults, threats, legal action (and lets be honest, both sides have been guilty of it) is simply not good for science. This topic is very public and scientists resorting to this level of the playground and the media jumping all over it can only negatively impress on the average person. That's not good for science.Response:[DB] In the spirit of honesty and openess, let us all consider that the vast majority of those types of behaviour have been committed by those of politically conservative persuasion, those with little or no knowledge of the science, by those who stand to benefit politically and monetarily from a delay in action on reductions in the use of fossil fuels and by those with no moral compunctions and principles whatsoever. And all aided and abetted by a mainstream media that long ago abandoned all semblence of impartiality in the expedient search for "ratings" (advertising dollars) and has devolved into pandering and titillating the masses. Yes, let's not forget that.
-
Phila at 15:29 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale: When poster #15 uses language such as sanction, legal action, revolving bow ties, etc, that's not only deriding those scientists but persecuting them as well. A clearly humorous comment on a blog about "revolving bow ties" counts as "persecution"? Really? Evidently, we're going to have to find a much, much stronger term for what Michael Mann has been going through. To the best of my recollection, no "skeptic" has suffered the abuse, threats and ridicule for a demonstrably bad paper that mainstream climate scientists routinely suffer for doing competent, peer-reviewed science. The pious hypersensitivity that the average "skeptic" tends to develop when confronted with substantive criticism is, frankly, kind of nauseating. -
Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale - I, personally, am not calling for Spencer to be "investigated, or fired, or imprisoned". I am, however, more than willing to mock him extensively, and do my best to ensure that the public viewing the discussion is not taken in by deceptive, ideologically driven opinions such as his. Now, if there were a good way to publicly censure or identify such behavior - clown noses and bow ties, as funglestrumpet suggested - great. I wouldn't mind a simple identification of idiots. Unfortunately, the supply of idiots appears unlimited.... -
Dale at 15:02 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
When poster #15 uses language such as sanction, legal action, revolving bow ties, etc, that's not only deriding those scientists but persecuting them as well. -
Dikran Marsupial at 14:51 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, One thing to consider, Dr Spencer's research is entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.. Doesn't sound much like persecution to me. Scientists have to face criticism of their work from their peers, that is what peer-review is all about (both in terms of papers and grant applications). Most are able to take it on the chin and use the criticism to improve the quality of their work. Some whinge that it is unfair and that they are being persecuted; however that is not a reliable indicator that they actually are being persucuted - it could just be that they are not sufficiently self-skeptical to accept that their work is flawed. -
Bob Lacatena at 13:53 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
28, Dale, 1. No one is being persecuted for putting forth a different point of view. No one is calling for Spencer to be investigated, or fired, or imprisoned. That only happens on the denial side of the equation. 2. Spencer's work (not he himself) is being criticized and refuted... not because it doesn't say what others want said, but rather because it is quite simply wrong, and outrageously so. His work is so bad it should never have seen publication. I challenge you to provide a single instance where a scientist was persecuted for presenting an unpopular opinion (from the skeptic point of view... this has clearly happened to Mann, Jones and others on the AGW side). And remember to distinguish between bad science being challenged and refuted, versus the scientist himself being persecuted, whether or not his publications had any merit... although it would add credibility to your position if you could provide a paper with merit and a scientist who has suffered for his efforts. -
Albatross at 13:51 PM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
KR @120, "And, as noted by several people, you took single year rates and accelerations and assumed that they applied to every year since 2006." KR, yes, he took the estimate rate calculated for 2010 and assumed that that rate held true for each year between 2005 and 2010. To do so is very wrong. Note too how the deception continues, he now shows a figure @119 which has text very boldly stating that current contribution to GSL from GIS is (not estimated to be) 1.9 mm/yr. Well, you are not going to believe this, that is the expected value for the contribution in 2012, and we are meant to be discussing the estimated mean rate for 2005-2010 (which was, as per BP's graph and my calculations is ~1.5 mm/yr)! I do not use exclamation marks very often, but here it is warranted. Now his graph also shows how he misled earlier, claiming that the mean contribution from ice melt to GSL for 2005-2010 was 3.1 mm/yr. Well, his very own graph shows that he did that by taking the expected rate for 2010 (~1.75 mm/yr from GIS and Antarctica, plus ~1.3 mm/yr for estimated contribution from glaciers in 2010), and claimed that that resulting rate ~3.1 mm/yr applied for all years between 2005-2010. That is he claimed that the estimated rate in 2010 was the mean rate for 2005-2010. Wrong. I'm not sure whether BP's post @ 119 should be deleted b/c it is so deceptive or kept as a beautiful example of blatant, willful deception by BP. It was not smart of him to post that figure @119-- he has just shot himself in the foot. And I find it odd that at the same time using Rignot et al's data to argue his misguided case, BP suggested earlier that Rignot et al. exaggerated the contribution from GIS and Antarctica. That is, suggesting malfeasance on their part. -
muoncounter at 13:47 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale#28: "persecuting scientists" Persecuting? Giordamo Bruno was persecuted (look it up). Spencer is being criticized on scientific grounds. That is not 'persecution'. See Tom's#27 for examples of 'persecution.' -
Tom Curtis at 13:38 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale @28, that is an excellent point of view. But as the few AGW "skeptical" scientists are not persecuted, but merely critiqued. The actual persecution all flows the other way. Having said that (and having just read Funglestrumpet @15 for the first time), no matter how convinced we are that Spencer (and others) are wrong, that is no basis for any reprisal. Even if they have left the realm of science and are not just politicking under scientific guise, there should be no threat of reprisal or harm except to their reputation. On the other hand, we should certainly be forward in making it plain what they are in fact doing is no longer science. -
scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
"I would gladly accept it." -unfortunately, it would appear that most in fact would buy on price only. Especially industry where there is sense that to do otherwise would risk competitiveness. Industry use outweighs residential use. "Please define before I comment" As detailed in this IEA Report (Translation, if you remove subsidies you will pay more for energy but you argue for less tax). "I know they happened." Sorry, but I dont see anything on those graphs to support that conclusion. You get high rates during the collapse of ice sheets but they are gone. What can give you that now? (well aside from melting of the polar ice sheets but you wont do that from natural forcings as paper I pointed you earlier shows). -
Dale at 13:18 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
I want to point out that my post which was deleted above, outlined my position. My comment I originally directed to funglestrumpet was a point to say, "don't diss contrary opinion in science just because you don't agree with it". My example of Galileo was because the helicentric scientists (AGW scientists if you will) faced persecution from the majority (public) view. Basically I was saying that persecuting scientists just for putting forward a different view is bad for science. -
Bern at 12:38 PM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
I had a sceptic friend send the S&B paper to me last Friday. I gave him a brief rundown of Spencer's (abysmal) record on climate modelling, but was delighted to send him this rebuttal when I saw it on RealClimate. It still won't convince him, though... -
apiratelooksat50 at 12:26 PM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
scaddenp@83 "And does that include providing effective incentives for their development?" A resounding NO. The market will take care of that. Point being, if you offered me an equally or even closely equally cost-effective method of generating electricity to heat and cool my home and place of work that is dependable and genuinely more "friendly" to the environment, I would gladly accept it. So would most end users. "Especially removal of ALL FF subsidies?" Please define before I comment. Of course natural SL changes over 1,000's of years will be appreciable. I am sure you realize by looking at long-term history that number may go up or down. "You also keep bringing natural SL change as if this would make any appreciable difference in the scale of 1000's of years. What is your evidence for this? Specifically what natural forcing can produce global sealevel change of more than 1-2mm/yr given the planet's current configuration?" Well, I am not sure about those natural forcings. I know they happened. Just go back and look at the graphs posted at #12 of this topic. The Agricultural Revolution occurred during the middle of the sharpest rise. Human impact obviously had noting to with that, AND during that time we prospered an grew as a multitude of civilizations. -
Tom Curtis at 12:26 PM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
If you want to find a true "Galileo" in the modern world you should look to Michael Mann and Charles Monnett, both of whom are facing politically motivated investigations because their science did not suit somebody elses politics. In the words of that famous member of the "Galileo Movement", Christopher Monckton:"So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare I say, we are coming after you. We are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up."
It is extraordinarily hypocritical for deniers to be playing the Galileo card while their fellow travelers are a) calling for practicing scientist to be imprisoned; b) perverting the legal system to persecute practicing scientists c) sending death threats to practicing scientists, and all because they do not like the science. It is particularly perverse that somebody who is a member of the ill named "Galileo Movement" should be calling for scientists to be locked up for practicing their science. And the disturbing thing is that the above is the pleasant face of denialism. The less pleasant aspect in the form of Lubos Motl suggests that not only imprisonment, but mass murder may in time be the appropriate response should anyone implement genuine attempts to prevent a future climate catastrophe. He says of Breivik:"At any rate, I don't think that today, in 2011, there exists a problem in Europe that could even remotely justify the killing of dozens of this young people who attend a summer camp. Sorry but this looks unforgivable to me - unforgivable at the level of a death penalty which doesn't exist in Norway. I may speculate and I often speculate about the future in which tough decisions may have to be made to avert threats that are worse than anything we are seeing today but this mass murder didn't occur in the future. It occurred a few days ago and given this fact, it's unforgivable."
(My emphasis) Motl is well known and apparently respected within the denialist community, including among the so called "luke warmers". But that comment received no rejection nor dissociation from deniers on Motl's website; just has Monckton's calls for imprisonment are accepted amongst deniers without demurrer. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter "#107 KR at 00:39 AM on 3 August, 2011 Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased." My sincere apologies - you are quite correct, ice mass did not increase. The rate of ice mass decreased, is what I intended to say, and the rate of 2006 did not (as per your linear assumption) hold through the entire period. -
Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berényi Péter From Von Schuckmann: "Our revised estimation ... indicates a clear increase of global ocean heat content and steric height. Uncertainty estimations due to the data handling reveal that this increase is significant during the years 2005–2010 (this does not mean, of course, that these are long term trends)." Remember, short term variations, however well established, do not override long term trends. But for the time period you discussed (albeit statistically meaningless in terms of long term trends), where you asserted negative steric increases, you are contradicted by the Von Schuckmann data of actual OHC. As for the long term trends, you have established exactly nothing, due to the statistical limitations. 3.2 mm/year is the long term trend for SLR. And, as noted by several people, you took single year rates and accelerations and assumed that they applied to every year since 2006. That's not justified, even for the short term, especially since we actually have data for those years. I believe Albatross's postings state it better than I have, however. -
DSL at 11:33 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
In addition, Dale, it's not enough to have an alternative view. Having alternative views is not the goal. If an alternative theory is presented, it must have a consistent physical model and must explain as much or more as the theory against which it is an alternative. It's not enough to simply attack the theory with the highest probability; the attacks themselves must be part of a comprehensive theory. Most (95%) attacks on AGW in the blogosphere are not backed by a comprehensive theory; they're just people saying "it's natural cycles!" with no ability or willingness to explain what they mean. If everything Monckton claimed were true, for example, the universe would be indescribable--physically inconsistent. Of the remaining 5%, most accept the physical basis for AGW but disagree with sensitivity in some way. Spencer tries hard to be in the 5%, but he often wanders into the 95%--and in bizarre ways. -
dhogaza at 11:29 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
So, Dale, in these modern times, I'd say that conservative orthodoxy as expressed by Inhofe, Monckton, Limbaugh, Fox News, and many others plays the role of "Pope". While modern science plays the role of "Galileo" ... It is, after all, Hansen who's under criminal investigation by a member of the conservative orthodoxy in Virginia. Not the likes of Spencer ... -
dhogaza at 11:27 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, galileo mostly got in trouble because he pissed off the Pope in his book in which he put forth the case of heliocentrism. The pope was pissed off for two reasons: 1. He had asked galileo to present arguments pro and con without advocating for heliocentrism. 2. He not write about the Pope's on views on the subject. Now read this from wikipedia carefully: " Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[48] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book... Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio." Bad move, that ... -
Berényi Péter at 11:23 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#107 KR at 00:39 AM on 3 August, 2011 Rignot et al show that over 2007-2009 ice mass increased. No, they do not do that. Quite the contrary, they estimate a peak loss rate for those years.
Compare it to
-
scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Depends on what hypothesis you are testing. For climate purposes, a period covers the full solar cycle would be necessary. -
Camburn at 11:09 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Berenyi Peter: We all know that the six years that Von Schuckmann & Le Traon report is too short of a time frame to establish a trend that is useful. A short time frame to show anything meaningful has been debunked numerous times on this site. -
Berényi Péter at 10:35 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
#110 KR at 04:17 AM on 3 August, 2011 Add to that the statistically meaningless duration of the period under discussion, and I would have to consider these arguments ill-founded in the extreme. Are you trying to tell us the 6 year long period Von Schuckmann & Le Traon have chosen for their OHC analysis is statistically meaningless? -
Stevo at 10:19 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Thanks Dana. I now feel safe to conclude that Spencer equals bad science. -
dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Stevo - Spencer would argue that the observed warming has mainly been caused by some natural effect causing cloud cover changes (he fails to identify what this effect might be). This 'natural' warming effect could cause melting ice caps and glaciers. Warming oceans and acidification cause bleaching, etc. However, there are a number of man-made warming 'fingerprints' which Spencer's and other "skeptic" alternative hypotheses generally can't explain. They tend to gloss over that fact. -
muoncounter at 09:50 AM on 3 August 2011Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
More good news: Prehistoric glacial melting similar to concerns about Antarctica An analysis of prehistoric “Heinrich events” that happened many thousands of years ago, creating mass discharges of icebergs into the North Atlantic Ocean, make it clear that very small amounts of subsurface warming of water can trigger a rapid collapse of ice shelves. The findings, to be published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, provide historical evidence that warming of water by 3-4 degrees was enough to trigger these huge, episodic discharges of ice from the Laurentide Ice Sheet in what is now Canada. The results are important, researchers say, due to concerns that warmer water could cause a comparatively fast collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland, increasing the flow of ice into the ocean and raising sea levels. Yes, the past may indeed be the key to the future. A very wet future, possibly coming soon to a coastal city near you. -
Stevo at 09:48 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
As a non-scientist I've been labouring under the delusion that the practice of good science was to compare theory and speculation against measured observations. I can see that Spencer is producing models which incorporate measured data but like so many papers trying to debunk AGW how does this work attempt to explain melting polar ice caps, retreating glaciers, coral bleaching, ocean acidification and so on. I'd have thought that the myriad of warming symptoms warrant explanation rather than dismissal. Can any of you folks point out where I'm going wrong with this line of thought please? -
Dale at 09:13 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Why was my comment deleted (between the two Rob Honeycutt comments)?Response:[DB] Per the Comments Policy:
" For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' are usually skating on thin ice. No politics. Rants about politics, ideology or one world governments will be deleted."
Going where you went was certain to drag this thread far, far off-topic, which is about Roy Spencer's mangling of statistics and climate science. It is true indeed that his ideology colours his science, to the point of obscuring it completely. But that would be the topic of an entirely different thread.
If you wish to resubmit your comment, amended to comply with the Comments Policy, then please do so.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:07 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Barry... You know, I saw an interesting lecture on youtube about the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board case, from the scientist who was the expert witness (can't remember his name). He made the interesting comment that, in the case of ID (creationism), the ID people see evolution (in this case) as an attack on the foundations of their religion. They don't really see it as a "which science is correct" issue. In that they can rationalize whatever they want because their higher calling is to protect their religion. I think it's somewhat similar with climate change. The climate deniers see climate science as an attack on their political ideology, therefore being right or wrong is of no matter. They can justify being completely wrong because they have, what they would consider, to be a "higher calling" to protect their political position. Maybe this is just cognitive dissonance but I believe they have all got to be privately having serious doubts about their position. That's often when people become the most fierce in their position.Moderator Response:[DB] Sorry, Rob. I was restoring a comment from bbickmore which had been accidently deleted.
But I agree with you, FWIW.
-
scaddenp at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
" In the meantime we should be working diligently on developing dependable, affordable and emission free energy sources" And does that include providing effective incentives for their development? Especially removal of ALL FF subsidies? You also keep bringing natural SL change as if this would make any appreciable difference in the scale of 1000's of years. What is your evidence for this? Specifically what natural forcing can produce global sealevel change of more than 1-2mm/yr given the planet's current configuration? -
Doug Mackie at 09:06 AM on 3 August 2011OA not OK part 12: Christmas present
Thanks Richard, very heartening to hear you are following the series. You are of course correct and I have edited the text accordingly. As you know there is little outright denial of ocean acidification because the contrarians frankly lack the chemistry skills to even muddy the waters with misdirection. However, it seems that most laypeople consider pH to be the only relevant metric for ocean acidification. And one meme we encountered several times was deliberate or real confusion over what 'calculated' pH values mean. For example, the most widely reproduced figure we have seen on the web is from HOTS but it does a poor job of explaining that any 2 parameters can be used to derive the other parameters (limited only by goodness of the K values). And this perhaps creates the impression that 'calculated' values are simply fitted to a linear decrease equation. (This is figure 6 that I recalculated using downloaded HOTS data and Keith's SWCO2). Our statement was intended to refer only to those times when there are no 'measured' pH data. We wanted to reinforce the point that pH calculated from, say DIC and TA, is equivalent to any measured pH. (Our own group has 15 years data from seagoing spectrophotometric pH and pCO2 systems collected during regular transects from the Otago coast). -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:55 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale... Also bear in mind that in Galileo's day the church also had its "experts" that asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe. Spencer is clearly the expert asserting the position of the church (the FF industry) relative to the climate issue. -
Albatross at 07:54 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, Also, think about this: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan. Well, it is very clear that here we are dealing with the equivalent of the clown in Sagan's quote. Now to be fair to Roy, it is not a perfect analogy, as scientists are not "laughing" at Roy, but becoming increasingly frustrated by his disingenuous actions, his incredibly poor science, and his politicization of science. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:53 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
16, Dale, What is important and often ignored about Galileo was that he represented most scientists of the time. They all pretty much agreed that the earth revolved around the sun, and had for quite some time. But none of them would dare to bring it up. It was the political establishment (the Church) and the common man who refused his ideas, not other scientists. So the Galileo gambit is, seemingly, very applicable today. Except the proper analogue to Galileo are the hordes of trained and hardworking scientists that are warning you that you've got it wrong, and that climate it change is very real, and very dangerous. The woes of Galileo teach us that when people want to believe something, truth doesn't matter. It teaches us that when the science contradicts the wishes and desires of the powerful and affluent, power and affluence win over truth. And it teaches us to listen to the actual experts, not the people who pretend to know better, while explaining that the sun can't possibly be the center of the solar system, because any moron can see the way it moves across the sky. And, lastly, it teaches us how history and knowledge can be twisted to mean something very different from what actually happened (or is happening). -
Albatross at 07:49 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale, This continual reference to Galileo by "skeptics" is tiresome and confused. Back then Galileo was not challenging scientists, rather he was up against the church, ideology and ignorance. So please tell me that you are not trying to say that Spencer is Galileo. You are also assuming that Spencer is correct-- he clearly is not. Also, is Lindzen like Galileo for arguing against the established science that smoking is not bad for one's health? No. You have your logic backwards. Real scientists are now arguing a similar ideology as what Galileo was faced, but that ideology is now being held by people like Lindzen and Spencer and Christy and the GOP/Tea Party etc.. "Skeptics" have had since 1842 to prove that AGW is a hoax, and they have still not succeeded. So instead they have to resort to playing all sorts of games and disingenuous tactics; games and tactics that were used by the tobacco lobby and creationists-- very effectively unfortunately because of people like you. I have to ask, are you here to defend Spencer's sub-par science? Do you honestly think that he is engaging his peers in good faith with this sort of nonsense, or that he is helping advance the science when scientists have to now use their valuable time to undo the damage done by Spencer's BS? You seem to be naively assuming that Spencer is engaging in good faith, well no, he has a very clear agenda, and has said so much on his blog. This is fabricated debate and controversy my friend, not healthy scientific debate, please don't fall for it. -
Just Put the Model Down, Roy
Dale - I think in this case the example of Laetrile is far more appropriate than Galileo. The Business and usual, it's not happening, it's not bad memes are quackery, and if those are the treatments, no better than placebos, the patient (climate) will simply become more ill. The Galileo gambit only holds if you are both scorned for you ideas, and you are correct. Note that these are not inherently linked. More importantly, note that the skeptics consistently fail on the latter qualification. -
Dale at 07:23 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
funglestrumpet: Galileo was arrested, tried and locked under house arrest for saying the Sun is at the centre of the solar system. Contrarian views in science is critical. The to and fro of discussion between scientists is the basic foundation of scientific advancement. If people didn't dispute the popularly held science, Earth would still be the centre of the universe, and the world would still be flat. -
funglestrumpet at 07:05 AM on 3 August 2011Just Put the Model Down, Roy
We as a species are in deep trouble. Peak Oil and Population Growth are going to put great strains on our way of life, especially on food production. Climate Change is only going to make matters much worse and is thus of even greater significance. If we do not act to combat it, then the very real danger is that millions, perhaps billions, are going to starve to death. In those circumstances it is surely a crime against humanity, albeit future humanity, to do anything that can be shown to be a deliberate attempt to curtail action to combat the issue. Spencer is not alone, SKS has a whole set of sections devoted to people whose work is debunked, - Christy, Lindzen, Monckton, etc - yet they continue to present their views to the knicker-wetting joy of their followers and any others that can’t see the flaws. This blog post is a call for Spencer to drop his model. Will he? I doubt it. Will Monckton stop his tomfoolery? Not likely; he enjoys the limelight far too much. He is like a juggler: entertaining, but when it comes down to it, all balls. Ditto all the other denier experts. Seeing the work of these people roundly debunked is amusing until one realises that if they get their way: ‘business as usual’, then future generations are in for a torrid time of it. Indeed, even the younger members of this generation. It is surely better for the Spencers of this world to face sanction now, rather than their reputation do so at some time in the distant future. Future generations will surely wonder why we let them off the hook they should surely be hanged upon when all the evidence was staring us in the face. And while we are at it, their sponsors should not be allowed to get away with it either. I am not trying to stifle genuine exploration of ideas, far from it. That, after all, is the way science works. But when a so-called expert continues to knowingly present falsehoods then forces other than scientific debate are in play and it becomes a political matter. If we cannot resort to legal avenues, is there any way that Spencer and his ilk can be made to wear big red noses and revolving bow-ties? The public would then treat them and their message accordingly. Politicians would still follow them, but you would expect one set of clowns to support another set, wouldn’t you? -
dana1981 at 06:56 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Well, the Yahoo article was just a re-post of a Heartland article originally in Forbes. Re-posting anything climate-related from Forbes is a horrid idea, but Science Daily's article is their own. They didn't interview any other scientists, or metion that Spencer is a notorious "skeptic". They should know better. -
Albatross at 06:37 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
Badger, I know, not encouraging. ScienceDaily has a huge readership. I am perplexed that they would uncritically promote this shoddy paper, and state its (false) findings as fact. Have you contacted SD to let them know? Me thinks that like "Yahoo news", they have been hoodwinked. -
John Hartz at 06:25 AM on 3 August 2011Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
ScienceDaily has treated Spencer & Braswell paper as just another peer-reviewd, published paper. This is extremely unfortunate because many people believe SienceDaily to be a credible sources of information about the lastest scientific discoveries. Kudos to Kevn Trenberth and John Fasullo for setting the record straith and for allowing SkS to re-post their most informative critique of the Spencer & Braswell paper. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:20 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
I don't know if it is too late to turn the tide, or not. I really don't think it is possible to turn the tide. Even if we eliminate all of our FF use and land altering activities, there is still good ole Mother Nature to deal with and she will continue her cycle of warming and cooling. I firmly believe that the most prudent path for addressing current perceived negative climate change issues, and possible future negative climate change issues is to use technology and innovation. We can easily address the current rate of SLR, and the anticipated increased rate over the next few decades. In the meantime we should be working diligently on developing dependable, affordable and emission free energy sources. -
muoncounter at 06:06 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
This thread does provide a fascinating look at the dynamics of the so-called skeptic argument (or debate, if you prefer). In September 2010, our two rebuttals to 'Oceans are cooling' included the following caveats: From Basic: It is a fine example of denialist spin, making several extraordinary leaps: : * that one symptom is indicative of the state of an entire malaise (e.g. not being short of breath one day means your lung cancer is cured). * that one can claim significance about a four year period when it’s too short to draw any kind of conclusion * that global warming has not been occurring on the basis of ocean temperatures alone From Intermediate: ... the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming. The arguments presented in this thread are basicaly the same as those back in September. To paraphrase: - Based on X years of data (out of X + n), we can see clearly that the trend is ... - Since P + Q doesn't add up to R, all of AGW theory is invalid ... - If I take values Y and Z, derived from an isolated set of measurements and apply them as averages for the entire ocean volume, I get YZ, which is less than W, so that ... - These measurements, Q +/- .75Q, clearly indicate that ... - Based on my experience in {fill in field of study other than climate science}, I am right and everyone else is wrong. It appears that no one took those caveats to heart. Yes, resolving the balance of ocean heat is important, but it is just one piece of a large puzzle. Conclusions drawn from a single piece of evidence must be tested against all the other pieces. If this ARGO controversy leads you to conclude unequivocally oceans are cooling, you better be able to provide answers to the following (and no doubt other) questions: What is melting sea ice? Why are sea surface temperatures rising? Why are ENSO cycles changing in a manner that suggests more energy in the system, not less? If sea level rise is not due in part to ocean warming, where is that excess water coming from? What explains rising ocean acidity? increasing evaporation? changes in salinity? Did I say 'dynamics' of these debates? If we don't learn anything from one to the next, its more like statics. A case of deja-vu all over again. -
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
Good point, mouncounter! Astronomers can also recognise the spectral fingerprint of elements in the light from distant galaxies millions or even billions of light years away, even if it is more or less redshiftet. That proves that the absorption and emission of light worked in the same way millions or billions of years ago, and that is relevant for the greenhouse effect. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:54 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
113. Albatross,Those same readers will also notice some very important signs or "tells" that reveal the bias and agenda of the "skeptics".
Such as the fact that there is not a single post on SkS or aspect of climate change that they agree with without reservation? Ocean acidification. Sea level rise. Rising ocean temperatures. Rising tropospheric temperatures. Rising surface temperatures. Extreme weather events. Melting ice. CO2 levels. CO2 facts. Physics. Models. Proxies. Climate sensitivity. Clouds. TSI. Aerosols. Mitigation. Adaptation. etc. And yet they agree with absolutely nothing, ever, over and over again. It's not true. It's inaccurate. Where it is accurate (but it's not!) the conclusions are wrong. It's biased. It's fudged. It's cherry-picked. It's just wrong. You'd think a true skeptic would agree with some (most?) of the science, and just question or even harp on certain key points. And yet what we see, instead, from skeptics is hard, unyielding refutation and refusal of acceptance of each and every fact and detail of climate change. Every single one, without fail. That's the real "tell." -
apiratelooksat50 at 05:52 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
EtR at 78 and muon at 77 Interesting article. It does create a conundrum. I am not sure how the DCs are supposed to invest their money in helping the LDCs defend against climate change. One thing is for sure - we can't improve their quality of life by supplying them with electricity because that will supposedly lead to faster warming and faster SLR. They are also need to give up their jobs that depend on local marine resources. Now, I am a huge supporter of properly managing our natural resources, but what are these people going to do? Does that mean that basically we take wealth from the polluting DCs and give it to the LDCs to keep them up in their current modes so they don't contribute to further global warming? -
Albatross at 05:44 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
Sphaerica @112, Yes. That was a poor choice of words, of course, they can claim whatever they want, that is how they play this game. As I have said before, they are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Moreover, by allowing bias and opinion to trump facts they are entitled (actually destined) to be very wrong.... You say "That their own position and analysis is not remotely tenable, and yet they accord it a higher level of confidence than published scientific studies, is a fact." Agreed. You say "At best, they totally confuse people who are already confused, and looking for edification, so that they leave thinking science and scientists don't actually know anything." Actually, I am confidant that informed and reasonable people reading this thread will see right though their charade. Those same readers will also notice some very important signs or "tells" that reveal the bias and agenda of the "skeptics". -
muoncounter at 05:33 AM on 3 August 2011Rising Oceans - Too Late to Turn the Tide?
Yes, its OT, but let's put this to rest. Once again, to the Google machine. Note I included .mil in the search phrase. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS -- their all caps, not mine. On March 30-31, 2007, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) held a colloquium on “Global Climate Change: National Security Implications.” The 2-day event took place in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and was well-attended by both academics and members of the U.S. Government and the Armed Forces. FYI, SSI is a division of the US Army War College, Carlisle, PA Of course, the Army Corps of Engineers builds floodwalls and that's more to the point of SLR. But did you know that new budget proposals in our right-tilted House of Reps would prevent the CoE from including climate change adaptation in their planning? How's that going to work with 'we must adapt'? -
Bob Lacatena at 05:29 AM on 3 August 2011Ocean Cooling Corrected, Again
108, AlbatrossOne cannot claim without any amount of confidence that there is a "contradiction". And one cannot, based on these data, claim like Pielke Snr or Knox and Douglass or Monckton or our resident "skeptics" that the "oceans have been cooling".
I have to disagree. They certainly can claim it, apparently, as they have proven thread after thread. BP provides a lengthy gish gallop of numbers and facts and conclusions. Points of contention or inaccuracy are ignored or dismissed out of hand. Ken and Eric pile on, cheerleading from the sidelines and adding their unwavering support. The complete lack of skepticism or critical inquiry from them is itself enlightening, but none-the-less, by bombarding the thread with post after misleading but mutually supportive post, they accomplish at a minimum allowing any I-want-to-be-a-denier pals to look at this and say the OP is wrong. At best, they totally confuse people who are already confused, and looking for edification, so that they leave thinking science and scientists don't actually know anything. That their points have been repeatedly and roundly refuted is of no matter. They just ignore the refutations and move ahead by saying black is white. That their own position and analysis is not remotely tenable, and yet they accord it a higher level of confidence than published scientific studies, is a fact. The sorry truth is that they can claim anything they want, and they can make it look not only palatable but substantive, simply by throwing around numbers and equations and citations. Between the three of them, they create quite a formidable tag team. Too bad they are (a) grossly wrong, (b) as skeptical as the first caveman to declare fire and the wheel a complete waste of time, and (c) so focused on a single, desired conclusion that they cannot admit to even one of their errors (except misspelling Rignot's name) let alone all of them. No, I'm sorry, theyclaim anything they want. They just can't be right about it, but it seems they don't have to be.
Prev 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 Next
