Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 Next
Comments 82651 to 82700:
-
John Russell at 05:23 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
People need to understand the importance and value of media training for anyone who will present climate science to the public -- especially if they're hostile! Media training is about having the confidence to get your point across in a friendly and helpful manner, no matter what you're asked. Most scientists are touchingly naive about this (I've interviewed enough of them to know!). The truth will win in the end but at this point it needs a bit of help. The 'sceptics' are way ahead of you on this. -
KR at 05:15 AM on 14 June 2011Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
Sadly, this skeptic meme has resurfaced at WUWT. The poster in the June 13th item, Dr. Andy Edwards (not a climate scientist, mind you - his background is in AI and chaotic systems) claims climate is unpredictable based on the chaotic behavior of weather. Sigh. -
Bob Lacatena at 05:15 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The only way Jones could have crafted a perfect answer would have been to him to have seen everything coming (maybe by running an ensemble of interview-reaction models using OUTFOX-E, a popular Global Confusion Model) and then saying something along the lines of: "Well, there is a statistically significant warming trend since X, but the period from 1995 to the present is simply to short to properly use statistical methods to answer your question." That answer, too, would have been a bit of a white lie (if the upward trend were strong and steady enough, it would have been possible, so saying it's not possible is not strictly true, it's just not true as things turned out), but... really, I think it's the only thing he could have said to avoid all that came after. My advice to everyone is to get a supercomputer, and run several thousand iterations of OUTFOX-E before you post a even a simple comment here! -
Rob Painting at 05:14 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran - I think Jones could have done a far better job, rather than let the "skeptics" frame the narrative, he should have done exactly as John Russell suggests. Sure it still would have been distorted, but at least in order to clarify things, one would only need to link to Jones' original response. And yes, he probably would not be invited back, because providing context and dictating the narrative would have circumvented the story that was trying to be spun. -
John Russell at 05:13 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran writes: "Jones answer was fine." It was fine if you're a scientist who understands the language. But while it was scientifically correct it could have been worded to make it clearer to the layperson. For instance I think if Phil Jones had been media trained he would have answered the question, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" with the answer... "I've calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive at the 93% significance level. Which means there's only a 7% chance of error." (-- or whatever is scientifically correct). There was no reason to say, 'Yes'. The interviewer is not a judge and they're not in court. Saying 'yes' meant that from that point on he was on the back foot. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:02 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CBDunkerson An agressive attitude like that would have gone down rather badly and given the denialists more to work with rather than less. It would almost certainly give the impression that this was an awkward question that he did not want to answer (and would be reported that way by the denialists even if it didn't). -
Robert Murphy at 04:55 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Warming stopped in 2001? Never fear; it started up again in 2006. From 2006 to the present GISS, Hadcrut, UAH, and RSS have a positive trend. If you're going to cherry pick a small sample, so can I. Want something farther back instead? How about 1999 and 2000? From those years to the present we also have a positive trend for those four. How can that be? A cooling trend imbedded in a warming trend and a warming trend imbedded in a cooling trend? Basically, all such small samples show too much noise to make claims about long term trends. That's why longer sample ranges are necessary. Anything else is just mathturbation. -
dana1981 at 04:54 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
From a statistical and scientific standpoint, Jones' answer was fine. But the problem is that most people don't have a very strong grasp of statistics, and his answer was easy to misinterpret. In that sense I agree with John Russell - it would behoove climate scientists to take some media training before being interviewed. It's unfortunate, but they really have to anticipate that there are a lot of people just waiting to pounce on any opportunity to misrepresent their comments. Rather than beginning his answer with the word "yes", Jones probably should have begun it with an explanation about why the question was loaded. -
CBDunkerson at 04:53 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I do think Jones could have done more to defuse the inevitable distortions by confronting them head on. That is, ask where the interviewer got the questions and note that they appeared to be worded very carefully to be as misleading as possible. His explanation was very detailed and covered all the areas of possible confusion... but that didn't stop them from turning his detailed explanation into just 'no warming'. Calling them on the deception upfront would have made it that much more difficult for them to 'accidentally' misrepresent him. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:46 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
John Russell I disagree, Jones answer was fine. More or less anything he could have said, whilst still remaining valid, would have been deliberately misrepresented by those that chose to do so. There pretty much isn't a way a layman can understand frequentist statistical hypothesis tests; many scientists who use them every day don't understand them either. I am a statistician and while I understand them, I can't really explain why they are useful in the form they are generally used in science. The point I was really making was that Jones gave a straight answer to a loaded question, unlike some (naming no names) that give loaded answers to straight questions! ;o) -
pbjamm at 04:42 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Chris@5 It would be a fun exercise to stoke the anti-science blogs with a carefully crafted story about climate "scientists" ignoring their fundamental errors for decades all the while proclaiming their falsehoods to the compliant MSM (did i hit all the buttons?). The names would only be revealed to those who bothered to read the actual linked papers. It would spread like wildfire before anyone checked up on who the actual scientists are. If only I were a better creative writer. -
John Russell at 04:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
[Dikran Marsupial] writes: "Jones gave a completely straight answer to a highly loaded question, an example to which we should all aspire." Hmm. There's a lesson to be learned here. Scientists being interviewed by the media should take some media training. No politician would have fallen for an ambush like that. Climate Scientists need to start thinking more like politicians. It's not being dishonest; it's just thinking through how your responses can be misrepresented by those with intent to deny. Remember, if you pause and think, nine times out of ten the editor will have to cut out the pause. By all means fill the gap by saying something like, "let me explain this in ways the layman can understand..." pause... (as long as you like)... then answer. Don't be rushed! Of course if you're live on air you might not get asked again: but what's worse -- that, or being haunted for a year by something you said too hurriedly? And that's free advice from someone who has been interviewing people for doccos for 35 years. -
Albatross at 04:28 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dana @24, "I find it a bit silly, in comments on an article about cherrypicking data since 1995, that we're now cherrypicking data since 2001." It is how they manufacture debate and confuse Dana. But I'm sure you know that and are being too polite about it :) -
dana1981 at 04:24 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
To clarify the new 2001 cherrypick issue, HadCRUT is the only dataset which shows a (miniscule) cooling trend over that period. As noted in the post above, HadCRUT is also not a complete global dataset, as it excludes much of the Arctic. The global surface temperature datasets, and even the satellites, show a warming trend since 2001, though none are statistically significant as it's too short of a timeframe (also discussed in the post). I find it a bit silly, in comments on an article about cherrypicking data since 1995, that we're now cherrypicking data since 2001. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:17 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CW... You're also engaging in cherry picking of data sets to claim any cooling from 2001 to the present. Only CRU shows any cooling. GISS and UAH both show clear warming, and RSS shows essentially flat.Response:[DB] Indeed. When one considers the warming of the Arctic excluded by CRU, the cherry-pick becomes even more obvious:
Especially when viewed latitudinally:
[Source]
-
Albatross at 04:13 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Skywatcher @18, Re the 2001-2010 period, CW is arguing a strawman, so how anyone can imply Dana is trying to hide/ignore something that was not even on the radar when he drafted the post is beyond me. This is what 'skeptics' have to do in the absence of facts-- they distort and fabricate strawmen arguments. -
Albatross at 04:10 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
NewYorkJ, Yes, they did a double cherry pick, they sought out the HadCRUT3 data from all the available global temperature data sets to deceive and confuse. Ironic beyond belief, because the CRU employs the same group of scientists who the 'skeptics' accused of fudging the temperature data and of fraud. The behaviour of Lindzen is beyond the pale. -
skywatcher at 04:09 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#17 Hadn't seen that before - that's a fantastic tool, big h/t from me too to Gareth Renowden. You can use it to estimate the frequency over time in the coming century that we'll experience deniers claiming that it's cooling, because of a decade's, or a few years, worth of wiggle. If it was merely an academic exercise, I'd sugget revisiting the trend in five or 10 years time to see if it's still cooling (which it virtually certainly won't be), but sadly it's not just an academic exercise anymore... -
Bibliovermis at 04:06 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Yes, there is an end-to-end cooling trend in that specified timespan. The average of that timespan however is the warmest on record by a larger margin than the 90s were warmer than the 80s, the two previous warmest decades on record. HadCRUT3v global dataset -
skywatcher at 04:04 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#14 Eric, I think you're right about the CRU data, as also shown clearly by Albatross. You're also making a veiled suggestion that Dana deliberately pretended the decrease did not exist. I'm sure that wasn't Dana's intention. Of course the only reason that CRU shows this apparent 'cooling' is because it is not a global record, and excludes some of the fastest-warming areas on the planet. But that's just been discussed at length in the excellent series of posts on GISS. -
Albatross at 04:03 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
The neat tool[{H/T to Gareth Renowden] featured here nicely demonstrates the folly of cherry-picking. -
NewYorkJ at 04:00 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Ignoring post-2009 data for a moment, what's the significance of statistical significance (or lack thereof) of HadCrut when independent records say essentially the same thing? When one reads denialist arguments, it seems they pretend HadCrut is the only indicator we have of a warming climate, and if it doesn't reach 95% confidence, it means there's no warming, or no significant warming. But what are the odds that's the case when: 1. GISS reached 95% confidence through 2009. 2. Independent satellite (RSS/UAH) records also show warming (90% level?). 3. Significant global glacier loss, and rising sea levels are indirect indications of warming. What are the odds of all these measures being greatly wrong in the same direction? -
Albatross at 03:54 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CW, You are digging yourself in a very, very deep hole here. CW "Jones who notes the trends since 1995 to begin with." No, please pay attention and read the main post. It was a set-up by Lindzen and his pals. CW "the warming since 1995 and the cooling since 2001 can both be statistically significant." I have just shown @14 that your unsubstantiated claim that the temperature trend from 2001 to 2010 was statistically significant is demonstrably wrong. Do you not even understand basic stats? Please stop right now at trying to deceive people. -
Eric the Red at 03:49 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Regarding the CRU temperature trend since 2001: Yes, it is cooling (-.006C/yr), however, it is anything but scientifically significant. There are those who would use this short-term (sky would call it cherry-picked) data to "prove" that the globe is cooling, and others who will claim that the decrease does not exist. At least acknowledge the data for what it is worth. -
Albatross at 03:48 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
CW has still not provided a source to substantiate his claims. Looking at the trend from 2001 (10 years of data) is meaningless in the context of making deductions about whether or not the planet is undergoing long-term warming or cooling (you know, climate change). The p-value for the 2001-2010 trend (-0.0281 C/decade) is a paltry 0.592, an epic fail. Hardly surprising given that the deniers are cherry picking 10-yrs of data, a period of time known to have no statistical significance. To use Tom's analogy, we would expect to see a short-term rate of 'cooling' as calculated for 2001-2010 ~61% of the time-- so nothing unusual. Did I get that right Tom? -
ClimateWatcher at 03:44 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#8 The line is there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Yes there is a warming trend in the thirty year record. ( I have never indicated there wasn't ). At the same time, the warming since 1995 and the cooling since 2001 can both be statistically significant. The thirty year trend certainly contains more data points, but it was Jones who notes the trends since 1995 to begin with.Moderator Response:[DB] You continue to make false, unsubstantiated statements and ignore rquests for substantiation of those claims. If you wish your comments to remain after posting, then please either substantiate those claims as requested or retract the falsehoods.
[Dikran Marsupial] Jones was asked to comment on trends since 1995 in a BBC interview, he did not introduce the 1995 start date (as you ought to know if you read the article to which you are responding). Jones gave a completely straight answer to a highly loaded question, an example to which we should all aspire. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:40 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
dana1981 Sadly there isn't much that is more likely to be inaccessible to the general public than a frequentist hypothesis test! However we should not sacrifice validity for accessibility, it is a slipperly slope. :( If only science could go back to Bayes factors, then we could have validity and accessibility! -
skywatcher at 03:38 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#2: That would be known as cherry-picking. Big no-no in science. It is possible to take the temperature data ever since 1900 and fit a series of short 'cooling trends' that together cover the whole series. Yet the whole series shows a large warming. That is why you use a timescale longer than 10 years to establish a trend. You could learn such useful nuggets by listening carefully to an expert, say, like Phil Jones, for example in the second paragraph of his quote above... More good learning tools about statistical significance of trends in noisy data in Tamino's "How Long" post, as well as the linked post above. 2010 was also 1st or 2nd in the list of all-time hottest years (up to May 2010 was clearly the hottest 12 months IIRC). With the start of a big La Nina, and an exceptional solar minimum, that's some cooling we're observing. As far as I know, the early months of this year, under the effects of a full large La Nina, are still ranking highly in all-time lists. Some cooling... -
ClimateWatcher at 03:38 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
#5. Climate Watcher - no, the "cooling since 2001" isn't statistically significant, since it doesn't exist. Sounds like denial. And the IPCC trend is not linear, so please stop misrepresenting the IPCC report. We've explained this to you several times and yet you continue to repeat this distortion. You're like our own personal Fox News. This is the quote from the IPCC: "A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios"Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] So what are the error bars on those projections then (given by the spread of the trends obtained from individual model runs)? I rather suspect you will find that the observed trend lies within the uncertainty of the projections, and so the observations are consistent with the model projections, and hence your objection is ill-founded. -
Albatross at 03:37 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
And ClimateWatcher descends to argue his strawman arguments and shifting of the goal posts (I see, now 2001 is the magic year to cherry pick and to deceive)....so much distortion in just two sentences CW. In CW's eagerness, he forgets to note that he has just agreed that the warming was in fact present for the period in question. The relatively noisy data and statistics dictate that one typically needs 20-30 years of global temperature data to determine reliable trends in the data-- yet here we have another 'skeptic', again cherry picking. Yay, we can do this ad infinitum to delude ourselves-- "ooh, ooh the warming in 2081-2085 slowed or was not statistically significant, no need to worry folks!". I have process the data using a stats package. The rate of warming for the HadCRUTv3 (variance adjusted) data was 0.10839 C/decade, and for 1995-2010 it was 0.10865 C/decade, a difference of 0.00026 C/decade. Yet some dishonest people would have us believe that that tiny difference is the difference between warming and no warming. Can we also assume CW that you are OK with people (even some of high standing like Lindzen) cherry-picking the data with the sole purpose of hiding the incline and obfuscating? -
trunkmonkey at 03:36 AM on 14 June 2011Geologists and climate change denial
scaddenp I don't see what the faint young sun has to do with Milankovitch and ancient glacial periods.I hope you are not shoehorning me into the "CO2 was high during the Ordovician glaciation" foolishness. One of my first comments on this site was that the relationship between temperature and CO2 so striking in the ice cores should be extended to all of earth history. Even though there is no direct evidence for a faint young sun and all we have is inference from the apparent evolution of similar main sequence stars and the foundation of Hertzprung-Russel was shaken by the surprising supernova from a blue giant in the 80's, I'm inclined to believe if you find a better word than "faint" and give me some really big error bars on the magnitude. Seasons are Milankovitch on steroids. You are well aware of my problems with the mid pleistocene transition. Geologists studied the positions of the continents in relation to prior glacial periods long before computer scientists developed an interest. I was going to post images of the continental positions during the three prior glacial periods but I saw DB admonishing norman against such eyecrometer analysis. I am old school enough to trust the two photon detectors on the front of my head, so check out the beautiful work of Ron Blakey at nau.edu. Perhaps you can find a trend here that geologists have missed. -
ClimateWatcher at 03:35 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Care to provide us with a peer-reviewed reliable source for your claim Sure, the CRU published data contains a cooling trend since 2001. The charts above from Tamino, which exclude data, are most certainly not peer reviewed science.Response:[DB] "Sure, the CRU published data contains a cooling trend since 2001."
Patently false:
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place.
[Source]
Tamino's charts are based on CRU data so they directly reflect the warming signal inherent in the data. And they follow the same form used in peer-reviewed science. Perhaps you are unaware that Tamino, in addition to being a professional time-series analyst, is also publidhed in the field of climate science?
-
Tom Curtis at 03:31 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran Marsupial @3, dana1981 @4, making Dikran's post more accessible: If we assume there is no long term temperature trend (warming or cooling) we would expect to see a short term warming trend as strong as that in the HadCRUTv3 temperature series only 7% of the time. -
dana1981 at 03:25 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Climate Watcher - no, the "cooling since 2001" isn't statistically significant, since it doesn't exist. And the IPCC trend is not linear, so please stop misrepresenting the IPCC report. We've explained this to you several times and yet you continue to repeat this distortion. You're like our own personal Fox News. -
Tom Curtis at 03:24 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric the Red @43, you wrote:"True alarmists and deniers use these terms to refer to those who represent the low ends and high ends of climate science, in addition to those who are truly and the ends of the spectrum. This is a political argument whereby one side tries to paint the opponent(s) as being much further from the middle than they really are. That is a claim that there are people who are truly alarmists, and truly deniers, and that those people are those who are at the extreme "ends of the spectrum". I asked you what spectrum, and you responded that it was the spectrum of political opinion. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of climate scientists are very far from the centre of political opinion on climate science. In choosing the political spectrum to define your terms, therefore, you have classified them as "truly alarmists". At the same time you have classified Christy who is quite close to he center of political opinion on climate change as not being a denier; and the beauty of it for you is that that classification, because it is based on political opinion, has required not a single assessment of the scientific validity of their work. In contrast, had you made your definition by reference to scientific opinion, then you would have been compelled by your definition to conclude that Christy (and probably you) was a denier, and the quality of scientific opinion would have been central to the issue. -
dana1981 at 03:23 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Dikran we're trying to make this info accessible to the general public, you picky son of a gun! :-) -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:16 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I don't think it is correct to say "In other words, using Jones' data, we could say with 93% confidence that the planet had warmed since 1995.". The p-value is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true and 1-p is not the probability that the alternative hypothesis is true. This is a common misconception about frequentist hypothesis testing (which is deeply counter-intuitive and hence it is unsurprising that it is so often misunderstood). You can make such a statement using a Bayesian procedure, but not a frequentist one. Essentially what we can say is that if we were to repeat the experiment on a large number of times (using parallel universes perhaps), then if we assume the null hypothesis is true we would see a statistic at least as extreme only 7% of the time. But this is only the case if the null hypothesis is true. sorry to be picky... :( -
ClimateWatcher at 03:13 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Linear trend for CRU since the start of 1995 is 0.096 C per decade. That's less than the IPCC's 0.2 C per decade for all scenarios. Also, is the cooling since 2001 significant? Sure looks so.Response:[DB] "Also, is the cooling since 2001 significant? Sure looks so."
You have made a non-factual statement, sir. Removing the transitory exogenous factors such as volcanic effects and oceanic cycles (which neither add to nor detract from the long term trend) one gets this:
Looking at the warming rates:
[Source]
Care to provide us with a peer-reviewed reliable source for your claim? Because there clearly isn't any cooling evident. Just warming that hasn't yet reached the 95% significance level.
-
Albatross at 03:01 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric, "None of my posts even remotely mentioned Christy's science." Exactly my point. Can you please do that. Otherwise your silence on his glaring errors could rightly be interpreted tacit approval of them. -
Jerry at 03:00 AM on 14 June 2011Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Get ready for another round of attacks on Phil Jones along the lines of flip-flopper, data manipulator, warmest fear monger, first you said its not warming now you say its warming... I saw one last night but do not remember where. Jerry -
Bob Lacatena at 02:57 AM on 14 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
59, Eric the Red,I do not read too much into one year anyway, but rather the longer term trend.
Then you must be scared to death, and ready to take serious action on climate change, because ignoring any particular year, and looking only at the trend... that trend is frighteningly obvious in its implications.
-
Eric the Red at 02:50 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Albatross, None of my posts even remotely mentioned Christy's science. I was merely responding to JMurphy, on using the term, "alarmist," and on how I perceive that it is being used. I was expressing my dismay at used terms such as, denier, alarmist, heretic, etc.Response:[DB] Can we all agree to stick to the subject of this post (Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism) and avoid off-topic discussions of labels such as denier, alarmist, heretic, etc. We've had plenty of posts/threads devoted to those recently.
-
Eric the Red at 02:47 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Tom, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, and my post in no way resembled that statement. -
Albatross at 02:45 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric @40, To clarify, saying someone is in denial about AGW or a denier of AGW is a statement of fact. I also provided some other very clear examples of denial in science to help you join the dots. Now are you going to use some reputable, peer-reviewed science that has withstood the test of time to try and defend the problems identified with Christy's science? Or are you going to be a true skeptic and critically question Christy's science before signing off on it? Or are you going to give him carte blanche? I for one would appreciate if we could all try and stay on topic and focus on the scientific integrity (or more accurately the lack thereof) in Christy's work and his public musings, and to do so using reputable, peer-reviewed science that has withstood the test of time. -
Tom Curtis at 02:42 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric the Red @39, so we are to conclude that you think the 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who think global warming is real, anthropogenic and a problem are alarmist extremists because their opinion is very far from the middle of political opinions on global warming? And if not, what relevance does being close to the center of political opinion have on an issue which is first, and foremost a scientific issue? -
Eric the Red at 02:36 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Albatross, At first, I thought you were agreeing with me when you said that what I thought was occurring was a "statement of fact." After that, I am not sure what you meant. -
Eric the Red at 02:32 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Tom, The quote was a reference to politicians framing their opponent as being out of touch with the electorate or, "far from the middle." Hence, political arguments. -
Albatross at 02:30 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric @35, "I think the term, "alarmist AGW" is used to discredit AGW as a whole in the same way that "denier" is used to discredit those who view AGW with true skepticism." Not at all Eric, it is a statement of fact, the decision to try and make it pejorative arises from the very poor and transparent attempt by those in denial to reframe the argument and to detract from their failings. There are many examples of denial, that are not at all related to the Holocaust: Denying the link between tobacco and cancer (as Lindzen does). Denying the link between HIV and AIDS Denying the theory of evolution (as Spencer does, IIRC) Denying that doubling or trebling CO2 (and consequently raising CO2 to its highest level in easily over a million years in the blink of an eye geologically speaking) will have no significant impact on the climate system/biosphere and its inhabitants. Now you are and Ken are trying very hard to detract from Christy's scientific failings as outlined in the main post-- but your efforts are transparent. So do your best to defend the indefensible, but doing so only undermines your credibility. Being a true skeptic means that you need to acknowledge and call Christy on his failings and be critical of his failings-- not to defend those failings or try and detract from them. And I note the absence of reference to science in your post and that of Ken, compared to say posts by Chris, for example. At least madmike, as misguided as he is, tried to use science to substantiate his defense of Christy. You guys really need to up your game, and it is a game for you is it not? -
J. Bob at 02:16 AM on 14 June 2011Impacts of a melting cryosphere – ice loss around the world
Any rational for truncating the tide comparison with the satellite info? Seems it would help noting how well the two compared, beyond a mere 10 years. -
Tom Curtis at 02:12 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Eric the Red @35, you talk glibly about being "far from the middle" but the phrase is meaningless unless you specify which community of opinion you are far from. So, by "far from the middle" do you mean far from the middle: 1) Of the opinions of climate scientists; 2) Of political opinion; 3) Of public opinion; or do you have some other body of people in mind?
Prev 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 Next
