Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 Next
Comments 82751 to 82800:
-
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? -
Bob Lacatena at 02:09 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
30, Ken,This site has degenerated somewhat into a forum for jeerers and jeerleaders.
No, not at all. Some discussions degenerate because the parties involved are battling and lecturing, not discussing. When one party spends their time either completely mischaracterizing the statements of the other, or simply attacking him as an unworthy opponent, is when it degenerates....alarmist AGW.
An offensive and useless adjective, used as a tactic to stealthily belittle a position not in line with your own.The usual targets - Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and anybody who publishes in E&E.
E&E is a joke which has lost any pretense of respect among climate scientists. It only publishes the drivel that was unpublishable elsewhere, because it couldn't get past substantive review (such as the idea that the sun is made of iron)....because the jeerleaders don't know quite as much as they think they do - particularly when numbers are quoted.
Wow. I'll bet that was really easy to type, even while looking in the mirror.One wonders why the publishers of site have to keep bashing Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and anybody who publishes in E&E.
No, one doesn't. It's obvious, as is your rhetoric. The answer? Christy, Spencer and Lindzen are demonstrably wrong, but keep shouting their positions anyway. And, as already stated, E&E is the joke that gives their discredited positions the appearance of any semblance of substance.Surely if the science of alarmist AGW is so overwhelmingly strong - the heretics can just be ignored.
No, because the heretics spend a lot of time in the main stream media, giving talks, appearing on Fox News, and the like. They don't appear to be so much interested in advancing the science (by oh, I don't know, maybe publishing defensible papers in reputable, respected journals) as simply repeating the same false, debunked untruths and misrepresentations over and over again. The heretics could be ignored if there weren't a faithful cadre of people eager to believe what they are saying, in spite of the evidence and facts. Not only do those people believe it, but they repeat it, preach it, and expound on it at length on this very blog, taking the nonsense and spinning it into a complex and through its complexity a seemingly valid argument, to then be grabbed and trumpeted by other people, equally eager to believe what they want to believe, rather than what the facts lead to. [As a side note, your use of the word "heretic," which is yet another backhanded attempt to portray a proper understanding of the science as a religion, and those outside of the mainstream as a poor, persecuted souls, has not passed unnoticed.] -
Eric the Red at 02:05 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
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. By using the most alarming statements made (and there are some doozies out there), and attributing them to AGW as a whole, some people have tried to present this as the typical thinking of climate scientists. 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. Additionally, the added terminology thrown around appears to be an attempt to present ones adversaries as anti-science, using terms from times of political suppression. The science will eventually win out. The Earth will do whatever nature dictates, regardless of what we think will happen. On rare occassions, those on the edges of the scientific spectrum are proven correct. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:46 AM on 14 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
59, Eric the Red, Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that in every single aspect of climate change you are able to look on the bright side, and rationalize a way in which rising temperatures can't possibly exist at all? The Arctic is melting at a frightening rate, and you "suspect sea ice will not surpass the 2007 lows," and anyway it's all due to wind and currents, and anyway another record low in an ongoing stream of record lows is no big deal anyway because you need a trend -- meaning a lot more years to watch the record lows keep one upping each other. Really, I'm sorry, but if this happened once or twice it would be credible. When someone can't admit to any symptom of a warming world, it's beginning to look like... shoot, I can't think of a good, acceptable word to use. Do you have any clearly rational, positive-sounding suggestions? -
Albatross at 01:43 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Adelady @11, Good points. The person in question is trying to argue a strawman, and move the argument from where we are heading. Their argument is also incoherent. They do not demonstrate using the scientific literature that ENSO/SOI teleconnects with summer temperatures over Europe. But their argument is moot, because contrary to their claim, ENSO conditions were in fact neutral during and in the months leading up to the European heat wave; there was a moderate El Nino in late 2002 (peaked just before Christmas), but it terminated in early 2003. Also, we should be urging the poster @9 to please read the paper by Stott et al. (2004). What we do know about that 2003 heat wave is this, an attribution study by Stott et al. (2004) found that: "Here we use this conceptual framework to estimate the contribution of human-induced increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and other pollutants to the risk of the occurrence of unusually high mean summer temperatures throughout a large region of continental Europe. Using a threshold for mean summer temperature that was exceeded in 2003, but in no other year since the start of the instrumental record in 1851, we estimate it is very likely (confidence level >90%) that human influence has at least doubled the risk of a heatwave exceeding this threshold magnitude". The contrarians continue to try and derail and muddy the discussion, float red herrings and make strawman arguments......don't be fooled folks. -
adelady at 01:03 AM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
DSL - I tend to agree with their overview of the changes in politics and economics for the last few decades. However, let's not get too precious about the dreaded middle classes. The education and the economic freedom of the middle class has driven most important social changes of the last couple of centuries. In the current circumstances, giving this group a real financial push in the direction of say, solar PV and electric cars is one way to kickstart growth in these sectors. The financial push happens to be coming from a carbon tax under the current proposals. So that's the way to go. (And far better than the opportunities for backroom deals, or worse, in establishing a cap and trade system. In my view anyway.) I might prefer a decisive government program to 'get it done', but I'm unlikely to see my general political preferences come to pass any time soon anyway. So I'll take the best I can get for the time being. -
Tom Curtis at 01:02 AM on 14 June 2011Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
batvette @30 there are three very good reasons for my including those last two comments: 1) I am used to deniers claiming falsehoods as facts when the falsehood can be shown to be such with the most trivial fact checking. In other words, many deniers simply make things up because it will be convenient to there argument; 2) You where making particular claims which I know to be highly improbable and for which it is very dubious that you have evidence. In particular you made the highly emotion laden claim that people where "...putting their babies to sleep at night with empty tummies" because of anti-AGW policies.; and 3) It is standard practise for deniers to apply standards to climate scientists that they neither accept for themselves, nor demand of their fellow travellers. Based on that experience, I neither expected you to comply with the standard you demand of climate scientist, and indeed you have not. And nor did I expect you to back your claims, and again you have not. In one point you claim that:"... it jumps out at me that the University itself would have the integrity of its science dept under fire for for allowing Mann to be inbvolved with any impropriety like this and would have every reason to try and protect their own- for this reason an "independent review" is almost always called for, not an "internal review" which is what seems to have been what went down here."
What jumps out at me about this statement is that it shows absolutely no knowledge of typical disciplinary procedures at universities. For example, at the University of Queensland if the matter is disputed, allegations of misconduct are heard by a committee whose composition is determined as follows:"3.2.11 A Committee of Review will consist of a Chairperson, a nominee of the staff representatives of the ASCC and a nominee of the Relevant Senior Executive. The Chair will be chosen by the Relevant Senior Executive from a list of suitable persons agreed between the Relevant Senior Executive and the staff representatives of the ASCC at the commencement of the Agreement. Additional persons may only be added to this list by further agreement."
In practise all three committee members will be university staff, or in some other way closely associated with the University. For non-academic staff, that the committee members be staff of the university is an explicit requirement. At George Mason University a similar procedure is followed. One difference is that it is an explicit part of the policy that:"Only university employees may serve on an inquiry or investigative committee in a research misconduct proceeding. However, the university may obtain the advice of non-employees with relevant expertise at any stage of the proceeding, including the preliminary assessment of the allegation. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the majority of a committee‟s members are tenured faculty"
(Quoted in Appendix A) And at Penn State:"When an investigation is warranted, the Vice President for Research, in consultation with the appropriate budget executive and budget administrator, will appoint an ad hoc investigatory committee. The committee membership will include at least five tenured University faculty."
So what you consider highly suspicious and reason to suspect a cover up was in fact simply following the stipulated procedures for investigating alleged academic misconduct at Penn State. That the university did exactly what its by-laws required of it in the circumstances, you and hundreds of denier blogs have interpreted as a cover up. In the meantime, the genuine cover up, the fact that George Mason University has ignored its stipulated policies for investigating misconduct when it comes to the plagiarism by Wegman and Said is simply ignored by the deniers and you. Plainly there is a double standard here, for it is not the probity of the Penn State inquiry into Mann that agitates the deniers. If it were, they would be more agitated and more vocal about the lack of inquiry at George Mason University. Turning now to that poor starving fictional baby, it is very plain that you do not know of a single such case. Had you known of it, you would not have appealed to "common sense" as evidence for it. "Common sense" in such discussions is always just a persons prejudices fed back to them and given a false stamp of authority by being labelled "common sense". But what common sense is never, and never can be is proof of particular incidents. If you step outside of the echo chamber you call "common sense" and into the world of genuine data, you would know that implementation of anti-AGW policies have not resulted in an economic downturn in any country or any region in the world. You would also know that postulated anti-AGW policies are shown by economic analysis to be compatible with continued per capita economic growth. Therefore there is not basis for you claim in fact, and we are left with the simple fact- you made the claim up yourself, and did so based on no evidence stronger than your own prejudice. So that is a fourth reason for the two comments you find so offensive: They where true! -
JMurphy at 00:59 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Ken Lambert wrote : "Surely if the science of alarmist AGW is so overwhelmingly strong - the heretics can just be ignored." A perfect example of the bankruptcy of so-called skepticism, because it encapsulates all of their fallacies : Use the term "alarmist AGW" without stating what it means. Use the term also to describe AGW as a whole, to limit the argument (at least in the so-called skeptic's mind) to a term ("alarmist") that doesn't need to be described because every so-called skeptic has their own personal definition. Call the so-called skeptical heroes "heretics" but, again, this terminology is only in their own minds. What heresy has to do with science, only the so-called skeptics know. Claim, spuriously, that because the tiny minority are being criticised and asked to back-up their claims (shocking, I know), there must obviously be some problem with AGW. If that doesn't work (or when one week changes to the next), claim that the so-called skeptical heroes are being ignored, denied, biased against, censored, subject to a left-wing conspiracy, etc. -
adelady at 00:52 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
Arkadiusz - I'm not sure what you're pointing to. You're not contesting that those heatwaves were exceptional or that a lot of people died I presume. So, are you saying that cooler temperatures elsewhere somehow 'offset' exceptional heat in particular places ... or ... what? -
John Hartz at 00:51 AM on 14 June 2011Forecast: Permanently Hotter Summers in 20-60 years
What are the latest findings about how the enhanced greenhouse effect is impacting the frequency and duration of the La Nina and El Nino events? -
DSL at 00:33 AM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
By the way, and someone may have already posted this, but here's some grain for the mill. The argument is that the carbon tax debate is a sort of "middle-class" solution: we see the problem, but we don't want fundamental change, so let's try a carbon tax. -
Eric the Red at 00:33 AM on 14 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
garethman, The temperature difference between the Arctic and NE Atlantic do tend to move in opposite directions based on the AO (Arctic oscillation). During the positive phase, lower Arctic pressure results in stronger winds over the Arctic, keeping colder weather bottled up in the Arctic region. During the negative phase (the past two winters), higher pressure exists in the Arctic, with lower pressure in the mid liattitudes, allowing the cold Arctic air to migrate southward. Storm tracks also tend to follow the winds southward, resulting in more snowfall. With colder waters in the North Atlantic, I suspect sea ice will not surpass the 2007 lows. Even though the current expanse is low and smiilar to 2010, the rate of decline is less (2010 had a larger April extent). It may come down to the winds and current again. I do not read too much into one year anyway, but rather the longer term trend. http://www.liveweatherblogs.com/prometweatherblogs/2/2/4760/The-Weather-Daily-for-Monday,-June-13,-2011 -
chris at 00:26 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Ken Lambert at 23:45 PM on 13 June, 2011 Not really Ken. One wouldn't be concerned about the science misrepresentations and dodgy analyses of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy if these were simply scientists publishing into the vast repository of scientific literature where it would stand or fall on merit. Unfortunately their false analyses are used as if they present a justifiable alternative view of the science. They don't. They may well have an opinion on (say) climate sensitivity. However the evidence simply doesn't support their opinions (they haven't published data that indicates otherwise). Since their opinions seem to be useful for some groups that benefit from a misrepresentation of the science they have far more media visibility than is justified and likely a disproportionate influence on policymaking. Similar scenarios have occurred in the past as you know. The number of specific individuals that objectively misrepresented the science on the links between cigarette smoking and cancer and respiratory disease, or between aspirin-taking in children and Reyes syndrome were similarly small. However again since these misrepresentations were useful to some rather powerful interests the "opinions" of the misrepresenters had far too much influence on policymaking with appalling consequences. So these misrepresentations need continually to be highlighted and countered. It would be remiss not to do so, especially if we believe in democracy where Joe Public should have a reasonably faithful representation of scientific issues upon which to make informed decisions. -
DSL at 00:17 AM on 14 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Eric, wealth obviously corresponds to a greater ability to cooperate, but relative wealth is an important idea to consider, as is the source of the wealth--the relationship between the origin of the wealth and who controls that wealth. I don't think it's at all valid to take the quoted finding and apply it to the banking industry in the US. It applies to Haitian farmers, who, as the report notes, don't always see "wealth" as money. They often see it as labor: time and energy to engage in some of the target practices. There is a fundamentally different human response when wealth is perceived as labor (an individual's time and energy) and when wealth is perceived as capital. Strengthening the economic security of everyone is a noble goal, Eric, but it is only coincidental to the central goal of capitalism (Heritage's interest)--to generate capital. The system requires poverty, desperation, and unemployment. It requires taxation without representation (capital is a tax imposed by property owners on "their" laborers). It lifts all boats, but it requires the water to rise faster and faster, but the boats are chained to the dock of material and historical reality--some with longer chains than others. When some of the boats disappear beneath the water, we are asked to ignore them (original American landowners), appreciate their noble sacrifice (late 19th century labor), or turn them into a historical oddity that has no economic bearing on the present (US and European slavery and imperialism). You may know how to manage your land best according to your own interests, but what are those interests? There are a range of responses between the well-being of all humans and individual collection of capital. As the Haitian study notes, "The finding that cooperation is conditional on the expected behaviour of others contradicts a strong individualist assumption made by conventional policy and project interventions in Haiti (and other places)." -
Tom Curtis at 00:08 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Ken Lambert @30, you cannot be unaware that the 1 in 100 (2 in 100 are merely unconvinced) gets far more media coverage than do the 97 in 100, and that their views have been far more influential on actual policy in the United States and Australia than the 97. That in itself is bizarre, and means their views require public rebuttal, however poorly founded they might be. You also undoubtedly know that you are setting up an illogical double bind. Apparently, by your reasoning, if Christy, Spencer or Lindzen are rebutted, well that proves that there is substance in their arguments. But of course if they are not rebutted, well that will be interpreted as the 97 of 100 not being able to rebut their arguments. So come what may, you have set up a logic in your mind that refuses to allow that the 1 of 100 could ever have been successfully rebutted, regardless of the evidence. -
chris at 00:02 AM on 14 June 2011Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
Bern, CBDunkerson's account is possibly about right. We're talking about analyses made over a 15 year period, and I've just looked at this from perusal of the papers that bear on this topic. Over that period there was uncertainty about proper adjustments of the satellite data to account for merging of different satellite sets and then the difficult-to-identify problems involving stratospheric cooling spillover, satellite drift and diurnal corrections. Christy and Spencer were rather adamant about the reliability of their methods right through this period (they wrote several responses to papers highlighting potential problems asserting their analysis was right). Their confidence that they were getting the "right" result was reinforced by a broad agreement with radiosonde data (weather balloons) that suggested that the troposphere wasn't warming. That data (the radiosondes) was also subsequently shown to be incorrect. The imperative to address possible problems with Christy and Spencer's analyses came from the evidence from models and especially tropospheric water vapour content that indicated that the troposphere should (models/physics) and must be warming (since tropospheric water vapour was increasing which is a signature of tropospheric warming). So the forces at play were probably a combination of ideological blinkers as CB Dunkerson suggests, and also the basic tendency to defend long-held interpretations. If one strips this of the political/ideological elements then this scenario would not be so problematic. Philosophy of science-wise it's appropriate/acceptable to defend theories/interpretations until the point when their defence is untenable. We're probably all the more certain that the tropsophere has warmed under the influence of enhanced greenhouse forcing as a result of very careful reanalysis of the discrepencies between the Spencer/Christy analyses and independent data/analyses. The real world does have to make sense - reality can't accommodate incompatible interpretations. The problems in this case are that (i) S/C seemed reluctant to consider the origins of increasing divergence between their data and independent analyses and evidence, (ii) their continuing (to this day) willingness to misrepresent the science and to attempt to "sell" objectively incorrect analyses.......and (iii) the essential unfairness that their opinions are considered by some (including real and potential policymakers) to outweigh the rest of the scientific evidence, while at the same time pukka scientists are subjected to disgraceful harrassment for being honest about their work and its implications.
Prev 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 Next
