Recent Comments

Prev  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  Next

Comments 83751 to 83800:

83751. Tom Curtis at 10:21 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @320: I don't deny that any policy, no matter how desirable, can have harmful impacts if poorly implemented. But given that caveat: 1) I deny that green policies need have a harmful impact on developing countries; and in fact think most developing countries would benefit from greener policies - both their own and from the west. 2) I deny that green policies need harm the indigent and consider the presence of indigent people in any western country an indictment of that governments economic and social policies. I also deny that green policies need have a harmful impact the ordinary poor. 3) I deny that Russia and China care little about AGW (I don't know the situation in Brazil), although Russia did not care until the summer of 2010 gave them a reality check. 4) I deny that green policies where the cause of Spains economic woes. So if you want to call me a "green policy catastrophism denier", go right ahead. I'll wear the label with pride, and I will do so because I know that I can defend my opinions rationally.
83752. Jigoro Kano at 10:16 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @ 319 You never answered my question: Do you think they bought solar because of environmental concerns or because the incentives (tax money) they received? Do you think the outfit which sold the PV grid would have even bothered if not for those incentives? Your liked document did not address the carbon foot print of PV cells. Personally I couldn't care less about the footprint, but as matter of forthrightness, alarmist should. EPBT assumes all energy generation is equal; which I know you do not believe. You asked: "Why do you have an emotional (and factually baseless) response to renewable energy?" Emotional no. I completely object to subsidizing ANY energy production. A little OT, redistributing wealth for any purpose is theft. It is not the government's to give. Solar thermal, is a great way to offset heating cost. Very little upstart cost, quick ROI and for those whom care Green. Do you recommend Evacuated Tubes or Flat Panels. Have you investigated using a Sterling Generator in conjunction with thermal Tubes/Panels for electrical generation. @ 327 Deniers, always blah..blah..blah never blah..blah..blah science blah..blah..blah. You don't seen to understand my position. And before I get snipped, it 2nd law thing.
83753. Tom Curtis at 10:05 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp @325, it is in fact trivially easy to come up with a solution to the need for carbon mitigation based on libertarian principles: 1) One recognise that the atmosphere's ability to absorb Greenhouse Gasses without catastrophic climate change is a limited resource; 2) Assign a property right to emit GHG; 3) Hand out those property rights to all people without charge on an equal basis globally (ie, every person receives the same initial emissions quota); and 4) Make the permits tradable so the market can determine the most efficient final allocation of the permits. There are problems with such a scheme relating to governance and verification, but they are certainly solvable. There are greater problems in that the US at present rates of consumption would run through its emission rights in six years. That probably requires some fudging to give US citizens greater emission rights than those of their global neighbours. However, any such fudging would contradict libertarian principles and should be strenuously resisted by any true libertarian. Transparently, given the scientific evidence, any true libertarian would be a strenuous advocate of global emissions permits on a strict per capita basis. Very few (if any) libertarians are prepared to face up to the inconvenience that would involve. So rather than face up to the fact that they are violating their principles, and fully intend to continue doing so, they retreat into denialism.
83754. Albatross at 09:54 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @328, "But I will call a denier what he is, and the fact that he recoils so forcefully from the name exposes the bare, frightening truth behind the label. They don't like it, and they deny it, because it is what they are." Probably one of the most powerful and true comments on this entire thread. Bravo! It is rather amusing how those in denial about AGW are now frantically trying to reframe the argument, as well as try and turn the term on its head (i.e., we "warmists" are the ones in denial). Unbelievable....
83755. SoundOff at 09:49 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Thanks, Glenn. Part 2B was especially interesting and helped fill in some of my gaps.
83756. Tom Curtis at 09:45 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric (skeptic) @20, the interesting question is not why is the UAH trend lower than the GISS trend, it is why is it lower than the RSS trend: Given the close agreement between RSS satellite measured trends and the Hadley/CRU measured surface trend, it is likely that UAH is understating the trend for some as yet unknown reason. We know the GISS trend is slightly greater than the RSS and HadCRUt trend because it includes polar regions which are excluded from the others, and which are warming faster on average (much faster in the NH, slightly slower in the SH) than the non-polar regions of the globe.
       Response:

       [dana1981] I wouldn't say "unknown", necessarily.  There have been several studies suggesting changes to the satellite data analysis, which would bring it more in line with what we expect as compared to the surface warming trend.  Fu et al. (2004) is one, and Vinnikov & Grody (2006) was another.  Tamino had a good discussion on this.

83757. Jim Powell at 09:23 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       A most informative, eye-opening post that filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge. I thought I understood why we use anomalies; now I may even be able explain it to someone else. Many thanks.
83758. actually thoughtful at 09:17 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro, Really! Do some research. I had hoped you would be a fresh voice with libertarian ideas that were internally consistent (something libertarians have a lot of trouble with), but you appear to be reposting the same easily disproved claims over and over again. 1. Spain had a housing/credit collapse. They also made significant investments in renewable infrastructure. The two events are not tightly related and the latter mitigated the former. 2. China and Brazil have CO2 records that are impressive. Look into Brazil's development of REAL biofuels (ie ethanol not from corn) and its impact on its CO2 output. Look into China's renewable efforts. They are huge, so they also have coal, nuclear, oil, etc. But to say they "don't care" about CO2 is only possible by cherry picking the data. 3. Review the thread "models are unreliable" or take a look at Hansen 1988. I don't know if you are speaking of an outlier, there are a (very) few who confuse the speed of the changes (unprecedented in nature) with *imminent* doom. Instead, under BAU - doom is put off at least until 2050! But the science indicates we will reach irreversible tipping points before the full detrimental effects of increased CO2 are fully realized (diamonds are not the only form of carbon that is (virtually) forever...) 4. I don't understand what you are asking, but we use transformers to change the characteristics of electrical output. No magic though. Finally, you confuse the rational recognition of alarming facts (the globe is warming, the oceans are rising, heating and acidifying and human activity is to blame) with "alarmism" - which would be exaggerating those alarming data points. But this site does not feature exaggeration (no alarmism is needed, the real world data is alarming enough!), indeed any attempt to do so is shot down by fellow posters and moderators alike, Just as false claims to "skepticism" are eviscerated immediately. You are welcome. Repeating a lie does not make it true. And that is true every time it is said.
83759. Riccardo at 09:01 AM on 5 June 2011
       It's methane
       AndyS the claim that CH4 is "more powerfull" than CO2 is a bit ambiguos. It's not clear to what it refers. I suggest a good discussion on this topic at Chris Colose site.
83760. AndyS at 08:41 AM on 5 June 2011
       It's methane
       Does anyone have a reference that supports the Methane is 21 times CO2 thesis? I have seen this figure referenced all over the internet, but I haven't seen how it is calculated.
       Response:

       [DB] Recent topical discussion on Methane over at Tamino's.

       Chris Colose, Eli Rabett (and also here) and Steve Bloom all weigh in with good points.

83761. Eric (skeptic) at 07:59 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Glenn, I understand your point about the change in bias, not the bias itself. The aerosol effect would likely be urban so removing rural stations would create an artificial cooling (provided the aerosols increased over the time period in question). I gave it as a counterexample. All such effects need to be analyzed, we can't simply claim that stations were randomly removed (not true) or that the bias change was random (unknown).
83762. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:54 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric. When comparing Surface vs Satellite records it is important to remember that the satellites aren's producing a surface warming trend. The LT series cover a band in the lower troposphere centred at around 2.5 km altitude. As to removal of stations introducing a bias, this can only happen if the net of all station removals is of stations that are COOLING, not just COOLER. If the rural aerosol effect is real (I hadn't heard of that effect before), is it a fixed bias or one that changes over time? If it is a fixed bias for a station then removing that station doesn't necessarily bias to the whole record. Biases at any station are only going to influence the record if the bias changes over time.
83763. Eric (skeptic) at 07:44 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, about drowning the deltas with all those people, that will take decades if not centuries (diff thread of course). Also those are not my personal emissions even with every indirect emission added in, not to mention my 50 new trees and other offsets. Not my HOA where we maintain 8 miles of roads on a $50k / year budget (read low emissions). Not much at my state level (VIrginia) At my federal level I as an American have some effect. It is small, a fraction of a degree anomaly (based on models) which makes no difference to those deltas. But adding in the indirect emissions is when we finally get to some amounts that can substantively lower the manmade CO2 rise. I don't ever stop wondering if am wrong and the CO2 will dramatically increase the water vapor with the necessary change in weather patterns to do that (e.g. there would be fewer tornadoes with a much more northerly jet among other things). When that happens and the Greenland temperatures really do rise the 10C needed to melt quickly (various ice models), what would I do at that point? First I would suggest rebuilding your airport at Mosgiel which is about 20 minutes drive. I would donate more for education and I would start donating for foreign educations. I would ask for refugees since we have some room and they add to our country's vitality. Are you really asking me to toss aside my belief in the human potential? That we must all huddle mindlessly while waiting for the government to do something? If you insist on that, I will vote some sensible government solutions. For example, it is clear that increases in precipitation are a negative feedback, so I would try to figure out ways to speed up the water cycle. But I would shy away from radiative solutions that might not be easy to undo (e.g. sulfur in the atmosphere, etc)
83764. Bob Lacatena at 07:42 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman,

       ...never allow dissenting opinion is a form of denialism in itself...

       Certainly. No one would argue that, or for stifling free speech. But where do you draw the line between free speech, and loud, orchestrated, wholesale misinformation and an all out assault on science? Because that is what we see from the legions of climate deniers, and their leaders (Monckton, Lindzen, etc.). They are deniers, and of the most despicable kind, because they make up most of what they say, they use tactics instead of truth, and they undermine all of science in the process. If Diogenes and I ever wander across an honest man a skeptic, I'll let you know. But I will call a denier what he is, and the fact that he recoils so forcefully from the name exposes the bare, frightening truth behind the label. They don't like it, and they deny it, because it is what they are.
83765. Riccardo at 07:36 AM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Charlie A "When looked at from the point of view of a statistician or forecaster, the climate models don't do very well globally, and are very poor at regional predictions. The climate models, in many tests, have predictive capability worse than a random walk." (emph. mine) This is your interpretation of the paper, not mine.
83766. actually thoughtful at 07:12 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano 323 - this is a perfect microcosm of the whole denial problem. The pro-science crowd says lets look at the science and come up with a policy (if necessary) to deal with any problems. The denialist crowd ALWAYS avoids the real issues. Now you are claiming that if anyone disputes any of your list of untruths that you threw up that they are a "denier". Cute, but intellectually unsatisfying. Science and observed reality don't care how many semantic games you play. The world is warming, human activity is responsible. It is like I told all those climategate people a few years ago - emails are NOT melting the arctic, nor causing ocean acidification, nor warming the globe. If it helps - yes I absolutely deny the untruths you spouted in 320. I invoke reality.
83767. actually thoughtful at 06:57 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Just a note on NYC trips per day - I lived in Brooklyn and owned a car. And I drove the car every day (it was required as the rules mandated leaving opposite sides of the street car free each day). Other than moving it to meet the requirements - I used the subway for everything. It was a 2 block walk to the subway. So I could make 2 or 3 trips per day (4-6 "rides"). If you have never lived in NYC it seems a little strange. But the subway takes you where you want to go. No parking, no traffic. Clever New Yorkers don't even own a car. Rent as needed. The societal savings of the NYC subway are jaw dropping (time, pollution, wasted capital in vehicles, fuel, land dedicated to parking, CO2 emissions). Any one of which would justify the expense. I wish all private industry was as "inefficient" as the NYC subway! "stan clee doe" - the NYC subway driver's version of "please stand clear of the closing doors" - I will never forget it, and it still brings a smile.
83768. scaddenp at 06:50 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric, also you raise all the issue about carbon tariff but no solutions. If it works, does it matter if something isnt perfect?
83769. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (sk). But you are also respectful of science - which must mean you have indicators in mind which would tell you when your opinion is wrong. As I said in Jigoro, I find your inability to come up effective CO2 emission reduction strategy within your ideology disturbing. If you cannot conceive of a solution, then surely you recognize that you run the risk of rationalization for doing nothing rather than proper examination of reality as revealed by science. CO2 emissions is where you must think globally. Your emissions are what will drown the great deltas populated by people with far less resources to fix them. You might ask instead for your libertarian vision to somehow empower them but we both know that if science is right, that wont happen fast enough to be empower anything (do to what? invade their neighbour?). I am sorry but I think you are trivializing other peoples problems because of your inability to conceive solutions within your value system. I would urge you to try harder because its a problem for many others in your country too and the world actually needs the Right to striving as well. Consider a different hypothetical problem - an asteroid incoming, say 40% chance of strike on US. Solution possible but takes vast sum of money to fix and a very short time frame. What's the solution within your value system? My local issues? Look at Dunedin NZ. Not a large convenient airport but a small one located a long way from city. Reason for existence is the port servicing a wide hinterland. I wonder if you would be so sure of your ideology if you were going to be personally effected. In my country, a hot political issue would be highest rate of child abuse in western world. The left and right have very different solutions but neither side denies there is a problem. We need political spectrum to have same focus on climate change, not one side in denial.
83770. e at 06:37 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro @323, You make assertions without the backing of a single well sourced fact, and when shown such facts that contradict your claims, you continue unabated. That is denial.
83771. Jigoro Kano at 06:29 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dana1981 @ 320 you said: "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial. In other words; Denial is in the eye of of the accuser.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, a denier denies facts.  You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

83772. Eric (skeptic) at 06:25 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       dhogaza, I posted those graphs to find out if someone would explain why GISS is lower in the early 80's (and/or higher at present) and could explain the monthly spikes in GISS.
83773. Eric (skeptic) at 06:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, sorry I didn't see your question (in 292) until now. I am ideologically driven as you say, so I cannot simply compare costs. There are lots of problems with restricting trade including black markets and economic distortions. For example, people might burn an apple tree for heating fuel. How are supposed to know not to do that without an economic signal for the relative value of future apples and present fuel? Would we want the government to take control of all apple trees? I don't see how a tariff of the scale needed to offset the export of our CO2 production would be anything other than a nightmare, way too high to not create huge black markets and a very large and corrupt government. I think other libertarians would agree oppose a very large tariff. The only way to stop the black market and other ill effects would be a world government that would be a complete anathema to libertarians. I would propose the alternative that I learned in the 80's in my brief stint as an environmentalist: think globally, act locally. You complained (post 279) about the expense of building a seawall or moving your local airport yet thinking globally would preclude having your own large convenient airport. How about having a small airport to connect you to some other large airport? I don't need an airport, why do you?
83774. Albatross at 06:20 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Eric, You agreed @29 to "keep it at that". So please cease with the games and with misrepresenting position on the CRU and the role of ENSO in modulating global SATs. Take that kind of nonsense elsewhere. We are all ears should you happen to have any thoughts on the post/topic at hand: "Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)"
83775. scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro - is few % drop in CO2 from engine efficiency (which also requires worldwide car ownership to be static) the best you can do for emission control consistent with your polical values? Come on please, I asked for effective emission reduction. My issue here is that if you can't come up with an effective scheme within your values, then I can only conclude that your "skepticism" is rationalization for doing nothing.
83776. dhogaza at 06:04 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric (skeptic) it would help if you actually read other posts, such as skywalker's, and even better it would help if you actually read serious analysis such as that offered by tamino (a professional statistician who specializes in time-series analysis) and linked by skywalker.
83777. garethman at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica at 04:41 AM on 5 June, 2011 dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them... Asbestos Denialism Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too) Can anyone think of others? Many thanks for your quotes and suggestions. Most of them are new to me and most of my friends and family, I must lead a sheltered life. The use of this term is interesting as I guess it’s the new heresy, if something is 95% correct, so no-one can ever discuss whether or not it is 100% correct, because they will then be termed as “denialisr” or “heretic” or some equally aggressive and derogatory term. Lets be honest about this, I think many of the dissenters are wrong and politically motivated, and I will fight for the truth, but I will also fight for their right to an opinion. If what I see is condemnation in the most aggressive way against anyone who has an idea which goes against accepted thought, (regardless of how muddle headed or wrong that opinion is) then I suspect we may be moving towards a dark age in scientific thought which is deeply worrying. To never allow dissenting opinion is a form of denialism in itself, the mirror image of the other side. The people of autocratic governments understand this principle, but I suspect here in the west in our search for climate action, we are forgetting basic human rights, and one of those critical rights is the right to be wrong without being pilloried and condemned. And that is the worst form of denial, the denial of human rights.
83778. Jigoro Kano at 06:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica @ 317 How about: Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies have on developing countries. Denying the harmful impact "Green" policies will have on the indigent in western countries. Denying economic powerhouses like Russia, China, Brazil care little about AGW. Denying Spain's "Green" revolution has financially deviated that country. Denying the impossibility of engineering a product such that it can have 240 W input and generate a 390 W output. (I know mod...2nd law thread)
       Response:

       [dana1981] Most of your examples here are simply wrong.  For example, see the rebuttals to Renewable energy investment kills jobs and CO2 limits will hurt the poor.  "Denying" a falsehood doesn't qualify as denial.

83779. actually thoughtful at 05:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano, I was thinking of solar thermal (hot water). But my neighbor put in PV to lock in the price of electricity. He is thinking about retirement and looking to reduce his risks. The power company promised him no rate increases for 20 years if he allowed them to put the panels on his roof. I don't know where the panels were made, there are US panel manufacturers - Schott (Alb, NM) First Solar (Phoenix, AZ), Solarworld (CA) - many others. The Germans and other European countries manufacturer much what is used in the solar industry. I have to use German manufacturers for my controls and pumps as American manufacturers are not up to my standards. I do have American manufacturing for all of my solar (thermal) panels. The copper pipe usually comes from Mexico (although copper is mined in my home state). This is "issue", too, is a canard. Your asking that question suggests you would be in favor a global environmental standard. Interesting idea. PV carbon footprint - the embodied energy payback is less than 2 years. This has been questioned and studied to death. Why are you bringing it up in 2011? Do your questions have an agenda, or are you genuinely not-knowledgeable about solar PV? Here is the information you could have found with less than 30 seconds if you were genuinely curious Your summary statement isn't true as you didn't bother to get your facts correct in the first place. However, it is true that "n order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care" - it is obvious that no action will be taken until the the effects of the current wealth redistribution from the workers/middle class/poor to the rich has resulted in revolutionary-levels wealth inequalities, and an environment so degraded even those who will not see will be forced to look and act. Why do you have an emotional (and factually baseless) response to renewable energy? Solar PV is the MOST expensive mainstream way of making electricity. It doesn't mean that it has no role. And the costs are going down (faster than the rates of wind and wave, and of course faster than the rates for fossil fuel, which are going UP). It's output curve is a fairly close match to the AC/factory load peak in the American Southwest. So power companies can invest in PV and avoid the cost of creating additional centralized plants that would ONLY run during the peak PV hours. You often find synchronicities like that when using renewables. For example, my solar heating customers have to "endure" warmer, more comfortable homes in the fall, early winter and early spring in order to maximize the output of their solar heating system. Bizarrely, they don't complain. Here is a simpler, more correct value judgement for you to consider: "The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES an active mitigation response." For what it is worth - I thought your negative income tax idea was very interesting, and new to me (I realized in researching it that it has been around for awhile). If what you are doing isn't working - *try something else*!
83780. Eric (skeptic) at 05:21 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       I plotted UAH and GISS after adding 0.25 to the UAH anomaly. Starting in 1979:
       
       And around 96 to the present:
       

       It's not entirely clear what to use for an offset (I used 0.25), but obviously GISS ran colder in the early 80's and/or warmer recently. Also GISS shows monthly spikes except for El Nino where UAH tends to spike above GISS.

83781. retward at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       I think you may need to check the emisions estimates in Figure 1. The IEA figures released earlier this week, and the EIA figures, are for energy-related emissions only, and do not include sources such as cement, which account for about another gigatonne (see for isntance this paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html) I think the IPCC projections are for total human emissions of carbon dioxide, not just energy-releated emissions. I suspect that when you factor in the other emissions we are even closer to reaching the A1F1 path again.
       Response:

       [dana1981] No, I made sure to be careful about that.  The IPCC breaks down the numbers, and I used their projections for CO2 emissions from fossil fuels only.  So it's an accurate comparison, but you just have to keep in mind that the graph only plots CO2 emissions from fossil fuels/energy use.  As you note, there are other emissions sources as well.

83782. Eric the Red at 05:07 AM on 5 June 2011
       Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
       Misguided? Are you going against the common perception (supported by realms of data) that El Nino years are warmed than La Nina years? I am still curious as to why you think the CRU scientists are "cheating."
83783. Yvan Dutil at 04:57 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       @Eric People have played with the dataset, with and without rural, with and without mountain, and with a without arctic station. The conclusion of all those studies is than removing those station drop the heating rate, not increasing it.
83784. Jigoro Kano at 04:48 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull @ 299 you said: "My right wing neighbor finally threw in the towel and got solar." Do you think they bought solar because of environmental concerns or because the incentives (tax money) they received? Do you think the outfit which sold the PV grid would have even bothered if not for those incentives? Were the PV panels made in US or Europe or where environmental regulations are weak, China? What is the carbon foot print of a PV panel? PV are not "Green"; they simply export the problem, and import good feelings for those concerned with AGW. For your "right-wing" neighbors, they receive monthly welfare payment in the form of subsidized electricity by all those whom have not gone "Green". It's ironic that in order to go "Green" we must first pollute beyond recovery while redistributing wealth to those whom don't need it and don't care, as you do, about AGW.
83785. Bob Lacatena at 04:41 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza, Other interesting examples of the word... google each of them...
       • Asbestos Denialism
       • Vaccine Denialism (and Vaccine Skeptics -- get that? They already grabbed the word "skeptics," too)
       Can anyone think of others?
83786. dhogaza at 04:18 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garathman: "Is the term denier used in any other forum apart from the holocaust or climate science?" At the risk of piling on, not only is the term "AIDS denialism" used (by no less an authority than Robert Gallo, for instance), but AIDS denialists have made *exactly* the same "waa waa you're accusing us of being evil like holocaust denialists" complaints against those who use it. In fact, given the fact that AIDS denialism predates what we think of as modern climate change denialism, I wouldn't be surprised if climate change denialists picked up the whining "you guys are calling us nazis" meme from them ...
83787. Bob Lacatena at 04:02 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       313, Phil, I don't think "Holocaust" when I use the term, I don't intend for that implication to be there, and I don't think anyone does. But I agree with you. I think there are striking similarities, that there is a lot to be learned from examining and contrasting the two, and that it is exactly those similarities that make deniers so sensitive to the term. They wouldn't care and they wouldn't blink otherwise. That they do care so intensely speaks volumes.
83788. Bob Lacatena at 04:00 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       310, Camburn, That's a typical denial response and tactic, and evidence of denial over skepticism. Rather than address the issue under examination, you simply launch off in another completely random direction, one where you hope you'll score some easy points. I think we should start compiling a simple, easy-to-take-and-score "Are you a denier?" quiz, so people can rate their level of denial. Denier Quiz Question Number 1:

       Do you find the term "denier" offensive?

       Denier Quiz Question Number 2:

       When a climate change topic makes you uncomfortable, or you don't have a good answer to the question at hand, do you simply, completely and totally change the subject, bringing up a separate and unrelated point in an area where you feel more confident in your knowledge?

       P.S. Camburn, of course climate is always changing. People are also always dying. Does that mean any deaths are acceptable, or that all are attributable to natural causes? Really, you could think this stuff out just a little further. Denier Quiz Question number 3:

       Are some of the issues that you cling to really rather desperate and pathetic attempts to find some weak handhold to which your denial can cling (such as the idea that the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics is violated by GHG theory, or that the temperature record is tainted by poor station sitings, or that the MWP period was warming than current temperatures, or that climate change will be good news and help plants grow, or that CO₂ is only a trace gas, or... goodness, this list is really, really long, isn't it?)?

       Denier Quiz Question Number 4:

       Do you believe there is merit in most if not all denial arguments?

       Denier Quiz Question 5:

       Is there any single aspect of climate science that you believe, or do you somehow find some reason or method do dismiss and disparage every single aspect of it, without fail?

       Give yourself 1 point for each "yes" answer. If you scored greater than zero points, congratulations; You're a denier!
83789. actually thoughtful at 03:59 AM on 5 June 2011
       The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
       "The impacts of rising sea-level are experienced through “high sea-level events” when a combination of sea-level rise, a high tide and a storm surge or excessive run-off trigger an inundation event. Very modest rises in sea-level, for example, 50 cm, can lead to very high multiplying factors – sometimes 100 times or more – in the frequency of occurrence of high sea-level events." Absolutely stunning. Even those of us who know what hit us aren't going to to know what hit us!
83790. Phil at 03:35 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       The suggestion that "climate change deniers are similar to holocaust deniers", can be looked at in (at least) two different ways. One is to consider the sorts of argument that deniers of these two concepts use to make their case, the other is to consider the moral outrage that the denial induces. One can note that these two aspects are completely orthogonal, the moral outrage at the denial of a particular thing is only dependent on the thing being denied, not on the mental gymnastics used in the denial. An example of (obnoxious to me, I hasten to add) holocaust denial can be found here. But, for me at least, this argument has striking similarities to the "world government" conspiracy that some climate change deniers propose.
83791. dhogaza at 03:35 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Especially damning is the removal of those rural satellites, a necessary step to ensure that the fake warming trend computed by GISS is reflected by an equally fake warming trend computed by UAH and RSS.
83792. garethman at 03:24 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Of course it is. Domestic violence, terminal illness, parents of disabled or delinquent children, the five stages of grief ... and any number of other circumstances find people describing others as being in denial. I suspect there is confusion between the state of being in denial, as a psychological coping mechanism, and denialist as a purely destructive maladaptive state of disbelief in a scientific or philosophical or factual stance. Other terms could include dissidents (equally applicable in some countries) insurgents, disbelievers,revolutionaries, awkward squad, the list is endless. Being on the believers side of scepticism ( ie I believe the world is warming, that we have something to do with this and we need to take action), but I think like most other people that there is still a lot we do not know regarding how dramatic this process will be. Now that makes me a self confessed skeptic and beyond the Pale for many, but also part of the majority. People who hold extreme right wing views and condemn many environmental principles from a basis of politics as opposed to science are wrong, but have a right to a belief system, regardless of how weird. They should be allowed to have that belief without the inappropriate use of labels. And if you think that should not be allowed as their belief will have negative effects on the rest of us, well I don’t see the same attention or labels given to right wing religious groups in the States who have colluded with dodgy presidents to inflict all sorts of damage on the rest of the world. If a cause is true you don’t need to insult the opposition or make grandiose claims and exaggerations. The truth and proof is the strongest weapon in such battles.
83793. actually thoughtful at 03:22 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Les @305 - not sure where you are going with your comments. My comment is simply an expansion of this point, which I made in comment #34 on page 1, and which has driven much of the debate for the next 250 so posts: The value judgement is: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response. It is a statement which removes the wiggle room that deniers love to play in. There is no wiggle room from my statement. Pro-science people are handicapped by being reasonable and rational, and we always have to admit these "terrible" things like * Yes, I and the scientific community could be SHOCKED if we were to find a here-to-for unknown natural forcing that explains climate change (the reality that the likelihood of that happening is on par with discovering a non-gravitational explanation for up and down is always glossed over by the deniers...). But real science is dis-provable, and a true skeptic acknowledges that new evidence will change their view. * Yes sensitivity COULD be on the low end of the range (but it is more likely to be on the high end). * Yes OHC measurements/SLR measurements are inadequate, so it is *possible* that the heat is leaving (although no other measurement indicates that...). * and on and on and on. The deniers have perverted the scientific process into an echo chamber for their wishful thinking regarding climate science. All of this leaves the vast majority of humanity (those who are socially intelligent, as opposed to analytically so (check out Myers-Briggs to see that ~16% of humanity is rationally intelligent)) with the ability to toddle off and think about other things, or say "well they are both right" or whatever their individual brand of denialism or kick-the-can is. But my statement: "The value judgement is: The body of evidence in climate change REQUIRES and active mitigation response." allows no such mushy/muddling thinking. That action is required at the global, corporate, national AND individual level is inherent in the statement. That all these incredibly minute uncertainties exist is inherent in the statement. It really makes answering John's original question very easy - you either agree with the statement (and ARE taking action) or you are a denier. You can maintain your own personal uncertainties (any true skeptic (aka scientist) has areas they want more data/information on. For me it is OHC) but you ALSO can clearly state that the multiple lines of evidence, the vast body of scientific knowledge (has any issue, in the history of man, been studied more?) and the ethical/rational analysis of the evidence and knowledge REQUIRE action. I couldn't tell if you were trying to claim my statement was ideology, or agreeing that those who use ideology instead of rational thought are getting us into trouble. As you can see, my statement is the antidote to ideology, as it disallows the myriad pathways the ideologically driven dance around the core truth of climate science.
83794. Camburn at 03:14 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Spaerica: For myself, I am not offended by the use of the term, however, I will stand by my statement that the term brings vivid images of carnage. I think something that you have to recognize is that climate is ALWAYS changing. The question is, what changes are caused by humans, and what changes are caused by the normal variations. ( -Snip- )
       Response:

       [DB] Off-topic link snipped (which, I add, you have already posted on at least 3 other threads now).

83795. Eric (skeptic) at 02:20 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       "This is direct observational evidence of Teleconnection. Not just climatological theory but observation." The theory of teleconnection comes from weather patterns which connect regions mainly by the jet stream. The weather those regions then becomes correlated. For example a strong jet in the western U.S. leading to a strong high in the Atlantic or any other similar combinations. There is no other theory of long distance connection that I am aware of. Since weather teleconnections are large scale weather patterns they are not part of local station temp. correlation which are due simply to local air exchange. There are many different teleconnection patterns worldwide with various amounts of persistence (esp. seasonality) and influence. Here's an example of a lake in Siberia influenced by ENSO: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3040185/
83796. Tom Curtis at 02:17 AM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       RyanStarr @13, there can be no question as to the appropriateness of including 2000-2009 instrumental data on the graph. Failing to do so when the data is available only tends to understate the modern warming contrary to the evidence. In other words, only if you have an objection to people knowing the truth about how warm the modern era is in comparison to the MWP is their any objection to including that data. Given that, unless you have substantial reasons to think Dana has misrepresented the instrumental data (and the way you have futilely flayed around seeking anything to latch a criticism on strongly suggest you do not), then your suggestions of dishonest manipulation ("a manual adjustment") are out of order. Rather than playing true to the denier stereotype, how about allowing the data to actually influence your opinion for a change?
83797. Eric (skeptic) at 02:16 AM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       " If this station removal was happening randomly, there is no reason to think that any effect from this would be anything other than random, not a bias." It was not random. The opposite of random is not a "wicked scheme" to introduce artificial warming, rather it is nonrandom which will introduce a mix of artificial warming and artificial cooling. Removal of rural stations can introduce a warming bias and in some cases station removal tended to be rural (e.g. the end of the Soviet Union which postdates Hansen's paper). On the flip side, rural station removal could also introduce cooling caused by local aerosols (see http://academic.engr.arizona.edu/HWR/Brooks/GC572-2004/readings/charlson.pdf)
83798. Bob Lacatena at 02:04 AM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       I find it more than humorous that this thread so bothers those in denial, and that they are totally unable to see how applicable the term is for their position. All over the Internet, from WUWT to SkS to Fox News to CNN, to the NY Times (and Revkin's blog), almost everywhere you can see frequent, mindless, vacuous, venomous, arrogant and ignorant claims about climate change. The anger, hubris, and insulting disdain demonstrated so vocally by so many deniers in so many places is down right frightening. As Tom rightly points out, even the use of the term "skeptic" is an insult to everyone that doesn't agree with their position. It by implication means that everyone else as an invalid and close-minded approach to the problem. It's an anti-insult, if you will, a name one can call themselves that belittles others. And yet those very same people are so very offended by the term denier. They apply every inappropriate tactic in the book, from lying to name calling to ignoring the facts to innuendo to just plain making stuff up (like conspiracy theories), and yet their feelings are hurt because we refer to them with a word that exactly describes their position: denier. Any denier who reads this and feels offended needs to stop and think. Why are you having such an emotional reaction to the term? Why does it make you angry? Then think about what you've posted, not just here, where you are forced to be polite by the rules and the nature of the conversations, but also elsewhere. You've all posted at WUWT and similar venues. How has your behavior been there? How well do you keep your laughing, condescending anger in check when you are surrounded by cohorts of gleefully bleating friends who all believe as you believe? No, if you are hurt by the term denier, then you need to take a long, hard look at your own approach to understanding the science, and how open minded you are. If the term denier bothers you, then you are not a skeptic. If the term denier means nothing to you, then you may be a real, true skeptic, and there's hope. You also need to consider the implications if you are wrong. I have. I continue to do so. It's a very important part of the equation. I'm comfortable with my stance because I believe it is correct, but I also believe that if I'm wrong, good will still come of it. No one is going to instill a one-world government from this. No one is going to destroy the economies of the world so that greenies can make money in carbon-trading schemes. None of that could ever, possibly, conceivably come to pass. But massive drought, starvation, refugees, ensuing wars, social and economic upheaval, can all result from climate change. The "catastrophic" label that deniers love to add to AGW, to make it seem over the top, is not nearly so over the top as many people think. The worst of it won't happen for fifty to one hundred years, but that doesn't keep my conscience any cleaner. An ability to coldly dismiss the fates of our ancestors is not a good trait in my book. So, deniers... meaning the people who are offended by that term... why are you so offended (and I don't mean in a literal sense, I mean it as a rhetorical question, and to imply that you should go do some soul searching)? And are you really ready to bear the guilt that you ultimately should feel if (when) you turn out to be very, very, very wrong?
83799. Charlie A at 01:11 AM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Riccardo #89 "The paper is about decadal forecasts, as opposed to long term (climatic) projections. I'm sure you agree that it's a completely different issue." Are you saying that we should not trust the climate models to make reliable decadal projections? The main article says "For example, model projections of sea level rise and temperature produced in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR - 2001) for 1990 – 2006 show good agreement with subsequent observations over that period." Riccardo -- do you feel this is an inappropriate statement? It seems to me that the main article claims that short term projections are reliable. Do you disagree? The link provided in the main article in that section is to Rahmstorf 2007, which looks compares the 2001 TAR projections to the global average temperature observations through 2006 and, through the use of an innovative method of handling end point data extension, finds that the models underestimate the actual trend. Of course, later observations have shown that the Rahmstorm method of smoothing and extending data is faulty, but that is the article chosen by Verity to support the statement that the 2001 TAR projections through 2006 are good.
83800. RyanStarr at 01:09 AM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       As user 'protestant' pointed out in the other thread the comparison was already made in the original paper. "...from the various adjusted CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90-30ºN record (black dotted line showing decadal mean values AD 1850-1999)" ( -Accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption snipped- ).
       Response:

       [DB]  Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Prev  1668  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  Next