Recent Comments

Prev  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  Next

Comments 83801 to 83850:

83801. Bob Lacatena at 07:14 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       371, garthman, Stop twisting everything to extremes. It just makes you look desperate. Obviously, any intelligent person would realize that my statement that "deniers have no rights" means they have no rights within the context of the climate science debate (i.e. once they have adopted a position of denial, which means ignoring and distorting the truth, then they have lost all right to be taken seriously, or treated with patience or respect). You are the one warping that into "no rights, human or otherwise." As far as your personal stance on climate, I haven't seen it. Because I haven't seen it, I won't label you a denier, but if you are so worried about the label, then I imagine your actual stance on climate is nothing like you claim. I'll leave it to you to put that out. But denial does not come in flavors. This is no subset of denialism that is somehow tolerable (to me). So if you are eco-this and believe in climate-science-that, but..., then you are a denier. If not, why do you care? As far was being welcome in my world, or an indictment on my values... look, this is both less and more than you are making it. Climate change is serious business, and most of the people who try to refute it are buffoons. Anyone who wants to refute it and is not a buffoon simply hasn't admitted to themselves that they are suffering from a component of desire which prevents them from admitting to the truth, or else they have not seriously looked into it deeply enough to understand where they are mistaken. In any case; merely foolish and uneducated, blinded by self-interest, or purposely less educated than necessary... no matter which version of denial they suffer from, it is still harmful to the issue for them to promote their ill-founded opinions, and that level of vociferous arrogance earned them the label of denier. There is no middle ground. There is no denial point that I have seen in years and years which is worth taking seriously. So, given that I understand that 99% of denial points are utter drivel, and the remaining 1% that are worth considering do not, on closer inspection, pan out, it leaves me with that solid understanding that deniers either do not understand, but are arrogant enough to violently express their opinion (which equals misunderstanding and falsehood) on a very, very important subject, or else they do understand, but through their own selfish, shortsighted desires, purposefully play fast and loose with the facts and knowingly push an invalid position. Neither scenario is nice, and both are hurtful to humanity. Every denier is going to have to wake up 10 or 20 years from now, look themselves in the mirror, and admit that they actively helped to create the future. So please stop. You're going out of your way to make me out to be the bad guy, and I'm sorry, but I feel nothing about your accusations. You want to make me feel something? Figure out what it is about climate science that you do not believe or do not trust, research the issue further, and figure out where you went wrong. Or would that sort of behavior be too skeptical for you?
83802. garethman at 06:34 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       365 Sphaerica: Deniers have no rights. I imagine that sums up our differences. As a person committed to the wellbeing of our ecology, as a person who has taken extensive steps to minimise my carbon footprint and as an individual who believes in the science of climate change ( or most of it anyway) I have now been condemned as a “denier: for questioning free speech. And if, as you suggest, deniers have no rights, human or otherwise, I am not welcome in your world as you see it. I see where you are going on this. A terrible indictment on your values. However I do not believe my fellow ecologist minded friends feel that way about taking away human rights from those who disagree with them, so I will write this off as an aberration not typical of the vast majority of believers in climate change or science.
83803. scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric(sk). "I didn't realize you wanted to add lots of urgency." Thats what I meant by effective. I should have been clearer. "Do you accept nuclear power in this hypothetical? " Sure. For many countries, this seems to be the only viable option. "we would still have to cut transportation fuel use in half." Well, I think market forces of supply and demand will do that for you without any intervention. The oil exploration industry (which face it, I am part of) has to really hum just to maintain production levels, let alone increase them. And there is only so much damage you can do to the atmosphere with remaining oil/gas stock - not so for coal. Now I dont understand you on clean air and safety. You are implying in the libertarian world view that these are government interference that we would be better without? Or that if you want solid reduction then they are the compromise? (If you accept a government role in clean air and safety enforcement, then why dont a government role in CO2 emission control by the way). You might want to check current literature on your low cloud creation scheme.
83804. scaddenp at 06:20 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       J Bob - that is the nature of the best data available. And to repeat the point ad nauseum, CO2 is not the only driver of climate, which is why correlation weakens when other factors are important (eg aerosols, solar).
83805. Eric (skeptic) at 06:06 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull, I agree the cap and dividend should be a lot easier to enforce than cap and trade and I would definitely choose that one if those were the only two choices. I downloaded a paper http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132835 on fuel price elasticity for driving and the basic curve showed a 10 percent decrease in fuel consumption for 25-50 cents increase in price (range was due to variables in driving necessity). Assuming 50 cents and 2004/5 gas prices about $2, that means a bit more than doubling the price to get to scaddenp's 50% target. The trucking industry might be a different story however. But the paper lends support to the idea that it is a lot more effective to simply raise the price of fuel than to try to regulate fuel consumption lower (e.g. CAFE standards).
83806. caerbannog at 06:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       It should be reiterated that denier claims about the surface temperature record have never been backed up by any data analysis work. This in spite of the fact that all the temperature data used by NOAA and NASA are freely available on-line, as are all the necessary software development and data analysis tools. As has been pointed out here in earlier discussions, the software development and data analysis required to test virtually all of the denier claims about the surface temperature record (i.e. claims about "dropped stations", the UHI effect, and "raw vs. adjusted" data discrepancies) can be tackled by a competent programmer/analyst in just a few days. As has been shown in this excellent "Of Averages & Anomalies..." series, the anomaly gridding/averaging procedure is quite straightforward. And thanks to modern (and freely-available) software development tools, the procedure is surprisingly easy to implement (as I found out when I spent some time playing around with the temperature data a few months ago). I posted some of my results some time ago here, but for the benefit of folks new to skepticalscience, I figure that reposting them would be worthwhile. (Note: I used GHCN "raw" temperature data to generate the results). This first plot shows my unsmoothed land station gridding/averaging results vs. NASA's (the NASA results were copied/pasted directly from the NASA web-site): My gridding/averaging implementation is much cruder than NASA's; I made a couple of "back of the envelope" shortcuts/approximations out of, for lack of a better description, "sheer laziness" ;). But my results still track NASA's quite closely. Another plot that folks (especially those new to this stuff) might be interested in seeing is a plot that shows the effects of the "dropped stations" that Anthony Watts and other deniers have made such a fuss about. Watts and Co. have claimed for a long time that warming trends have been exaggerated by the "dropping" of high-latitude/high-altitude stations from the temperature record. Well, here's a plot that I generated that shows temperature anomaly results for "all stations" vs. "dropped stations excluded" (5-year moving-average smoothing): As you can see, the "dropped stations" effect is minimal. This is something that Watts and Co. could have verified for themselves with just a few days (at most) of "spare time" programming/analysis effort. If Watts didn't have the programming skills to tackle a project like this, he should have hired someone or gotten a volunteer to do the work for him before he started throwing around accusations of incompetence/dishonesty on the part of the climate-science community.
83807. actually thoughtful at 05:42 AM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       Thank you Riccardo. So storms are moving 11 miles north per decade (assuming all the caveats in the above review resolve out to this paper getting it right). Interesting. I live in the Southwest - and storms moving 40-50 miles north would change things a LOT in this area of the country.
83808. Riccardo at 05:25 AM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       One degree of latitude is about 60 nautical miles (it depends a bit on latitude) which translates into about 69 miles.
83809. actually thoughtful at 04:55 AM on 6 June 2011
       Poleward motion of storm tracks
       Can someone translate .16 degrees/decade into miles on the ground/decade? Thank you.
83810. dhogaza at 04:50 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garatheman: "Interestingly you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning me for suggesting that everyone should have the right of opinion." You're free to hold what ever opinion you want. So am I, and if in my opinion you're being (-Snip-), I'm going to tell you so. You seem to have an asymmetric opinion about the right to hold and express one's opinion ...
       Response:

       [DB] Please take the road less travelled.

83811. actually thoughtful at 04:19 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic), If I understand you correctly your problem with a simple carbon tax is that there would be room for people to wiggle out of it. I think that is a fair point. However if we accept that as justification for not imposing that tax, we have also ruled out sales tax (barter, drug trade, black market); income tax (see any large corporation, most well-to-do). So while a little leakage is inevitable, large-scale fraud will eventually be shut down. Let's say the US, Canada, Australia, NA and Europe pass a cap and dividend program. China, India, Russia and all other countries don't. The tax countries impose an equivalent import duty on all goods from non-tax countries. If China "launders" through Latvia - no go - still an import tax in the US. If they launder through Germany - they get the tax on entering German, no tax on entering the USA. Will some tax evasion occur? Of course. Will it be the nightmare of enforcement you predict? Very unlikely. Their is value (economic) in keeping it simple. Compare that to the Frankenstein Cap and Trade system Senator Kerry and the House Democrats put together in 2009. That was complicated and un-enforceable.
83812. dana1981 at 03:35 AM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Rob #4 - yes, I think Glenn did a nice job putting this into perspective. You see a temperature station next to an A/C unit and you think, 'there's no way this data can be reliable!'. But once you look into how the data is analyzed, as Glenn has done in great detail, you see that they do a great job of filtering out extraneous effects. The problem is that the surface station folks didn't bother to examine how the data is actually analyzed to create the average surface temperature data set. Now they're seeing how good a job GISTemp et al. do of it, a few years too late, and there's major egg on their face as a result.
83813. Bob Lacatena at 03:30 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       362, garethman,

       ...people who are complete believers and evangelists for the subject of climate change...

       Problem number one is that you characterize people on the side of science (yes, deniers are on the opposite side, hands down) in this way. Forgive me if those who understand the seriousness of the problem also recognize that it is something that is going to take concerted, harmonious action, and it has to happen soon. I would be down right evil if I know what I know and ignored the problem. I am "evangelical" in the same way that someone warns people that the bridge is out on the road ahead. Your feeling (emphasis on "feeling," not knowledge) that we are "believers" is also horribly misplaced. This is a huge part of your problem, and the problem with most deniers, that is the idea that our position is a choice and a belief. It is not. It is an understanding and acceptance of the science (while deniers absolutely do not understand, and adamantly do not accept, the sad but inarguable truth behind the science). Right there, your post is a failure, after just those two words, "evangelist" and "believer."

       This happens to an extent with the right wingers on WUWT...

       No, it's pervasive and violently so. The reason you don't see it much is because the place is so hideously offensive that no rational person will post there. You're kidding yourself if you think that even 10% of deniers are nicey-nice Mr. Rogers types.

       In fact I had some difficulty tracing the line of your argument through the insults...

       And there's another problem. They weren't insults, they were actual observations. This is without question the behavior of deniers, and your attitude, posts, and your own choice of words ("camps," "climate Taliban") demonstrate very clearly your complete inability to appreciate this.

       ...it can be part of our freedoms to allow people to be mistaken in their scientific beliefs...

       Not when those mistakes threaten the health of our civilization and way of life, and not when they actively and misguidedly use that ignorance and "mistaken beliefs" to put us all at risk. How would you feel about someone who hangs around a school selling cigarettes to kids because he "believes" the science about cancer is wrong?

       Dehumanising a group of people by giving them negative titles or stereotypes is usually the first step in some pretty dodgy goals.

       First, no one is dehumanizing deniers. That's a gross exaggeration. They are clearly all too human, being easily frightened, ignorant, misled, and demonstrating all of the worst traits of humanity in the most vocal of ways. Second, do you think the title "racist" is bad? Should we never have labeled people as "racists" and "bigots" because they were only "mistaken in their beliefs?" How about warmongers? Is that okay? I'm sorry, but your basic point is that we should all just get along, I'm just a guy, like you, but with different opinions. Your position fails because: 1) Deniers don't behave that way, not remotely close, so what goes around comes around. Deniers as a group must consistently lose their venomous hatred (whether you recognize it as such or not). 2) It's only a belief to deniers. There is no "belief" in truth. Truth is truth. That you won't accept the truth is why there's a name for you. 3) "Playing nice" isn't going to get us anywhere. I don't care about your feelings. If you were a sensible person, even if you misunderstood the science, you wouldn't care about the label, or rather, it would bother you in that it would motivate you to learn more, without hubris and arrogance, and to try to figure out where you are mistaken. So in the end your words are wasted. You are a denier. People who deny the science are deniers. People who actively promote their ignorant position are deniers. People who think WUWT that is a remotely reasonable (or "nice") place are deniers. People who care about being called "deniers" are deniers. That last point is the whole crux of it. If you didn't care, if the term didn't bother you, then the term probably wouldn't apply to you. And it's only one word. One. It's not "alarmist" or "warmist" or "warmista" or "climate Taliban" or "eco-fascist" or "greenie" or "tree hugger" or... Are you getting the hint? Deniers are not nice people. They are wrong, they are obstructing action on the most important challenge of the 21^st century, and if we push it too far the most important danger that modern civilization has faced since the atom bomb. Deniers have no rights. True skeptics would, if I ever met one. If you want to start behaving like a skeptic (not the warped, twisted vision of skeptics that deniers present, but rather a true skeptic) then you will be treated with respect, and helped through the tough parts of the science. If you want to be a denier, then wear the label proudly, because it is what you are.
83814. Rob Honeycutt at 03:22 AM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       This is really interesting to in that it puts the whole WUWT Surface Station project into a broader perspective. It's interesting from a sociological standpoint how one highly motivated individual (Anthony) can create such a hubbub over what amounts to a small amount of noise in the data.
83815. Tom Curtis at 02:45 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman @362, here you where making a nice argument that, wouldn't it be nice if we stopped all the insults and than you go and drop term like "climate taliban", meaning pro-science debaters on the internet, ie, me amongst others. Well, I can't give you top marks for the worst insult I have received from a denier. Afterall, I have been called an eco-nazi and accused of desiring mass genocide. "Climate taliban" is pretty tame after that. But it is far worse an insult than anything Sphaerica has said in the course of this debate. I mean, seriously, way to kill your credibility. It helps us get some perspective on this whole discussion though. Right from the get go, the terms deniers have been using to describe climate scientists have been far worse than the terms used back the other way. I call climate change deniers "deniers" which, in the end, just accuses them of having a mental block. In return I am accused of fraud, deceit and of desiring genocide. Being fair, some of the main deniers have been accused (with good reason) of scientific fraud, but the deniers have accused mainstream scientists of fraud, and of conspiracy to implement one world government, or to ruin America (which seeing many of them are US citizens, is an accusation of treason), and of course, of pushing genocide. Oh, and of being "climate taliban". Not all deniers have made these sorts of accusations, but all of them turn a blind eye to them, or encourage them with winks and nods. If you don't believe me, name just one well known climate change denier who has publicly condemned Christopher Monckton (who has publicly claimed that the IPCC is a conspiracy to bring about world government by the UN) as a conspiracy theorist, and stated publicly that he will not share a platform with Monckton. While deniers will not dissociate them selves from the conspiracy theorists and worse, they have no right to not be considered associates of conspiracy theorists and worse". It is that simple. So if there are any serious critics of climate change out there who are actual skeptics, the onus is on them to clean up their act - to disavow kooks. Only then, and only for those that do, should the scientific community consider politeness a virtue.
83816. Tom Curtis at 02:13 AM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       damorbel @1020: 1) First you contradict yourself by claiming that my "analogy is little better" than that of Jigaro Kano, but then stating "The analogy of temperature and voltage has some merit". As the analogy of temperature to voltage was my only analogy, if it has merit, then it is better than that of Jigaro Kano. Kano wanted to analogise the increased greenhouse effect to an increase of power in a circuit. As the greenhouse effect is an increase of temperature, he is therefore analogising temperature to power, which is invalid. 2) The voltage multiplier circuit is not an analogue of the greenhouse effect, and nor is it intended as such. It merely demonstrates that circuits can increase voltage, and do not violate any law of thermodynamics in doing so. Therefore if Kano's analogy is adapted so that analogues are analogised with analogues, it provides no argument against the greenhouse effect. 3) The electrical circuit analogy breaks down because any circuit involves a small number of non-overlapping paths while energy transfer in the atmosphere involves an infinite number of overlapping paths. Consequently individual surfaces or sections of the atmosphere may have more power entering and leaving them than enters or leave the top of the atmosphere, but this is a consequence only of overlapping energy paths and does not represent a creation of energy or destruction of entropy. We know this because the net energy transfer is the same for the TOA, and for each level of the atmosphere below that, including the surface/atmosphere interface. 3a) The overlapping of paths is analogous to a laser striking a mirror in a dark room, then striking another mirror at right angles to the reflected beam so that the beam retraces its path. In such a scenario twice the output power of the laser strikes the first mirror, and is reflected from it, which is purely a function of that mirror being struck twice by the beam. No violation of the laws of thermodynamics is involved. This situation is exactly analogous to what happens in the atmosphere except that in the atmosphere and at the surface, energy is often absorbed and reradiated, and is often reradiated after being transferred to other molecules by collisions, and (as previously noted) there is no one path for energy in the atmosphere. 4) The issue of temperature change with altitude is very important for understanding the greenhouse effect, but irrelevant to the topic here, ie,whether the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics. Unless you wish to argue that the adiabatic lapse rate violates the laws of thermodynamics, or against some other denier who on this thread has argued that, it is therefore of topic (as the moderators have repeatedly informed you).
83817. actually thoughtful at 02:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman - what is a "climate Taliban" - I have never heard that term. Whatever it means, invoking the "Taliban" - both a religious term and a highly charged one is not in keeping with your posts that claim you want the debate to avoid insults. Am I right in saying your point here is that the AGW (aka pro science) crowd is alienating people by being so fervent in their position? If so I think you should consider that we are on post 360+ of a thread that has featured 10 or more posters saying "well I believe in one tiny part of this (maybe that the earth is warming" ... but I am not convinced" and the science crowd responding with "what in particular do you not agree with" OR "look it is science - there are ALWAYS open questions and things to trace down - but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence says we have the biggest problem we have ever faced, and chasing down these (99.9% or more) bogus and/or outright lies is a distraction from solving the problem." So if you get a strong response by claiming that if only the pro science crowd were nicer than all the deniers (word chosen carefully) will see reason - it is to be expected. You will also find these same posters will bend over backwards to explain a challenging issue to someone actually trying to understand. The frustration is we are DECADES past the easy mitigation, and staring down the barrel of some VERY nasty results. It has come to the point that those who say "tut tut..let's see what the research says in 10 years" are now condemning my children to a remarkably less hospitable planet. I DON'T LIKE people who do that! Now anyone who wants to understand, or point out we don't know everything (but is taking notable action) - that is A-OK with me. It isn't holding different beliefs that is the problem. To bring it back to the Taliban (and Chrissie Hynde) - I have no problem with them until they start dropping bombs on my street. Street meaning my life/country. The deniers, by enabling (and worse fomenting for) inaction, are dropping bombs.
       Moderator Response: No all-caps, please.
83818. garethman at 01:35 AM on 6 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       SEAN O'FARRELL at 22:57 PM on 5 June, 2011 Top poste this morning on Climate Progress "Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying” This is truly awful, but the inevitable result of the disdain which both camps, treat each other. Both right wing fundamentalists opposers and climate Taliban both have a lot to answer for.
       Response:

       [DB] "inevitable"?  "camps"?  "climate Taliban"?

       Very revealing as to mindset and ideology.  Surely your background in ethics would make you realize the communications gaffes you are committing here.

83819. skywatcher at 01:23 AM on 6 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       Eric #20: You do realise that measuremets of surface temperature and lower tropospheric temperature are not measuring exactly the same thing? Tamino has lots of info on this, but safe to say your simplistic analysis is not up to the task. Are you considering that satellite analyses begin around 1979, at high solar activity, while they end in the recent deep low in solar activity, so introducing a skew? As the lower tropospheric measures are about twice as responsive to the small changes in solar activity, you would expect the skew of the temperature trend to be larger for the RSS and UAH than for surface temperature measurements. That's just one of several thing to consider, as Glenn's posts should make clear, as well as Tom's comment above - there's nothing desperately mysterious about the different trends of the different datasets.
83820. dana1981 at 01:19 AM on 6 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       John nicol - we are not listing politicians speaking about climate science without "a single clue about the science". If we were, at the very least Ross Garnaut would not qualify, as I believe he has spent substantial time reading up on the subject. However, the point of this resource is to list politicians who are repeating long-debunked climate myths, and to provide a link to the discussion of why these myths are wrong.
83821. Riccardo at 01:00 AM on 6 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       skeggy whatever surface temperature he used, either 3.5*T(700) or the expermental data, there's no point in using a fatally flawed model. The so-called one box model (or one layer zero-dimensional heat balance model) means that the layer has uniform temperature at any time, it can not emit at a different rate than the one given by its temperature. If we have a different surface temperature we also have some additional heat flow. It is equivalent to adding a surface layer, ending up with a two boxes model. This is reasonable, as Dr. Bickmore says in this post. A surface mixed layer (much thinner than 700 m) and the rest of the deep ocean. But then you must take into account (at the very least) the heat flow between the two layers, which Dr. Spencer didn't. It is not that the one or two box model isn't worth using, it is that Dr. Spencer applied it incorrectly forcing the model into an unphysical situation.
83822. damorbel at 00:46 AM on 6 June 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       Re #1019 Tom Curtis, you write:- "Jigoro Kano @1018, your analogy is inaccurate" I suggest your analogy is little better. What do you mean "...the surface radiation is greater than the incoming solar radiation averaged overtime"? Greater power? Higher temperature? The analogy of temperature and voltage has some merit but the voltage multiplier (VM) circuit you show does not increase the overall power. With 100% efficiency the output power is the same as the input power. The VM bears fair comparison with the atmosphere where the specific energy at the bottom of the atmosphere is the same as at a greater altitude. The temperature at the surface is higher than at altitude but the specific energy (J/mol) (or J/kg) remains the same. Yes the temperature cganges with altitude but it changes for all gases with or without GHGs.
83823. J. Bob at 23:48 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes
       Dan @ 6, Nice graph, but you are only looking at a little over 50 years of reasonably accurate CO2 recordings. A longer record would be more helpful. This would show how CO2 concentrations changed during the global temperature dips in the 1880’s & 1940’s (HadCRUT). Also you are presenting a graph where the global temp was moving up at a relatively constant rate. It would have been more interesting to note any changes in temperature during the brief CO2 rate dip, starting in 1988-1994.
83824. SEAN O at 22:57 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Top poste this morning on Climate Progress "Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying" http://thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/
83825. garethman at 22:13 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Sphaerica: Thanks for your post. You will note I did suggest that using religion as a metaphor for science belief was not a good idea. I did not initially raise that concept I challenged it. My point is that people who are complete believers and evangelists for the subject of climate change can get pretty nasty with anyone who does not toe the the line. This happens to an extent with the right wingers on WUWT, though there is no equivalent thread at present.on that site. You may not agree with my perspective on the right to be wrong, but you interestingly use words like: idiocy, cowardice, ignorance,falsehood, laughable, ploy, denial speak ( a new one on me) twisting the message and lots more besides.In fact I had some difficulty tracing the line of your argument through the insults. Apparently you are stating my position as a so called “denier” (despite the fact I have said I fully believe in the majority of climate science and run a low carbon household) is twisted and has no foundation whatsoever. What position is that? Interestingly as a non-expert I tend to steer clear of debating Science, I don’t have enough knowledge of the underlying theory. My expertise is ethics and psychology, and I approach the subject of the difference between sceptics, revisionists , Taliban and evangelists from that perspective. It may be evil and wrong to to do such a thing, or to suggest that it can be part of our freedoms to allow people to be mistaken in their scientific beliefs, but my personal and subjective view as that a great disservice is done to the movement by treating fellow humans in this dehumanising and condemning fashion. Dehumanising a group of people by giving them negative titles or stereotypes is usually the first step in some pretty dodgy goals.
83826. retward at 21:33 PM on 5 June 2011
       IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
       Thanks for clarifying dana1981.
       Response:

       [dana1981] My pleasure!  It was a good question and good point - the graph is most of the picture, but not the whole picture.

83827. skeggy at 21:27 PM on 5 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       BTW Roy's model does not use 3.5 * T(700) instead of Tsurface. Wrong guess. It's difficult to see why this is an "excellent" post. It attempts to dismiss R.S model without even having it to look at. It seems excellent is just some kind of believers vs heretics cheer-leader term I'm unfamiliar with. If your bias is the same as mine: go daddy! It would be more interesting to see a post that does deal with Spencer's work. I'm sure it's not perfect and there are limitations to such trivial models. In fact it's not Spencer's model, his credits it to someone else and mainstream climate researchers use simple models like this to avoid doing full GCM runs. What worrying is that they agree with real satellite data as well as or better than super computer models do. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
83828. skeggy at 21:09 PM on 5 June 2011
       Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet
       Dr. Spencer's model has been available since long before you wrote this article. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/ He must get a HUGE amount of email every single day. He seems to have a policy (which seems not only reasonable but also essential in managing his time ) of simply ignoring requests for things that you should be able to find yourself with a little effort. He is not a human google backup for those who can't be bothered to look. As you note, he does reply where he thinks there is a point worth a reply. I have had replies and many non replies. I would not have the arrogance to expect that he replies to every question I would like to ask him. You would do better to use his model rather than try to second guess it if you wish to criticise him. It's been on his site since December 2010. Saying "I think he has done this and *its wrong*" is pretty unfair as well as unscientific. Your arguments would carry more weight if there was less snark.
83829. Bob Lacatena at 20:48 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       garethman,

       ...you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning...

       No. This is typical denial speak. Twist the message, so you actually have someone to fight against. No one is condemning you. We're laughing at you. And we're trying to make people realize that your positions (because deniers don't have one position, they have millions, anything that is at odds with the truth)... we're trying to make people realize that your positions have no foundation whatsoever in reality, no matter how hard you try to condemn twist the facts to make it appear to be so. We're also trying to help you to realize that your position, while in your own very short term interests, is not in anyone's long term interests, and is in fact a threat to modern civilization and human lives, well being, and standards of living.

       I do not laugh at them or ensure derogatory terms...

       Deniers do this in wave after wave, on a hundred times as many blogs and comment threads as serious, thoughtful people do. Don't play the "oh, we're all nice" card. It's as laughable as your lack of a scientific position. Oh, and the whole "religion" tack is yet another debate ploy, although I find it very enlightening (pun intended) that you've equated denialism to a religion. How true.

       The reality is we may have such ideas with regard to religion, especially the fundamentalist type, but we do not give them derogatory labels on such popular sites as this and hold them up to ridicule.

       Yes, because they are religions. They are people's personal beliefs, to which everyone is entitled. As Senator Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." This is about science, not religion, no matter how often deniers attempt to cast it as such, and no matter how often deniers accuse scientists (boy, is this laughable) of being "believers" and of modern climate science as being a "religion." So your analogy was perfect. It highlights exactly what needs to be said. This is about science, not religion. This is about truth, not opinions. Hiding behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion so that you are "free" to trumpet ignorance, idiocy, and falsehoods (like the 2^nd Law nonsense) is cowardice and cowardly tactics, pure and simple.
83830. Eric (skeptic) at 20:33 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       actually thoughtfull, the market is not simple, why should the solution be simple? The biggest problem with the carbon tax is the size of the tax needed to distort the market to reduce emissions to the extent desired would result in an unimaginably large black market. The problem is that you would be fighting the market, not working with it, it will always find a way to produce goods at the lowest possible price working around whatever Rube Goldberg system is set up to track energy use. China can't produce enough power (I posted a link on another thread), can't track power usage, can't stop bootleg power users (e.g. politically-connected industry reselling power to unconnected industry) We already export a great deal of emissions to China today. Would we simply tax any imported good from China? Even if we could (the politicians would want to muck it up with loopholes) the tariff would be easily bypassed by laundering the goods through other countries. Tax any good from any country? The politicians would have a field day. Tear open every container at point of entry? I order online and have my packages shipped directly from China. Tear open every package from China? That starts to heavily invade privacy and inhibit trade. Last year I placed some orders for small parts for a particular research reason, not because I wanted the goods (I unloaded them to unknown people at the flea market for my cost). We would have other practical problems like determining the energy content of goods, mainly not penalizing goods that have genuinely reduced energy inputs or enhance energy efficiency here. We would have problems with the black market; I have gone to the flea market most weeks in good weather for about 10 years, and there are ever-intcreaising amounts of bootleg junk from China. Everything from digital goods, electronics, to batteries, all knock-offs of major brands made to look exactly like the original or changing a letter or two in the name (e.g. "Tociba"). The trade in these goods is literally beyond the control of government.
83831. garethman at 19:28 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman: 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 So Garethman thinks geologists are evil for laughing at those who insist the earth is only 6,000 years old. Look, bible-thumpers are free to make the claim and no one says we can't "allow dissenting opinion". The fact that we laugh at them and point out their total disconnect with reality does not make us guilty of "denialism". We not only have science on our side, but oil and coal without which you probably wouldn't be getting the electricity that allows you to post such bunk. People are free to insist the world is flat, 6,000 years old, and that CO2 lasers don't work. We're free to point a CO2 laser at their forehead and test their faith (with, of course, their permission and the signing of proper release forms) ... Interestingly you elegantly re-enforce my message by condemning me for suggesting that everyone should have the right of opinion. Saying that opinion is "such bunk” is revealing in itself. Using religion to support your argument was possibly not the best tactic. While I do not agree with people who have an odd ideas based on religion, I do not laugh at them or ensure derogatory terms are applied to them and used in various sites to attack them. Their beliefs may be strange, but apparently huge number of people in the USA believe people can rise from the dead after 3 days, so much so they congregate to worship such things and ensure Presidents toe the line on such beliefs. Laugh at them? possibly, if they are vulnerable it’s easy. What names do you give to their Islamic equivalents or is that a bit more of a challenge? The reality is we may have such ideas with regard to religion, especially the fundamentalist type, but we do not give them derogatory labels on such popular sites as this and hold them up to ridicule. With regard to power generation, my solar panels cope with everything I need and more. I say again, I may not agree with what people say, but I defend their right to say it, and while the pro-climate change group are undoubtedly correct in the majority of what they say, they come across as a pretty unsavoury and even nasty lot when they have to answer and queries which require thought and explanation. Denialism can be applied in many ways, not just with regard to what is important to oneself.
83832. adelady at 19:27 PM on 5 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       John Nicol "...when in fact they do not have a single clue about the science. Amateurs and novices don't need personal expertise when they rely on the results of 100+ years of scientific endeavour. (And I'm just accepting your characterisation of those particular people. For all we know, they might be quite knowledgeable about some aspects of the science.) It's only when people, scientists or otherwise, contest scientific findings that they must demonstrate expertise of their own. Commonly accepted science is occasionally overturned - steadily as with tectonics, all at once with stomach ulcers - but such events are rarely the result of non-experts producing the goods.
83833. e at 18:26 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro @48> "And as I also said, NYC is the only area in the US which could possibly make the numbers work." New York heavy rail generates on average 0.20 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile. That's even lower than a Toyota Prius which generates 0.26. It might be helpful if you actually read these reports instead of just making things up as you go.
83834. e at 18:07 PM on 5 June 2011
       CO2 limits will harm the economy
       Jigoro @ 48 >"CO2 ton/rider ratio is abysmal, while the cost/rider is exorbitant. As I said inefficient. Inefficiency to a level unheard of within the private sector. US rail transit is horribly inefficient" Again with this claim, are you serious? According to the CATO report I already provided, heavy rail generates 0.25 pounds of CO2 per passenger mile, commuter rail 0.29, and light rail 0.36. Meanwhile automobiles generate 0.61. Your claims are therefore demonstrably and inescapably false. Or are you seriously trying to argue that the 0.25 is greater than 0.61? If so, you have reached a level of denial so stunning that it is unheard of even on this website.
83835. actually thoughtful at 18:03 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Eric (skeptic) - if that is the choice, give me the carbon tax! It sure appears to be a case of your cure is worse than the disease (kicking the can on carbon taxes). Any economist will tell you that a pure/simple tax on carbon is the most straight forward way to change people's behavior regarding CO2. Your solution has me 1 scratching my head and 2 wondering why you are so wrapped around the axle. Why not follow the KISS principle?
83836. actually thoughtful at 17:45 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro Kano: "I love the free market, but I'm not in favor of cap and tax. In fact most true market fan are not in favor of government controlled and regulated CO2 market system." Sigh. It is time for you to choose - AGAIN. I grant you your right to think this (generous of me, I know). But you can't really claim to be a free market guy AND deny free markets all the information they need. Pick one. Either you believe in free markets, and all that entails (fully informed buyers and sellers) or you prefer a jerry-rigged system. It doesn't matter to me if the government fixes it or big business or my Aunt Edna - it is a fixed market and non-optimal outcomes are pouring out of it. The irony here is that we "greenies" out libertarian the libertarians and out conserve the conservatives. It all comes from being internally consistent in your world view, and thinking through the repercussions. I invite you to try it. A carbon tax provides the information. You either need to come up with a method for introducing the missing information, or admit you are not a free market guy (IF you want to be intellectually honest). As for the 2nd law - do me a favor. Write it up, get it peer reviewed and published. Then John Cook or another talented writer on this site will review it. THEN I will read their review, and if it still doesn't make sense, I will read your actual paper. Other than that - no way am I falling for your 2nd amendment follies. Life is short! I just don't need a 240 watt or 390 watt power supply.
83837. John Nicol at 16:35 PM on 5 June 2011
       Can we trust climate models?
       Again thanks to the moderator [DB] for your comments and invitation to include links. I was previously of the impression that it might be inappropriate to give another reference link for people on your post as a lot of other sites disallow the invitation to their own "audience" to go elsewhere. However, if that is OK here it would certainly make it easier perhaps to keep everyone happy and prevent unsettling other guests. Best, John
83838. John Nicol at 15:32 PM on 5 June 2011
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       This comment may again be off topic for a site such as yours, but if one is going to list politicians who denounce the science from the IPCC without knowledge, would it not, in the intersts of balance, be fair to also list those like Ross Garnaut in particular and also Keven Rudd, Greg Combet and many others who continure to assure us that the science is settled, when in fact they do not have a single clue about the science.
83839. LazyTeenager at 14:46 PM on 5 June 2011
       Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think
       One thing that I am curious about is the details of the actual measurement protocol for thermometers in Stevenson screens. That is how current, maximum and minimum temperatures are used in the temperature record. One concievable error is where a transient event such as a jet exhaust or air conditioner turn on is captured by a maximum temperature measurement.
83840. Eric (skeptic) at 14:43 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp, when you proposed your hypothetical up in this thread, I didn't realize you wanted to add lots of urgency. Now I see in 279, you want 50% reduction in 50 years. Do you accept nuclear power in this hypothetical? Regardless of electricity production method, we would still have to cut transportation fuel use in half. Libertarians would start with drastic cuts in government energy use, starting with DoE itself (would have to stop making nuclear weapons and stop cleaning up the mess from previous weapon making). Then get rid of the government fleet (200k vehicles) and the post office (200k more vehicles) Unfortunately that still leaves 200m private vehicles. Removing federal regulations would cut energy use (net) by removing such impediments to efficiency such as "crash safety" and "clean air" (my understanding is that Europe has dirtier diesels with better mileage) With that, we are still at the margins. Reduction in miles traveled is going to hammer the economy. But there's a nice Libertarian way out, cut taxes to boost entrepreneurship. Regardless of the climate debate, I would eliminate corporate income taxes and long term capital gains (maybe lengthen the term to 2 from 1 year) To reduce the miles, I would privatize the highways and let them sell credits for keeping them empty. To make it more expensive to use local roads we could have private subdivisions like mine with shoestring budgets with 100% resident funding (ours is about $8k per mile per year). Then an arrangement so that the trip to the privately maintained office park and shopping complex costs $20 but returned in credits instead of the current $2 in fuel. The credits would be given out as coupons for stores or bonuses by employers. Even with that, we have an economic friction problem. In order to get the best job match people have to travel a lot, especially the way the business and homes are laid out here. That might require more than the tax elimination and (what I didn't mention) restoring the long term value of money. Before and during the Civil War my area was an industrial mecca with a limestone quarry (on my property) a lime kiln (still there next door) and a furnace nearby for metal working. That also meant we had zero (really truly zero) trees left and lots of CO2 emissions from making quicklime. But the same ideas could be applied to many newer industries with some zoning flexibility, new small scale manufacturing, and local distribution and sales. Well, that's not very difficult now is it? The weather modification idea came from an article I read about it using ships to create clouds over the ocean. Lots of extensions are possible to most efficiently increase the water cycle. Heck, we could probably use frickin laser beams to do it.
83841. J. Bob at 14:23 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddeno, P.S. Clarification of the 3rd item. It is not seeing the connection between the 1880-1910 & the 1945-1955 global temperature dips and CO2 concentrations. One would think you would see something.
83842. Tom Curtis at 14:23 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       dhogaza @350, I'm sure you meant 200 years, however I believe 50 years is the appropriate figure with the work of Gilbert Plass overcoming the major objections to the theory.
       Response:

       [DB] Fixed Link.

83843. J. Bob at 14:13 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       scaddenp @ 268, took a longer look at the paper you referenced, Benestad & Schmidt. A few things bother me with the CO2 connection. First, the short time span of actual CO2 data ( 1958-2009) Second, the reliance of proxy CO2 data for earlier ( pre-1958) Third, the lack of comparing long term ( > 20 years) temperature variations to CO2 (GHG) variations. Have you noticed that?
83844. dhogaza at 13:59 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       JK is a true denialist: "If and only if the physics (radiative forcing) is a true mechanism." This has not been an issue for something close on 500 years (Tyndall). If you don't like physics, kill your computer. Even stone-aged living required physics (not identified at the time, but shaping points was/is dependent on nativist knowledge of how various rocks react to forceful blows).
83845. Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 5 June 2011
       Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick
       RyanStarr @15, No. I am saying that the last ten years of instrumental data (2000-2009) added 0.4 degrees to the preceding ten years (1990-1999), ie, the last 10 years actually plotted by Lungqvist. I strongly suspect that the next ten years in the sequence (2010-2019) will add a similar amount, but I don't know the relevant data to make a forecast for 90 to 30 degrees North (ie, the area covered by the data).
83846. scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Further note to Eric(sk). On attribution of emissions... Is the responsibility for emissions from coal-powered consumer good with the consumer or with the producer? If its with the producer and there is no mechanism by with they pay the environment costs associated with production, then why would they not burn coal? If its with the consumer, then where is most of the consumer goods produced in China going to?
83847. dhogaza at 13:56 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Garethman:

       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

       So Garethman thinks geologists are evil for laughing at those who insist the earth is only 6,000 years old. Look, bible-thumpers are free to make the claim and no one says we can't "allow dissenting opinion". The fact that we laugh at them and point out their total disconnect with reality does not make us guilty of "denialism". We not only have science on our side, but oil and coal without which you probably wouldn't be getting the electricity that allows you to post such bunk. People are free to insist the world is flat, 6,000 years old, and that CO2 lasers don't work. We're free to point a CO2 laser at their forehead and test their faith (with, of course, their permission and the signing of proper release forms) ...
83848. Tom Curtis at 13:49 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @343, if you are not in favour of a government regulated market in CO2 emission permits, then the logical step for you to take as a libertarian is to ban any emissions from any property other than the results of natural processes except where the emitter has independently negotiated with all potentially effected people for permission to do so. It is very obvious that on libertarian principles you do not have the right to dump your rubbish on my land without my permission. Clearly the bar against dumping applies not just because the noxious substance is solid, or liquid, but because it potentially harms me, or the value of my property. Well, CO2 emissions potentially harm all humans and the value of property of millions. Ergo, not dumping without individually negotiated permission is a straight forward consequence of libertarian principles, once you reject a regulated market. Cue the usual libertarian sophistry about how their principles don't have their obvious consequences except when those consequences are beneficial to the libertarian ...
83849. scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigoro - but you dont offer any effective CO2 emission control as an alternative. I'm with Hansen on this - I dont cap and trade will do any good at all. His "fee and dividend" proposal is interesting but I'm just as happy with just ban it and let the market figure it out within the constraints. We dont let aluminium plants vent F, coal plant vent SO2, etc. You would have more credibility if you could offer a truly "effective" alternative but then I have just seen your comments on 2nd Law. Time you took a trip to Science of Doom. Please try and convince me that you are not rationalizing denial because your ideology is bankrupt of ideas for effective CO2 emission control.
83850. Tom Curtis at 13:41 PM on 5 June 2011
       Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
       Jigaro Kano @341, I have dealt with your misunderstandings regarding the greenhouse effect and electrical circuits here. Kindly discuss it on the appropriate thread or not at all.

Prev  1669  1670  1671  1672  1673  1674  1675  1676  1677  1678  1679  1680  1681  1682  1683  1684  Next