Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 Next
Comments 9001 to 9050:
-
shoyemore at 00:55 AM on 21 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The parallels between the Climategate e-mails and the Clintongate e-mails in 2016, from Russian Intelligence via Wikileaks, is spooky.
- Both hacks originated in Russia.
- Both released the e-mails at key moments: The run up to an international conference, the run-up to an election, while the favoured Russian candidate was struggling with a "locker-room talk" sex scandal.
- Both strangely well co-ordinated with right-wing media, who leaped on the stories gleefully.
- Both trapped the "good" media into a fake story that turned out to be a ball of smoke e.g. the DNC e-mails contained nothing negative about Clinton's campaign, the "Climategate" e-mails were minor blemishes.
Coincidence?
No smoking gun, of course, but if the truth is ever allowed to emerge, it will be a strange and mysterious story.
-
MA Rodger at 23:31 PM on 20 November 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Dukester @380,
My back of fag packet calculation puts the energy used by shipping at roughly (300Mt/year x 43 GJ/t / (8766 x 3600) = 400 GW. That is certainly billions of kWh/year. But as a global forcing it comes to 400e9W / 510e14m = 0.0008Wm^-2. As of last year NOAA AGGI puts the forcing from CO2 at 2.044Wm^-2 with a total positive GHG forcing of 3.1Wm^-2. Burning fossil fuels does result in much energy release but, depending on the fuel, the resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 will be heating the planet by the same amount over the following 9 to 18 months, and again for following periods of that length. The combustion energy release thus quickly becomes a trivial value relative to the GHG forcing.
Moderator Response:[PS] no more comments about this on this thread please. Take it to the waste heat thread.
-
Chaz at 22:36 PM on 20 November 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Yikes, I was wondering why they tacked most of the word "Spline" onto the anagram "ANUSPLIN", then I read a little closer.
Apologies, I'm still getting through my first morning coffee.
-
Dukester at 11:38 AM on 20 November 2019Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Firstly let me say how much I have enjoyed reading this topic, oh and I had better add I have no doubt that mans activity is warming the planet, but I am a little at odds with the how....
I must confess that I am more than a little surprised that in everything I have read there is no mention of the heat component thats mans activity is adding to global warming?
I we take the ocean for instance a throw a few thousand ships in it pouring billions of Kw of heat in to the ocean for say the last 70 odd years, and more than 1 or 2 reactors in subs spewing heat in to the oceans. The ocean is not infinite, so all of this hot water must go somewhere, right?. Where are the calculations that determine what percent of the oceans warming is by the heat released by mans "industry"?
And again if we take the worlds population and distribute it evenly over the globe for the sake of back of the napkin math, tabulate the daily fuel burn, heat released by reactors, exothermic process in industry, heat released by electrical appliances driven by wind and hydro, (some fair guesses can be made here) and apply it to our 1 square km model. Throw a bit more water vapor in to the atmosphere, as after we are burning fossile fuels, stand a coloum of air on the top of this heat source about the dimensions of the atmosphere with a large heatsink at the other end and you come up with some really interesting numbers. Certainly they are big enough to be, well not nothing.....
My back of the napkin math suggests that the heat being produced by mans industry at the very least needs to be incorporated in to any greenhouse model, and the sun is not the only significant source of heat. I suspect that greenhouse gases are not nearly as efficient at trapping heat as we give them credit for and the petawatts of heat being liberated in to the atmosphere by man are a much bigger part of the "full" picture, especially when the wavelength of wate heat is considered....
Is it just me or has this work been done already? Or am I simply wrong?
Moderator Response:[PS] Please see the "its waste heat" myth and post any further comments on that thread please, not here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:22 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Questions regarding Dr. Roy Spencer include:
- "Why is he still able to be perceived to be a pursuer and professor of expanded awareness and improved understanding?"
- "How is he able to still have his work funded, given the history of misunderstanding he has presented, including the many misleading presentations of the results of his manipulations of satellite data?"
It appears that the developed socioeconomic-political systems have become so corrupted by selfish pursuit of personal interest that Popularity and Profitability have been able to get significant control over "The direction of Thought". And that harmful selfishness is able to drive Thinking away from the pursuit of expanded awareness and understanding and the development of sustainable improvements for the benefit of the future of humanity.
-
nigelj at 06:09 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
Roy Spencer is in charge of a group doing upper atmosphere temperature analysis. If his group were the only group doing this there would be a good case to discontinue his funding, given the misleading comments, sour grapes comments, and straw men he comes out with in the quotes mentioned @comment 3. Anyway his comments are also completely unscientific.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:10 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The careful deliberate deceiver Dr. Roy Spencer continues to present more evidence of how deliberately deceptive he continues to be.
His take on the 10th anniversary of Climate-gate opens with the following gem: "... the unfortunate truth is that fewer and fewer people actually care about the truth." He relates that to his set-up point that a believer of Truth would be a "...skeptic of the modern tendency to blame every bad weather event on humans".
He follows that misrepresentation set-up with a doozy of Fictional Tale built on his carefully selected bits of Non-Fiction. His New Fable makes the initial Climate-gate Fiction appear almost Non-Fiction (less Fantasy) by comparison.
It opens with the following Fantastically incorrect Fairy Tale claim.
"You see, it does not really matter whether a few bad actors (even if they are leaders of the climate movement) conspired to hide data and methods, and strong-arm scientific journal editors into not publishing papers that might stand in the way of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mission to pin climate change on humans, inflate its seriousness, and lay the groundwork for worldwide governmental efforts to reduce humanity’s access to affordable energy."
And his fans and the lovers of WUWT will fervently passionately belief the Fairy Tales. That is an expected result of developing a powerful personal interest in benefiting from an understandably harmful and ultimately dead-end activity like fossil fuel use.
Future generations cannot continue to benefit from burning fossil fuels, they are non-renewable. All the future generations get is the increased challenges and harmful results created by what the previous generations 'choose to continue to do'. That Non-Fiction cannot be acknowledged in the Fantasy-Fiction-Filled made-up minds of the likes of Spencer and Watts.
The Sustainable Development Goals are like Garlic or Sunlight to the Vampire-like fantasy beliefs of the likes of Spencer and WUWT.
-
JARWillis at 02:59 AM on 20 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
I made a blog post about the 'scandal that never was' some years ago - here if anyone is interested.
The real scandal ought to have been the hack, the distortion, and the campaign of deceit itself.
-
nigelj at 05:24 AM on 19 November 2019Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well
The denialists have engaged in a relentless disinformation campaign, using propoganda like in a war, where repeating disinformation often enough and people believe it. Its a manipulation of our understanding of human psychology. This is a ruthless deliberate campaign, and if anything it has been underestimated. Articles like this provide some good push back. Every little bit helps.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:29 AM on 19 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@19,
Moncton was an easy target for criticism regarding the use of high discount rates. But Nordhaus is like Moncton in that regard.
The quick way to see the issue is that it is unacceptable for someone to do something that causes a negative impact on Other people.
In the Neighbour example there is no consideration for balance of interest between the parties. The one causing the negative impact on Others has to stop doing that no matter how they might try to justify it by a comparison of negatives (their perceived negative of having to give up their benefit because the way they get it produces the negative result for Others.
The reason it may have been difficult to see is trying to think that using a negative-to-negative evaluation with discount rates is "the way to set a Price on Carbon as the solution to the problem".
Putting a 'calculated' price on carbon can help change attitudes. But, the only way that A Price on Carbon is "The Solution" is to rapidly steadily increase the price until the required rapid ending of fossil fuel use is achieved. And that action should be expected to produce negative results for the portions of the population most heavily invested in benefiting from fossil fuel use, particularly the portion of the already more fortunate who did not significantly reduce their pursuit of benefit from fossil fuels through the past 30 years.
Trying to determine "The Proper Price on Carbon" is a Fool's Game. The Carbon Price needs to increase rapidly to whatever it take to achieve the required result, and the required result can no longer be 'no negative impact on the current developed economies'. And that desired path to the required solution may only have been a possibility if the aggressive correction had started in the 1970s.
And while that ending of fossil fuel use is rapidly achieved, the wealthiest need to continue sacrificing portions of their wealth to help the less fortunate sustainable improve the lives they live.
That is the reality laid out by the Sustainable Development Goals. That is why there is so much resistance to "improving awareness and increased understanding of the need to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals". Some people perceived to be more successful and powerful people deserve to lose status and also do more to help Others as their status is reduced. And they will fight against that happening, just like a Bad neighbour fighting to be able to keep on negatively affecting Others.
-
nigelj at 17:23 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
OPOF @18, thanks. Your quick way to see it is hard to understand, while your more detailed view is easier to understand and sounds right. I also have a lot of trouble with discounting future negatives, but I had trouble putting this into words.
Of course the aim of the thing is to put a price on carbon, but in so doing it is like they are saying we are allowing a bit of carbon balanced against some adaptation, and to me this is just wrong because no ammount of emissions can be justified.
However the important thing is to just put a price on carbon, and it has to start somewhere, and not agonise over the exact price. If it doesn't produce the results intended, clearly it would have to be altered probably upwards. There's too much policy "paralysis of analysis" and not enough action.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:29 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj,
A brief presentation on discount rates as they apply to the required corrections of what has developed based on the expanded awareness and improved understanding of climate science.
Quick Way to look at it:
Even without discounting the future negatives, a comparison of the current day negatives related to ending the increase of future negatives is a grossly incorrect evaluation. It is like a person saying they should not have to stop producing a negative impact on their neighbour if 'their perceived loss of benefit by stopping what they are doing' is a match for or more than 'their perception of the level of negative impact they are having on their neighbour'. That is an absurd evaluation. They need to stop causing the negative impact on their neighbour, as perceived by their neighbour (not as perceived by them), no matter how much personal benefit they believe they would be giving up.
More Detailed way to see it:
When a business is looking into optional action choices they use discount rates on the future values to select the option they would prefer to experience. And the business evaluation works when the ones making the current investment will be the ones dealing with or benefiting from the future results.
A government considering a benefit for the future population it governs by spending on action today should also use a discount rate to determine the merit of the current expense vs. the future benefit. Though they would not use the same discount rate as a business investment that wants quicker reward. The business decision would generally be based on a higher discount rate, future benefits having less perceived value.
The twist comes when looking at future negatives. An evaluation that uses a high discount rate when the option has potential high future negative results is setting the business up for a future failure. And if a decision like that is discovered soon enough the ones who made that risky bet may suffer the consequence, or they may not.
And a government should seriously question choosing an action that has a potential negative consequence. Its actions should be producing future benefit, not future costs. So, in spite of some cases where government should operate more like a business, when there are negative future consequences it is essential that government not evaluate its options as if it were a business. There should be no discounting of the future negatives.
The lack of responsible correction of developed activity by the more fortunate portion of the global population through the past 30 years has created a bigger future negative impact. And it has developed economies that do not deserve their developed perceptions of success. And as a result it has developed popular resistance to the required correction.
The objective for responsible leadership needs to be ending the creation of the negatives (no discounting of future negatives allowed), even if that means negative current day economic results for the people who unjustly bet on getting away with the activity that needs to be stopped.
-
nigelj at 12:13 PM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
One Planet Only Forever @16
I must admit I do find some economists extremely annoying. Having ploughed through one of Milton Freidmans books, I'm just not that impressed and sadly this guy has influenced people like Reagon and Greenspan. But people like Friedman are outspoken and at the extreme end of debate. I also found a large group of more moderate economists that make more sense.
Monkton should be the last person politicians pay attention to as far as discount rates and climate science goes. He has an arts degree majoring in literature and a journalism diploma and a long history of misquoting people and worse.
I guess that Stern is trying to do what hes been taught to do. However I'm not convinced the use of discount rates applied to climate is fundamentally wrong in principle. I did read something you wrote on it but only briefly because I was busy at the time so I'm not dismissing your take on it.
However it seems to me the problem is more that it's just too hard to apply a discount rate to an issue like climate and come up with anything meaningful because of the complexities of the issue and the difficulty understanding the full implications of the issue and the strong sense that the negatives are very substantial, and could well be even worse than we think. The most meaningful number would be very low as Stern has ended up with, but even his number doesn't look low enough.
Discount rates work well enough when trying to cost alternative business propositions against just investing money in standard investment schemes, and looking forward a couple of decades, which is all easy enough to quantify, but discount rates look to be at the limit with complex ecological and climate systems problems. So at the limit as to be meaningless.
-
Just Me 77 at 10:54 AM on 18 November 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
ilfark2, I would also love to see some of the utopian changes you hope to see someday. If we had a more egalitarian economy, most of us could be 2, 3, or even 5 times better off (economically) than we are now. If these changes happened at the same time we transitioned to a greener economy, then becoming green wouldn't feel like a sacrifice at all.
We don't want to have to do without abundant energy. However, we have to find practical ways to produce this energy without burning fossil fuels. Our cars and trucks can then be adapted so that they use this cheap energy — in the form of electricity or hydrogen — so that they don't burn fossil fuels, either. How can this happen? All we've got to do is to change all our fees, taxes, and subsidies so that they're the opposite of the way they are today: tax fossil fuels at a higher and higher rate, subsidize green electricity production more and more, and it won't be too many years before coal-generated power is a hundred times more costly than solar, wind, or nuclear power. When coal becomes more and more expensive, people will stop burning it.
This would pretty much solve power generation and transport. You could apply a similar method to any other aspect of the economy which also needed to be "greened." For example, if cattle production produces methane at an alarming rate, then tax it accordingly. Subsidize fruits and vegetables to make them cheaper. Soon, only the very rich will be eating beef, everyone can afford healthy food, and another part of the economy will also be helping our planet to thrive.
It's all related to who controls our government and our economy. That's why it's related to the utopian dreams you've had for our future. As long as the very rich are in charge, all they try to do is to enrich and empower themselves still further. They care not a whit for Mother Earth. We already have the technology to solve all our problems — both ecological problems and social problems. I don't know what kind of government or economy would work the best for the people and for the earth. But it's abundantly clear that it would be hard to do worse than the pernicious system we've got now.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@14,
I agree and understand that there is a diversity of understanding among current day economists with many of them seeing the serious problems that are being developed.
I admit to being easily annoyed by the 'popularity' of those who want to make up and maintain fictions rather than face and deal with what should be rather obvious to someone with their level of awareness and understanding. And many of them seem to base their claims on fundamentals like the writings of Smith, admittedly using some fictional license (misleading marketing) when they do that because Smith is not around to set the record straight regarding his points or update his position.
What is disappointing is the way that even the likes of Stern have played the game of 'discounting negative impacts on future generations', though they admittedly use a lower discount rate than the abhorrent likes of Lord Moncton have done. To be fair, Stern may have been wanting to simply show that even using a discount rate, which is incorrect when evaluating the acceptability of a portion of current day humanity benefiting today in ways that impose negative consequences on future generations, indicated that aggressive reduction of fossil fuel use was cost-effective. But to be fairer, I have not see any reporting that that was Stern's intent when he used the discount rate that he did.
-
Eclectic at 06:59 AM on 18 November 2019Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Anodyne @13 ,
You are sadly out of touch with reality
. . . or your huge paragraph was intended as comedy, eh?
But as comedy, you should use more skill in constructing such nonsense.
You don't have to be a Seinfeld, but you do need to work on it more !
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Rob Bradley @12
"Trump climate policy, and global climate politics in general, is being driven by the economic and ecological advantages of dense energy over dilute, intermittent energies. "
Trump climate policy is ignorant and self serving. He just wants to keep business as usual going because hes used to it.
Nobody disputes that fossil fuels are energy dense, but they present us with a range of problems. It's not just the climate problem, these resosurces are very finite and are running out fast. America has run out of easily extracted oil, read about Huberts peak, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel with fracking. In about 100 years we will have run out of fossil fuels that can be economically extracted, sooner in many places. Just do a simple google search of peak oil etc and read some of the reputable, academic mainstream publications.
It's absurd to claim fossil fuels have ecological advantages. You list none and provide no evidence. Burning fossil fuels releases a whole range of toxic gases and particulates that harm virtually all forms of life. Remember acid rain the the 1970's that ended up requiring complicated filters being fitted to coal fired power? And that still doesn't completely fix the problem.
You should spend less time swallowing fictions and spin by Myron Ebell and more time looking at reality, reading proper scientific history, and thinking for yourself.
Maybe my response isn't very diplomatic. Too bad for that.
We can solve this thing with renewable energy and storage or even some nuclear power. Nothing wrong with a hybrid system.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
OPOF @13, fair comment. However my point is more that most modern mainstream economists have a largely sensible approach to things. Its not perfect - and we would both find criticisms of them as you have alluded to above, but its more sensible than people perhaps realise. I've scanned a few economics texts and they acknowledge business doesn't always behave ideally. and you have various market failures. They acknowledge the problems you raise but use different words for it. They acknowledge the need for business regulations at an appropriate level and economists are starting to acknowledge the problems of high growth economies.
So what goes wrong? Sadly its business people and politicians who ignore parts of mainstream economic theory they dont like, or who interpret things in bizarre ways, or who gravitate to the extreme schools of economics like the Chicago school and Milton Freidman, or who interpret Adam Smith in a way that suits them much like people interpret the bible. Politicians need to be called out for this behaviour.
In the end we only have so many options to deal with misleading marketing, which is is very real problem. 1) Better government regulation, with more robust penalties 2) spreading awarenesss of the problem 3) public shaming of organisations and individuals who engage in misleading marketing 3) getting some courses in analytical thinking and logic into schools. 4) setting good standards for ourselves 5) not being afraid to criticise our friends and colleagues on occasion (diplomatically).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:19 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
nigelj@11,
Different opinions of Adam Smith abound. I will try to limit this response to relate to the struggle to achieve the corrections of human activity that climate science has exposed are required.
It is not possible to interview Adam Smith to obtain clarification regarding his position. However, undeniably, Adam Smith was thinking and writing at a time when there was less awareness and understanding of human behaviour, especially in competitions. So, Adam Smith deserves more benefit of the doubt than more recent thinkers who really should know better. (btw, Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” less than 250 years ago, not 400 years ago).
Charley Dewberry points out many things. But it does not include Smith stating that the government has the responsibility to expand the awareness and improve the understanding of the population regarding what should be supported and promoted or what should be discouraged and penalized in the economic competitions in order to achieve sustainable improvements for humanity. How was that requirement expected to be achieved? Even the points made by Charley Dewberry indicated that Smith did not trust economic competitors to do this.
The list of Adam Smith's government roles presented by the “Economist's View” also makes no mention of how the required expanded awareness and improving understanding to achieve sustainable improvements for humanity is to be achieved. Smith limited the Government role to educating people to being more useful economic participants (more useful to employers and pursuers of profit).
Therefore my main points remain. Adam Smith and those who followed his line of reasoning appear to believe that expanded awareness and improved understanding would naturally win in competitions for status, correcting unjustified Fictions and end up effectively governing all of human activity with no need for external (government) intervention on the competitions regarding that issue (note that the powerful people governing what happens begs the question of not including that activity as a Government Role). The presumption appears to be that the powerful would be more aware and understanding and they would be easily able to govern (that government word again) what happens and make any required corrections happen.
Who would believe that expanded awareness and improved understanding would not easily win over unjustified Fictional Beliefs? Someone who does not acknowledge the damaging power of misleading marketing would fail to understand and admit what can actually happen, and remain a believer of a harmful Fiction. Yet Charley Dewberry includes references that Adam Smith was aware of the power of misleading marketing by unjustly powerful people, but he does not offer anything in Smith's writing about how that misleading marketing is to be governed and limited (those pesky expansions of government intervention to limit economic activity).
Many people, including Adam Smith, appear to fail to acknowledge the need for expanded awareness and improved understanding to govern and limit what humans do, especially governing and limiting the damaging power of misleading marketing.
Greta Thunberg is correct to point out that global leaders should govern based on the expanding awareness and improving understanding, even if it is not popular or if the required corrections are economically negative for some people. Over-development in incorrect fantasy fiction (misleading marketing) driven directions will inevitably have negative consequences. Those negative consequences should be limited to the biggest beneficiaries of the incorrectly prolonged beliefs in the fantasy fictions.
That is fundamentally the basis for global Climate Action. The most fortunate must: lead the ending of fossil fuel use, help all others deal with the already developed negative consequences, and help the less-fortunate develop in more sustainable ways than the incorrectly more fortunate have done to date.
-
Rob Bradley at 03:59 AM on 18 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Trump climate policy, and global climate politics in general, is being driven by the economic and ecological advantages of dense energy over dilute, intermittent energies. https://www.masterresource.org/trump-on-climate-change/paris-climate-accord-withdrawal-underway-trump-right/
-
Anodyne at 02:28 AM on 18 November 2019Why the 97% climate consensus is important
So Skeptical Science screws the pooch really bad here and it's upsetting to see sheep follow without any pushback. There's a narrative that formed that says climate deniers completely ignore CC and argue against it with no evidence. That's categorically false and only ignorants who stay in their little social bubbles that always recycle the same nonsense say that. This must be one of them. 97% consensus was proven to be an outright lie - that is a BS claim that was made by 1 person and parroted by another and the media ran with it and never questioned it. Forbes did an exhaustive look into the 97% consensus theory and found that the real number was around 81% and showed various alternative numbers but the average was 81% consensus. Then Forbes clarified the word consensus which Skeptical Science doesn't ever do, and shame on everyone who doesn't bother to take 15 seconds to read up on what scientific consensus means. It's not a total agreement and the 81% consensus is as follows: anyone that believes climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon that humans do not impact all the way to people that think humans are the only way the climate shifts at all are all considered in "consensus". If you don't agree I don't care - this is a verifiable fact and I strongly urge everyone to start researching the counter argument to the 97% consensus claim. It's been proven wrong by numerous credible sources. One of my favorites is the Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore who constantly destroys man-made climate change claims with facts and examples in our world today. I'd automatically go Google/YouTube his lectures as they have a swath of evidence and his associates that work with him down not just Ecology but Solar Sciences, Geology, and Meteorology as well. Their counter points cannot be refuted and just be taken into consideration. But saying 97% of scientists agree that clmanmade climate change is real is a load of crap and shame on anyone who parrots that lie. 4/5 scientists agree that climate change is fully real and actively occurring, of those 4 only 1 (generalized estimate) believe humans are making an impact and even within that 1 (so 20% in total) say humans might be making a large impact on the planet's climate. Naomi Oreskes and John Cook, the two ppl that wrote articles claiming a 97% consensus exists on this topic, woefully mislead readers in what consensus meant even though Cook did try to slip in that consensus might not mean total agreement but vague agreement or commonality. Furthermore, more and more scientists are coming out against the idea that man-made climate change is affecting our planet. Just recently there were signatures from 5,000 folks in science fields that threw out the idea publicly in the face of pretenders like Greta Thrunberg. That doesn't mean that now the debate is over, it means that the idea that 97% consensus again isn't sound in the least bit. And what's more aggrivsting is that these extreme climate change advocates want us to make radical shifts now based on forecasting models that have never once in our history been correct. They take the most radical forecasting models and say we're doomed in 100 years if we don't cut carbon emissions now. Only problem is that for two decades we've shown those models never pan out and always exaggerate the reality over time. There are idiots out there who deny based on emotions but the reality is there are very intelligent, well informed people cutting holes left and right in the consensus theory and man-made climate change. Hell, aren't we seeing reportings now that are forecasting a global cooling trend in the next couple decades? Our assumption is that the planet swings in climate and that's how we get ice ages and hot periods. Folks need to take history into consideration and realize that the Earth isn't really above average of anything. The sea levels aren't going up as fast as alarmists say and then they point to places that are literally sinking into the seas and saying "see, the sea levels are rising so fast!". Pathetic. Bill Nye is a joke. Give me someone with a degree not in civil engineering and works in the field actively instead of a children's tv show host whose Netflix series was such a disaster that Netflix immediately cancelled it and scientists lobbed tomatoes at it for it's departure from science.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sloganeering.
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.
If you want to challenge the science, pick your topic and present data or preferrably peer-reviewed literature to support your position. At the moment, you appear to be uncritically swallowing disinformation that fits what you would like to believe and making laughable projections on how you think the scientific process works. If you want to comment here, you must support your argument. There are numerous other forums (eg WUWT) that welcome your type of "contribution".
-
nigelj at 12:02 PM on 17 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
OPOF @10, I disagree in part. Adam Smith believed in the invisible hand in an ideological sense, in that people following their own economic interests in order to make money would benefit everyone as a side effect and better than government's telling people what the best economic choices are. But he was no laissez faire economist that thought governments should limit their activities to very narrow motives of a justice system and defence force. He accepted the need for public education and some regulation of business.
And Smith was very cynical about the motives of business and recognised business could cause problems. He was mainly concerned about the problem of tariffs and also control over economic behaviour in a fundamental sense. Of course he did not promote big government either. And bear in mind this was 400 years ago and modern economists have more evolved views. Here is what Adam Smith really said and meant:
msc.gutenberg.edu/2013/03/adam-smith-was-no-laissez-faire-ideologue/
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/03/adam-smith-and-the-role-of-government.html
Milton Freidman is towards the extreme edge of economics, and founded the monetarist school that did indeed promote something close to laissez faire capitalism with very small governmnet, and I agree with you he had delusional expectations of how such s system would self regulate, an dhave full information, and how people would behave etcetera. But the majority of modern economists do not subscribe completely to his views and see a larger role for governments, but stopping short of 1970's style socialism.
Most modern economists see a role for legislation related to basic workers rights, health and safety and the environment.
My point is the power brokers in business and also politicians pick and choose whatever economic idea suits their agenda at the time. They are unprincipled. They interpret theory as they see fit and leave out bits they dont like, and have no consistency in the application. They interpret free markets to mean free of all management and regulation when even Adam Smith did not promote that. He promoted markets free of tariff barriers and excessive government control.
Just a bit of history really. You are right in broad principle the invisible hand is certainly "not enough" to provide optimal results. Generally advanced countries have a good deal of law around workers rights and the environment and properly so. We have to ensure 1) its the right sort of law and 2) its not eroded by free market fanatics and people with short term agendas and no care for working conditions. There is a difference between freedom to do mostly ones own economic thing, and oppression of workers and environmental vandalism.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:12 AM on 17 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Nigelj@7 (I am hopefully back to recognising the proper numbering of previous comments),
There are other potentially more accurate explanations for what many among the international wealthy were pushing for in the 1970s, and continue to push for with their war on climate science, and their wars against so many other inconvenient expansions of awareness and improvements of understanding.
It is possible that the attitude developed by many of the wealthier powerful people in the 1970s was an exploitative response to global leadership desires to help develop the less developed nations, and a fearful response to the Global Leadership pursuit of expanded awareness and improved understanding that led to the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
A significant number of powerful people did not like requirements for higher performance standards for professionals or protections for workers and the environment that were developing in the more developed nations. Those things restricted business pursuits and made things 'more expensive'.That powerful group's collective approach to globalization can be seen to be driven by a desire to get away with lousier treatment of workers and the environment in nations that were less aware of the need for higher standards for professionals and protections for workers and the environment. And to maximize the profitability of those international pursuits they wanted reduced barriers to importing the products of those understandably 'lower standard' pursuits of profit.
The Stockholm Conference of 1972 was the first global leadership collective acknowledgement that economic competition was not developing sustainable helpful results, and was not 'self-correcting for expanded awareness and improved understanding in pursuit of lasting improvements for humanity. That conference, and subsequent collaborative global pursuits of expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to achieve lasting improvements for humanity, expose the reality that there is a lack of responsible governing of competitions for Status.
The lack of effective restrictions in competitions for status developed many unsustainable activities that had very negative impacts on portions of the current population and the future of humanity. It also developed powerful resistance to correcting those activities, because the corrections would reduce the status of some powerful people. That awareness and understanding has been expanded and improved since the 1970s, with understandings like the Sustainable Development Goals as more robust threats to the desires of that group.
Adam Smith, and all who followed his way of thinking, were wrong about what the 'Invisible Hand' would do. Their fantasy Fiction was that freedom of everyone to do as they please in consumer product and services competitions would develop good results.
The justification of the Adam Smith and Milton Freedman type of thinking relies on beliefs like the following:
- Everyone would want to have more awareness and understanding and vigorously pursue and welcome it.
- Those who pursue expanded awareness and improved understanding of what was really going on and applied it to develop the best results in the current generation would naturally win the competitions.
- The winning ways in the competition in the current generation would naturally develop the best future for humanity, it would produce a sustainable improving future.
- The more successful people would strive to expand the awareness and improve the understating of the general population, and the population would want to learn and replace Fictional beliefs with Non-Fiction understandings that were open to improvement.
- Competitions for recognition and reward would be effectively governed by expanded awareness and improving understanding applied to develop sustainable improvements for the current generation and the future of humanity.
The Invisible Hand would only do what they believe if the entire population governed all activity by measuring merit and value based on expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. That Fantasy Fictional society would naturally devalue or penalize activities that create, or have a higher risk of creating, negative consequences for Others.
What those believers did not understand was the way that many people would be easily impressed into believing Fictions, and how undeserving people would be able to develop perceptions of status based on unjustified popularity and profitability. The idea that a better result is produced by having everyone freer to believe what they wish and do as they please is a Fantasy Fiction. It will never be Reality. And misleading marketing, only telling parts of the Non-Fiction story with fictional passion-triggering embellishments, or successfully making stuff up (especially when disguised as News Reporting), is a powerful part of the problem they continue to fail to acknowledge (because misleading marketing is an essential part of their way of winning).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
prove we are smart@10,
A few important points:
- "technologically advanced" does not correlate directly and positively with sustainable advancement or improvement of humanity. In fact, it may correlate negatively.
- The resistance to correction of beliefs and actions that have become popular and profitable can be more powerful the more popular and profitable the beliefs and actions have become.
- The Sustainable Development Goals are a robust presentation of the new developments and corrections of developments that are required for the future of humanity.
- The SDGs have been in place since 2015. And the development of understanding started long ago and was globally acknowledged in the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
When asking if the media is supposed to fix this, think about how much media reporting you can recall referring to the Stockholm Conference or any of the many stages of expanded awareness and improved understanding since then, including the SDGs. Don't just think about the climate science reporting related to the required Climate Action Goal, though it is a significant case exposing the problem.
In 1988, Edward S. Herman developed the Propaganda Model to try to explain the media failing to helpfully expand awareness and improve understanding of the many harmful unsustainable developments by humans and the required corrections. It is presented in the 1988 book Manufacturing Consent (there is also a 1992 movie with the same name), was updated by Alan MacLeod in 2019 in the book "Propaganda in the Information Age".
"The media" would need to break the constraints and pressures on its behaviour that the Propaganda Model clearly indicates are very powerful influences on the stories that get told. There is undeniably a lot of excusing and defending of unjustified Winners in the Status Quo (if their unworthiness of being perceived to be winners can not be kept hidden), including claiming the need to report 'Balance' or 'Not be offensive' even if that means presenting Fiction and Non-Fiction as if they are comparable (because everyone's Opinion is equally valid - Right?).
-
prove we are smart at 07:25 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
“It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”
I really hope human nature can change and prove this statement wrong.
Is it up to the media to accomplish this?
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Neoliberalism originated with mainstream economists who were worried about policies in the 1970's of too much protectionist trade and tariffs, excessive government ownership of industry, excessive controls on immigration, and excessive occupational licencing and over regulation of the business sector, and with some justification. They wanted these things to end, but never promoted complete deregulation and provatisation of everything, and any basic economics text will tell you governmnets should have environmental regulations.
It's largely right wing politicians who have distorted neoliberalism into something self promoting and toxic.
Like OPOF says its hard explaining this in short sound bites and catchy phrases. Explaining the truth is a bit more nuanced, but we should keep at it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:47 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
louislorenziprince@5,
Agreed. Many detrimental fiction-based passionate beliefs are based on the religious belief that 'people being freer to believe and do whatever they wish that is contrary to expanded awareness and improving understaninding will develop lasting improvements for humanity'.
That fatally flawed belief is the basis for many religions. And one of the most damaging religious beliefs is the belief in Free Market Libertarianism and its related misleading marketing systems.
-
louislorenziprince at 04:37 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
In order to understand how people can continue to ignore the science of climate change, one has to understand the detrimental role religion plays in this issue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:31 AM on 16 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
prove we are smart,
That quote does appear to describe 'part of the problem'. But the issue is larger and more complex than that.
The problem of the socioeconomic-political response to the expanded awareness and improved understanding of climate science is one of the largest of the many unsustainable problems developed by competition for perceptions of superiority relative to Others with popularity and profitability as the main measures of merit. But it is not the only problem that the fatally flawed systems produce and resist the correction of.
Popularity and profitability can be obtained by getting away with a diversity of unsustainable activities that can be promoted and prolonged by successful fiction-based marketing (making up stuff that will influence easily impressed people).
Expanding awareness and improved understanding can be seen to struggle to over-come powerfully developed fiction based beliefs. Perceptions of the potential for personal benefit can be very powerful motivations for people to believe a fiction rather than expand their awareness and improve their understanding. It is almost as powerful as the fear of losing developed perceptions of superiority or losing developed perceptions of potential for personal benefit (an example being all the people want higher-paying coal mining jobs, or any other 'higher-paying' fossil fuel production jobs and fear the loss of that opportunity).
Human history is full of examples of unsustainable beliefs and resulting actions becoming popular and profitable (for a portion of the population) that required External Parties to Intervene to get people to stop behaving in ways that produced negative impacts on Others. Those interventions start with attempts to expand awareness and improve understanding. But in many cases new restrictions of behaviour, new or revised laws or regulations with more effective enforcement and more severe penalties to limit the harm done by people, are required to limit the impacts of people who will not expand their awareness and improve their understanding of how to 'not act in ways that create, or increase the risk of creating, negative consequences for Others'.
Some people will always try to do as they please, based on what they want to believe, even when there is a high risk that they will be justifiably penalized for doing so. They will try to not be perceived as the one creating the negative impact (claiming that Others are the ones behaving badly). And they will try to find loopholes in the restriction mechanisms that get developed (preferring to be able to create the appearance of a restriction but knowing how to 'work around the system rules they got to influence the creation of'.
That is the reality of human behaviour. There will always be some people wanting to resist expanded awareness and improved understanding that limits their Freedom to believe what they want and do as they please. And there are some undeserving Winners who try to get personal advantages from that nasty reality of human behaviour that makes many people 'easily impressed into passionately believing Fictions rather than learning to expand their awareness and improve their understanding'.
The challenge for the future of humanity (and throughout humanity's history) is limiting the success of those type of people today, and every day. Admitting that there must be 'limits on the Freedom of people to do whatever they want based on whatever they want to believe' appears to be what is required. That is a Tough Awareness and Understanding to Sell, especially in the developed socioeconomic-political environments. And it likely can't be done through punchy catchy news-minute scale statements', advertising slogans, or tweet sized snippets of communication. Those things work well for promoting Fictions. Non-Fiction is not as simple to communicate.
-
prove we are smart at 21:16 PM on 15 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Donald J Trump is the antithesis of a responsible and selfless world leader.He is the extreme example of many politicians, in many countries. A common cause is the catalyst to unite people, this climate blog and others worldwide are informing the ordinary people about our planets biospheres increasing tragedy. I want to be so hopeful we can unite to solve it. When,how and who is the question.I think i copied this quote from this climate blog-is this the reason why we are not still seeing the danger of inaction " Rapid reduction of carbon emissions is still excluded from consideration by policymakers because it is deemed to be too economically dislocating. The fact that the present political path of 3°C or more of warming would result in a world overwhelmed by extreme climate impacts, leading to outright chaos, is avoided. The dominant neo-liberal framing of progress, through globalisation and deregulation, suppresses regulatory action which would address the real climate challenge because it undermines the prevailing political–economic orthodoxy."
-
Eclectic at 13:14 PM on 15 November 2019Video: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2019
Sorry Doug @7 , but it wasn't "climate change wiping them out". The history was much more complex than that. Other factors - geopolitical and local factors - were much larger than the minor climatic change.
You can find more detailed discussion elsewhere on SkepticalScience.
-
Doug18698 at 12:47 PM on 15 November 2019Video: Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2019
Re: Why the Vikings came and then left Greenland. It is really quite simple. It was warm, there were very nice Birch forests, the glaciers were receding and everything was green. The land was good for farming, so you could raise cattle, goats and other livestock. Because of local warming you could ship goods back and forth from Europe. Then they got a cold snap that lasted a few hundred years. You can't farm if your land turns to permafrost. The sea started getting too much ice and too many storms. In a nutshell, climate change drove them out. It was the same thing that happened in Northern Canada. The camels and elephants (mastodons) could not find food anymore. Climate change wiped them out.
Moderator Response:[DB] There is so much wrong with your comment that it is difficult to know where to begin. However, it is much warmer now than during the failed Viking occupation of Greenland. That those Vikings who didn't die abandoned their settlements while the local Inuit thrived unabated to today is indicative that a changing climate was not an ultimate obstacle to habitation of Greenland. For more information, see this post. Please stay on-topic.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:42 AM on 15 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
nigelj@10:
Non-Fiction can never have the type of Passion-Induced Appeal of Fiction.
People who are passionate about Non-Fiction are stuck with the constraints of Non-Fiction and the related constant expansion of awareness and improvement of understanding (and acceptance of correction) that is part of that passionate pursuit.
Fiction lovers are unrestricted regarding the story they tell or like, and seldom have to accept reasons to change a story they have become fond of believing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:36 AM on 15 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
This OP and the comments are indeed interesting. However, I do not believe that it is possible to know if the popularity of a website, or any specific pages of a website, relates to increased acceptance or belief of what is being presented there.
Sites like SkS try to expand awareness and improve understanding regarding climate science. Sites like WUWT make-up Fictions that are hoped to be popular distractions from the expanded awareness and improving understanding of Climate Science and the related required corrections of developed human activity.
What is clear is - to paraphrase something said during the first day of Trump impeachment public hearings - Principled Promotion of expanded awareness and improved understanding (what sites like SkS do) is almost certain to piss off people who want others to continue to believe Fictions that are unsustainable when subjected to reasoned evaluations based on the expanded awareness and improved understanding (those Fiction lovers hope for prolonged popularity of sites like WUWT).
-
nigelj at 05:55 AM on 15 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
I agree SkSc and WUWT mostly have quite different objectives, but there's another thing. At the risk of generalising websites like WUWT make a lot of use of clickbait, as in making provocative or outrageous statements, which of course attract attention like a magnet. SkSc is more formal and restrained in the normal scientific tradition.Personally I find clickbait annoying, but there is the risk that if articles and their headlines are too dry and restrained nobody will read them.
How do you resolve the dilemma? Or does dry and boring win in the end? Or is there a middle ground?
-
BaerbelW at 17:37 PM on 14 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
I quite like the summaries made about Skeptical Science and WUWT on the helpful website Media Bias Fact Check:
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:31 PM on 14 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
It's a little hard to compare Skeptical Science with WUWT without comparing how traffic is acquired. The two sites serve different roles and it's possible that difference is reflected in acquistion numbers.
For our case we have the necessary data and those statistics suggest that Skeptical Science serves a role a little along the lines of a specialized encyclopedia, our roster of core content* being articles people "look up" via search. The analogy extends in that our rebuttal/debunking articles are supported with literature citations of peer-reviewed, published scientific researc results, similar to aticles in a mainstream specialist encyclopedia.
So, we feel good about the utility role played by Skeptical Science.
Another consistent signal from our statistics is that particularly when climate science becomes more topical as a political matter, inquiries landing at our articles increase. 2017 reflected this strongly as policy implications of the change in adminstration became clear. It's encouraging to see folks performing due diligence on what they're told.
*Arrivals to core content consisting of debunking/rebuttal articles tower over visits to Skeptical Science blog entries.
-
nigelj at 12:51 PM on 14 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
Eclectic, don't apologise. I'm always a bit interested in such things possibly because I almost did a degree in psychology. And it would be interesting to know how much your slithering octapus of WUWT has to do with the Kochtapus and how intimate the relationship is, if any. I rarely bother with WUWT, too much same old same old.
Anyway, to get to the point and to finish the ghastly business off, the following blog by one Russel Seitz is a sort of satirical take on WUWT for anyone interested:
vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/
But as you say we are straying a bit off topic so I will leave it there.
-
Eclectic at 10:29 AM on 14 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
Thanks, Nigelj.
I will make a few points about website WUWT, and then shut up ~ since it's getting somewhat off-topic. The comparison of the two websites has some interest here in "numbers" comparison only. There's no real other comparison . . . I think of SkS as an eagle flying in the sunshine, while WUWT is more like an octopus slithering in the murky depths.
For those readers wise enough to be unfamiliar with WUWT:- Anthony Watts & team run the WattsUpWithThat website. Allegedly they don't receive Big Oil funding these days. Be that as it may, they want to receive a lot of hits/views, partly in order to have enough high rank to pull in advertising of the incidental sort ( e.g. I myself am plagued with telescope advertisements when I click on the WUWT site).
Accordingly, WUWT has a high turnover of lead articles. Most articles are brief, and many are slanted propaganda against the reality of AGW and often are rather childish whinges about the teething problems of the gradual transfer to renewables (versus fossil fuel power stations) . . . or whinges about Greta Thunberg, James Hansen, and so on. There's the occasional leavening with articles about technical developments, or astronomical news, or things of general interest [but not many!]. Then we get the re-posts of Heartland propaganda articles, of GWPF, and of assorted Media op-ed propaganda pieces. And a succession of crackpot ideas from Lord Monckton, Dr Pat Frank, and similar fringe dwellers of Dunning-Krugerism and Delusion Land.
WUWT maintains a high hit rate, by having an open-door policy on its comments columns ~ provided that the comments do not support mainstream climate science nor support "climate action". (A tiny dribble of such comments is permitted by moderators . . . but mainly I suspect to act as red meat and keep the regular clientele in a savage mood. A prominent exception, is comments by scientist Nick Stokes, who often has something pertinent to say, which punctures the usual rubbishy comments. He is loathed by the standard clientele, and I suspect he is not moderated out . . . because his is a token presence to illustrate the respectabiity & toleration of the WUWT website!)
In short, WUWT is an echo-chamber for the Angries, the extremists, and the deluded. Comments tend to be repetitious ventings. But the sheer number of these, is part of what keeps the site ranking high enough to attract advertising dollars. Does the WUWT ranking intimidate politicians into thinking there's a lot of Denialists around? I don't know.
My own interest in the WUWT website, is to observe the ways that some intelligent minds engage in rampant Motivated Reasoning. And to a smaller extent, to keep in touch with the Dreck found in the murky depths. Know thine enemy!
Sorry, Nigelj, for my own lengthy vent of a post ~ but I hope it provided some "edutainment".
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:31 AM on 14 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
To a certain extent people who pretend to believe something that is factually wrong as a trade for some other gain are taking on humiliation, selling out their character in a zero sum transaction.
There was a fad here in the US for a while for product promotions entailing people being drizzled with honey and then standing in a booth loaded with loose dollar bills while blowers whirled the currency around them— on television, in front of strangers. There were a number of variations on this scheme, having in common the feature of making participants look foolish in exchange for a little money. The transaction boiled down to "look stupid in public for financial gain."
In this case the situation is arguably worse because while honey washes away with a simple laundering, blown credibility and esteem in the public eye is a permanent stain.
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 14 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
Eclectic, thank's for the tips on the potholer videos. The name rings a bell.
I suspect part of WUWT 40,000 rank being higher than SkS is that many of the comments posted at WUWT are posted by paid lobbyists and full time retired cranks. The same people come under more scrutiny here and know repetitious sloganeering isn't tolerated so you dont get so many. This may partly explain the difference in rankings between WUWT and SkS.
-
nigelj at 04:49 AM on 14 November 2019Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments
Well said. It's sad that time has to be wasted shooting this nonsense down, but its important to do so. Some people like to claim facts don't change people minds, which is absurd when you think about it. Facts change at least some people minds even a few denialists eg Richard Mueller.
Donald Trumps climate denialism is probably largely or at least partly fake. Hes not a complete moron. By analogy its like a drug addict or criminal knowing they have done wrong and making up any old nonsense in their defence. Trump is used to making money out of business as usual won't like anything changing his world, but any mass infrastructure programme will create jobs, increase wealth, and stimulate the economy. Look at history, you have the industrial revolution that changed how we did things, the new deal of the 1930's, WW2, the post war years where the highway network was built, mass air travel, the list is endless.
-
Eclectic at 22:12 PM on 13 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
Addendum, regarding website activity:
A year or two back, the website WUWT puffed an announcement that its internet ranking was around 40,000th for popularity as per hits ~ but I am unsure whether that's an American-only or worldwide ranking.
WUWT sounded pleased with this ranking . . . and perhaps that is justifiable, considering the huge amount of total websites and internet traffic. 40,000th sounds rather poor compared with (the game) Monopoly's "Second Prize in a Beauty Contest" card. But I suppose that's too much an apples & oranges comparison.
WUWT was also quick to point out the 60,000th rank of SkS. At WUWT, the website SkS is much despised, and usually mentioned grudgingly and rarely . . . though I get the impression that WUWT is often looking over its shoulder at the black velvet curtains which conceal its arch-nemesis SkS.
I have no idea what the hit-rate popularity difference is, between 60,000th and 40,000th. But considering that WUWT is the pre-eminent climate-science denialist website, it doubtless attracts the frequent lightning-bolts of venting by large numbers of Anglophone climate-science crackpots and rabid political-extremist "Angries". And they very much indulge in repetitous venting in the comments columns of each and every article there, regardless of the article's topic. Quite a fascinating psycho-pathology, IMO.
-
Eclectic at 21:36 PM on 13 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
(This post is transferred from an erroneous position in another thread)
Independently, I can supply a confirmation (semi-quantitative) of a spike in "climate inquiries" in September this year. Though I wouldn't care to speculate whether the surge of interest comes from the activities of "St Greta of Arc(tic)" or from the Extinction Rebellion actions or from climate action week or whatever.
I am a fan of the excellent & amusing Youtube video series produced by Potholer54 (science journalist Peter Hadfield). These debunk climate myths and expose the fabrications and misrepresentations of some of the prominent Denialist propagandists.
As a little project to engage some of my spare moments, in June this year (and through until today) I jotted down at intervals the cumulative viewing numbers for each of Potholer54's videos. Now typically, a new video receives a flurry of viewings, presumably mostly from notified subscribers of the series . . . and then the viewing rate decays to a lower level (which might be only 5~10 per day for certain videos, yet over a 100 per day for the more popular videos).
However, I noticed a surge in viewing rates in late September through to mid October. The most prominent surges were for about 10 particular videos ~ where the viewing rates rose to around 3~5x the usual background rate.
So, quite a remarkable increase. (Numbers have fallen away since then.)
My record-keeping has been more casual than rigorous, and I don't have a spreadsheet record to permit better analysis.
Not sure how much more can be teased out of this information: but for those who are interested, these are probably the "most surged" titles :-
1. 1.Climate Change - the scientific debate
25. 23-Medieval Warm Period - fact vs fiction
28. 26-Science vs the Feelies
33. Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux"
34. Response to "DEBUNKED : Top 5 "Climate Change" Myths by Louder with Crowder
35. Are humans contributing only 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere?
39. Top 10 climate change myths
40. A conservative solution to global warming (Part 2)
47. How accurate are scientific predictions about climate?
Warning: the left-hand numbers are the numeration used by Youtube for the videos. But some of the early videos have an older numeration which is incorporated in the video title [as you see, above]. Easy to confuse!
Science vs the Feelies is a particularly amusing and instructive video, regarding the "intuitive" thinking behind some Denialists.
Regular readers at SkS may enjoy the videos, and may gain something useful from the comment columns underneath. Of course I don't mean from the Usual Suspects / the trolls / the loonies etc ~ but I mean that one must admire the deft way Potholer54 responds to them. He emphasizes that he is not presenting his opinions, but is simply presenting the science (which is found not in newspapers & blogs, but is found in the peer-reviewed scientific papers of respected scientific journals).
-
Wol at 09:49 AM on 13 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
One of the most prevalent deniers' "arguments" is the bald statement "there's no such thing" - almost impossible to counter this especially when so many websites' comments sections are virtually unsearchable. By that I mean - an example here, the London Telegraph - a post disappears in a blizzard of other ones with no way of easily accessing something one has written as a reply. (The Telegraph used to use an outside company, Disqus, which did enable one to get back to a post and counter another's posts.)
The result is that, having rebutted a denier's point he often comes back with some other gish gallop issue and when he doesn't receive a rebuttal of THAT posts that I have no argument!
-
Doug Bostrom at 08:57 AM on 13 November 2019Ynyslas, western Wales – a place made by climate change
Received my copy signed by the author today. :-)
John's writeup doesn't quite manage to convey how deftly the book connects specific, appropriate insights our science has to say about climate change with the local context of Ynyslas
A pleasing addition to our libary.
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 13 November 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #45, 2019
Actually as a regular reader of this website, thats quite a good idea. I doubt the website people would have time to answer many but other readers may. It could be a weekly thing.
-
Michael Whittemore at 03:35 AM on 13 November 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #45, 2019
Hi, I was looking at asking some climate change questions on the web and thought it would be nice if the Skeptical Science website had a section where we could ask questions. Let me know what you think.
That's an interesting idea, and timely as we're (slowly) getting underway with an overhaul of the site. In the meantime, we do closely monitor input from our contact page and highly encourage directing questions there. Questions are a useful type of feedback— we appreciate all of them and will always try to answer as best we may. .
-
Nick Palmer at 23:46 PM on 12 November 2019Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019
"if you'd like to see posts of this type regularly, perhaps once per month?"
A huge yes to this. Any one out there fighting the misinformation and confusion out there as I do for far too much of my time :( can recognise 'waves' of specific denialist/contrarian memes in Youtube videos and filtering into article comments, etc. It would be very good to see if and how the 'general audience' reacts when seeing such comments by seeing a quantified graph of their online 'fact checking'. -
Eclectic at 20:25 PM on 12 November 2019The Experts Have Spoken: Disbanded Particulate Pollution Panel Finds EPA Standards Don’t Protect Public Health
Apologies. Somehow I have posted on the wrong thread. The above post belongs under the "Top 10 most reviewed rebuttals in September and October 2019" article by BaerbelW & Doug Bostrom.
Would a Moderator please move it? Thanks.
Prev 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 Next
