Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 Next
Comments 97101 to 97150:
-
JMurphy at 22:51 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
jhudsy, there was a good discussion at RealClimate a few years ago, which included this link : Grape ripening as a past climate indicator -
JMurphy at 22:41 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
RSVP, neither of your implications is true. Monckton's belief is that we can continue to pollute (a little or a lot - it doesn't matter) because Nature will take care of things. Simple as that. And examples of human activities that would benefit the environment, are the funding, building and use of renewable energy. By the way, I have read that Monckton (in court) tried to have the programme include a longer piece by himself. He failed. -
BillyJoe at 22:37 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
"I like the Monckton Myths logo!" And the alliteration. Pity his name is not Lonckton though. ...and that's all I can say without contravening the ad hominem policy at Sceptic Science. -
jhudsy at 21:45 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
The Ville@18 My memory is rather hazy, but as far as I recall, it's been shown that while amphora of wine were found near Hadrian's wall, there is little, if any evidence of any wineries there (I think most of the wine was imported from Gaul and the Rhineland). This is contrary to the standard skeptic argument... I do wonder, following your comment, if wine quality, or wine growth records, can be used as yet another temperature proxy (if they exist). -
Paul D at 21:00 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
judsy@12 I think there is research that shows that Europe and Rome in particular went through a few very cold patches. Is there a scientific record of the quality of Roman wine, region by region? For all we know, wine across much of the Roman empire could have be poo, so any wine that might have been produced in Britain may have been of a similar quality. It's the same for beer, we are accustomed to manufactured beer of uniform quality today, but in the past it would have varied tremendously, but if you don't know any different, you drink whatever is available. -
RSVP at 20:43 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
"This is supposedly our Get Out Of Jail Free Card - we can pollute as much as we like and nature will take care of things" If this is a untruth (i.e., myth), it then either implies that it's OK to pollute "just a little", or perhaps that nothing man does could possibly benefit the environment. Furthermore, this "truth" is held by the same folks that want you to believe the problem is not rooted in poplution. Put more simply. Is there any human activity that by some definition is "good" for the environment? Hint: "mitigation" only implies an adjustment in degree, not in kind, so that doesnt count. -
tobyjoyce at 20:36 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Monnckton encounter with a feisty Irishwoman. "Withdraw, Madam, withdraw!" is now a popular catchphrase around here, though most people have lost track of the reason why. Withdraw, Madam! Nice to see the egregious lord being publicly challenged. -
Same Ordinary Fool at 19:54 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Note the lesson here. Monckton has been corrected before, website by website, without any press response. But now there have been a succession of large scale efforts by Barry Bickmore, John Abraham, and the 21 climate scientist who critizued Monckton's House committee testimony. And now SkSc's Monckton Myths series. The press can no longer ignore the specific rebuttals of each of his arguments, because there are so many of them. From our side it's pretty obvious why there haven't been any skeptic scientists defending Monckton's personal views on climate science. But how do deniers explain this lack of support? -
Kevin Hood at 19:24 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
One other thought: in a sense, it would be like applying some skeptical scutiny to the moderation that occurs. -
Kevin Hood at 19:23 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Since the topic has come up, I think it would be an interesting post to open a thread on where moderators should draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable comments. I am not a do-it-by-committee person myself, but I think such a thread could stimulate interesting discussion, particularly if moderators could offer posts that they struggled with - to delete or not to delete, that is the question. Or even (especially?) offer some deleted comments for comment. In the least, such a thread would likely underscore how difficult it is to moderate. At the most, perhaps some collective wisdom would arise, or at least a sense of skepticalscience commenter tolerances. Just a thought. -
Riccardo at 19:16 PM on 1 February 2011Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Karamanski they're loosely similar in what they both consider humidity. But the heat index is related to human perception while the wet bulb temperature is a physical property. -
HumanityRules at 19:01 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
#38 Dana Thanks maybe I should wait for the upcoming thread you promise but... In the first post you stated the following "In fact, the planet has warmed approximately 0.8°C over the past century, and the IPCC estimates that if we were to freeze atmospheric greenhouse gases at today's levels, the planet would continue to warm another 0.6°C before reaching equilibrium." Is the unrealised 0.6oC coming from the cooling effect from aerosols or the 'lag' effect as the ocean and atmosphere return to equilibria? You seem to put forward both as explanations for the unrealised warming. If it's a bit of both do you know what the contribution is from each effect? -
HumanityRules at 18:48 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
thepoodlebites It's easy to take the stance you do on moderation, I often think what you say is spot on especially when I spent a fair time on the comment. I think it's probably natural that Daniel is going to see comments that generally chime with his own opinions as more tolerable than those from the other side of the debate. I'm sure it would be true the other way around. Comments such as #43's "is a threat to civilization" make me want to scream but probably get an approving nod from many. Having said that I don't think there's any real attempt on this website to curb the debate, from either side. I've seen plenty of evidence for tolerating all opinions. You just have to face the facts that given you might be expressing the 'other' opinion you're going to have to work to stay within policy. And if all else fails you can save a copy then go post it on WUWT ;) -
Rob Painting at 18:24 PM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marvin Gardens @ 46 - You clearly misunderstood my one question aligned with that graph which only goes back to 1840 when we have accurate measurements by gauges of river height. I was not referring to any further back No misunderstanding. I was just highlighting that much worse floods are likely to have happened when the Earth was warmer. Suggest you pay a visit here: By Brisbane Waters. And post your question. Tom seems to have detailed knowledge of the Brisbane catchment area. -
Mila at 18:12 PM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
#7 sign # is required to mark a start of a field, it significantly simplify processing code; you may omit ##################### line; this one is just a visual separator DOIs identify scientific articles listed in the post; we can take them off if you do not want to have them listed if you start to work on it send me URL with a zip file with few entries so I can test the system before we move to full productionModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Will do; give me a couple of days (life in the way right now). -
actually thoughtful at 17:13 PM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
The original posts states "The reactions from the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) camp..." I find it helpful to realize there is no AGW camp. There is climate science, which has concluded that AGW is happening and is a threat to civilization. If you understand climate scientists you "believe" in AGW. It simply follows from the data and our current state-of-the-art understanding of climate. And there are skeptics (<10 with the credentials to credibly kibitz). Then there is the echo chamber. I am strongly against "sqeptic" as it smacks of the disrespectful spelling of Obama, Democrat, liberal and any other thoughtful person that is an epidemic on the internet. I find myself starting out treating someone as a skeptic, and if they don't respond to facts and logic they get put in the denier bucket. If they persist, I just go ahead and tell the truth and hang 'em with their earned title: "lier". Note to Daniel Bailey - moderation is a win for creating a credible place for discussion. I am sure the process is not that pretty (I think thepoodlebites has a reasonable point. If politics are verboten, they are verboten. I do get the sense that some things (including my own posts) are allowed to get political, but when a skeptic/denier responds in kind, moderation occurs). I don't have examples to point to and I could well be wrong. -
Albatross at 16:01 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
And this is the person (Monckton) who the US Republicans elected to testify before Congress and speak to the science of climate change. This is also the same person who Anthony Watts from (WUWT) fawns over and who is offered a podium from which to spew his vitriol, distortion and misinformation; not to mention making threats against perceived archrivals. By doing so, Watts has also taken ownership of the Monckton's repeated and shameful gaffs, and worse yet, Watts is complicit with Monckton's despicable behavior and disinformation. Question now is, is Anthony Watts (or the media) now going to afford Monckton the podium again from which to launch an attack, this time perhaps on John Cook? Or for once, is Watts (and the media) going to do the right and honorable thing and show Monckton the door? The ball is now in their courts, and they cannot plead ignorance. -
Andy Skuce at 15:30 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
About 22 minutes into the BBC documentary, we see Ian Plimer giving Christopher Monckton a geology lesson in the Australian outback. Monckton squirts some acid on a lump of carbonate rock and marvels because it fizzes, gasp, CO2. The two men share a chuckle about the environmental damege they are doing with this experiment. Plimer hints that such an effect has been kept secret because it reveals some truth about paleoclimate that the elites would prefer to keep from the innocent public. The Skeptical Science policy forbidding ad hominem remarks prevents me from commenting any further. -
jhudsy at 15:27 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
One of my favorite Monckton Myths came from his Gish Gallop "rebuttal" of John Abraham's slideshow. "108. ...that a medieval stained-glass window at Amiens Cathedral in Northern France shows wine- grapes being grown in the region, a feat that is impossible today because it is too cold; the growing of grapes at Hadrian’s wall, also impossible today..." Apart from the fact that there is a winery at "Accomb, Yorkshire, within 5km of Hadrian's Wall." (according to http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/book.htm), does this mean his lordship believes in dragons? After all, there are also stained glass windows with images of the foul beasts! More seriously, is there any proof that the images are of grapes from the region? My understanding is that the image of grapes (and of grape treading) is a rather generic one. -
Marvin Gardens at 15:23 PM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
MichaelM and Adelady, Thanks for your civil replies to an honest question. Damage from our flooding is generally compounded by the loss of wetlands, inadequate maintenance of levees, straightening of rivers, and increasing impervious ground cover which greatly reduces absorption rates. All caused directly by man's activities. Rob Painting, You clearly misunderstood my one question aligned with that graph which only goes back to 1840 when we have accurate measurements by gauges of river height. I was not referring to any further back. Is there any research to what was happening in the 1840 to 1900 time period which showed greater frequency (18 floods) and intensity of flooding (8 major)? There were 7 floods between 1900 and 1960 with one tickling the major category. And, between 1960 to current there were 8 floods with 2 being major. So, there was a lull in the middle set of years and then flooding activity picked up again, but never reached the levels of the 1800's. Flood control began in the 60's with improvements being made throughout the recent decades. Any direction on this would be appreciated. And, I am not trying to be rude or insensitive. I lived through the 18 foot storm surge of Hurricane Hugo in 1988. We still don't look the same down there. -
citizenschallenge at 15:08 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Does anyone know if LM has actually followed through on any of his theatric threats to sue? -
scaddenp at 14:45 PM on 1 February 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
That's seaice, not the updated Grace estimates of Antarctic icesheet loss. Doesnt seem like updates published yet (The greenland data seems in advance of publication too). -
David Kirtley at 14:33 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
How long before the good lord threatens to sue you? -
peter prewett at 14:11 PM on 1 February 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Antarctic is at:- http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png Peter -
pdt at 13:37 PM on 1 February 2011Sea level rise is exaggerated
I believe the accepted term for the topic of my question is "sea level budget" and the first link given by Google for this is this one, from a website that claims higher atmospheric CO2 is a good thing for us. Seriously, the climate science community needs to figure out how to make sure the first links for searches on climate science are to actual science. -
WSteven at 13:24 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Thank you for taking the time to do this. I doubt it'll convince any die-hard sqeptics out there, but it should prove useful in convincing anybody still willing to think for themselves. -
Karamanski at 12:41 PM on 1 February 2011Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to
Is the wet bulb temperature the same thing as the heat index? Heat indices above 98 degrees Fahrenheit are common around the world. -
David Horton at 12:33 PM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
"Does Monckton have a reputation?? He claims he does, but then it is self proclaimed." Well, yes Ville, but also proclaimed on denier blogs and in shock jock columns an radio shows, and then taken seriously by politicians and the "main stream media" - it's an effortless way to become an expert. The frustrating, the really frustrating thing, about Monckton's approach (and that of several others of his ilk, is the contradictory nature, as John points out, of the arguments. Plimer and Carter's big deal was that climate had changed so wildly and so extremely in the past that the little itty bit of change seen in the last thirty years was nothing to worry about at all. But this of course totally contradicts the Monckton and Lindzen proposition that sensitivity is teeny weeny because negative feedbacks quickly kick in and keep us not too hot, not too cold, just right. Similarly "Mörner who claims it's physically impossible for sea level to rise much above its present rate" is obviously contradicted by the people who suggest that a few mm here, a few there, this century, not enough to be noticed by a middle aged surfer on Bondi Beach, is overshadowed by the huge changes in the past, especially over the Holocene. So which is it Lord M? Bit of a Catch-22 you've got yourself into I'm afraid.Response: It is ironic when skeptics contradict each other like the time Monckton and Plimer stood on the stage together and argued contradictory arguments. Even more ironic is when a skeptic contradicts themself. Eg - Monckton arguing for low climate sensitivity and also stressing how climate has changed in the past. Sometimes in the same article. Of course we have a database of "contradiction pairs", of skeptic arguments that contradict each other. So there's always the option of digging into that data sometime in the future and listing all the times when Monckton contradicts himself. -
adelady at 11:51 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
As for your rainfall questions. (Remember always there was *no* cyclone in Dec10 or leading up to the floods in Jan11.) "Brisbane experienced its wettest December since 1859" From this Wiki page. It's worth having a quick read just to get the picture of how widespread this series of events was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Queensland_floods -
Paul D at 11:35 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Just correct my post no. 6: But then as many have pointed out, including the scientists in the documentary, proving a scientific theory via live debate with or without referring to published papers etc. is bound to produce skewed and unscientific results. -
adelady at 11:34 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marvin. Have a good look at that graphic. There are several mitigation items. 1. One large dam was built in the 60s. The idea being that water storage was needed for the growing population and it would be handy to have the capacity to restrict an 1890's style flood associated with a cyclone. 2. Whoops! 1974 cyclone causes widespread flooding in Brisbane despite the dam. So a newer bigger dam (Wivenhoe) was added to the river system. 3. Sensible city management spends millions and millions of dollars over decades on enhanced storm/floodwater drainage systems for the city and suburbs. 4. Along comes an extremely wet 2010 - soils throughout the various catchments saturated. Then torrential downpours (without any driving force such as a cyclone) devastate large areas in the first weeks of 2011. 5. The dams were managed to avoid and restrict flooding and hold back maximum flow. Eventually there's just too much water. Despite the dams holding back about 3 Sydney Harbours worth of water, Brisbane still floods at close to an 1890s level. But it does so at least a week later than it would have otherwise. If the rain had eased in those last couple of days, there would have been very little flooding. I'm no expert, but that's my reading from the experts I have read. If you can find an alternative explanation for floods of this magnitude in the absence of a cyclone, with a modern city well-managed with drainage systems and massive dams to restrain vast quantites of water, go right ahead. -
Paul D at 11:33 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Does Monckton have a reputation?? He claims he does, but then it is self proclaimed. Actually one thing I got out of that BBC4 programme was the fact that when a nutter works on their own without any guidance (peer review), they crash and burn as far as science goes. But then as many have pointed out, including the scientists in the documentary, proving a scientific theory via live debate without referring to published papers etc. is bound to produce skewed and unscientific results. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:20 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
It almost deserves a url of its own! -
dana1981 at 11:07 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
I like the Monckton Myths logo! -
Albatross at 10:59 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
JMurphy @2, I would add this to your summary of Monckton: "Anyone who still thinks he is worth quoting as some sort of expert, is obviously uninterested in the truth, science and integrity" -
JMurphy at 10:47 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
Very good critique of Monckton on BBC4 this evening, as part of a general look at the so-called skeptics. Available via iPlayer until 6 Feb 11 for those in the UK : Meet the Climate Sceptics, from the Storyville series. (Should be available elsewhere for those outside the UK who know where to look) Anyone who still thinks he is worth quoting as some sort of expert, is obviously uninterested in the truth. -
adelady at 10:43 AM on 1 February 2011Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation
An excellent idea. Not before time. -
scaddenp at 10:14 AM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
"I enjoy a lively debate" - you mean like at say hot topic.Gratuitous insults and miles of hot-air about people's opinion? I like skepsci as place debate where the moderator's enforce civil discussion and where assertions need be backed by evidence from published research instead uninformed opinion. YMMV but plenty of places for "lively debate". -
Daniel Bailey at 09:29 AM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
Plain TXT file then (just as easy for me, so if easier for you, so be it).LastNext-to-last question: In your example, you begin each line with the # symbol; is that required, or just something to demonstrate a new row/record? Last question: Unsure as to the DOI's. Can you elaborate on that as well when you get the chance? The Yooper -
MichaelM at 08:19 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
@42 Here's one form of mitigation :"Wivenhoe Dam was built in response to the 1974 Brisbane flood" -
Marvin Gardens at 07:14 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Rob @ 40 What type of mitigation has been done? Is there any record of the amount of rainfall over the drainage basin to compare the 1800's events to 1900's events and on into the 2000's. -
Mila at 06:36 AM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
#5 1) if you export an Excell spreadsheet as a text file it will suit my needs - I am a Linux user and do not own Excell; I would have to use a third party software and I would prefer not to - work with clean text files is much easier; Excell offers a few export formats so we can try one of these 2) the posts may be located anywhere; I will just need to know the urls -
Daniel Bailey at 05:56 AM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
@ Mila @ 4 Would the lost posts now linked in the Archive be usable where they are (in the Internet version of the recycle bin) or would they need to be hosted independently of that? As far as the format, would an Excel spreadsheet, if set up like your example above, work? The Yooper -
Rob Painting at 05:42 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
Marvin @ 40 - But, flooding worse than this has occurred before hasn't it? Definitely, earlier "Hothouse" phases in Earth's past would have seen tremendous flooding, but not during the last few hundred years of European settlement. See here for further information: 2010: A Year of Record Warmth and Weird Weather In short work to mitigate flood events has been partially successful. The 2011 Brisbane Flood would have been far worse otherwise. Yours is clearly an erroneous argument in need of it's own rebuttal. One is in the works. -
Marvin Gardens at 05:16 AM on 1 February 2011OK global warming, this time it's personal!
I am very sorry for what you are going through and can empathize after living through several hurricanes. But, flooding worse than this has occurred before hasn't it?
-
Mila at 03:09 AM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
#3 If you are willing to feed in data I will tweek Zvon RC system to care for Open Mind blog - it would mean to fill Google Documents or a zip file on a stable address with keywords, dates, titles, abstracts, names, and dois. It is nothing complicated, something like: #title:Friday round-up #href:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/friday-round-up-2/ #authors:rasmus #date:24 April 2009 #categories:RC Forum;skeptics ######################################## #keywords: sun galactic cosmic rays #names: Singer, Fred #doi: 10.1002/joc.1651 10.1029/2005GL023621 10.1029/2001JA000507 10.1098/rspa.2007.0347 #oclc: -
Daniel Bailey at 02:43 AM on 1 February 2011An efficient world facts checker - Zvon.org guide to CIA World Factbook
Thanks for this Mila! I've been using the Factbook for more years than I can remember, so this resource will come in handy. Any chance you can do a Zvon.org guide to Tamino's Open Mind blog? (The big problem is the deletion of pre-March 2010 posts, most of which I was able to list in this archive) Thanks again! The Yooper -
D Kelly O at 01:52 AM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
John's Jan 30, 2011 climate article e-mail had a link to a WUWT post about Lindzen's March 11, 2008 note on "statistically significant warming" (link). Here is what Lindzen said 3 years ago:There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Lindzen, March, 2008
The addition of 2008-2010 temperature data makes Lindzen's statement invalid. Will he update his statement based on more current data? He could benefit from Tamino's statistical expertise. (here). -
thepoodlebites at 01:01 AM on 1 February 2011Follow-Up Case Study in Skepticism
Please define "comments that add to the discussion"? The statement seems to have a significant amount of wiggle-room. It has been my experience at skepticalscience.com that the moderator uses off-topic or political to delete anti-AGW comments but allows pro-AGW comments to remain. For example: "A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity" 53.dhogaza at 16:29 PM on 23 January, 2011 Ron Crouch: If governments would only face global warming with the same tenacity that they apply to terrorism. Actually, the current leadership of the Republican Party in the US does ... Problem being they look at climate science as being equivalent to terrorism ... How is the above not political? I enjoy a lively debate but it's not happening here, which is unfortunate.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Moderating is a no-win scenario. The goal is to maintain a certain latitude in adherence to the comments policy. Comments that toe the line without erasing it (in your example, dhogaza was replying to Ron; both commenters were referring to global warming [an accepted fact by the NAS & virtually every scientific body in the world] and lamenting US policy of inaction on it. Contextually OK) are allowed so as to not stifle the dialogue. Pushing the envelope of discussion to include Cap & Trade, which you did, gets seriously off-topic. The mod's are human and sometimes miss things, but overall do a pretty good job here in keeping the flow of the thread dialogue from getting hijacked. I have even gone in after the fact & deleted my own comments that went too far. -
NickD at 00:41 AM on 1 February 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Thanks Daniel (The Yooper).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You're welcome. And apologies; I forgot to mention there is discussion of the Knox and Douglass paper in this post here at Skeptical Science. My bad.
Prev 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 Next
