Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
Comments 97301 to 97350:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 14:06 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
#55 muoncounter, Serreze et al doesn't explain why the models predict higher AO when AO is going lower. The paper references this 1998 paper with the same model-predicts-positive-AO theme http://tinyurl.com/6gy9zl9 in the context that these other factors like AO might have something to do with some of the ice loss. Then they drop the subject. The specific paper that I would be delighted to read is the one that explains why AO is not going positive like the models predict. #56 Bibliovermis, the term CAGW is disliked by some here, but what I am trying to do is distinguish between the settled science of AGW and the extreme Arctic warming predicted in the models due to positive AO feedback loop and the amplification that the Serreze describes. -
Marcus at 13:56 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Well, Huggy, given that the primary source of past warming-The Sun-has been in a *cooling* cycle for the last 30 years, it suggests the current warming trend is moving in the *opposite*-accelerating-direction to that which the *Natural* forcings would suggest. Of course, Huggy, I'd also be interested to know what natural phenomenon could cause the lower atmosphere to *warm*, whilst simultaneously causing the upper atmosphere to cool. Oh, but why believe what I say? I might just be one of those evil "government types" trying to make you pay a carbon tax....give me a *break*!!! -
Bibliovermis at 13:40 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
It appears to me that CAGW originated with the Oregon Petition. The distinction is an ideological argument ranging in form from "it's not bad" to "climate sensitivity is low". What is catastrophic is a subjective quality, unless an objective definition is developed; such as with "likely" in the IPCC reports. -
muoncounter at 13:31 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
#54: "help explain why ice decreased more than expected (than from AGW alone)" Eric, the Polyakov and Johnson paper is from 2000; the alaska scienceforum paper from 2002. Since that time, a lot more ice has gone. Serreze 2009 speaks of arctic amplification as just emerging in the late '90s, a signal that would not be evident to the papers you cite. As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens and intensifies, leading to less sea ice at summer’s end. Summertime absorption of solar energy in open water areas increases the sensible heat content of the ocean. Ice formation in autumn and winter, important for insulating the warm ocean from the cooling atmosphere, is delayed. This promotes enhanced upward heat fluxes, seen as strong warming at the surface and in the lower troposphere. And of course, continued sea ice discussion should go on the appropriate thread. -
climatesight at 13:29 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Thanks for making that, Robert. I've been looking for a single graphic like this to use in presentations for a while! -
David Horton at 13:03 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
The major proposition among deniers seems to have recently shifted from "it's not warming" (since 1998 or whenever) to "well of course it's warming" (we are at the end of, beginning of, part of a natural cycle because ...). I suppose, if you were an optimist, see this as a small step for a denier, large step for mankind, but since I'm not ... But I do wonder how you can look at a graph like this excellent one of John's and somehow convince yourself that it is perfectly obvious that the rapid temp rise you see over the last 100 years, especially the last 40 years, just happens, by an astonishing coincidence, to coincide with the the massive increase in industrial activity that began in the industrial revolution and the consequent massive measured increase in CO2 levels. I cannot begin to imagine how you could continue to hold a belief in a coincidence of that kind. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:00 PM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
AGW is settled by physics and observations. However, CAGW is posited by models which say AO will go more positive as part of a positive feedback of less ice, more positive AO, more warming. See http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jfyfe/PDF/FyfeBoerFlato1999a.pdf and http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/ngillett/PDFS/gcm_aochange.pdf (2002). But by about 2002 we started seeing the "paradox" http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/other_papers/GRL2005-Arctic-Paradox.pdf: "We are left with an apparent paradox of more linear Arctic climate change beginning in the late 1970's and the more episodic AO." The authors don't provide an answer to the paradox. But all the authors above acknowledged that natural factors like volcanoes can have a large effect. At the same time models were being used to predict secular increases in AO (and the positive AO of the early to mid 1990's minus Pinatubo was being touted as part of that increase) other researchers were positing natural cycles (e.g. Polyakov and Johnson http://denali.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/pdf/50yr_web.pdf described here http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1582.html) to help explain why ice decreased more than expected (than from AGW alone). P&J used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model of the Arctic driven by historical measurements to plot the cycles. Their implicit prediction of the current negative AO turned out to be accurate. Now negative AO is being misconstrued as a consequence of ice loss, but it is not since the models have considered ice loss and Arctic temperature anomalies all along and have predicted positive AO. So nobody misunderstands, I am not saying that the bulk of the GAT increases are from these natural cycles, they are not, they are AGW. -
Daniel Bailey at 12:59 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
@ caerbannog (7) Thank you for demonstrating the scientific method in action! The Yooper -
scaddenp at 12:55 PM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Going to provide us with statements from actual climatologists in which they state that they are a sub-branch of meteorology? Climatology talks about scenarios rather than predictions because you cannot predict how societal factors will affect forcings (ie aerosols, GHG). They then DO predict (any no. of papers) what you will get for climate for a given scenario, SUBJECT to the uncertainties of various sorts, just like every branch of science does. "After watching weather reports on the TV over 50 years, I have concluded that the earth's climate has not changed much at all" So your memories of TV reports are more reliable than all those carefully measured indices done on a global basis? You expect this statement to be taken seriously? "However, in the long term weather enventally returns to its normal pattern." "Normal" is climate. Are you trying to suggest that climate cannot change? How about providing some backing for these assertions? -
Gordon1368 at 12:45 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Huggy, this proves nothing, because it is not intended to be proof of anything. It is a small piece of the large amount of evidence we have that the warming we are experiencing is unnatural. -
muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
#48: "a theoretical branch of meteorology" Or perhaps climatology is actually defined as "the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences." "their climate models produce only senarios" Please refer to the rebuttal to Models are unreliable if you want to learn about climate modeling. "After watching weather reports on the TV over 50 years, I have concluded" TV is perhaps not the best place to look for education. I've watched various doctor shows on TV for years, but I wouldn't claim to be ready to do open heart surgery. "the pattern of weather in the various regions of earth are still about the same." OK, now its time to shut the TV off and start looking around the wider world, because there's bad stuff happening out there. See It's freaking cold and Extreme weather for starters. "in the long term weather enventally returns to its normal pattern." That's one you'd have to substantiate, preferably on the extreme weather thread cited above. -
Ron Crouch at 12:36 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#8 "the graph is freely available for download............into the wrong hands????" No such thing as wrong hands. That's a primary difference between many skeptics and scientists working to produce constructive answers, the data (all of it) are made available for public scrutiny, not just for the benefit of other scientists and politicians. I'm sure you appreciate being properly informed as well -- don't you? -
muoncounter at 12:29 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
"And this proves what?" Nicely done, Robert. I make your slope to be about 0.16 deg/decade and rising, right in line with Figure 8 from Assessing surface temperature reconstructions and Tamino's recent gem.
As for what this proves: Until you can show a 'natural cycle' that runs in a straight line for 35 years, this says 'it's not natural.' So much for all that 'ramp and sine' gibberish.
-
caerbannog at 12:21 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
HuggyPopsBear at 11:50 AM on 26 January, 2011 And this proves what? Many graphs have been made but is this a tool refined to enhance government needs to impose a carbon tax on the world. (sniff.. sniff...) Do I smell a Poe??? -
HuggyPopsBear at 12:19 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Think you missed my point, in that the graph is freely available for download............into the wrong hands???? -
caerbannog at 12:17 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
An update to my "Quick and Dirty Analysis of GHCN Surface Temperature Data" guest-post. Due to my failure to RTF GHCN documentation carefully, I implemented an incorrect algorithm. It turns out that multiple stations can share a single WMO identification number. Having failed to read the documentation carefully, I charged ahead and coded up my routine assuming that each temperature station had a unique WMO number. So what happened was that in the cases where multiple stations share a WMO id number, my program used temperature data from just the last station associated with that WMO number with valid data for a given year/month. However, that goof actually *improved* the results over what you would get with a true "dumb average", as Kevin C discovered when he went to reimplement my routine in Python. What happened is that many temperature stations have random data gaps. In cases where multiple stations share a single WMO id, my routine quite accidentally "filled in" missing data from one station with valid data from other stations. That had the effect of crudely merging data from very-closely-spaced clusters of stations, reducing the overweighting problem associated with dumb-averaging, and reducing the impact of big data gaps in single-station data on baseline and anomaly computations. Kevin C demonstrated that a true "dumb average" gives significantly worse results that what I computed. So I went back and tried a little experiment. I changed my code so that the temperature data for all stations sharing a single WMO id were properly averaged together to produce a single temperature time-series for each WMO id. When I did that, my results improved significantly! The differences in the results for raw vs. "adjusted" GHCN were reduced noticeably, showing an even better match between raw and adjusted temperature data. So quite by accident, I stumbled on a method considerably simpler than proper gridding that still gives pretty decent results! This turned out to be a quite accidental demonstration of the robustness of the surface temperature record! I misinterpreted the GHCN data format and still got results darned close to NASA's "Northern Latitudes" index. I'd like to say, "I meant to do that", but instead I should say thanks to Kevin C for uncovering my dumb mistake. -
Ron Crouch at 12:08 PM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
#5 "Many graphs have been made but is this a tool refined to enhance government needs to impose a carbon tax on the world." Seeing that none of the contributors here receive any accoutrements from clandestine governmental organizations, then there is no need to deceive. So the answer is of course no. -
h pierce at 11:57 AM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Climatology is a sub-discipline of and a theoretical branch of meteorology. Careful climate scientists always say they don't make predictions or projections and their climate models produce only senarios since phenomena such as clouds, aerosols and in particular black carbon are difficult to model and their effects on climate are not well undersood. Unfortuntely the popular press, politicians and many scientists, lay people and in paricular the wiseguys of the enviromental families, who are not meterologists or climatologists, make no such distinction. After watching weather reports on the TV over 50 years, I have concluded that the earth's climate has not changed much at all. That is to say the pattern of weather in the various regions of earth are still about the same. Weather can be quite variable from year to year and there can be extreme weather events, the most important of which prolonged drought. However, in the long term weather enventally returns to its normal pattern. There are regions such as Death Valley and other deserts where climate has not changed much for centuries. I doubt the climate scientist can model the pattern of weather for the various regions of the earth for period of about 30 years, for example, from 2070 to 2100.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Been there, done that. Here's 2050 looking at ya:
-
dana1981 at 11:56 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
Thanks citizenschallenge. I think John is going to take down about 10 of them in one fell swoop (a bunch were about extreme weather). We're probably looking at 11 installments, for now. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:52 AM on 26 January 2011We're heading into cooling
Moderator... Can you point me to the "Litany of Completely Baseless Statements" thread so I can reply to Henry Justice? (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Try here. -
HuggyPopsBear at 11:50 AM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
And this proves what? Many graphs have been made but is this a tool refined to enhance government needs to impose a carbon tax on the world. Of course temperatures are rising. We are now climbing out of the mini ice age. Records since 1860 hardly proves anything in the vast scope of world history. Everything is tidal, the oceans, seasons, weather patterns, planetary cycles. The world breathes, its alive and there is nothing scientists or anybody else can do to prove otherwise because you cannot put the whole picture into a model. Nice graph though, will look good framed on the wall.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then frame this one then:
For the rest of your comment, please break it up into those components you feel most important and post them on the appropriate thread. Search function, upper left corner (in case you missed it). -
skywatcher at 11:28 AM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Spreadsheet downloaded - that's an excellent resource Robert, and kudos to you for putting in the extra effort required to collate all the data, especially the reanalysis data. Many thanks! -
robert way at 11:15 AM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Uah and RSS you mean? lol GISS is not a satellite record!Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text. -
Daniel Bailey at 11:11 AM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Powerful, succinct, compelling and convincing. Belongs on the "Are we heading into global cooling?" or the "It's freaking cold!" or the ___________ (ad infinitum) thread. Great job! The Yooper -
dana1981 at 11:00 AM on 26 January 2011Ten temperature records in a single graphic
Nice work Robert, that's a very cool and useful graph. -
Henry justice at 10:57 AM on 26 January 2011We're heading into cooling
My previous post was for NASA's raw temperature data. Shows what their adjustments do to the slant. Another thought: Are regular thermometers in error if atmospheric infrared components increase (8-15 microns)? Yes they are. This may be the essence of time of observation bias, or TOB that is often mentioned when taking temperature readings.Moderator Response: Anybody who responds to this, please do so on a more appropriate thread, and post a short comment here pointing to that other thread. -
John Hartz at 10:31 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #3: Linear Warming
NETDR: I challenge you to draft a science-grade paper detailing your analysis and post it on a public website for review and comment. -
Henry justice at 10:29 AM on 26 January 2011We're heading into cooling
The effects of man's CO2 is wildly exaggerated. The global warming since the mid-1970s to 1999 and for the last century is mostly due to reductions in the rate of global ocean deep-water circulation—or Meridional Overturning Circulation—which has occurred. Global temperatures have followed closely the fluctuations in solar output and ocean circulation cycles, not carbon dioxide trends. This circulation is driven by global ocean salinity variations. CO2 changes play no role in these ocean changes. Scientists now report that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures a mere 1 degree Celsius. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by less than 50 percent since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The contribution of CO2 is minute at best. I don't see abnormal or unnatural global temperature rises as evidenced bu NASA's own data, taking out the corrupting urban stations. No visual upward slant over many previous decades are seen no matter where you click. Just the natural up and down temperature wiggles you would naturally expect. Check it out on this site and see for yourself: What the Stations Say! http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#The South Atlantic However, what needs watching is whether the sunspots disappear in around 2015 and we tip from a Dalton to a Maunder like minimum. Also, watch for the buildup of summer snow (or decreasing summer melt). We do need to get rid of the brownish haze I see every time I fly in an airplane. That has to cause some dimming.Moderator Response: Everybody who replies to this, please do so on the appropriate thread, and on this thread post a short comment linking to your comment on the relevant thread. -
Richo at 10:22 AM on 26 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Found this on the website "Ice age now", phwoaarr, 1010ppm. What are they thinking ?? This has to be lunacy, surely ? http://www.iceagenow.com/1010ppm–lets_go_for_it.htmModerator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Magic 8-ball says: Yes. -
citizenschallenge at 08:45 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
Great series of posts. 10 monckton claims down and only 14 to go. love the team's stamina, I am looking forward to future installments. -
Ron Crouch at 08:04 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
A bit more on albedo. The role of albedo and accumulation in the 2010 melting record in GreenlandModerator Response: [muoncounter] See the Flanner in the works thread. -
Paul D at 07:28 AM on 26 January 2011Rebuttal to 'Scientist's Can't Even Predict The Weather Right'
Re John@43. "Predicting ultimate outcomes is all about producing forecasts, and forecasts are, just like your washing machine, a manufactured product." Oh good grief, you still haven't got the issue. But instead blubber on with a marketing campaign! It is clear that you don't actually understand the issue I was describing. You are talking about a weather forecast, and that is the equivalent of an engineer taking a design and working out it's reliability. It has no relation at all to the physical design of the actual washing machine. As I pointed out twice now! When it comes to a manufactured product, the design can be changed and that will result in a new reliability calculation (a forecast of probability of failures). That in no way applies to weather, which is a product that is not 'designed'. That restricts the ultimate accuracy of a weather forecast. And the issue here isn't about political ideology or economic models for funding the best weather forecasts. The issue is the public perception of any weather forecast against the ability to predict climate. Weather forecasting has improved hugely since the 1950s, but some members of the public will always whine about how inaccurate they are. Hence the title of the article by dansat. -
michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
The sea ice extent is the area of sea covered by 15% or more of ice. The sea ice area is the total area of ice only (subtract the open water). For example two square kilometers that were 50% covered with ice would be 2 km2 of extent but only one km2 of area. The NSIDC and IJIS report the sea ice extent but Cryosphere Today reports sea ice area. There is usually little difference between the two trends, but the area is smaller than the extent. -
nigelj at 07:03 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #7: Snowjob
Maybe you should put in your "most used sceptic arguments" " Lord Christopher Moncton says agw is a scam" and a short clear summarry of his main nonsense arguments. -
dana1981 at 06:42 AM on 26 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Thanks Albatross, that's nice of you to say. -
citizenschallenge at 06:23 AM on 26 January 2011Monckton Myth #6: Global Sea Ice
This confused me: (UPDATE: Sea ice area data shows the same thing as extent data.) Isn't 'area' and 'extent' the same thing as opposed to 'mass' or 'volume'? -
Trueofvoice at 05:56 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
There seeme to be a reinvigorated attempt of late to redefine every form of quackery recorded over the last five thousand years as a product of "science", completely ignoring emergence of the scientific method as a product of the modern period. The Denialview is not only anti-scientific, it is also ahistorical. -
Albatross at 05:41 AM on 26 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Oh, and better batten down the hatches. I would be surprised if supporters of WUWT do not swarm SkS in the next while. I'm sure that, being a man of honesty and integrity, we can expect Mr. Watts to issue an unequivocal corrections and retractions to Lindzen's article, Monckton's articles and Easterbrook's articles (et cetera) in the coming days. -
Albatross at 05:34 AM on 26 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
Dana @56, Fantastic news and very much deserved IMHO! I think we all here owe a huge thanks for Dana for all his hard work, not only on this piece but for others too in which he has stood up for science and for integrity. -
Albatross at 05:30 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
SkyWatcher @51, Thanks, I recall that now. IMHO, you are correct, but much more importantly NAS is probably correct. -
skywatcher at 05:23 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
Albatross #44: Didn't the NAS say a similar thing about the basics of climate science in their letter to Science as your final suggestion? " But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.” For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. " -
muoncounter at 05:17 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
#41: " a few minutes of a 57 minute long program. Hardly scientific." I'm not aware of the term 'scientific' as applied to the watching of a television program. "Nurse presents a very balanced and unbiased view, bearing in mind he is a staunch advocate of AGW." There's a substantial fallacy in this need for a 'balanced view': If a body of evidence supports a conclusion, what 'balance' is created by discussing the opposite side? Do we say "Our observations show to a high degree of certainty that the earth is round, but some believe it may be flat"? That's background noise, which unfortunately gets picked up and amplified by the repeat-o-sphere. So your 'balanced presentation' does little more than provide deniers with ammunition (in this example, becoming the headline 'Scientists express doubt that the earth is round!') No, the message must be clear and unequivocal. If you are struggling to accept some aspect of AGW, despite the ample evidence presented here, by all means ask questions. But do not pretend that there is a 'balanced argument' to be made based on science -- if one existed, certainly we'd have heard it by now. -
muoncounter at 05:11 AM on 26 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
#16: "nuclear bombs and tests" I've looked at some of the online records; they actually worked out a formula for height and diameter of cloud vs. yield. Very few of the tests were large enough to put much volume into the stratosphere. '61-'62 was the worst period due to the test ban treaty during '59-'60. -
dana1981 at 05:01 AM on 26 January 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
This article has been picked up and re-published by The Guardian, by the way. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:46 AM on 26 January 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice calculations
The nuclear winter hypothesis came from fires, not the explosions. Here's an old paper on the topic http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Articles/Turco_Nuclear_Winter_90.pdf -
michael sweet at 04:07 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
Landy Jim: Can you cite specific "instances of jobs threatened, papers refused to be published, careers damaged and even threats against the person" by scientific skeptics. We are all aware of climate scientists, like Phil Jones and many others, who have received death threats. James Hansen has documented in his book Storms of My Grandchildren that he has had grants cancelled because of his data on AGW. I have never heard of an instance fo a denier who has had grant issues or papers not published due to their content. Please provide specific instances or stop spreading false rumors. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:55 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
LandyJim, Calling on flat Earth ideas is underhanded, as these kind of theories were not based in real scientific investigation. even the early Egyptians had it right and were able to estimate the Earth curvature with decent accuracy, because they were using a real method. So the true scientific consensus on the shape of the Earth has been for round, and for more than 2000 years. "Only a theory" is the kind of language that creationists use to try to discredit evolution. It works only the general public, because science minded people know that the status of theory is the highest that an idea can reach in science. Saying that a set of ideas is "only" a theory is kind of an oxymoron. What could it be that's better? Theories are much farther reaching than mere laws. Real theories are seldom ditched altogether when new discoveries are made. Einstein did not even truly invalidate Newton, it expanded it and solved the problems that Newton couldn't get a handle on, such as Mercury's orbit. Newton's theory still works fine in its domain of application. It yields very precise results if you want to determine where a projectile is going to land. But it wouldn't allow for accurate GPS position reports. AGW is not a matter of opinion. The consensus model of Earth' climate is indeed a scientific theory and AGW is a normal consequence of it. That's not the opinion of the researchers, that's what the theory, based on countless research results, dictates. And, just like you said of evolution, there is really no alternative competent at integrating all these results, observations, data, analyses, in a coherent whole. There may be flaws or grey areas in the theory, as there is in any of them. It does not invalidate it. Only a more competent theory will do that. Even at that, a better theory will likely expand on it rather than replace it altogether. -
DSL at 03:50 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
I second Albatross. LandyJim's Theory: "Lets be honest here, some of the worst attacks on scientists have been those who have raised genuine and scientifically researched objections to AGW precepts." Show me the evidence. Show me A) "genuine and scientifically researched objections to AGW precepts," and B) that attacks have been made on "those" who have raised these objections. The precepts you're talking about are the well-established radiative physics of CO2, CH4, and H20. I've yet to see any alternative theory that describes the observed radiative properties of those molecules. What other precepts are you talking about? -
Albatross at 03:14 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
Landy Jim @41, "They are automatically labelled "deniers" and there have been instances of jobs threatened, papers refused to be published, careers damaged and even threats against the person." Absolute, unsubstantiated nonsense-- I strongly suspect that you have been reading contrarian blogs and/or highly inaccurate articles from certain media outlets. The people who have repeatedly received very real death threats, who are subjected to witch hunts, who have had their computers hacked (or fended off attempted hacks) are the climate scientists. I am more than happy to provide you with the abundant evidence of that. It strikes me as peculiar that you are trying to paint some "skeptics" as martyrs. Who are these martyrs? As for you claims about the FOI-- most of those "requests" were coming from overseas, Canada in particular. CRU did not and do not own the data in question and the people making the "requests" knew that-- why are we still having to explain these basic facts over a year later?! Failure to comply with some orchestrated vexatious FOI campaign (courtesy of Stephen McIntyre and friends)has nothing to do with wasting British tax payers' money. I would argue that what was a waste of money were the three investigations demanded by "skeptics" into the stolen email affair, which ultimately largely exonerated the people in question. I urge you to please read the report by Sir Muir Russel, the most comprehensive of all the investigations (here. The small group at CRU, overwhelmed, antagonized and under attack, made some bad calls and some people said some stupid things. Part of the problem was that the UEA failed the CRU by not providing sufficient guidance and administrative support to deal with the FOI requests. To my knowledge, well over a year has past yet McIntyre has yet to use those data that he demanded for anything, never mind a research paper. Does that not tell you anything Landy? "Let's hope it is the start of scientists getting out there and showing the facts, to persuade the mass of the public who are presently confused by what they read from those who have little idea of the science in the first place." And it is there that you Landy need to exercise some responsible and diligence. From what I have seen thus far you seem only too happy to believe the spin, disinformation and distortion being used by "skeptics", contrarians and those in denial about the theory of AGW. Well, you have no excuses for not fact checking their claims, and applying your skepticism equally. I apologize if my tone is terse, but I and others are getting rather sick and tired of having to repeat these basics (that are freely available for people to educate themselves), not to mention having to play whack-a-mole refuting the seemingly endless stream of misinformation that people have been fed by people with agendas.Moderator Response: Further discussion specifically of ClimateGate should be on "A retrospective of the Climategate retrospectives" or one of the other ClimateGate threads. -
Albatross at 02:46 AM on 26 January 2011The science isn't settled
Landy Jim, Please read Spencer Weart's excellent book "The Discovery of Global Warming". There is an extended online version available here. I highly recommend it.
Prev 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 Next
