Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 Next
Comments 104101 to 104150:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:00 AM on 18 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
I keep hearing this theme from TIS that the current warming is not out of the ordinary. Problem there is, I don't believe that is what sciences asks. The question is not, is current warming out of the ordinary, but rather why is it warming? What are the causes? What might this mean for the future? You can't just say, "Eh, it's been this warm before" and just abandon why. I would be as excited as anyone if science turned up an alternative mechanism to CO2 that has driven current warming, and that mechanism showed that we were just in a temporary warming phase and would now be headed into a cooling phase. The whole world could breathe a huge sigh of relief. But that's not what's happening. CO2 clearly explains past climate change as well as current warming. And the continuing trend in the rise in CO2 suggests that we are in for much more warming that could potentially cause a great deal of disruption. There is a well understood mechanism here with CO2. There is no viable alternative theory that explains what we currently see. Saying, "It's natural" does not explain anything. In fact, it is a casual abandonment of scientific explanation. John, if current warming is "natural" and not driven by man made CO2 it is incumbent upon you to explain the natural mechanism behind that warming. You need to show what it is, why it works, how it explains paleo record of climate, all at the same time as showing exactly why the basic physics of CO2 is so widely misunderstood. -
Phila at 03:25 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, I hate to break it to you, but caps and bolding do not make your failed "arguments" any more compelling. -
How significance tests are misused in climate science
Ned - I think you may be right! I must have mixed that story with the Diskworld series, where the disk rests on the back of four elephants (who themselves stand on a turtle). Sigh. I have to work on my metaphors a bit, obviously. One more note on induction - Our data (outside the most simplistic cases) is never perfect, there's always some noise in the measurements. Newtonian physics was fine until our measurements improved, whereupon we got Einstein. We take these inductively generated hypotheses, test them against the data (hopefully increasing the probability, the inductive likelyhood of being correct), and judge them against other hypotheses based on those inductive supports. After enough evidence accumulates, enough tests performed, we can accept these hypotheses as generally applicable. But - our knowledge is not perfect. Newtonian physics was thought to be a 'universal proposition'; turns out it's useful in many cases, but not correct. We have to keep in mind the separation between the world we live in [the baseline against which we work] and our theories of how it operates [which are our best evaluations, not crystalline truths]. -
Stephen Baines at 03:05 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
KL...In another thread, we get an unfounded claim that climate scientists don't know how to code and annotate code. Then when someone properly annotates code to clearly indicate what is going on to avoid later confusion, you pick it up out of context as evidence of malfeasance. This feels like another of the internally inconsistent set of arguments used to confuse, in your words, "the great unwashed" about the evidence for climate change. It also makes it impossible for climate scientists to do anything right -- a proper double bind. Very convenient (from a denialist perspective). -
Ned at 02:59 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
KR, that reference seems a bit garbled. I've seen versions where it's elephants standing on the back of a turtle, and where it's turtles all the way down ... but is there really one where it's elephants all the way down? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down -
Karamanski at 02:55 AM on 18 November 2010It hasn't warmed since 1998
When ENSO-adjusted, why is 2006 the hottest year on record? But NASA GISS shows 2005 as the hottest year on record. Which year is the hottest 2005 or 2006? -
Stephen Baines at 02:45 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
It is not in of itself evil to take money from tobacco companies, but that argument is obviously a red herring. Remember Poptech, the tobacco companies were succesfully prosecuted for exactly this distortion of research under US racketeering laws. Look at the executive summary published by the department of justice. A central tenet is the tobacco companies knew smoking caused cancer and was addictive, and then sponsored and disseminated false scientific research to make it appear otehrwise to the public and lawmakers to put off regulation. Seitz was intimately and knowingly (unless he is completely incompetent!) involved in that process. -
CBDunkerson at 02:43 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech #79: "NO THEY HAVE NOT LINKED TO ANY SUCH THING!" Ah, so your position is pure denial. Got it. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:40 AM on 18 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, I totally agree that "reports" from the Marshall Institute constitute by no means any kind of valid scientific information. -
How significance tests are misused in climate science
Berényi - "Induction is not a scientific method. It is an heuristic method (one of many) used to arrive at universal propositions of any kind, some being scientific among them. But what makes a universal proposition scientific is not the fact it is supported by data, but that it is not contradicted by any of them." I would have to disagree. Induction is not only a scientific method, it is the scientific method. Generalizing from observations and forming a 'universal' proposition is done via induction - deduction cannot teach you anything you don't already know. Testing inductive hypotheses for validity, yes, you've described that quite well. But the universal propositions you describe are generated by induction. In fact, even deductive logic is based on induction. Given deductive logic, you can derive interrelationships and implications, starting from your premises and reasoning through first and higher order logic. 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal But your premises - those are inductive. You believe them because you have observed them to be valid (all men are mortal), an inductive statement from experience. From a book I read recently - A: "The world is a disk, which sits on the backs of four giant elephants." B: "What's under the elephants?" A: "Oh, from there it's more elephants all the way down..." -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:34 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Real Climate had a complete discussion of exactly what "hide the decline" was all about, and Ken missed it. Oh well. So-called skeptics have already "redefined" what peer-review is by including such sources as E&E, a publication that claims bias as its vocation: "platform for skeptic authors" were Sonja B.M. own words. The vast campaign of harassment organized by McIntyre by underhanded way of FOI requests is more of a scandal than all the non existing whatevergates balloons launched and deflated. -
michael sweet at 02:33 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
It is interesting that in a thread titled "Climategate a year later" Ken Lambert quotes Monbiot from a year ago. Soundoff then updates Monbots quote. Why can't the skeptics even keep up with what their own side says? The continual wack a mole gets tiring. -
Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech - also see the Rockefeller University bio of Frederick Seitz. Seitz was apparently responsible for the disbursement of $45M in R.J. Reynolds funds donated for research - and the documents revealed in the legal case against tobacco revealed that this was part of the strategy to "obfuscate the true health effects of smoking", simply a PR campaign. Did the research give the tobacco industry political cover? Seitz - “I’ll leave that to the philosophers and priests.” -
Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech - I would refer you to the Philip Morris Feb. 1994 Activity Report, paragraph 1, on strategies for dealing with second hand smoke (ETS). "Initiated a strategy to publicize and communicate the results of a Marshall Institute report that challenges the scientific basis of various environmental regulations . The report was written by Dr . Frederick Seitz who is a world renowned scientist. Dr . Seitz is President Emeritus of Rockerfeller University and past President of the National Academy of Sciences . In addition to his criticisms of the global warming and ozone depletion issues, Dr . Seitz also addressed the ETS issue. With respect to ETS, Dr . Seitz concluded that ". . .there is no good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances" . The report will be used to challenge the EPA's report on ETS in domestic and nternational markets." - emphasis added. Dr. Seitz received approximately $585,000 over his contracts with RJR (see We should like to renew the letter agreement dated July 12, 1978 between you and RJR Nabisco, Inc., and also While Washington Slept), although he denied this in several interviews. This was a "report", not peer-reviewed. However, RJR, Philip Morris, and the other companies represented it as such, and as evidence that the science behind the tobacco/cancer link was false. That's bad science, known to be false by the tobacco companies (as per documents on record), and far outside Seitz's area of expertise; he completely compromised his integrity by doing so. For you to defend him does not do your credibility any favors. -
SoundOff at 02:01 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Re: Ken's Monbiot from NOV30 - He has somewhat backed away from he said in the heat of the moment about Dr. Phil Jones, as shown in the following: George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 8th July 2010 So was I wrong to have called, soon after this story broke, for Jones’s resignation? I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I’ve now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I would conclude that Phil Jones should hang on - but only just. I hope the last review gives him some peace. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/07/07/filth-and-fury/ -
MarkR at 01:43 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Calling the Himalaya mistake a 'typo' is wrong IMO. It was a mistake from a failure in the reference reviewing process... Ken: the "nature trick" is well explained, see Briffa's 2000 paper in Quart. Sci. Rev. for an introduction to the divergence problem and elsewhere for further explanation (e.g. the caption of the WMO graph that the furore is about) The last one is from a small program of which there is no evidence it was ever used in a paper or for published data. Such programs to test stuff during research are very common. I must have dozens of them on my computer, for example, because I've recently been looking at the sensitivity of the model. -
Stephen Baines at 01:16 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Karamanski #24 The argument that climate scientists exagerrate the role of climate change to get more research dollars has never made any sense to me whatsoever. If you want money for research, you don't go around saying that the problem is essentially solved. You argue that there is an interesting/important problem that needs solving (e.g. cancer). Think about this analogy...my car has been acting funny so I go to a car mechanic. He explains that he knows what's wrong with my car, in fact he's been predicting for years that something will happen because of how I drive it. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the tools to fix it. He then asks me to bring the car back next week so he can diagnose it again, without fixing it. Am I going to give him the money to do so? Not if I'm sensible. The irony is that only a "skeptic" (of the current climate sort) would make the mistake of doing so. (And maybe that's why they find the argument so compelling!). After talking to some crazy uncle (who has a grudge against the car mechanic) he goes back to the mechanic thinking he may be wrong, and pays him again to diagnose the car using more elaborate machinery. He then gets angry when he gets the same answer yet again. Repeat a thousand times... Now the focus on climate science has improved modeling capacity dramatically and resulted in work on a lot of processes that weren't that well understood, and that is a good thing. We would have benefitted from a better understanding of climate even in the absence of AGW. Climate relates to human health, economics, agriculture, infrastructure planning... you name it. We know it changes for a range of reasons so understanding that is important. So even if there has been an increase in funding for climate science resulting from the doubt about AGW, it has large societal benefits in the long run. Other branches of earth and environmental science (including mine) are doing a lot of work trying to suss out the less obvious implications of climate change, so you could argue that those areas could profit from an argument for AGW. But those areas are not funded via the same channels as climate scientists that argue for AGW(at least in the US), a point which climate skeptics seem to miss entirely in their case for a self-interested rational for supoprting AGW. Also I can tell you from bitter experience that those areas have been been rather flat funded over the last decade, so what has really happened is a shifting of priorities forced by the shadow of an impending disaster, not an increase in funding. It's a shift that many are not happy about, but it is unavoidable. As I tell my students, we now talk a lot about climate change in our core courses simply because it will be the main thing they will be asked to address as professionals in the future. That's not a strategy, it's just a reality. -
Eric (skeptic) at 01:12 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
KR (#51), thank you for pointing to your reply here. My disagreement with Tom on the other thread was almost purely philosophical akin to arguing religion or politics and should be ended as irresolvable (my friends always say "just shut up"). Therefore I appreciate your (and BP's) efforts in this thread to keep the focus on climate science or at least empirically based science. I do not believe a hypothesis in climate or any other science can be solely conditioned on statistical measurements. If we did that, we could say (a la Nixon): "We are all Bayesians now". But in reality there are physical connections (which could be chained) and statistical measurements are merely a result of the physical connections (chained or not). We can start with the handy fact that everything in the universe is physically connected albeit in some cases extremely weakly and chained in other cases. For example, the fact that we can detect a distant quasar means its fields impact the earth in some way (thankfully not enough to complicate weather or climate predictions). I could hypothesize that having more clouds in Norway causes my garden in Virginia to be warmer. There may be some extremely small direct connection (e.g. via gravity) which I would ignore. I can make measurements and find some correlation. But I know from well supported theories of weather and geographic limits of weather systems that there is no direct physical connection. The existing theories point to many possible confounding (and causal) factors with supporting evidence including statistical measurements and direct physical connections. Based on these relationships we end up building a model which is (AFAIK) always an oversimplification. There is then a strong argument for the applicability of statistical measurements to support the oversimplified model. Assuming that there are alternative oversimplified models to choose from, do we "rank order" them based on the data as KR says? I suggest we do not. What appears to be imprecision in the data is actually inapplicability to the modeled relationship. The essential difference between the applicability of a measurement (the hypothesized causality in a theoretical model) and a conditional probability as defined by Dr Ambaum is that the former is either true or not true and the latter is a measurement. This difference may appear obvious and superficial for most directly connected phenomena, but it is easily confused in a complex model. This is because the imprecision of the measurements gets conflated with the weakness of the causality. -
Berényi Péter at 01:11 AM on 18 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
#51 KR at 05:17 AM on 17 November, 2010 We can only state that a particular hypothesis is more probable than others given the evidence, the statistics of our data. And whether using Bayesian or frequentist methods, we can estimate from the statistics the probability (second definition) that our hypotheis is supported by that data. That's how induction works, and how we can learn something new. Induction is not a scientific method. It is an heuristic method (one of many) used to arrive at universal propositions of any kind, some being scientific among them. But what makes a universal proposition scientific is not the fact it is supported by data, but that it is not contradicted by any of them. In Galileo's time according to the prevailing theory of heavenly bodies they were supposed to be perfect spheres. Up to the moment Galileo have constructed his first (improved) telescope in late 1609 and started to study the skies with it in November, this theory was consistent with observations. However, it was not based on induction in any sense, that is, it was not the case many heavenly bodies having thoroughly been observed and all of them found to be perfectly round with a smooth surface, a universal law of their shape was arrived at. In fact only angular extents of the Sun and the Moon are large enough to be seen as other than point sources with a naked eye. So, quite the contrary, there was a general principle stating the Heavens were eternal and perfect, while the Earth was home to transient and imperfect phenomena (supported by the cosmological role of each, well known to anyone familiar with Scriptures). From this distinction the Theory of Roundness follows easily. What is more, it is also consistent with Occam's Razor. Why should, after all, Heavenly Bodies assume any shape other than the most perfect one, the sphere? A single lunar observation of Galileo was enough to falsify this theory and replace it with another one, stating all the Heavenly Bodies are like Earth, at least in principle. Not an inductive step either. (He saw bright spots on the dark side of the Moon, more than 1/20 lunar diameter away from the terminator, concluded correctly, using simple geometry, those are peaks of mountains more than 4 Italian mile - 7320 m - high, illuminated by the rising sun at the first streak of lunar dawn). In fact the motivation behind new revelations are seldom true induction. They're more often than not based on novel application of general principles coupled to a few select facts, like Einstein's Geometrodynamics, based entirely on symmetry principles with a healthy addition of fact in the form of the Weak Equivalence Principle verified by Baron Roland von Eötvös and his team with a 10-8 precision for a few samples, as reported in 1909 at the 16th International Geodesic Conference in London. Mathematics, as the language of Natural Philosophy plays a very special role in this process. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics Volume 13, Issue 1, pages 1–14, February 1960 DOI: 10.1002/cpa.3160130102 (article first published online: 12 OCT 2006) The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences Richard Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959 by Eugene P. Wigner "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve." -
Ken Lambert at 00:56 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Anyone care to 'reinterpret' these quotes, one year on? Just a little massaging of the story in order to avoid misleading the great unwashed or perhaps a small snapshot of the way science is done these days: Quote: Phil Jones, head of the CRU, in 1999: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones in 2004: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Jones in 2005 after a request for data: “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Notes in the Harry_read_me computer file for CRU data: “These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.” “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!” Endquote -
Ken Lambert at 00:42 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate a year later
Soundoff #1 This is Monbiotfrom NOV30 last year: “When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit.” So much for Monbiot. Even his name was a little preposterous - but the facts of the matter have not changed. It is hard to claim that damning quotes have been 'taken out of context' when the meaning is explicit and undeniable. -
CBDunkerson at 00:00 AM on 18 November 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Karamanski, well there are many articles addressing whether scientists have exaggerated or not (e.g. 'Is the IPCC alarmist?')... so the issue has been covered from that side; predictions of impacts were lower than what has actually been observed, ergo the predictions were not exaggerated. I'm guessing you may mean to go at it from the other direction, how money is allocated... but that is a much trickier thing to pin down given thousands of in and out fluxes of research cash around the world. A third approach would be reviewing the results of research by scientists not in the climate field. If climate scientists were exaggerating AGW's impact on Arctic sea ice then biologists would find that seals and bears are not facing adverse impacts, oceanographers would find that the Arctic ocean was not acidifying, botanists would not find plants growing further North of their previous ranges, et cetera. Yet all these other scientific fields are finding results which support what the climate scientists are saying. Ergo, the 'skeptic' argument really becomes a claim that nearly all members of multiple branches of science all over the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy to exaggerate AGW. Which most people are rational enough to see for the complete lunacy it is. -
Ken Lambert at 23:45 PM on 17 November 2010Climate cherry pickers: cooling oceans
TimTTM #38 I saw this paper somewhere before. Certainly is counter-intuitive, but if it is confirmed then it will certainly have significant effect on the incoming solar radiation budget. Can't say anymore than that. -
CBDunkerson at 23:44 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech, your repeated demand for evidence of Seitz having overseen research on tobacco inherently misrepresents the issue. Let's say there are no records of Seitz having directed research on the health effects of tobacco. I don't know for certain, but let's assume there aren't any. However, there definitely ARE records of Seitz, RJR, and the George Marshall Institute having CLAIMED that he directed such research and found that there was no scientific link between tobacco and cancer. Muoncounter, Albatross, and others have linked to these records above. So, if we accept your argument that there is no evidence of such studies then they either lied about having conducted them or have managed to destroy or suppress all records. In either case, the supposed evidence that tobacco is safe which they advertised to the public is non-existent. Frankly, it would be better for Seitz's reputation if you were wrong and there ARE records of him having directed such research. At least then it could be pretended that the research was simply in error... rather than completely falsified. -
CBDunkerson at 23:20 PM on 17 November 2010Animals and plants can adapt
h-j-m, setting aside the primary point that CO2 emissions ALSO causes loss of biodiversity and thus is every bit as worth addressing on that front as the other problems you list... there are also several studies showing that rising CO2 levels may further threaten the rainforests by increasing evaporation and decreasing precipitation in the region. Thus, addressing CO2 emissions can also help prevent further rainforest loss. That would also cause rainforest recovery, but only if the land were allowed to revert. -
The Inconvenient Skeptic at 23:18 PM on 17 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
Robert, Of course I cannot substantiate that the MWP had comparable mass loss. While there are many clever things that can be found from proxies, this is not one of them (so far at least). What I am saying is that based on the known conditions of Greenland at the time of the MWP, compared to the current conditions, it is very likely that the ice loss was as great or greater than it currently is. I will read the papers in detail today and reply later tonight. -
XPLAlN at 21:40 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
"So one year’s worth of climategate has given us exactly one typo ...." I'm sorry to have to say that no proper examination of the Himalayan glacier error could correctly sum it up as a 'typo'. There just might have been a typo somewhere between the uncertain source of this claim and its eventual publication in AR4 but that is beside the point - the IPCC not only repeated the obvious error, and ignored the warnings of an "IPCC author", but stubbornly stuck by the claim for 3(!) years: "Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology and a lead author for the IPCC, warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," he said." (The Guardian) ...which as anyone who followed this episode would be aware was but one of numerous times when the claim was questioned - not from skeptics - but from proper glaciologists. The IPCC response was two years too late, but more importantly, came after an embarrassing episode of dogmatic refusal to accept fallibility that has damaged the reputation of this important body. I think the customary high standard of rigour at Skeptical Science has slipped in this piece. -
Paul D at 21:21 PM on 17 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
actually thoughtfull. I think you are mixing up two different things. I managed to cut my electricity use by changing the way I used it. During the winter I put on more layers of clothing and use the heating less, or turn the thermostat down. I stopped using a tumble dryer for drying clothes. I made a record of my efforts on my blog: http://lovelywaterlooville.blogspot.com/search/label/energy%20consumption Regarding 'green electricity tariffs'. In the UK we have various electricity companies that either invest in renewable energy only, or have a mixture. They set up consumer/business electricity tariffs where by the money taken from consumers is used to invest in more renewables. Usually the cost per kwh is slightly higher although not always. Generally it can be viewed as an accounting exercise, however for a consumer it can be a way of assuring their money is being spent in an appropriate place and encourages companies to invest in renewables. Probably the leading company in the UK is Ecotricity. They have been putting up wind farms since about 1995 and recently started supplying customers with bio-gas produced from Anaerobic Digestion plants and set up a dual fuel tariff (electricity and gas). http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/ The companies owner also developed an electric super car based on a Lotus chassis: http://zerocarbonista.com/ 'Good Energy' and 'Green Energy UK' are another two, also some NGOs such as the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) have tariff schemes with the bigger electricity suppliers. -
Richo at 20:49 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
"Dr. Seitz's credentials are impeccable," Seitz took funding from tobacco companies and oil companies, how can he have credibilty ? Seriously Poptech ? In an interview with PBS Frontline, he remembers receiving money for travel expenses from oil companies, but not $65000 that went directly into his pocket. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html He might have contributed to solid state physics, but in other areas it seems he was not ready to bite the hand that feeds. -
kdkd at 20:12 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech #Yawn (you do become boring after a short amount of time I'm afraid). 1. "The Marshall Institute PDF you linked to confuses personality with science, and ignores/misrepresents the USDoJ's successful prosecution of the tobacco industry under racketeering laws." There is no confusion because they do not have any published science criticizing the link between tobacco and cancer. No, but they do sow the seeds of confusion in their reports which purport to be scientific reviews. You seem to have a rather selective view of what constitutes science, and this view seems to change depending on what you are trying to defend. 2. I've never counted any institute's report as part of the scientific literature to imply that it is peer-reviewed. I have stated repeatedly that reports that fully reference the scientific literature are on equal standing with other reports that do the same thing. The list of "peer reviewed research" which you've referred to repeatedly in the past completely fails to discriminate scientific quality and validity. Your subsequent justification for this failure has been pathetic. Your counter-argument here is a continuation of this failure. 3. "Typical so-called-sceptic approach of taking a position, emphasising a very small part of the argument (without examining the validity of the argument in the broader context) and then using that to generalise to the whole argument without justifying your case properly." You have presented only strawman arguments in attempting to make your point. I am em-phasing the most serious charge here as it is the knock-out blow to your position, Where is the research that Dr. Seitz oversaw or produced that questions the link between cancer and tobacco? Why is this so hard to produce? Your counter argument here completely fails to deal with the substance of my position by continuing to focus on the minutae rather than the big picture view which I demand from you in order for you to be able to validate your argument. I take it from this that your argument is strong on rhetoric, but that the substance is completely absent. The remainder of your rather tedious post has nothing to do with material that I have posted, so I leave it to others to deal with (or hopefully to ignore - unfortunately I lack the self control to ignore your insightless missives). -
cbp at 18:33 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
Meanwhile co2 concentration has gone from 385ppm to 388ppm. -
RSVP at 17:53 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
Philippe Chantreau #3 What more do you want, the subject is climate? -
actually thoughtful at 17:51 PM on 17 November 2010Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
* The Cantwell/Collins Cap and Dividend bill should be addressed (this is simply a tax, that is then refunded to the American people) www.capanddividend.org It is the most efficient because it is a tax (you tax what you don't want). I don't believe these studies adequately consider innovation. When you put a tax on Americans - they respond with innovation to avoid the tax. Some will work against the policy - buying gas in Mexico, black market fuel, etc. Some will be neutral - under-the-table biodiesel, for example. Some will be good - increased insulation, car pooling, buying more fuel/energy efficient products (this is what IS in the analysis). Some will be very bad - burning everything. The initial response will be a run on wood stoves, and a huge increase in burning wood/tires/trash for heat (this is "renewable" in the same vague way that mashed potatoes are renewable. Yes you can regrow the wood, yes it is current cycle carbon but NO it is not good for our air quality, and it will release a few hundred years of current cycle carbon in about a decade plus all sorts of products of combustion nasties). And there WILL be paradigm shifting solutions that are to the good. The rate of increase in PV efficiency will increase, solar thermal with above 100% energy conversions (imagine reflectors and other concentrators), wind/wave stuff that is economically viable. This is baked in the models. But the paradigm shift is not (a technology that we are either not thinking about, or currently believe it is on the 50-year horizon). The breakthrough that a tax on energy WILL produce because AMERICANS HATE TAXES! So I will go on record to say that a tax on carbon (especially an efficient one like cap and dividend) will actually INCREASE the GDP over BAU by at least 1%. Another thing that I doubt is in the models is what Americans will do with the money from the energy savings. I have customers who are increasing their retirement savings, using their savings to double down on renewables (ie add renewable electric in a round 2 of energy investments). I have customers who are using the savings to invest in education. I myself am doing two things - affording a house I otherwise could not (somewhat of a waste...) and saving up for my own double down with PV/wind. In other words, there will be tons of unintended consequences from any tax effort - but you can predict that the upside will easily outweigh the downside. (note to the wise - when the tax policy comes into existence and energy prices approach a true cost - incentives will evaporate (no longer necessary). Put in your renewable systems now, with the incentives and laugh all the way to the bank when cap and trade or cap and dividend or a straight tax finally comes to be). Even if the tax never comes, you will make (save) money just based on the inflation of energy costs.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:58 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
So Seitz did not conduct any research, he just oversaw a propaganda campaign and allowed his name to be used for credibility. That's supposed to be better? -
Albatross at 16:44 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
kdkd @71, Good points. Here, in my opinion, on this thread we have a perfect example of the techniques used by "skeptics" to deflect and misinform-- techniques which Oreskes and Conway speak to. The "skeptics" supporting Seitz have not read this memorandum, or this news release. -
kdkd at 16:31 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech seems unable to deal with this part of my argument: "Typical so-called-sceptic approach of taking a position, emphasising a very small part of the argument (without examining the validity of the argument in the broader context) and then using that to generalise to the whole argument without justifying your case properly." Poptech's lack of a broader context is really the knockout blow to his position -
Philippe Chantreau at 16:31 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
Another non story relegated to oblivion as reality goes on. -
robert way at 16:23 PM on 17 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
John Kehr, I would like to know how you substantiate your claim that the current ice loss is comparable to during the MWP. I see no evidence that the rate of change since 2006 is reproducible during the MWP. The following study : http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/a50a028.pdf Finds similar surface mass balance melting during the early 1920s to 1930s as up until 2005, however dynamical ice processes have dominated the ice loss trends since 2006. See Van Den Broeke et al. 2009 or Khan et al. 2010 for example. This year had the largest ice losses for Greenland ever recorded (see my last link for the arctic report card). Prior to 2006 the ice losses were within the realm of the absolute upper end of natural variability but post 2006 and up to 2010 we have seen huge accelerations in glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica. This does NOT open the possibility that the current warming is natural in cause. The current warming is showing that if the current ice loss continued, we would see sea levels which were globally MUCH higher than during the MWP. If the acceleration occurs as it is going we will see a minimum of 5 times the amount of sea level rise as found during the MWP. That to me does not seem to support your conclusion. Like I said, Grinsted et al. 2010 show that if current temperature (up to 2009) were maintained then SLR would be nearly 2x that of during the MWP by the time the oceans reach equilibrium. Many glaciers in the NH did experience significant retreat during the 1940-1950 period but far less than during the most recent warm period across most regions. A good example is the complete disappearance of ice caps in the high arctic (Anderson et al. 2008) or the significant ice losses in Alaska, Norway, Yukon, Svalbard, and Iceland which are all greater than those experienced during the previous warm period. "If the sheet loss was as great in 1940, then it is very hard to say that CO2 emissions have caused an "unnatural" rate of loss today" This statement is actually very much the opposite and works against you. Considering we know the major mechanisms which caused the early to mid century warming in this region, we can analyze whether the same mechanisms are causing the current warming. We know that the previous warm period involved a lull of volcanic activity, high solar irradiance and a positive AMO. Whereas now we have GREATER ice losses with lower solar, higher volcanic activity and a positive AMO. We would therefore expect that the previous warm period would be at the upper end of natural variability because of the "perfect storm" of natural contributors and yet the ice losses then were lower than now without the same contributors. -
actually thoughtful at 16:10 PM on 17 November 2010Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
The Ville: "I use a green electricity tariff (i'm all electric). I have managed to reduce my energy consumption by about 60% by just doing a few simple things which haven't had a big impact to the quality of life." Do you mind if I ask what those few simple things are? I would enjoy paying for 60% less electricity. Can you explain what "I use a green electricity tariff" means? thanks, Tom -
Chris G at 15:41 PM on 17 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
John Kehr, WRT: "This leaves open the possibility that the current warming is natural in cause. " I don't think so. What is the cause in modern times other than AGHGs? What would prevent CO2 from behaving, with regard to the wavelength of photons that in absorbs and emits, in the atmosphere differently than it does in physics labs? Just because it's not clear who killed Oetzi, does not mean that we don't have a pretty good idea who killed Ghandi. -
adelady at 15:36 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
And for those who get all uppity about how "rude" or "aggressive" the remarks within some of those emails were, Arthur Smith has some extracted comments from other discussions. And remember, these aren't private comments, they're directed to editors of journals. I've made some guesses at what might have been said about some of these papers in private, you can do your own guessing. http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_nothing_that_was_climategate -
Albatross at 15:12 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Muoncounter @66, Yes, this is silly, and it would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter. I fear that you may be wasting your time-- there is no sense arguing with those who endorse the irresponsible, criminal even, behavior of those involved in fabricating doubt concerning the existence of the link between smoke and cancer-- a link that was known to exist even according to research carried out by the tobacco companies. Bizarre how some, despite the facts to the contrary (including court rulings), insist on defending those who were involved in delaying taking action against tobacco corporations. Disturbing too how some of the same players are now involved in delaying taking action on anthropogenic climate change. Some seem to think that we live in a world where our actions have no negative consequences or repercussions. Perhaps Poptech should read "Smoke Screen" (one of numerous investigative books on the subject), and s/he should also have a look here. Great that Dr. Oreskes is in Australia. Wish that I could see her talk in person. -
HumanityRules at 15:04 PM on 17 November 2010How significance tests are misused in climate science
56.KR "any uncertainty invalidates human driven global warming" That seems like the extreme end of a spectrum of opinion that starts somewhere near "some uncertainty may question the magnitude of human driven global warming". This may in fact might be where the IPCC sits. I'm happy to agree that the example you highlight is wrong but I don't see that invalidates the whole spectrum. I actually don't know were I sit on that spectrum it probably changes on a daily basis maybe something like "there is sufficient uncertainty that we cannot accurately attribute warming." Anyway I think there are a couple of statements in your post that come out of the false dicotomy of denier/alarmist. They are products of the politics rather than the science. For me this is a barrier for resolving the issue. If Judith Curry can step outside of the consensus to ask questions only to be labelled incompetent or a dupe or worse then I don't think there is much hope for the process. I really don't need to be convinced that the Marshall Institute is wrong, i need to see that Curry asking questions is accepted as part of the normal scientific process. those statements were "But given a pile of reasons on one side of an argument and a pile of illogic, poor data, or contradictions on the other, you can generally make that call. If not, study some more." and "Small uncertainties (part of the nature of science and inductive reasoning) do not unseat an entire block of science - especially when the alternatives presented are hugely more uncertain." It strikes me that "AGW v's the rest of the world" is more Hollywood than science. (anyway sorry this is drifting away from stats) -
DSL at 14:59 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
It is indeed silly. It would be laugh-out-loud silly if not for decades of now well-documented tobacco-funded research dedicated to finding ways of creating stronger addiction to the product. My dad died of oat-cell cancer last year (97% of those who have oat-cell cancer are or were smokers). I'm not quite ready to laugh at the ethical squirming of Big Tobacco and its misguided defenders. On Nierenberg, see Mr. Rabett. -
SoundOff at 14:52 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate a year later
We mustn’t forget all that fuss about Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) either. He was eventually revealed to be “a scrupulously honest man”. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/08/26/the-smearing-of-an-innocent-man/#more-1281 -
muoncounter at 14:34 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
#64: "evidence ... where is the research" Consultancy agreements 1986 I spoke with Fred Seitz about renewing his and Mac McCarty's consultancy agreements for six months to the end of this calendar year. I said to Dr. Seitz that we would review our entire arrangement at that time and based upon the direction in which our medical research program is going. This is silly and wildly off topic. -
Karamanski at 14:17 PM on 17 November 2010Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Since the rebuttal for climategate addresses the cynicism of the skeptics towards climate science another good rebuttal should debunk the argument "climate scientists exaggerate to get more funding". I know this defies the comments policy, but I see this argument everywhere in skeptic blogs and conservative op-eds. I would really like to see this argument get shot down. Do you think a rebuttal for this argument would be a good idea for Skeptical Science? -
robert way at 13:52 PM on 17 November 2010Are ice sheet losses overestimated?
John Kehr, I know that the Gisp2 graph showing of an individual year is completely irrelevant. My exact words were: "You can pick a core or two out as much as you want, but unless you are able to give some sort of comparison to current temperatures then its irrelevant. I could take your GISP2 core and do this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Gisp2Graphedited.png but that doesn't make it right. Showing half the evidence doesn't either... " The orbital forcing is overall cooling in the Northern Hemisphere as is evident in Kaufmann et al. 2009 and in Ruddimann 2006. I will respond to the rest in a minute -
muoncounter at 13:29 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
#61:"accusations are that Dr. Seitz oversaw research funded by R.J. Reynolds that questioned the link between tobacco and cancer." Wow, Poptech using exactly the same 'deny the evidence', 'make it appear there's controversy' tactics pioneered by Seitz and Co. Read RJR's words and weep: Presently, there is a good deal of controversy in the scientific sector on the subject of smoking and health, with prominent medical authorities lining up on each side of the .... arguments. ... For every charge that has been made against cigarettes, there has emerged a strong body of scientific data or opinion in defense of the product. In evaluating and monitoring the special projects that we fund -- particularly the sole-sponsorship programs -- R.J. Reynolds Industries has secured the services of a permanent consultant -- Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller University. Dr. Seitz is with us today and has agreed to describe these various R-J-R sponsored programs for you. So the RJR position is that there's controversy, a strong body of scientific evidence in their defense, and who is brought in to describe their funded research? -
kdkd at 13:04 PM on 17 November 2010Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour
Poptech. I find it amusing that you refuse to count "think tank reports" as scientific literature, when given a new report from the heartland institute (for example) the so-called sceptics are keen to elevate that material as of equal standing to peer reviewed scientific publications.
Prev 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 Next
