Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 Next
Comments 108001 to 108050:
-
tobyjoyce at 21:58 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
chriscanaris #80, I delved back into some of my Hegel references - I never tried to read the man himself as he is notoriously impenetrable. However, it is clear he distinguished between Dialectic reasoning, where he proposed his "Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis" structure, and Analytic reasoning, which he declared was the domain of the natural sciences. Hence, you do not have Hegel on your side in this argument. Ironicially, it was Marx who converted Hegel's Dialectic Reasoning into Dialectic Materialism and Scientific Socialsm, but you probably don't want to go there. I am afraid telling an Irishman that the 17th century was not religion-obsessed is like telling a Jew that Anti-Semitism was not an issue in 1930s Germany, so let's not go there either! See also the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War. There is a case of Synthesis in science - present day Evolutionary theory is known as the Modern Synthesis. However, this is not Hegelian systhesis, because the two components (Darwinian Evolution and Genetics) are complementary, not Thesis and Antithesis. Finally, I get to the point. The more I read your logic, the more I am convinced (and by other evidence also) that the climate science - denier debate is at its core political, and is really concerned with the political and economic impacts of global warming. Faux-scientific "debate" is just the first line of defence favoured by fairly powerful economic agents, as it was in the minor case of nicotine abuse. I believe we are now seeing a fallback to the second line (a grudging, fighting retreat) by denialism - that the problem is exaggerated, climate change may be beneficial etc. etc. "Synthesis" may be possible at this line, at which the core science will be conceded by denialism, but not the impacts. At the end, the winners and losers will be clear. Talking about our descendants, the imperative is to make sure they can make decisions about us their ancestors in free, secure and flourishing surroundings -otherwise they will be right to judge us harshly. -
chris1204 at 21:53 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
Oh well, the graphic didn't work but never mind - you can see it when you click on the link to the page. I was feeling chuffed for overcoming technophobia and managing to post a link successfully. I thought I'd try to do the same with an image but no luck this time. -
chris1204 at 21:48 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
Well, Wikipedia for all its limitations does strive for balance: Yearly freeze and melt cycle 'Sea ice freezes and melts due to a combination of factors, including the age of the ice, air temperatures, and solar insolation. During the winter, the area of the Arctic ocean covered by sea ice increases, usually reaching a maximum extent during the month of March. As the seasons progress, the area covered in sea ice decreases, reaching its minimum extent in September most years. First-year ice melts more easily than older ice for two reasons: 1) First year ice is thinner than older ice, since the process of congelation growth has had less time to operate, and 2) first-year ice is less permeable than older ice, so summer meltwater tends to form deeper ponds on the first-year ice surface than on older ice, and deeper ponds mean lower albedo and thus greater solar energy capture.' From the same page, a less dramatic looking graphic:The issue is the stubborn refusal of new ice to melt into oblivion. Of course, this by no means guarantees a recovery and could be attributed to a range of causes. Even so, consistent increases in ice extent minima albeit over a short period raises the question of whether or when some of this ice might in fact turn into old ice. I note the most recent JAXA AMSR-E/ NSIDC/ NANSEN Arctic ROOS- Sea ice extent again suggest a jump in extent. Only time will tell whether any of this turns into a robust recovery whether partial or complete. It would be nice for the world if it did but of course my wishing it won't make it so.
-
scaddenp at 19:39 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
NETDR - you are right, I am influenced by self-interest - or at this stage of life, the interests of my children. I think the world will be safer for my descendants if we restrict emissions of GHG, based on risk-analysis of available science. And by the way, I work in oil and coal, however I would accept redundancy due to lost demand for fossil fuels with relief, as it would be the best in long term. Viewing the world through a political lens distorts reality. I believe you need to pay closer attention to data. I would like to think you would accept that say, scientists warning you of an incoming asteroid on the basis of data rather than waiting till it filled the sky while accusing them of wanting better toys to play with. If the science case doesnt convince you now, what data, at what future point, would convince you to search for a political solution? -
adelady at 19:36 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
#9 Whoops, typo alert. That should be the __20__ year average graph line, -
chris1204 at 19:28 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
tobyjoice @ 51: You give Hegel a pass because of the "standards of a different era", then you used Newton's dabbling in alchemy to bolster your case, even though he lived 100 years before Hegel!! Shouldn't we judge Newton by the standards of his religion-obsessed era, also? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The answer, however, is 'Well of course.' Newton's generation however wasn't particularly religiously obsessed - certainly very little more so than Hegel's - while religion had a far greater public presence, scientists and savants relied on numerous other paradigms. Our decisions also are limited prevailing standards of our times and the limitations these put on our perspectives and judgments. The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote prolifically on this theme - his works are extremely user friendly and very much written from the perspective of a secular materialist. We've no idea whether our descendants will judge the outcome of our musings on AGW as foolish denialism, proactive foresight, or a passing distraction impeding our understanding of our planet and its workings. -
Roger A. Wehage at 19:19 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
"There's no discussion of why sea levels might be dropping this year (I suspect it has something to do with the switch from El Nino conditions in early 2010 to La Nina conditions in the middle of the year)." The Pacific Ocean has been turning colder recently as part of a regular cycle that has probably been going on since the ocean came into existence. A simple Google search tends to verify your suspicion. Here are just a few websites that came up near the top; take your pick. Adios El Niño, Hello La Niña? Children of the Tropics: El Niño and La Niña El Niño and La Niña Adios El Niño, Hello La Niña? NOAAWatch El Nino / La Nina Headlines -
padruig at 19:10 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
There are obvious signs that this graph has been manipulated in such a fashion as to support a preconceived notion. His sample consists of only twelve data points (apparently not grasping that his data set only amounts to less than one third of calendar one year,) further he felt obliged to artificially smooth the twelve data points thereby implying a data set with higher resolution. -
gpwayne at 18:50 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Best laugh I've had for a while there John - just loved the Goddard version of the graph (and a clever illustration of the problem too) :) -
Jeff Freymueller at 18:41 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
When I saw the title, I wondered how anyone could make such a ridiculous argument -- then I saw who had made it.... A very quick look at the second figure shows 8 previous "sea level falls" similar to the drop since early 2010, over the last 28 years. So something like this happens about once every 3 years. This is so not news. -
archiesteel at 18:09 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
@doug_bostrom: that link is *hilarious*. Some of the comments are quite funny, too. -
archiesteel at 18:01 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
@johnd (#64): "It just peeves me somewhat when people offer advice to others that they themselves ignore. It takes two to tango." Touché. :-) I never said ignoring trolls (or flamebait) was easy, and the suggestion was as much for myself as for anyone else. -
dsleaton at 17:37 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
Bahh - it's part of an attempt to persuade, an element of discourse. Any attempt to create a narrative out of raw data (through modeling or even simply graphing) is a communicative act--an attempt to persuade--even if it's directed toward one's self. Cherry-picking even fits the more narrow definition of "effective communication"--people cherry-pick because they know it's a startling (pathetic) way to alter the reader's beliefs, particularly when set up as a counterargument. -
johnd at 17:20 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
doug_bostrom at 16:16 PM, doug, is that what caused you to misplace your false teeth, you lost your glasses? :-( -
MattJ at 17:10 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
I have to object to the description of cherry picking as a "rhetorical technique". It is no more a rhetorical technique than is any other logical fallacy. See http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Cherry-Picking. Rhetorical techniques are described at another site, http://rhetoric.byu.edu/ -- in addition to in the classic book I keep mentioning, Aristotle's On Rhetoric.Response: I've still got a copy of Aristotle's Rhetoric sitting on my iPad, waiting to be read. Need more hours in the day... -
Daniel Bailey at 16:25 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: gallopingcamel (52)A. "Some of us advocate a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions" B. "without destroying our energy based civilization."
How are parts A and B of your statement not mutually exclusive? I've yet to hear a true skeptic advocate A, while those of a more "skeptical" nature will allow for no controls on A to preserve B (the BAU approach)."This blog is not into "solutions" so I won't elaborate other than to say that the solution is to "build a Nuke a day"."
The "solution" this blog follows is to debunk and rebunk "skeptic" memes that cannot withstand the cold light of science and logic. Any solution that does not also involve dramatic, immediate reductions in CO2 emissions is not a solution. We are too close to the point of no return. Do you advocate no controls on CO2 emissions until enough nukes are built to offload energy demands from fossil fuels in order to preserve our current standard of living? This path is recognized as another FF industry delaying tactic. If this is indeed your meaning, sir, you intend to consign our current civilization to a clear and certain extinction. And perhaps our species as well. Re: gallopingcamel (53)"Given that this is a science blog I was expecting a strong reaction to my #52. "
Perhaps because this IS a science blog, most habitués recognized the incompatibility of your Points A and B I touched on in the top part of this missive. Points that, I might add, seem obviously designed to attract attention, like a baited trap attracts the unwary. So perhaps the strong reaction you did unintentionally elicit was that of aversion. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 16:16 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
Another worthy treatment:
For is it not written, "Who can adequately peer review the validity of his latest work without considering that the conventional view of cause and effect is wrong?"
-
Doug Bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 October 2010September 2010 Arctic Ice Extent Handicapping Via ARCUS
The final word: year mo data_type region extent area 2010 9 NRTSI-G N 4.90 3.02 via NSIDC -
scaddenp at 15:51 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Blimey GC - do you think climate science is trying to destroy our civilization? I would say that I have struggled to find many "skeptics" interested in decarbonizing though. The biggest problem is the political inertia that misinformation creates preventing any solution at all. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:25 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
That analogy is useless for this particular case, JohnD. In any case, if you've a specific case to make about errors in TOA IR measurements by satellite making it impossible to pick out trend features, just follow the link I suggested. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:22 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
I'll bite, GC, but it'll swerve us off topic. Brave New Climate bugs me because it's a typical case of energy technology monomania, in this case with all roads leading to nuclear fission. I'm not fond of any form of monomania when it comes to energy manipulation because we can't afford that kind of self-indulgence. Central Planning by another name. That's all I'll say; you get the last word and then hopefully the thread won't be hopelessly degraded... -
johnd at 15:14 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom at 15:00 PM, doug, yes it depends, as this simple example illustrates. Say you are 20 Kg overweight, but your scales indicate that you are on the average weight. If the regular weighings indicate that there is no trend and that you are staying on weight then obviously you will find little cause for concern even though in actual fact you are well overweight. However if a trend develops where you are losing losing weight 1Kg each month, what then matters most the trend or the actual weight? Each requires a different solution. To me, accurate calibration is perhaps more important than repeatability, within reason. -
gallopingcamel at 15:07 PM on 3 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
John Cook, My apologies for killing such a good thread. Given that this is a science blog I was expecting a strong reaction to my #52. -
adelady at 15:03 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
Careful averaging you want, careful averaging you get. 30+ years of averaging Note the grey area showing the limits of 2 standard deviations on the 30 year average graph line. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:00 PM on 3 October 2010A history of satellite measurements of global warming
A discussion regarding the ability of satellite instruments to detect TOA IR radiation may shortly arrive here. Here's some information on how instruments are calibrated: CERES Instrument Overview / Calibration -
Doug Bostrom at 15:00 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Regarding precision versus accuracy, johnd, as is so often the case the answer to whether or not general knowledge maps successfully onto specific cases is "it depends." Rather than delve into particulars here, the "A history of satellite measurements of global warming" thread already discusses some issues w/satellite calibration and data interpretation and would be a better place to continue talking about this. Start by asking, "If a satellite has an internal calibration source yet cannot measure temperature with absolute accuracy, can it still detect a trend?" -
johnd at 14:13 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom at 14:03 PM, precision and repeatability are useless without proven calibration across the full range, and instrumentation calibration can change without any obvious change in repeatability especially if what is being measured varies. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:07 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
You believe short term variability exceeds the cumulative anomaly of 30 years, Matt? Does the graph suggest that? Wait a minute, since when did "I" choose anything, anyway? -
johnd at 14:06 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom at 13:57 PM, doug, I had noticed, that is why I presented another piece of wild game to bite upon. Never mind, once you have found your false teeth again, you might like to bite onto something that requires some hard chewing. ;-) Force fed chickens may be tender, but they don't have the same flavour as wild goose. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:03 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Satellite measures reputedly have high precision (month to month or year to year changes) but low absolute accuracy - further complicated by ageing degradation of the hardware. But they're only as useful as a third armpit? How's that? Precision is repeatability; when repeatability is good, trends can be identified regardless of absolute accuracy. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:58 PM on 3 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
I'm betting on cockroaches, Ken. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:57 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Whilst you may not have noticed, johnd, I've made no remarks about Spencer or his research, rather have declined to take a bite of the soggy, collapsed souffle of solipsism you're proffering. -
Ken Lambert at 13:50 PM on 3 October 2010Newcomers, Start Here
These fraught 'wildlife' impacts of AGW always follow the same theme - the impact will always trend between negative and disaster. Even a simple throw of the dice would show that the odds are even that some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and some will suffer. Another throw of the dice would show that photogenic cuddly species would be equally represented in the benefit or suffer stakes. Is there any wildlife out there which humans like that will benefit from AGW? -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:47 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
It would be easy to compare minimums, Robert and the difference would be just as obvious. It would also be interesting to note that the date at which the minimum happens has been getting later in September. Although MattJ does have a point, the difference is so large that it does not matter that much; a visit to Crysosphere Today will put things in perspective pretty quick. What's happening is blatantly obvious. -
johnd at 13:21 PM on 3 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Craig Allen at 13:04 PM, given the current strong La-Nina is forecast to remain in place until 2012, and that it is what happens in the Indian Ocean that has has as much, if not more influence over droughts in Australia generally, then the prospect of a longer rather than shorter period of above average rains looks most likely. As for regions that may be in drought, almost without exception, Australia being the size it is, located where it is, there is almost always somewhere under drought conditions. Whilst weather records officially only go back to the late 1800's, records exist that precede them which indicate that perhaps the 1800's were the most drought prone period since first settlement. During the Federation drought opinion were expressed at the time, that as bad as the Federation drought was then, it had been worse in the mid 1800's, and indeed the worst fire in Victoria's history, by far in terms of area burnt, occurred in 1851. -
Ken Lambert at 13:10 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
chriscanaris #10 Excellent comment chris. Agree with all of it - as a fellow 'resident sceptic'. The Royal Society has simply restored its reputation on climate science by returning the pendulum to centre from its swing to 'alarm'. -
kdkd at 13:10 PM on 3 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
KL #16 It's not possible to draw strong conclusions from individual weather events. I'm sure that you know this, but why are you trying to misrepresent these data points? -
johnd at 13:04 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom at 11:45 AM, doug, whilst that is may be your opinion, it is the prospect of the cause and effect relationship between atmospheric warming and changing humidity being opposite to that normally accepted that underpins Spencer's peer reviewed paper recently published. Perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what flaws you have personally found in his analysis that makes it impossible for you to swallow, leaving aside the obvious bias in taste for sweetness rather than tart. It will be only those who are prepared to chew hard that may be able to digest such unappetising subjects that requires such a big bite, and given how hard it seems to be for some to digest the by comparison tiny adjustment the Royal Society has made as indicated in this thread, I am not surprised most prefer to dine on microwavable TV dinners, so to speak, rather than wild game that has been dressed and dissected in a abattoir instead of a laboratory processed untouched by human hands. -
Craig Allen at 13:04 PM on 3 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
For an update on the actual situation with regards to rain in Australia (in contrast to Ken's spin) read the following measured article from the ABC based on what the Bureau of Meteorology says - Record rain not enough to end drought In a summary: * If you consider the average rainfall across all of Australia, including the tropical north, the deserts and the temperate south, then the past year's rainfall is the wettest since the beginning of the drought. * But South-western Australia has had it's driest year on record by a substantial margin, getting less than 50% of the long term average. * And the south-east has received near it's average. * Dr Trewin says it is a false impression to think the long-term drought is over. "Partly the impression that people are getting is because this year has been closer to normal so it really stands out compared to the very dry conditions of the last four years," he said. The long term climate trends observed in Australia are presented in by the Bureau of meteorology in the following report: - State of the Climate report 2009 (6 pages, 300kn) So, in a nutshell: * Australia has had a wet[ish] year (depend on where you are exactly) superimposed on a long term drying and warming trend. * long term trends are that - the north is getting wetter, - and the south is getting drier. * Extremes are getting more extreme. * It fits with what climatologists predict will happen under AGW. * And Ken Lambert has cherry-picked September 2010 to make a lame assertion. -
Ken Lambert at 12:57 PM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
dana1981 #15 "NETDR, you are rejecting physics in your comments. There is still a net planetary energy imbalance (measured by satellites), so we know that there is more 'warming in the pipeline'." The last information (early in 2010) I had on the CERES measurements at TOA showed an imbalance of 6.4W/sq.m - when the theoretical number (Trenberth, Hansen et al) is 0.9W/sq.m - a slight offset error of 5.5W/sq.m. Satellite measures reputedly have high precision (month to month or year to year changes) but low absolute accuracy - further complicated by ageing degradation of the hardware. In laymans terms, without huge 'theoretical' correction - the Satellite imbalance figure is as useful as a third armpit. -
MattJ at 12:56 PM on 3 October 2010Irregular Climate podcast 11
@doug_bostrom, #4: you might not be sure, but I am sure it is indeed "cherry picking" just as Robert said. Even if you had chosen the summer minimum as he suggests, that would still be too unreliable: the signal is too noisy, careful averaging is essential. -
Ken Lambert at 12:21 PM on 3 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
adelady #12 Enjoy the wettest September in Australia in 100 years and the current La Nina, the most water in outback in 20 years and the breaking of the drought. Of course the worst drought in 100 years was brought to us by - climate change driven by AGW. And of course the breaking of the drought was brought to us by - you guessed it - climate change driven by AGW! -
Doug Bostrom at 11:45 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Half-baked, unleavened epistemological mush, gooey and and impossible to swallow, johnd, but having the non-nutritive rhetorical value of being universally applicable to any field of inquiry you choose. Unappetizing; I'm not biting. -
johnd at 11:30 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
doug_bostrom at 11:08 AM , ask yourself just how easy it is to reverse your own perspective in cases where cause and effect seems to appear with such clarity. Are you able to accept that scientists such Spencer can see that perhaps cause and effect are being confused in some studies and can build a case with them being reversed? Who can adequately peer review the validity of his latest work without considering that the conventional view of cause and effect is wrong? -
NETDR at 11:12 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Thank you for the explanation ! I have gone [online] to my library and ordered the book. [Ecoscience costs $100 in paperback !] I will refrain from commenting on it's contents until I have read it. If the quotes I have read are accurate they are scary, but I will give the man the benefit of the doubt. I believe in being accurate. He is a co-author not the only author. Again thanks for the explanation. I don't think there is any vast conspiracy just human beings responding to their own self interest. [Which is a post by itself.] -
Doug Bostrom at 11:08 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
[Spencer] sees confusion between cause and effect and apparently not all scientists it appears are able to adjust their mindset to his perspective that would enable them to judge his work without bias. That's what I call resorting to "magic" in order to support an opinion, substitution of imaginary bias to account for disagreement rather than arguing substantive scientific differences. It's a more benign form of fantasy than chanting incantations of conspiracy to explain why research publications are lopsidedly in agreement with the gross physical causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming, knock-on effects. I'm sure it is indeed frustrating to find abstracts of so many papers including words such as: We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years. and The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent withthe rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities. and Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906). and Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft. and The causes of twentieth century temperature change in six separate land areas of the Earth have been determined by carrying out a series of optimal detection analyses. The warming effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations have been detected in all the regions examined, including North America and Europe. and The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change. On decadal timescales, modelled and observed intrinsic variability of DTR compare well and are independent of variations in global mean temperature. Taken together, no, the conclusions are not "fair." Earth is not "fair," physics is not "fair." Tough. Imaginary bias is insufficiently powerful to account for what we see in front of our noses. -
johnd at 10:34 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
archiesteel at 06:22 AM, I fully understood your intent. It just peeves me somewhat when people offer advice to others that they themselves ignore. It takes two to tango. -
NETDR at 10:18 AM on 3 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and will do so again if allowed. It is good for people with differing opinions on climate change or anything else to exchange ideas without finger pointing or name calling. Apparently I will not be allowed to respond to the questions put to me. It has been an honor and I respect your tolerance for differing opinions.Moderator Response: Please study the Comments Policy for more information about why leveling false accusations of advocacy of forced contraception, reliance on websites premised on conspiracies to deceive the public, etc. will result in frustration when it comes to successfully posting comments here at Skeptical Science. -
kdkd at 10:07 AM on 3 October 2010New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
KL #115 "We have done this extensively elsewhere - but that 'flattening' wiggle at the end of Albatros' (Post #55)temperature curves for the last 10 years is difficult to ignore." Again you're better off admitting that you've got it wrong. I've dealt with this piece of misinformation that you keep bringing up here and here with a little bit of theoretical background here. Just to be absolutely clear, this shows unambiguously that your claim of flattening has no merit from a scientific perspective. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:06 AM on 3 October 2010There is no consensus
Actually BP what's interesting is that from a cognitive perspective faulty "appeals" of the kind 10:10 demonstrated are ineffective; for efficacy, arousal of or appeal to fear must be grounded in reality w/respect to the actual risk at hand and as well must present a clear avenue to reducing the level of fear resulting from the awareness of the particular risk leading to fear. Nobody's going to blow up as a result of leaving their bathroom light on, so we're left to conclude that 10:10 were only guessing about their method of approach. Now if 10:10 were to actually show up on people's doorsteps with the threat of physical violence, different story I'm sure. They didn't do that, they're instead using a crude cognitive bludgeon not properly crafted to achieve its intended effect, akin to putting on a blindfold and a boxing glove, then rummaging in a toolbox and expecting to find the proper wrench for the job at hand. Likening 10:10 to the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit or the like is rather a ridiculous approach in itself. Again, if you're trying to inculcate fear in the audience here so as to engender an effect, you'll want to ground the risk you present in reality, not fantasy.
Prev 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 Next
