Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 Next
Comments 114751 to 114800:
-
Pete Dunkelberg at 11:56 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
69 muoncounter "Exxon's policy changed (at least publicly) in 2007." Alas http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/20/exxonmobil-funds-global-warming-deniers/ === RSVP: "Taking a red hot iron plug inside an "ideal" insulator such as a glass thermos with reflective surfaces. Does it radiate?" If you don't think so, why do you posit reflective walls? You know that the iron radiates. You must have been thinking of net radiation, or something like that. ==== 77 Berényi Péter "...attempt to arrive at some overview of what is presently known...." This does not mean "Put the conclusion first." -
scaddenp at 11:46 AM on 21 July 20103 levels of cherry picking in a single argument
Besides the cherry picking, there is the completely blind eye to consilience. We have multiple independent inferences pointing to the same thing. There is a chance that errors exist construction of the surface temperature records. Maybe there is a calibration issue with sealevel records. Satellite MSU records have a long line on known issues. Glacial data has sampling problems going back in time. Ice-loss records are too short. The upper stratospheric is somewhat under-observed. Multiple measurement issues trouble ocean heat content. Yes to all, but the data we have with all its issues is remarkably consistent with each other and all point the same way. For us to be wrong about warming is to imply a major problem in ALL the evidence. The probabilities here are too small for me to feel like gambling. I am amazed at what straws deniers will grasp. There must be a lot of people with shares in fossil fuel industry. -
Ogemaniac at 11:36 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
My favorite (almost) one-liner to throw at deniers? "No warming since 1998, eh? Well, the same graph shows WILD, OUT OF CONTROL WARMING since both 1997 and 1999. Two out of three, I win." Either they are too stupid to counter effectively, or smart enough to know that they are entering into a cherry-picking contest with someone who owns an orchard. -
scaddenp at 11:34 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HR - for someone to come up with a convincing "larger natural cycle" then they are going to have to show where the energy is in this natural cycle. You can do this easily for cycles like ENSO but show me a convincing new hidden cycle. For Greenland - whether it was warmer 40 years ago in parts of Greenland may not be that relevant to question of the rate of ice loss. Increased calving because of warmer oceans is also a significant factor that would appear to be unlikely earlier in the century. Are you suggesting all the ice being lost is less than a century old? Is the ocean warming a natural cycle? Well where is the warmth in the ocean coming from? What we see is general warming of the ocean not a movement of energy from some deep store to the surface. It perfectly consist with the global warming which is heating the ocean. -
scaddenp at 11:25 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I would contest that the mechanisms that deposit oil and coal are very much going on much as they always have. Peat swamps still grow, benthic black ooze still accumlates - they are just very slow processes that remove very small amounts of carbon from the cycle. The oil and gas we use is result of millions of years of accumulation. The more important removal of carbon is from deposition as CaCO3 but this is also only significant on geological time spans as rate of deposition is ultimately tied to Ca flux from weathering. -
HumanityRules at 11:19 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
43.chris I wasn't aware I was trying to relate Greenland temp to the Arctic as a whole. You say "you can't tell (from their data anyhow!) the relation of current Greenland warming to natural variability." if what you mean by this is what is causing present warming, then that's true but surely what you can say is that the present warming is well within the limits of natural variability based on this work, which is important to know. I don't see where Kobashi's work is suggesting the Greenland ice sheet is sensitive to temperature. The work is purely a reconstruction of the 1000 year temp record and doesn't seem to say anything about how this relates to mass balance. Chylek would have it that AGW is piggy backing on the much larger natural variability trend. #44 Peter Hogarth "warmer in 1940s", "the same now and in 1940s", "slightly warmer now". I think really that's only important for grabbing headlines, and I apologize for doing it. The real question is whether what we see now in Greenland stand so far outside recent historical experience to warrant concern. To me Kobashi's work suggests it doesn't. So the latest upswing in Greenland temperature and associated mass balance loss. can we definitively say this is a sgnal of AGW. I think if we gave any weight to this paper you'd have to say no. Othher non-AGW processes may be at work here. -
kdkd at 10:32 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
adelady #51 "But the mechanisms that deposited oil and coal beneath us are *not* going on today." Not in any way at all meaningful to the human lifespan. On the other hand, I seem to recall that the ABC docco Crude suggested that maybe the processes that deposited all that oil might be beginning again, due to the action of anthropogenic CO2 entering the atmosphere (specifically in the Back to the Future episode I think). -
actually thoughtful at 10:26 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Truth Seeker - It is theoretically possible that somebody didn't carry the one - but that is the strength of AGW theory, there are so many lines of evidence, if one seems faulty or questionable, you have to ask yourself what about the other items that indicate the same thing. So I suggest you ask yourself the following (you can research all of this on this site): 1. Why does the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere match the expectations from burning fossil carbon (less the amount natural systems absorb)? 2. Why is the decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere consistent with burning fossil fuels as the increase in CO2? 3. Why does the carbon isotope of the additional carbon in the atmosphere match the signature of fossil carbon? Any one of these (including the fact that with all we know about climate, no models can match the trend over the last 3 decades without including increased CO2 - by the amount the theory predicts man is producing!) are a slam dunk in and of themselves. The fact that there are at least 4 independent lines of evidence, logic and reasoning that I can come up with (I am a plumber - someone more knowledgeable might be able to increase the count of valid, independent arguments) should be some indication that this is not a weak spot in the AGW theory.Response: I learnt of several other lines of evidence that fossil fuel burning was causing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels just a few weeks ago in my trip to Perth, speaking to a coral reef researcher who had analysed carbon isotopes in coral reefs over the last few centuries. He emailed me his paper a few weeks ago and I've been meaning to post about it but just haven't found the time yet :-( -
adelady at 10:11 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
TruthSeeker at 09:11 AM on 21 July, 2010 "If these sinks are essentially non-reversable, and the same mechanizms that produced these fuels are currently going on today." But the mechanisms that deposited oil and coal beneath us are *not* going on today. There wouldn't be a problem if oil and coal were being deposited at the same time and the same rate as we use them. That's why they're called fossil fuels - as against renewable or replenishable fuels like burning wood or animal dung or anything else that will grow or return within a short time or at most, a human lifetime. -
TruthSeeker at 09:11 AM on 21 July 2010Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
thpritch #49 "To the lay person, a "sink" implies an essentially non-reversible storage system. In other words, once the carbon is absorbed into a "sink", it will never come out. In reality we know that there are very few essentially irreversible carbon storage systems out there." Really, than why do we now have coal and oil to burn, and how by not burning them will we beable to prevent the release of CO2? If these sinks are essentially non-reversable, and the same mechanizms that produced these fuels are currently going on today. -
TruthSeeker at 09:09 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Honestly, you have a great site and have educated me by correcting many of the fales skeptic agurments that I was lead to believe. But with all do respect, there are some that you haven't suffeciently addressed. Please endulge me as I bring them up. First, the contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels versus that from more natural causes. I have read your post at on this topic located here, http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm But I still don't understand how you can attribute all the increase to man made causes, when even the sightest accounty error of one of the natural causes would dwarf what you attribute to man made CO2. also, please don't insult me in your response. If you truley think I am ignorant, then please point me to the information that will corret me rather than just insulting me. -
Peter Hogarth at 08:02 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HumanityRules at 01:58 AM on 21 July, 2010 That’s an interesting paper, but the Greenland 1940s peak referred to relates to their reconstruction and correlation with instrumental records used by Vinther 2006 (the graphic shows data up to 2000). These station records have been calibrated and updated to 2009 in this DMI report which shows as high or higher recent mean temperatures, and a current upward trend. -
chris at 07:57 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
HumanityRules at 01:58 AM on 21 July, 2010 Yes Kobashi et al is interesting. However it's worth noting that there’s a big difference between what happens in Greenland (especially on the ice sheet summit at GISP2 where Kobashi et al are sampling), and the Arctic as a whole. So for example, while it’s true that the evidence suggests that Greenland was warm in the 30’s and 40’s, the evidence also strongly indicates that (i) the Arctic as a whole is a good bit warmer now than during the 40’s, and (ii) that Arctic sea ice retreat was minimal then, and much more significant now. Note that you can’t tell from Kobashi et al’s data how GISP2 surface temperatures in 1940 compare to current Greenland summit temperatures since their data only goes to 1950; likewise you can't tell (from their data anyhow!) the relation of current Greenland warming to natural variability. Other than that, there’s no question that there are quasiperiodic natural fluctuations (especially involving volcanic eruptions, and solar and ocean current variation) in Greenland/Arctic temperatures but these are now “piggy-backing” on a pretty large rising anthropogenic temperature trend. Here’s some detail: (i) A recent multiproxy temperature reconstruction (Kaufmann et al, 2009) indicates that the last decade was the warmest in the Arctic for the last 2000 years, and 20th century warming has strongly reversed a long term (and extremely slow 0.22 oC per 1000 years) cooling trend. Contemporary temperature measures indicate that the Arctic as a whole is warmer now than during the mid-20th century, even if Greenland itself may be not much warmer (and accordingly Arctic sea ice retreat was likely minimal during the time of the apparent Greenland summit temperature max). (ii) The Greenland ice sheet is very sensitive to volcanic (and also solar) variability and Kobashi et al highlight these as well as ocean current variability as the likely source of quasiperiodic fluctuations. This interpretation is quite similar to a related study of Greenland temperature (Box et al, 2009) which also found that Greenland was around as warm (and possibly a tad warmer) during 1930-40 than now. We should also consider the possible role of black carbon [e.g. McConnell et al (2007)] which has its largest warming effect when it is deposited on snow/ice. Black carbon can be directly identified in Greenland cores and was deposited at high levels during the 30’s and 40’s. This, together with the recovery of temperatures suppressed by high volcanic activity from the late 19th century through the early part of the 20th century, are likely contributions to the observations of enhanced Greenland warming, in an Arctic that wasn’t as warm as now. (iii) So one does need to be careful with attributing temperature variations at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet. These are not necessarily related to phenomena that influence Arctic temperatures overall. Obviously in the present widescale warming both Greenland and the Arctic as a whole are warming. One of the potentially concerning observations of Box et al is that Greenland tends to retain a phase relationship with overall N. hemispheric warming, such that it eventually rises to a temperature anomaly around 1.6 times that of the N. hemisphere ("NH polar amplification"). It’s way below that now, and if this relationship holds up Greenland has got quite a lot of warming (1-1.5 oC) just to “catch up”. Kaufman DS, et al. (2009) Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling. Science 325:1236–1238. Box, J. E.et al (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007. Journal of Climate, 22, 4029-4049. McConnell, J.R. et al. (2007) 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing Science 317, 1381-1384. -
michael sweet at 07:56 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Chrisancaris: I read the newspaper reports of the New Scientist article. -->New Scientist is not a peer reviewed journal. I note that the most populated island in Tuvalu was not measured, while seven small, unimportant islands in the atoll were. Why measure the small islands and not the important ones? It is common knowledge that the small islands on atolls constantly change size. Funafuti atoll, the capitol of Tuvalu, has 33 islets in the atoll. It would be easy to pick seven that have increased in size. They report Funamanu gained .44 hecatres, 30% of its previous size. This is one of the smallest islands in the atoll and is not occupied by people. I am concerned about cherry picking of data. Can you find me a reviewed journal article that makes the same claim? When I visited Funafuti in 1990 they were already concerned about rising water levels and flooding in the village was common. -
actually thoughtful at 07:54 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
31 hadfield - your response "What does warming on Neptune (or Mars or Alpha Centauri) have to do with the relationship between observed climate change and known forcings on Earth." is much better than "And the sun is cooling" - yours at least addresses the question. I still don't think a warming on another planet in our solar system that we can document but not explain helps the AGW case (because there is no "A" on that other planet). thanks for the helpful response. -
actually thoughtful at 07:49 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Part 2 Here are some suggestions that make them more powerful for me (if you like the suggested wordking make sure the science make sense - I am perhaps better at communicating than climatology). 69 "Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate" - We easily affected the Gulf of Mexico *** A different take, but one that brings the point home. BTW - the percentage of oil in the Gulf by volume is 184,000,000 gallons oil/640,000,000,000,000,000 gallons water or 0.000000029% - much lower than CO2 in the air, but it is wreaking havoc; small things CAN hurt you. *** 79 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Past history shows that when CO2 rose quickly, there were mass extinctions of coral reefs. *** grammar nazi strikes *** 104 "Southern sea ice is increasing" While the sea ice increases, the more important land ice shrinks. *** scientifically valid?? *** I agree with the comments above that this is a good thing and does give us a quick response (especially when the tiny URLs are added). -
hadfield at 07:36 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
actually thougtful @ 7:29 am: "Huh? I don't have any suggestions here, but this is NOT a good argument for AGW - if we can't explain Neptune warming with a cooling sun, what business do we have claiming we know why earth is warming with a cooling sun. Maybe I am being obtuse??" Very. I completely fail to see your logic here. What does alleged climate change on Neptune (or Mars or Alpha Centauri) have to do with the relationship between observed climate change and known forcings on Earth. -
actually thoughtful at 07:29 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Finally found the list - here are some suggestions that make them more powerful for me (if you like the suggested wordking make sure the science make sense - I am perhaps better at communicating than climatology). 1. "It's the sun." - Since the 1970s the sun is cooling and the earth is warming 2. "Climate's changed before" - The natural changes that completely explain past climate change do not explain warming now. 5. "Model's are unreliable" - Climate models from the 1980s successfully predicted today's temperatures. *** I think the skeptics don't care that the hindcast is good, they like to say no model has EVER predicted the future, which, according to skepticalscience, is wrong.*** 11 "CO2 lags temperature" - CO2 accelerates warming. *** Sounds good. Can that be said truthfully? *** 14 "It's cosmic rays" - Cosmic rays DO NOT correlate with the current warming. 21 "It's just a natural cycle" - Natural cycles cannot explain the current warming. 29 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" - Emails do not melt ice, warm the earth or acidify the ocean. *** I realize that is a different take, but I try to bring it back to the physical evidence, rather than defend Mann and Jones ad nauseum.*** 30 "Climate sensitivity is low" - Multiple lines of research indicate a 3C warming for each CO2 doubling. *** I don't know if the science is that strong. I personally think this is the best denier argument (most of them do not make it...). The current wording doesn't really counter the point. 35 "It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" - Early 20th century warming is largely attributable to the sun. *** I like to show that the solar changes DO matter and ARE in the models *** 48 "Neptune is warming" - And the sun is cooling *** Huh? I don't have any suggestions here, but this is NOT a good argument for AGW - if we can't explain Neptune warming with a cooling sun, what business do we have claiming we know why earth is warming with a cooling sun. Maybe I am being obtuse?? *** 52 ditto above 60 "Arctic sea ice is back to normal" - Artic see ice volume is shrinking. -
michael sweet at 06:55 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Chriscanaris: While I did mention Tuvalu, my catastrophy was Miami with current projections of sea level rise. What do you think about Florida having to evacuate to North Dakota? Is this OK with you or do you think this is a problem? What do you think the dollar value of all the development in south Florida is? What should we do with their nuclear power plants? Or is it too far in the future for you to worry about? -
batsvensson at 06:45 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
John, maybe this layout can work as an inspiration for you as well.Response: I have a similar taxonomy style layout here. -
AWoL at 06:42 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
And "Moonbat" should be "Monbiot" -
Andy Skuce at 06:30 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
This is excellent. May I suggest a few tweaks? #77 "Michael Mann was quoted out of context, and nothing was hidden." It was Phil Jones, not Michael Mann who was quoted out of context in this case. #116 "CO2 emissions were much smaller 100 years ago." To nitpick, the industrial revolution ended more than 100 years ago. I prefer the one-liner that the full rebuttal begins with: "Global CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a fraction of the CO2 we are currently emitting now". (The "fraction" is actually less than 1%, so you might rather say "tiny fraction" and add "annual" to "emissions" to distinguish rates from cumulative emissions.) So, I'd suggest: "Annual CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a tiny fraction of current emission rates." BTW, In the rebuttal to point #81 you refer to "Peisner" and "Benchley", whereas those names should be spelled Peiser and Brenchley. -
Sean A at 06:16 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at length. -- Karl Friedrich Gauss If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare. -- Mark Twain -
snapple at 05:54 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Dr.Stephen Schneider has died on a flight from Stockholm to London. http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/stanfords-nobel-winning-climate.html -
actually thoughtful at 05:48 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Compare #10 Sea ice has increased a bit, but satellites show total ice volume is lessening. to #10 Sea ice extent has increased a bit, but satellites show shrinking ice volume. So long as "shrinking" is accurate, it carries more punch. Also active voice is preferred for clarity & brevity (can't see how to de-passify "has increased" without making it longer -
VeryTallGuy at 05:39 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Great resource. Two suggestions for improvements: #28 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" "Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident." I'd suggest focussing on the data as the average contrarian will dismiss investigations as part of the lizard man conspiracy anyway. How about: "Independent analyses of the data reach the same conclusions as the CRU, revealing this to be media hype" #30 "Climate sensitivity is low" "Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence." Whilst I understand this, I don't like it as "net positive" implies runaway whereas the radiative emissions always ensure a net negative feedback. How about "Ice ages cannot be explained without relatively high sensitivity" which focusses on well known phenomena - the other lines of evidence can be used as follow-up. And how about, on the 4-5 words challenge: #28 "Independent analysis agrees with CRU" #30 "This makes ice ages impossible" -
NewYorkJ at 04:28 AM on 21 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
I appreciate this. Downloaded it yesterday. Looks good! Quite frankly, I'm not sure when I'll use it in practice. I don't run into global warming contrarians too often in day-to-day life, and I bet the strong majority of those that might prompt me to use the app would probably dismiss it as a "warmist propaganda app". Oh well. It's nice to have the wealth of information at my fingertips anyways. -
JMurphy at 03:33 AM on 21 July 20101934 - hottest year on record
Perhaps the one-line argument should be : "1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally."Response: Better, I was really sweating on that 1934/1998/2006 inaccuracy. Thanks for the suggestion, I've updated it. -
apeescape at 03:26 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
This is great. When I was looking at many of the Arguments articles, frequently, the first paragraph would be very similar to the scientific argument. This provides a good one-liner plus the scientific details. -
JMurphy at 03:21 AM on 21 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Um, how do I know if my mobile can run this app ?Response: If it's an Android phone, go to the Android Marketplace (or tap the Market icon) then search for 'skeptic'. If Skeptical Science comes up, click Install and you're on your way.
If it's not an Android phone, you probably won't have the Market icon to choose from. -
HumanityRules at 01:58 AM on 21 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Kobashi et al Climatic Change (2010) 100:733–756 DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9689-9 A recent temperature reconstruction of Greenland suggesting the presence of decadal temperature fluctuations. Apparently recent warming fits well within this natural variability. Among many interesting points it marks the 1940's as the warmest decade in Greenland. Well worth a read. -
CBW at 00:50 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
chriscanaris @ 109: To what do they attribute the increase/lack of decrease in the size of the islands they studied? -
dcwarrior at 00:46 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
It's very interesting how the science community resists honing their arguments down to words that are concise and easy to understand. And how surprised they are when it works! Let me suggest something as a non-scientist who works in business: Because you people who are MORE science oriented than I do believe in empiricism and facts, consider that there is a whole body of work out there, both academic and trade-oriented about how to persuade people and what works when you do that. And yes, they do suggest boiling things down to what is important and persuasive, while also having done the homework and study (in your case, research) to back it up. It's not "dumbing down", it's being persuasive. And expecting other people to on their own do the study to think as you do is a loser strategy. Indeed, the expectation that such a strategy might work is itself a superstition, based on all the contrary studies out there in the business world. Kudos to the efforts shown on this thread, I think this path will work a lot better than the tack of trying to stuff every scientific argument in every response mode. -
KR at 00:34 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
chriscanaris - funny thing is, your peers don't have to be moral giants. They just need to be competitive. Bad arguments tend to be easy to take down! I think that's one of the best internal editors for science - if you publish junk, it will be noted and treated as such. It's a great incentive to do decent work. -
chris1204 at 00:27 AM on 21 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
KR @ 113 Always assuming that your peers are moral, disinterested, and not easily blinded by bells and whistles. Overall, however, I sincerely hope you're largely right. -
Ned at 00:16 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
... and, that's our dose of cranky curmudgeon for today :-) -
Ned at 00:15 AM on 21 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
John, I think this is a great idea, and very much worth doing. Thanks to Jan for coming up with these, and to you for editing them and making them so widely available. That said, I can't let this pass without telling a little story here: ------------------ Before the start of the Holocene, early humans lived in small bands, slowly wandering from Africa into Eurasia and spreading wherever their feet took them. When two of these groups crossed paths, they might scream at each other, make threatening gestures, and perhaps throw rocks or sticks to drive away the others. With the invention of agriculture, the world changed. People began to settle down. Surplus food permitted the development of more organized society. Writing was developed, the first maps were drawn, small cities grew up. Cities were linked into nations, and then empires. The written word became even more important as a means of passing down knowledge and communicating across great distances. Books and scrolls were precious objects, and the clerks and copyists who transcribed them were respected. With the invention of the printing press, it became possible to mass produce books. Literacy rates increased. By the time of the Enlightenment, in the mid-18th century, the western world was awash in intellectual debates on the subjects of politics, economics, religion, natural science, the arts, and other subjects ... all carried on through the medium of the book. Years passed, society and technology developed further, and people began reading fewer books and more newspapers and magazines. An invention called "talk radio" appeared on the scene, allowing people to argue about stuff with more brevity and at greater distances. Later still, the Internet formed out of previously disparate communications networks. People began reading "newsgroups" and "phpbb forums" and "web logs." They liked this, because they could shout at each other anonymously in comments on the web logs (or "blogs"). The discussion forums were popular, too, especially those that let the participants pick from an endless variety of ugly but colorful "avatars" to symbolize themselves. At the turn of a new century, as the older generation was shuffled off into obsolescence and nursing homes, their grandchildren invented "texting," "tweets," and other ways to exchange information in even shorter, more effortlessly digested blobs. With some of these methods, the user's fingers could actually do all the communication with no participation by the cerebral cortex at all. Eventually this arc reached its logical end point. Across the "developed" world, millions of people gave up on Twitter, which was now seen as too deliberative and too intellectually demanding. Instead, they began to interact by tossing handfuls of letter tiles from "Scrabble" at each other. If emotions ran high, the tile flinging might be supplemented by grunting or by emphatic gestures with the middle finger. Although this new means of communication ("B!" ... "G!" ... "auughn grrrhuhh?" ... "K!") would have been ill-suited to the style of discourse used by their grandparents and great-grandparents, it was perfectly adequate to convey the streamlined and softened thought processes that characterized the waning years of post-Enlightenment civilization. -------------- Millions of years later, alien archeologists traced the origin of this strange cultural transformation to the invention of one Philo Farnsworth in the mid-1900s.... -
KR at 23:20 PM on 20 July 2010The Missing Link, Creationism and Climate Change
Actually, chriscanaris - in science and medicine your peers are usually "...sufficiently intelligent..." to catch immoral, greedy, and narcissistic work. That's one of the great benefits of peer review and lots of work being done in the field - junk gets caught. -
tobyjoyce at 23:14 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Great idea, great post. I have already been able to use some of the soundbites. While I generally despise the soundbite culture, realistically today people demand information in bite-sized chunks. The interested few will delve deeper. -
pdt at 22:10 PM on 20 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Great app! Thanks! -
adelady at 21:40 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Perhaps we also need an English teacher - not just fewer words, but shorter words, preferably with fewer syllables. #10 Sea ice has increased a bit, but satellites show total ice volume is lessening. It's not just how it reads - it's how it sounds. Less, even as part of a longer word, has more impact than a slowish sounding word like decrease. Can't always be used, but it should be used more often. -
chparadise at 21:31 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
22. Thick arctic sea ice is undergoing a rapid, unprecedented retreat. These are quite useful - they fit right into what I would call "bumper sticker slogans", and the more bumper sticker slogans that are developed that maintain scientific accuracy, the better, since it'll help out in the public policy debate. -
CBDunkerson at 21:12 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Some possible alternate wordings; #1 Since 1970 solar output has decreased slightly while temperatures have been rising. #10 Sea ice has increased slightly, but satellites show total ice volume is decreasing. #11 In the ice age cycle CO2 lags, but in other events CO2 increases come first. #17 1934 was one of the hottest years for the US, but nowhere near the hottest globally. #22 Arctic ice is currently melting despite being in the expanding phase of the ice age cycle. #26 Greenland had local warming around 1000 AD, and global warming is now making it green again. #37 Far north polar bears are still recovering from overhunting, but most groups are declining. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:02 PM on 20 July 2010Skeptical Science now an Android app
Great little app - love it. Well done, folks at Shine :) -
HumanityRules at 20:10 PM on 20 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
32.mspelto It would be easy to assume that a warmer Southern Ocean is a direct result of AGW but I recently read another possible explanation in the literature. Unfortunately I don't have the reference because I came upon it in a roundabout way. My daughters school newsletter recently had a article about the erosion of our local Bayside beach and casually attributed this to climate change in the form of increased storm erosion. Being a good skeptic I decided to see if this was true and was only able to find research that suggested that air over Australia was showing a calming trend. That aside one of the papers connected coastal southern Australia climate to what was going in Antarctica. Specifically one point was made that greater sea ice trend acted as a insulator, trapping energy in the water. So that greater a warmer ocean and sub-surface melting may be a result of this process. -
batsvensson at 19:19 PM on 20 July 2010Part Three: Response to Goddard
It is unclear to me what is meant with accelerated ice lose. In order for a process to accelerate it is not required to add more energy or mass because the system can use internal stored energy to convert it to work (for example the accelerated flow of a dam break does not require the addition of mass or energy.) However, a system relying only on internal stored energy will not be able to sustain the acceleration and will at some point in time reach a maximum and then decelerate. In order to sustain an acceleration material/energy will need to be integrated in time (with a derivate on the integration positive or equal to zero, else it will start decelerate at some point). Secondly, there is a difference in converting stored energy to work in a solid compared to liquid. A solid is able to convert energy to work in a discrete way by doing "nothing" for a long while and then suddenly breaking up in two or more parts. A liquid can not do this "trick" and its conversion of energy into work is a continuous process. Considering these two points, what do we mean when we says the ice loses is accelerating? -
macwithoutfries at 18:14 PM on 20 July 2010Climate sensitivity is low
I think on this subject somewhere at the top of this page the paper(s) from Spencer should also be clearly addressed - while Schwartz was probably what started this debate I believe right now the focus of the deniers is moving to Spencer ... -
John Russell at 18:14 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
These one line answers are vital in the battle with denialism. Well done Jan Dash and you, John. The important point that comes out of this is never to let someone get away with making a clever-dick denial comment that makes everyone nod their head in agreement, without immediately coming back at him. The more they do it and get away with it the more everyone starts to believe it's the truth; and then when someone does a survey it turns out that the majority of the population are sceptical about AGW -- not because they know anything about the subject, but because all their mates down the pub say so. -
chris1204 at 17:49 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
Brings back childhood memories of reciting the Catechism but nevertheless a concise condensation of prevailing orthodoxy :-) -
RSVP at 17:32 PM on 20 July 2010Rebutting skeptic arguments in a single line
The list is convenient in that it brings together many ideas in one handy location, however, it seems a little dangerous to assume one must agree with every one liner. Worst still if one concludes: "global warming is caused by man" AND "it is not due to human waste heat" AND "it doesnt matter if the total population of the Earth goes unchecked" AND "the problem will go away when we stop buring fossile fuels".
Prev 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 Next
