Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next
Comments 11601 to 11650:
-
Hank11198 at 23:38 PM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
I don't think the problem is that humans will not survive climate change. They probably will. But civilization will not survive climate change. It's going to make WWII look like a cake walk.
-
Evan at 13:16 PM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Nick@10 Couldn't agree more with your statement.
When I see a bird visit our feeders, I wonder what their life is like. When we see a bird of a particular species return year after year it seems like they live a stable, sustainable life. But it is not the same bird we see. They die and are replaced by a bird that looks the same and life goes on for their species. We can wax poetic about the life of birds and how stable and resilient their species is, but what is life like for the average bird? I fear that the benefits of modern society have dulled our ability to identify with truly sustainable life and what a struggle it is to live in equilibrium with the natural world.
-
Nick Palmer at 12:07 PM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Just pointing out that the simplistic denialist meme that asserts 'we can adapt because life has survived and thrived after much bigger changes in the far past' does not fly on any human timescale.
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
The Dinosaurs might have done well in a nice sub tropical climate but they in turn were wiped out by climate change, either a rapid event from an asteroid impact, or volcanism, or more gradual climate change here.
We have to try to figure out how adaptable humans are. Some people make the argument that human technological society and its structures are very complex and inherently "fragile". They have certainly never been tested by a massive event like climate change, or a thermonuclear war or asteroid impact.
The GFC (global financial crash of 2008) started with a few problems with american banks and nearly bought the entire world down with it. This suggests fragility under even moderate financial stress and climate change will undoubtably bring financial stress. We better pray our physical systems are more resilient than this.
We do seem to do a little better in helping countries who have famines. But neither is it a brilliant performance. We are also a world of nation states, and while we cooperate sometimes, there's great suspicion and adversity as well and I dont see this improving fast. This is not going to help to efficiently resolve climate problems. It could end up being every man for himself in some sort of dystopican future.
It's these fragilities that bother me, and would cause our civilisation huge problems. Its not that we are weak or that primitivism is a preferable lifestyle, its the way fragilities relate to a changing climate. We are not like a hardy simple slowly adapting baceteria.
Climate change will bring large refugee problems, coastal protection problems, problems with staple grain crops, etc that look like they will stress the system like nothing else. Maybe we will rise to the challenge, maybe not. It would obviously require huge costs and a level of cooperation that would be unprecedented. I'm not sure humans are smart enough, or altruistic enough.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:03 AM on 9 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
The interactions with Prometheus have been educational. I offer the following comment in an attempt to reset/reframe the discussion in a way that may be helpful.
- Politics is the actions that determine what actions will be taken by leaders. And political decisions determine what is to be encouraged and rewarded and what is to be discourage and penalize.
- The essential guiding objective of politics has to be: Improving awareness and understanding and applying that improving knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. A diversity of political perspectives can operate under the guidance of that objective. And that objective can be understood to be the fundamental guiding ethical and moral objective of any person's thoughts and actions.
- Improving awareness and understanding in the general population regarding climate science related matters is the important objective of SkS and many other websites and organizations.
- Political people and groups (often masquerading as Scientific people or Groups), have developed to deliberately oppose the improvement of awareness and understanding of climate science and matters related to climate science. Their objective is not improving awareness and understanding. Their objective is contrary to the essential guiding principle. They oppose/resist improving the awareness and understanding of climate science because the improved understanding leads to the knowledge that developed popular and profitable pursuits of perceptions of personal or tribal superiority relative to Others are Incorrect, Harmful and ultimately unsustainable. And those climate science correction resistant political people/groups have been Uniting with other correction resistant groups all of which are on the political Right (which means they fundamentally resist change - back to the origin of Political Left and Right in France with those wanting change from Royal Rule sitting to the Left of the King, and those Loyal to the King, resisting that change, sitting to his Right - which they incorrectly extend to include resisting correction). The correction resistant Unite in the hopes that collectively they can delay correction of their understandably harmful incorrect beliefs, desires and interests. They can be seen to oppose many improvements of awareness and understanding that lead helpful moral ethical leaders to strive to correct what has developed.
- The United politically incorrect correction resistant Right groups promote and defend harmful unsustainable attitudes and actions, including attempting to delay the general population's improvement of awareness and understanding of climate science and the required corrections of developed popular and profitable activity, and the related corrections of perceptions of status that incorrectly developed due to the pursuit of benefit from the harmful unsustainable activity (burning fossil fuels).
Therefore, scientists (and anyone else), interested in improving the awareness and understanding of climate science, and the related required corrections of what humans have developed, must confront and challenge the politically incorrect opposition to correction that has developed in response to that improving awareness and understanding.
I am open to changing/correcting any part of that awareness and understanding if Good Reason is provided for doing so.
-
michael sweet at 04:02 AM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
While life might be "everywhere", the sea level would be about 265 feet higher so all land near the coastline would be underwater. That includes a large fraction of world wide farmland. Land in Siberia would no longer be frozen but it is not suitable for growing most crops.
I don't thik it is a good idea to permantly flood all major ports and prime farmland in trade for useless peat land.
-
Evan at 03:18 AM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Nick@5 thanks for your interesting comments.
"abundant life was everywhere"
It would be interesting to ask skeptics/deniers if it was the same life everywhere, or just life everywhere? We have 8 billion of exactly the same species living on Earth. There are species for whom oxygen is poisonous, and those species are doing just fine in some zones that lack oxygen. There are extremophiles that do well in near boiling water. There can be abundant life everywhere, but that does not mean that it is the same species everywhere nor that humans would be able to live everywhere on Earth under those conditions.
I know you know this Nick, but just pointing it out as an argument to use with deniers/skeptics.
-
Sunspot at 02:46 AM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
I googled "Earth's ideal temperature"...
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
"GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C)."
-
Nick Palmer at 01:58 AM on 9 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
I like this analogy. Often, when fighting climate science deniers, one will be challenged with the question 'What is Earth's ideal temperature?'. This one is actually on one of those denier lists of hard-questions-to-shoot-down-warmists-with that they pass around the denialosphere. They do have their tricksy defence mechanisms if one just replies with the standard 'there isn't an ideal temperature, but the relatively stable temperature of the last 10,000 years is what enabled our civilisation to develop'. I usually say that of course there is no ideal temperature, but clearly there could be many 'bad' temperatures for civilisation and I then hit them with this follow up.
When arguing in this area, one will also often get at the same time the 'CO2 levels were much higher in the past and so were planetary average temperatures' meme - there were no ice caps and life existed in much greater numbers from pole to pole so why are 'warmists' worried about the future?
I usually agree with the first part - it's true that, for example, during the Carboniferous and 'dinosaur' periods, Earth was much warmer and CO2 was a lot higher and abundant life was everywhere. The second 'why worry' part though is where denialist thought goes seriously astray.
Sure, if we carried on loading up the atmosphere and global average temperatures climbed high enough, Earth would eventually stabilise in a state which would probably be more conducive to abundant life but what deniers turn a blind eye to is the timescales involved. It would probably take millions of years to get from where we are now to the fertile, universally warm, planet many deniers assert that climate science and policies are denying us all. They ignore the massive disruption, and probable mass species extinctions, that would occur as the ecosystems tried to adapt to the new and continually changing conditions. The ordered table of crystal would be continually shaken and disrupted for aeons. It may be true that that denialist 'destination' may be 'better' than what we have today, but no-one in their right minds who understands how ecosystems react to long term changes would want to go on the enormously long and dangerous ride it would take to get from here to there. -
bozzza at 13:15 PM on 8 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Jef, is it a fact that rain is becoming a problem in Greenland or is it a media beat-up?!!?
-
nigelj at 13:02 PM on 8 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Happened to just read this: Rain is becoming more frequent in Greenland and accelerating the melting of its ice, a new study has found.
-
Evan at 10:53 AM on 8 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
Nice one jef. Very clear, descriptive image of what's happening.
Also, in case you missed it, here was our take on another explanation of crazy weather.
-
jef12506 at 10:30 AM on 8 March 2019SkS Analogy 19 - A table full of crystal and ideal temperature
I have been using this one alot lately;
To understand why it is so cold and yet it is AGW that is largely responsable I have a little exercise I want you to perform. First take off your shoes and socks, then go stand right infront of your refregerator/freezer (asuming it is a top freezer) now open the freezer door all the way. Stand there for a while. As you stand there you will notice your toes getting cold while at the same time you will watch as the ice cream melts. This is a crude but basic concept of what is happening. Record cold, lots of snow and ice in middle America, and rain falling on Greenland melting the snow pack. Crazy right?
-
nigelj at 09:39 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Photo of elephant in the room, with useful annotations of parts.
I also mentioned the distinction between government officials and politicians. The later seem more guilty of factual errors, but its currently fashionable to blame officials. The so called deep state conspiracy of officials (yawn, sarc). Just another convenient scapegoat for failings of politicians.
-
Eclectic at 08:43 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Scaddenp @36 ,
you make a good point on the not-so-fine distinction between a political official and a government official.
Prometheus @many ,
you are forgetting that the human brain is strongly tuned (sometimes over-tuned) towards pattern recognition. Most of the habitues here at SkS did not come down in the last shower. Experience has taught them to recognise an elephant when they see one ~ and even if they see only a small part of the elephant.
The elephant may think it is largely hidden behind a tree and has not exposed itself fully or significantly . . . but the elephant lacks insight into into its elephantine nature (in more ways than one).
[Excuse the semi-humorous metaphor ~ and I thought you would be especially amused at its species-specific political association here.]
_______
There are many facets to the denial of basic science. All interesting, psychologically. Some skeptics or would-be deniers will benefit from undertaking the MOOC mentioned above. Some won't and never will.
-
jreed at 08:39 AM on 8 March 2019Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action
Readers of this post may be interested in the paper 'Accelerating Sustainability: Integrating Context, Behavior, Technology, and Culture in Organizations' posted at this location: https://theresourceimperative.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Accelerating-Sustainability-Context-Behavior-Culture-Technology-06062018-Final.pdf. The paper argues that individual and organizational change are interconnected and both must be addressed if we hope to make headway on climate but the underlying resource issues as well.
-
Prometheus at 07:15 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
These are the requests summarized:
"Prometheus, can you cite an example of "relavent arguements made by the skeptics that has changed the perspective of climate change science and advocates alike"?"
"On what basis do you think goverment has a bias? Show me a statement in the NSF which backs that up. What agenda is a government operating on that is trying to fox taxpayers by funding climate science? And this is the same in all the goverments across the world?"
"Prometheus, any organisation can in theory have some form of bias. You are not 1) providing hard evidence of significant bias in government and 2) ignoring the checks and balances they have and 3) you are not providing a workable alternative and one that is better."
"You are the one accusing a whole lot of people to be either dishonest or incompetent. Scientists who work for government agencies are supposed to do good work. If there is a massive bias, they're failing. What is there showing that it's the case?""Can you please provide some hard evidence of so called government bias?"
I purposefullly ignored these quesitons because they are all off topic and all over the place. Your more interested in me talking about these statements:
1) "I don't trust the government"
2) "I believe that the government organizations have a massive bias"
I'd love to have a conversation about these in a different platform. Comments can be easily misinterpreted and misunderstood and I wish I could get into it here. It has nothing to do with the fact that I have nothing to say about this. These topics are interesting and I could spend hours on them. However, I really didn't want to talk about them in this post. Sorry.
-
scaddenp at 06:56 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
"We are constantly in a battle with political facts checking issues of government officials making false claims".
Hmm. I think there is a world of difference in trust between "politician and political appointee" and salaried officer of government. A government employee making a false claim would be fired here. The fact checking I see going on is mostly about politicians even the US.
"Therefore, they are not interested in science, except if it supports a policy." I agree that the science funding mechanism in the USA assumes government disinterest in the best possible way. Government allocations of money to science is based on broad perceptions of priority. Politicians lack a mechanism for being able to directly influence what a scientist researches and specifically there is no way even in the broken US system for politicians to demand a particular outcome from a science investigation. (public inquiries like Challenger are not remotely like any NSF funded research programme). There is different from a company which fund work to support a predetermined outcome as opposed to open-ended one.
You are continuing to duck the question on what possible government bias could be supported by a particular outcome on climate science. If it were true, then how come science has continued to produce the same general thrust of outcomes (ie what reality is actually like) in regimes that were sympathetic to climate science researcha and in those that were actively hostile to point of trying to muzzle scientists?
In my opinion, your perception is not reality.
-
RedBaron at 06:56 AM on 8 March 2019New research, February 4-10, 2019
@MA Rodger,
I found a great lecture by soil scientist Ray Archuletta from the USDA NRCS regarding that lost ecosystem function you were asking about.
-
scaddenp at 05:57 AM on 8 March 2019It's waste heat
So do you suppose that is a "no" from AEBanner - he cannot find a way to explain to why air heated by FF should retain energy whereas air heated by the sun loses energy to space?
-
MA Rodger at 05:56 AM on 8 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
The silly fellow Molsen managed not to link to his two DMI said 'thises', so here are the links to the two 'thises' I assume were intended. They are both CarbonBrief posts of the date stated by guest authors Dr Ruth Mottram, Dr Peter Langen and Dr Martin Stendel from DMI.
The first 'this' (16/10/17) actually says of the 2017 melt year "This year, thanks partly to Nicole’s snow and partly to the relatively low amounts of melt in the summer, we estimate the total mass budget to be close to zero and possibly even positive." The "main culprit" was thus named as the snowfall brought to Greenland by Hurricane Nicole in October 2016.
The second 'this' (27/10/18) declines to be drawn on the 2017/18 total mass balance, deferring to GRACE-FO which was expected to be soon up-&-running in Oct 2018 although at time of writing GRACE-FO output data (rather than data collection) is yet to show itself.
So no sign of pronouncements that Greenland ice sheet "likely grew" throughthese years. Then perhaps there are other 16/10/17 & 27/10/18 Greenland news posts that do pronounce on Total Mass Balance, Or is Molsen misinterpreting Surface Mass Balance data?
Moderator Response:[PS] Keep it seemly.
-
scaddenp at 05:52 AM on 8 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
Molsen - perhaps you could share the link which demonstrates your point? Knowing Heller, there are a no. of ways to cherry-pick data. Deniers often jump on Surface mass balance which is always positive (even in 2012) and last two summers have been high. The ice sheet gains more ice from precipation than melts every year. However, SMB doesnt take acount of calving losses which are what determine ice sheet mass. Your statement does not appear to be backed by the ice mass data seen here.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus @32
"I personally believe I have been the least adversarial here."
I agree with M Sweet. think you are the most adversarial here. Remember adversarial is defined as" being in conflict or opposition" and you have demonstrated this repeatedly in you attacks on the work of unnamed scientists and politicians, claiming they are scientifically wrong and / or biased and providing no actual evidence of this. Your examples have little or no relationship to scientific research.
You have repeatedly ignored points people have raised. This is adversarial because its disrespectful. Constructive dialogue meams being clear about what points you agree / disagree with and why.
Clearly you just cant see any of this so you probably have some sort of cognitive bias yourself ( we are all at risk of this, not saying I'm perfect). Its the only explanation that makes sense. I did psychology at university amongst other things.
"This site should be about "Learning". If someone is confused about climate science, they should be able to get to this site and learn, have a constructive arguement, and walk away. "
That's what we are doing so what is your real complaint? Nobody has been impolite to you, and to your credit you are polite. I think its probably that you just dont like the points I and others make, but have no easy answers, so you sidestep those and falsely claim I'm not being constructive.
"Not some adversarial myth busting character demeaning place that calls peoples skepticism as a psychological denial problem "
Well unfortunately some sceptics indulge in logical fallacies. As a scientist you would understand we cant ignore the truth. Such things have to be examined.
" If you knew me, you would realize that I'm only about learning. "
I accept you clearly have an interest in the science and are not making any obviously ridiculous claims about the science, however your rhetoric is very political given your constant accusations about biased politicians and size of government. I can only say this is what I observe. Its you who are in denial about this.
-
Molsen at 05:07 AM on 8 March 2019Greenland is gaining ice
DMI said the Greenland ice sheet likely grew in 2016-17 (this was released on October 16, 2017) and 2017-18 (this was released on October 27, 2018). This makes many of the posts above look silly. The faint of heart can take solace that they don't have to look at Tony Heller's website. But, they could look at DMI's, NSIDC's, etc.
-
michael sweet at 04:14 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus,
On the contrary, my perception of your posts is that you have been completely adversarial and hostile from the very start. Meanwhile the responders have tried to reason with you.
You have been asked many times from the start to provide links to arguments where you find skeptics contributed. Reviewing your posts I see that you have never cited a single argument you find valuable or detailed any advance that skeptics assisted. You have made a couple of vague descriptions without providing details or citations so they could be checked. In science if you do not provide detaiols to support wild claims that is hostile behaviour.
You claim that scientists are biased or manipulate data (lie). No examples of scientific misconduct have been provided, just your completely unsupported claim that they exist. Unsupported accusations of misconduct are extraordinarily hostile.
This is a scientific site. In order to make a valid cliam you must provide data or peer reviewed papers to support your claims. You have been completely hostile to providing data or citations. The problem is you.
-
Prometheus at 01:23 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
@BaerbelW Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out.
-
Prometheus at 01:11 AM on 8 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Nigelj,
So I would of never said what you said:
"Well thank's for the comment, but you seem confused about some things and have an ideological axe to grind. "
"The problem you have is you have made your own politics clear: some libertarian leaning high level of distrust about government. Thus people wonder about your motives for being criticial of the science, and wonder if you are fully objective.The problem you have is you have made your own politics clear: some libertarian leaning high level of distrust about government. Thus people wonder about your motives for being criticial of the science, and wonder if you are fully objective."
"You think this website is adverserial? What about the death threats climate scientists like M Mann have received? Theres some real adversity for you."
"By taking such a stand against governments you are also being very adversarial."
I personally believe I have been the least adversarial here. You want constructive diologue, then act like it. I think its pretty clear that the axe to grind is yours, not mine. I have yet to question your objectivity and world view. Yet you clearly are questioning mine.
The only thing you know about me so far is some oppinions I have about government and scientific endevours, which is very little. I'm not taking a stand for anything other than constructive dialogue and learning. This is what science is about. I suggest you try to explore someones world view more before you make your judgements. I have yet to see evidence of your curiosity in my views, just ample denunciation of my comments.
I stand beside the statement on my original post which is the message I want to convay here. This site should be about "Learning". If someone is confused about climate science, they should be able to get to this site and learn, have a constructive arguement, and walk away. Not some adversarial myth busting character demeaning place that calls peoples skepticism as a psychological denial problem (although I don't like the use of the word "Myth", I like the content of subject matter, because it contains an arguement and references, which helps me learn). Science is about learning. If you knew me, you would realize that I'm only about learning.
-
AEBanner at 22:22 PM on 7 March 2019It's waste heat
I was not aware of the problems accssing my blog on wordpress.
In view of the moderators response to 192, I shall not be making any further posts on SkS.
Thank you, and Good-Bye.
"Others may have opinions, but its the numbers thst count"
-
nigelj at 18:18 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Promethius @29
Just another response to add to the above @30, yes of course I dont like it when officials get facts wrong. It does seem to me Trump and his crew is the worst offender in recent times. But its peripheral to what research they commission. In any event Corporations get their facts wrong as well.
A lot of this is also about public relations spin which has infested both corporations and governments.
But I'm a pragmatist. Theres no use just complaining. We need governments and they have to be flexible enough to deal with a wide range of issues. Of course we have to ensure they don't abuse their power but fortunately by having elections this puts a break on them.
Ideas about limiting government have to be carefully done, because you don't want to make them powerless or limit their flexibility. It's impossible to define an ideal size. Of course any organisation including corporations can become over sized and a law unto themselves, anyone can recognise this.
One of the main problems is deficits and debt. In New Zealand we have a fiscal responsibility act in about 1995 that makes governments keep debt under certain limits and only run deficts during recessions or other catastrophic emergencies like a war. All governments have stuck to this and we have low debt. Your constitution seems incapable of constraining government abuses of power and ever escalating debt.
-
nigelj at 17:40 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus @29
Well thank's for the comment, but you seem confused about some things and have an ideological axe to grind. Thats the picture you paint whether intended or not.
"I'm pointing out, and supporting with a few examples, that the goals of government do not align with science. Science is the pursuit of knowlege and understanding. Government is the pursuit of policy and governance. "
You have pointed out nothing of the kind. You have pointed out some examples of bad process by governments. Obviously governments are about implimenting policies. One of those policies is to commission science in areas where the private sector doesn't do a great job. You still havent refuted this. There is no conflict of interest in doing this.
"I disgree that the government does a good job of "furthering the human understanding of the world".
You are putting words in my mouth. I simply said they commissioned some science which helps us gain an understanding of the world.
"We are constantly in a battle with political facts checking issues of government officials making false claims. Do you think that both republicans and democrats do a good job of this? How can you possibly believe that? "
This is nothing to do with climate science research. This might occasionally be a problem with government officials but that is a political issue, and you were moaning about this website politicising things, and here you are doing it yourself. It's certainly a problem with the Trump administration, but I don't hear you refer to this, instead you demonise officials. Such unbalanced, biased commentary.
Feynmann is not god, but he is right about this "that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, " and this is what Donald Trump is doing, and not one word of complaint about this from you :)
By taking such a stand against governments you are also being very adversarial.
-
Prometheus at 16:00 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Nigelj,
I'm pointing out, and supporting with a few examples, that the goals of government do not align with science. Science is the pursuit of knowlege and understanding. Government is the pursuit of policy and governance.
I disgree that the government does a good job of "furthering the human understanding of the world". We are constantly in a battle with political facts checking issues of government officials making false claims. Do you think that both republicans and democrats do a good job of this? How can you possibly believe that? I don't know how your government works, maybe it does a better job of this, I don't know.
I will admit to a mistake that the word "Massive Bias" was ill chosen. I hope you get my point.
Richard Feynmann:
"I believe, therefore, that although it is not the case today, that there may some day come a time, I should hope, when it will fully appreciated that the power of governments should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that this is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do; that they are not to decide the description of history or of economic theory or of philosophy.” -
BaerbelW at 15:11 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus - I'll repeat my suggestion from upthread: if you haven't already, please enrol in our MOOC and check it out from the inside and not making a judgement about it based on a blog post we regularly "recycle" to announce the next run of this online course we co-produced with the University of Queensland. Here is the link: http://sks.to/Denial101x
You may just learn some interesting stuff not only about the science but also about how and why said science regularly gets distorted by make-belief skeptics (not to mention how and why each of us is susceptible to fall for this due to our very own biases in this or other fields).
-
nigelj at 14:51 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Promethius @25
Of course its possible that if governments play some role in climate mitigation or adaptation they might comission related research if none is already available. It's hard for me to see a problem with this. Be careful you don't start wearing a tin foil hat :)
-
nigelj at 14:37 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus @25
I think it's incorrect to claim government is not involved in science unless it supports policy. In my country the government funds science and its judged on the technical merits of the science and nothing to do with government policies of the day (other than to further human understanding of the world). I have explained why governments fund the pure sciences above @12 and have not seen a refutation of this. The following article is relevant:
mic.com/articles/3165/government-should-continue-to-fund-scientific-research#.lD7FjSYVk
Your examples of alleged bias are not in the field of climate research or assessment, or any form of research. Your example of the columbia accident is an operational matter, so nothing to do with research as such.
In addition your example of changing how fusion was funded doesn't sound like bias to me. It just sounds like you resented their decision. But regardless of this, even if it is bias, it has no conceivable relationship to the integrity of research and the climate issue.You are also not showing a systemic bias, and have gone from a few examples to wild claims of massive bias, which is a form of "logical fallacy". Refer below:
-
Prometheus at 12:55 PM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Many of you are demanding proof of bias from the government when this was not the point of my comment! Read my comment from earlier carefully:
"I don’t trust the government. Do you think it would be fair for me to state “Most climate science is run by the government who are actually paid to intentionally misrepresent the science in order to support policy”? Being an intellectual, I don’t, and I do read the IPCC reports anyways and try to learn about what they are trying to say. I hold my criticism in pure objectivity and cross a number of information sources (including my in-depth knowledge of physics) to form my understanding. For me, it isn’t difficult to weed out the dishonesty using this strategy. And if I see it, the authority is gone, and I will seek other sources. This is no different with the organizations you listed above."
The point was to say is that I do not discount government funded research, and you shouldn't discount company funded research. Government bias was not the focus of that statement. I was challenging the claim that skeptic organizations cannot be trusted simply because of association with their financial supporters. All funding sources are usually tied with a bias. The determination of good or bad research should be purely by using critical thinking and objectivity. The goodness of the research should always be based on objectivity and critical thinking, not association. And the motive of reading research is to learn and understand.
As for "Massive bias" part, I did not expect this to turn into a massive soul sucking black hole of an argument, so let me explain what I mean. The bias in that government is simply because the government is not in the business of science, its in the business of policy and governance (and thats not bad). The government is not interested in scientific investigation and exploration (with the exception of NASA back in the day when it explored space and the moon, but it still was political fueled by the space race). Therefore, they are not interested in science, except if it supports a policy. If you don't believe me, read material from Faynmann about the topic and how he exposes the issues with government bias in his investigation of the columbia accident. Read the historical account of MIT and how their funding in fusion was pulled in order to support a forign multigovernment research project for the purpose of intergovernment handholding. Read about Einsteins issue with governments propensity to block freedoms of thought when politicians and government get out of control. There are a number of very promenant scientists who speak on this topic of government bias. My view is that while government have an important role in this world, they cannot overstep their bounds like they have historically done in the limitation of the freedom of thought in scientific investigation. This includes Climate Science studies.
There, you squeezed it out of me. I hope this was constructive.
-
michael sweet at 11:24 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
I always find it interesting when a denier claims that the government is adjusting the data to make it falsely appear to be AGW when the government is currently run by rabid deniers. Why would the deniers who run the government falsely make it appear to be warming?????
This is a direct contradiction in terms. Only someone who is a confirmed conspiricy theorist coulde make such an absurd suggestion.
-
MA Rodger at 10:39 AM on 7 March 2019It's waste heat
AEBanner @192,
I think you will find that I have read your blog. And "carefully"? Probably with more 'care' than with which you wrote it. Do note the final two paragaphs of #180. I managed to log on under GOOGLE removing one reason for not accessing your blog. And I have a cut&paste of its content. The worry that you will be tweeking your grand theory, using this thread to provide corrections; this isn't much of a worry having read its content. It is uncorrectable nonsense. But then the folk who may draw comfort from a snipe at GHG-created AGW will certainly be less than happy to see the logical conclusion from your illogical argument. That is, of course, to stop generating our power from FF or Nuclear. Mind, the projections of global temperature given for 2066 are a bit low. But as is all nonsense, it doesn't really matter.
-
Eclectic at 09:56 AM on 7 March 2019It's waste heat
AEBanner ,
I have not read your blog, and I concur with the moderator, in that I do not wish to jump through hoops nor "seed" my personal information throughout the internet ( more than it already is ! ). Unfamiliar as I am with Wordpress protocol, I do note that quite a number of bloggers [for instance, the excellent Tamino blog] are directly available via googling, and without any "registration" or other time-consuming intrusions. Perhaps you could re-arrange your blog, in a likewise manner.
As to your "hypothetical" question @191 , please be aware that I am not a particle physicist. I gather that there is complete conservation of energy in collisional interactions, so that the translational energy and vibrational energy are continually swapping back and forth among the atoms (with occasional photon absorption/emission events). Therefore the hypothetical scenario you mentioned, is impossible i.e. meaningless.
It would be better if you simply gave a clear idea of what is troubling you concerning mainstream science.
-
scaddenp at 09:28 AM on 7 March 2019It's waste heat
AEBanner - you are ducking the question of why air heated by burning FF (which after all add GHG water and CO2 to atmoshere) is different from air heated by contact with a sun-warmed surface. Your notion depends on energy originating in FF combustion being trapped whereas energy originating from the sun can reradiate.
To your question to Eclectic, thermodynamic temperature is the mean of the energy inherent in the translational, vibrational and rotational motions of the constituent particles in the ensemble.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:11 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
You expose your beef with with the radiative forcing thing, but then you say you don't want to discuss it. It can't really be taken seriously without more specific references and the full context. As you wrote it, it is impossible to tell what exactly is the problem, regardless of how "knowledged" one is. If you don't want to discuss it then why mention it?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:58 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
"Massive bias"
Where is the evidence to back up such an assertion? A massive bias has to be detectable. I mentioned BEST, which reached the same conclusion as the research that Muller initially believed to be biased. Where is you evidence that a massive bias exist?
As for your question to me, such organizations exist through the World. In France, it's called the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. They produce "objective" science. The results are published so if they're not replicable, they don't stand. That's how it works.
You are the one accusing a whole lot of people to be either dishonest or incompetent. Scientists who work for government agencies are supposed to do good work. If there is a massive bias, they're failing. What is there showing that it's the case?
I'll add that I need no schooling on logical fallacies. Nowhere do I suggest that McIntyre's nonsense is BS because he has ties to FF. It's BS because it has no value, especially the "release the code" crap. The nonsense stands on its own for what it is, but McIntyre does have ties to FF nonetheless.
-
nigelj at 08:11 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus @19
"There are also, as many you point out, people of political discourse. I believe that this post unfairly puts good skeptics and political discourse all in the same boat. "
No it doesn't . The article raised some issues we see with some climate sceptics (denialists whatever). It never said all denialists were like that. You are jumping to conclusions.
The issues raised are not poitical issues or issues of bias, they are misleading styles of argument. You raised the issue of politics and bias, but thanks for admitting that.
"A personal experience."
The problem you have is you have made your own politics clear: some libertarian leaning high level of distrust about government. Thus people wonder about your motives for being criticial of the science, and wonder if you are fully objective.
But look. Many articles on this website talk purely about the science and its open to anyone posting comments, provided they follow moderation policy. Dont judge this website on one or two articles that explore political or psychological issues. It's done in a fact based calm sort of way and they are real issues so cannot be ignored.
-
nigelj at 07:49 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Prometheus @15
"How did these statements marit your attack? The attempt was to point out that you think bias is from corperations, and I was pointing out that it (bias) can be from government too."
Prometheus, any organisation can in theory have some form of bias. You are not 1) providing hard evidence of significant bias in government and 2) ignoring the checks and balances they have and 3) you are not providing a workable alternative and one that is better.
We either do the best we can with established research systems or we are in big trouble. We cannot afford to await for your perfect world free of human or organisational failings.
If government has a bias on the climate issue, I would think the evidence suggests it would be a bias to downplaying the climate problem! The last thing government wants is to create problems for itself like policies to push rebuilding electricity grids.
"The point was that it isn't fair, nor is it fair for anyone to discount any skeptic funded by a company in as much as government."
Yes research should be judged on its merits regardless of funder. But given fossil fuel companies etc have an obvious vested interest, you need to scrutinie their research particularly carefully. This is plain commonsense. Its arguably a much greater bias than anything governments have.
"I want to give you something to think about with this question. This is a question purely related to science. If the federal government was to oversee ALL of the scientific research"
Hypothetical and a strawman.
-
AEBanner at 07:38 AM on 7 March 2019It's waste heat
MA Rodger @ 171 and 190
I quote again from your 166
Quote “[NOTE - you may set this out on your web-page but if it is not set out here I am ignoring it. “ End quote.
I went on to say
“Please tell me that you have indeed read my blog.
If you have not yet read it, then please grant me the courtesy and agree to read it.
This is the link to assist you.
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50
Anyway, if you cannot bring yourself carefully to read my blog, then I see no further point in debating the issues with you. Please let me know your decision.”
Quote from your 171 So bring it here or be gone yourself. And if you do remain, I will not let off correcting your comments while they continue here.
End quote
In view of the vitriolic nature of this 171 offering, and as of 6/3/19, I have not seen your agreement carefully to read my blog, please understand that I wish no more “debating” with youModerator Response:[DB] Your blog post requires Wordpress login verification, an undue imposition akin to a professor requiring a student to buy one of the professor's books before answering a question in class. You can either accede to answering questions here about your claims (you brought your claims here) or you can concede the points made by other contributors.
Continuing to reiterate the same talking points previously made (and previously addressed by other participants) is sloganeering and contrary to this venue's Comments Policy. -
Prometheus at 07:30 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Look, I'm really trying to keep this discussion in the context of the post. We are all over the place here. You really want me to defend my views on the government, bias, and appropriate research in this post? They are techically off-topic. I may have been part of the problem, because in my second post, I only intended to answer questions. Now there is just too much to talk about. So I apologize. I never intend to dodge an issue or purposefully mislead.
My main point is to stop with the politics unless you want to be in the politics. Science is about understanding and learning. I liked this site because it was engaging with skeptics on a scientific level and that I can learn about the scientific arguments.
There are many people out there that have a clear head and dig deep into the science and become skeptical of certain things they see. If you think that every skeptic deserves this, then I will become even less supportive of this site.
There are also, as many you point out, people of political discourse. I believe that this post unfairly puts good skeptics and political discourse all in the same boat. This post wants to go further puts them in the context of psychological denial, and encourages people not to listen to them, but just to argue with them. Its demeaning to do this. This is wrong. This site shouldn't promote it.
It should continue to promote dialogue between scientifically knowleged skeptics and non-skeptics. Unless this site intends to be a political site, then maybe I'm wrong about this site.
If you want some some examples of good argements I've seen. Heres a list:
Escalator vs peicwise regression
Warming on northern latitudes vs median.
The real causes of correl reef reduction (El Nino and climate influence)
Circular resoning in radiative forcing
Mistakes in satellite data processingand many more. I'm sure there is a "Myth" post dedicated to these discussions, but they are indeed good scientific discussions.
A personal experience. I wanted to understand the physics behind forcing, read the IPCC papers, read papers from the 1980's, read about radiative scattering models in the atmosphere and the like. I found the equations for radiative forcing. Learned how radiative forcing is used to study climate balance. I'm thinking, that's neat, so I go further. I noticed that the forcing was of the form F=a*ln(C/C0) and deltaT=alpha*DeltaF where zero forcing was defined to be in the 1970 (or 1998). A red flag goes up and I ask myself, why would they do that? It doesn't make sense. There is nothing special about 1970 (other than its considered to be the "Pre-industrial period"), and the story goes on from there. Please don't ask me to go on about this because its just an anicodotal story of a skeptical inclination from a knowleged person. But I study more. Maybe the skepticism goes away, maybe it doesn't. This is what science is about. If someone has studied it and gives a good critical thinking arguement on the issue, then I want to hear it. I don't want some person out there saying "Oh, you are not a climate scientist, you just wouldn't understand" or "stop spreading your denial of the science because of your issue with this equation". I want to have a discussion or even an arguement about the science.
The point of my comments to promote the idea to listen to a skeptic (not a political skeptic, a real scientifically knowleged one). Not point your finger at anyone other out there skeptical oppinion and tell them they have a psychological 'denial' issues. I think this site is doing itself a disservice by being unwelcoming to skeptics. This post is another good example. This is my first post ever on this site, and I'm already been called a bias ideologue. This is not good.
-
scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Sorry for spamming, but in attempt to get clarity - Prometheus. Suppose an overseas uni found an alternative explanation for global warming with simple cure that quickly get wide acceptance in science community (we can hope). How would that discovery damage the US government agenda? ( I am trying to understand your assertion of bias).
I would encourage you put "relavent arguements made by the skeptics that has changed the perspective of climate change science and advocates alike" on the appropriate topic here, or post them in the weekly roundup post if there is no match to an existing topic. I am curious as to who these honest skeptics are and what the convincing arguments are. I monitor a no. of "skeptic" sites so I dont live in a bubble but havent encountered any interesting science.
-
scaddenp at 06:49 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Have to second Baerbals Logic of Science article. It is excellent. People have very wierd ideas about how scientists think and work. I wish we could demonstrate the reality.
-
scaddenp at 06:47 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
Your assertion:
"I believe that the government organizations have a massive bias"
and the statement
"I dont trust government"
basically read to people here as "another ideological denier if you scratch deep another".
On what basis do you think goverment has a bias? Show me a statement in the NSF which backs that up. What agenda is a government operating on that is trying to fox taxpayers by funding climate science? And this is the same in all the goverments across the world? I would claim that your beliefs are not founded in reality but rather in an ideological position. Tell us the process by which you came to your belief that government has bias.
If climate science is wrong, then you would think oil companies have the means to fund contrary science. I work with oil company scientists and havent met many deniers. They know it is more effective to spend money on PR rather than disputing the science.
-
Prometheus at 06:32 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
@Philippe
You're heading us into a lot of side arguements that I'll try to avoid. I need to straight somethings out first.
"Your post is full of ideology and every bit as biased as you suggest others are."
Proving my point that this site gets adversarial really quick.
The only time I mentioned bias was in this statements:
"If it were my world, which it isn't, then all skeptics would be funded by groups without any bias."
"I believe that the government organizations have a massive bias, yet they are the source of funding for much of the climate science research"
How did these statements marit your attack? The attempt was to point out that you think bias is from corperations, and I was pointing out that it can be from government too. Bias isn't the issue. If it were a perfect world, science would be funded by organizations with no bias, but those organizations don't exist. Skeptics need to get money from somewhere, and they are not going to get it from the government.
The point of me saying that "I don't trust the government" was completely missed. Let me repeate this statment without that sentence. Maybe it'll make more sense to you:
"Do you think it would be fair for me to state “Most climate science is run by the government who are actually paid to intentionally misrepresent the science in order to support policy”? Being an intellectual, I don’t, and I do read the IPCC reports anyways and try to learn about what they are trying to say. I hold my criticism in pure objectivity and cross a number of information sources (including my in-depth knowledge of physics) to form my understanding. For me, it isn’t difficult to weed out the dishonesty using this strategy. And if I see it, the authority is gone, and I will seek other sources. This is no different with the organizations you listed above."
The point was that it isn't fair, nor is it fair for anyone to discount any skeptic funded by a company in as much as government. In fact, such argements are fallacious, because you are trying to say the research is bad by association. If you don't know about this fallacy, here is a link:https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association
If you're arguement is that the population needs to ONLY trust government funded research because government is out for the good of the population, than I totally disagree. No matter what the source of the funding is, government or private, what matters is the research, and if its good research, its funding source is irrelavent. Good research can be determined by objectivity and critical thinking.
"You're talking about NASA and NOAA as if they were shady organizations bent on deceiving the public."
I never said no such thing. Please don't take my words out of context. I do not believe they are shady organizations. I learn from them as much as I learn from other sources. In fact, I have worked for NASA, so I'm very familiar with that organization.
"Fossil fuel interests have billions of dollars of profit per quarter at stake. Who do I trust? Seriously? What a joke."
Lets have a scientific objective discussion here. Government also has interests with trillions of dollars at the mercy of public oppinion and elected officials. It doesn't matter.I want to give you something to think about with this question. This is a question purely related to science. If the federal government was to oversee ALL of the scientific research, do you think it can maintain its objectivity? In other words, instead of universities and colleges funding their own research, there is a gigantic organization under the federal government the maintains all the research. Do you think objectivity would be maintianed?
-
scaddenp at 06:30 AM on 7 March 2019Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
"far too close coupling between government and the science" Between every government or just the US? In US, government funding is channelled through NSF. Perhaps you could explain how a government is going promote nonsense through this channel? On the otherhand, we do see governments (Australia, US) trying to muzzle scientist or defund science where the dont like what it is saying - "killing the messenger". That is certainly an uncomfortable relationship if happening in any sphere of science, not just climate research.
I also dont really get the narrative climate science being a means for government oppression. Can you express this is any way that doesnt sound like a whacked-out conspiracy theory? I get that people dont like the facts, and so we naturally question the facts (scientists are really good at this). But deciding that the facts must be manufactured because they are generated by a government-funded organization?
Prev 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Next
