Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 Next
Comments 116651 to 116700:
-
RSVP at 18:03 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
There seems to be great concern here that people can be so easily swayed by "untruths". What happened to Occam's Razor?Moderator Response: In order to apply Occam's razor, competing hypotheses must be equal in all other respects... -
chris1204 at 17:18 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
Sorry, Clavius was 16th century :-). -
chris1204 at 17:17 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
15th Century monks were pretty cluey - we owe the preservation of the classical corpus to their efforts including the great philosophers of ancient times. Copernicus was a 15th century cleric as was Christopher Clavius, the Jesuit astronomer (there's a lunar crater named in his honour). A tiny bit off topic but it's nice to reflect on the cultural roots of the western scientific tradition. -
actually thoughtful at 16:57 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#14 Berényi Péter, I look to you to provide balance to the pro-AGW majority on this site. This is probably your weakest counter-argument ever. What scientist who has ever approached NSF hasn't gotten a letter like this at least once? ALL ideas are interesting. NSF must be transparent and follow their own scoring and rating rules. Many more requests for funding come in that available funds. That Pielke went back to document the NSF "agenda" says a lot more about Pielke than it does about the NSF. -
Donald Lewis at 16:44 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
"The ratio of work required to confuse as opposed to correct is vastly lopsided." LOL. I will quote you. -
Marcus at 16:43 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
Also note that the ice-age she refers to would have had to have occurred at temperatures significantly *higher* than any of the ice-ages within during the Quaternary Era. This suggests that the glacier forming processes may well have been very different from those operating in more modern times (not surprising given that the planet looked *very* different during the Cambrian to the Triassic Eras. -
Marcus at 16:40 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
There are two key things that Jo Nova is missing in these graphs-(1) that the sun was a full 10% "cooler" than by today's standards during this time & (b) that in spite of a significantly cooler Sun, minimum temperatures during this time period were never significantly cooler than average temperatures today (&, in fact, spent much of that time at several degrees warmer than the modern average). This disparity between warmer temperatures vs a cooler sun would actually seem to highlight CO2's vital role in maintaining temperatures far above the modern-day average throughout that time. What is of particular interest to me is that, from the end of the Devonian Era through the Carboniferous Era, CO2 levels fell by over 1000ppm, whilst temperatures also fell by nearly 10 degrees C. Why this is of interest is that this is the time period in which the majority of our coal & oil was being generated-& we're now burning these ancient carbon sinks to re-release this 400-300 million year old CO2 back into the atmosphere. To think this would have absolutely *no* impact on our modern climate-especially given our warmer sun-shows breathtaking naiveté in my opinion!Moderator Response: Re: Ordovician glaciation - someone mentioned this in another thread. They suggested the distribution of continental landmasses during the period enabled 'glaciation' to occur at higher average global temperatures - http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Ord.jpg
The 'glaciers' could be more accurately described as the south-polar ice cap. -
Donald Lewis at 16:38 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
*debunked by monks in the 15th century* -
Donald Lewis at 16:36 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
Actually, Batsvensson, your humor is lost on me. Anyway, I think the point of the post by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg was to bring into relief 5 standard argument tropes that are logically non-sense, yet have traction, and must be pointed out when they occur. In this case the author simply cited ample evidence to refute the arguments. The arguments refuted are vacuous, as well, in any topic. Here is my catalog of these arguments: (1) because x and y respond differently to the level of z, the level of z doesn't matter. (2) because x varies over y, a claim that x depends on z can be dismissed. (3) because x has existed in the past, when y varied, x will exist forever no matter how y varies. (4) because x happened in the past under circumstance y, it will always happen under circumstance y. (5) because we don't know x, we don't have evidence that y. Part of the modern charm of deniers of science is that they sometimes argue based on logic that would have been debunked monks in the 15th century -
Doug Bostrom at 16:36 PM on 23 June 2010How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change
I was finally overwhelmed by curiosity and clicked the link to Jo Nova's pamphlet. Jo Nova does not seem to offer a very persuasive argument about this particular topic for anybody already familiar with the subject of paleoclimate, can't really do so in the space of four very short paragraphs containing 144 words and almost no quantitative data. Unfortunately Jo Nova's rhetoric will stick like mud to anybody so unfortunate as not to have some background on the topic and getting clean again will not prove easy. Here's the really vexatious aspect to such an appealingly short, simple but completely wrong treatment: How long does it take to write 144 words conveying an easily absorbed untruth as opposed to the time required to undo the confusion propagated by those words? Further to that, if the confused and wrong version of the story is easily absorbed and the accurate version is not so easily understood, what's the possibility of repairing the damage caused by such a misleading work as Jo Nova'a? The ratio of work required to confuse as opposed to correct is vastly lopsided. David Grocott, just out of curiosity how long did it take you to research and write this rebuttal?Moderator Response: Doug - it took several days. A few months ago I researched and wrote another article on one of Jo Nova's claims for my personal blog. I concluded it as follows:
"What is clear is that it has now taken me 1,739 words, at least four peer-reviewed scientific studies, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, various blogs and websites, and several days, to tell precisely no-one (congratulations if you're still reading), why they should partially refute what Jo Nova has told 200,000 people in 7 words. Those 7 precious words being: "Paltridge found that humidity levels have fallen.""
This is of course the great problem associated with climate "skepticism", but until a law is introduced prohibiting criminal ignorance, we must persevere. -
batsvensson at 16:18 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
"The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science." Again the argument "you are to dumb to understand", an argument which any rational thinker should completly ingore as being even remotely valid. Consider the title of the post, we can also ask question like "who many religious leaders are atheists?" (And one will be surprised to learn there are a great deal of them, but most will not admit it...) -
batsvensson at 15:38 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
Just like we dont need forest planted on every square centimeter on land we dont need coral reefs on every spot in the seas either. Tress are domesticated and grows in parks and there is no universal reason why coral reefs should not be domesticated and kept under control as well. The problem is corals reefs as tourist resorts may decline in popularity if it bleaches out. But I am sure we can compensate any dead bleached stuff with cheap chines made colorful animated plastic replacements. City people wont be able to tell the difference anyway. Beside we also got some pretty good robotic fishes coming up from Japan, in case the fish population dies off at the same time, which we can add to the seas to enchant the experience for paying customers. The benefit with robotic fishes are multiple; predictable and reliable displays, good resistance to off shore oil leaks and agricultural chemicals, no stinky dead fish afloat on the beaches. Less fish in the sea will also reduce the bird populations that makes irritating sounds, scares the kids and leaves excrement’s all over the places. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:16 PM on 23 June 2010On the Question of Diminishing Arctic Ice Extent
For those sweating "ice weather" for this year, here's a handy summary of predictions from 14 persons/organizations considered expert in the field: September Sea Ice Outlook: June Report (There are actually 16 predictions but one of 'em is an extreme outlier in the "melted" direction and does not seem credible, the other is the result of a discussion among laypersons moderated by the Pacific Science Center in Seattle) -
Doug Bostrom at 14:07 PM on 23 June 2010Ocean acidification
Some places eschew the use of English in all its marvelous efficiency and prefer to use the term "reduction in how alkaline the solution is" when what is meant is "acidification." Could we please avoid having a pointless debate over semantics here w/regard to the commonly accepted term "acidification" used to denote a numerically reduced pH measurement? -
climatepatrol at 12:50 PM on 23 June 2010It's the sun
Thank you for your reply. I don't understand your reasoning on this, but I realised that I took the entire solar constant into my back of the envelope calculation. I corrected it below: Solar forcing at the beginning of the industrial area was about 1365.3 W/m2, it then increased steadily to reach about 1366.2 W/m2 in 1960. The 2000 forcing is about 1365.8, which makes it an average forcing of about 1366 W/m2 during those 40 years. The average solar forcing reaching the earth at any particular time and weather and place is 240 W/m2 according to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ . I divide the figures used in comment "*558 by 5.8. Therefore, even though we are now in a sustained solar minimum, the memory of the climate system resulting from about +0.12W/m2 solar irradiance is now 60 years old. If, according to AOGCMs, only 60% of the equilibrum response is reached after 100 years for CO2 doubling, I deduce at least the same (if not longer periods) are required for an equilibrium response to solar forcing. Assuming, it is the same, it is safe to assume that at least ...% of the current, estimated radiative imbalance of 0.85W/m2 since 1880 is due to solar forcing. Why? 0.05W response is given after 100 years and later, this leaves a minimum of 0.06W in the memory after 60 years, in 2010. This leaves 0.79 W/m2 owing to human forcings, not 0.85W/m2, as "committed" atmospheric warming resulting from human activities for the future. Since, with its logarithmic effect, we reached roughly 1.6 W/m2 forcing since the beginning of ia. Subtracting 0.79 W/m2, this leaves 0.81 W/m2 to increase temperature of the atmosphere. So with model average beeing S=3°C for 2xCO2eq (3.7W/m2), temperature increase owing to human radiative forces should be roughly +0.65°C from surface to TOA. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:18 PM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
In response to John's response to David at #79... I have to say (and keep repeating), as a non-scientist it is compelling to me that a large number of scientists working in the field believe one way. I can look at the multiple lines of evidence all day long but my capacity (even being a reasonably sharp guy) is limited in making an adequate assessment. I have to trust that the professionals who are looking at those multiple lines of evidence find it compelling. So, from the outside looking in, that is what is so interesting about this topic.Response: Yeah, sorry about my grumpy rant, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to this topic :-) -
David Horton at 11:34 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Not me John, I'm not guilty, really. But (you knew there would be a but) I do find the mindset that rejects consensus as fascinating. For a scientist, as you say, a consensus of scientists reflects a consensus of science, what else could it do? And so the greater the consensus the greater the certainty in the correctness of the science. For a denier, a consensus of scientists is just another name for conspiracy, so that the greater the consensus the stronger the evidence of conspiracy. Hence my question about whether they would believe, say Michael Mann, if he was a lone voice in 100 scientists arguing against him. or what about 50-50, would that prove the science was correct? The logic is just nonsense. As in so may areas of fundamentally settled science, for the rebels to succeed in overturning the 98%consensus, they would have to demonstrate some absolutely fundamental flaw in the core of climate science. The only things I can think of would be disproving that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, or finding a feedback mechanism that will cut in after a few years of rising CO2 and temperature and reduce both automatically. Good luck with those. It isn't to say we know everything, and there is plenty of room for rebels questioning all sorts of minor details about rates of change, and ecological responses, and the precise nature of feedbacks and forcings. But all of that is only like the old joke - we have established what you are, now we are just haggling over the price. -
damien at 10:26 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Who's the "outlier" at 650 or so publications? -
omnologos at 10:25 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Even ScienceInsider found it appropriate to demolish Anderegg et al.... (Prall's quaint words about the behaviour of journal editors suggest he hasn't met many of them 8-) ) Forget funding, forget peer-review. This is what Anderegg et al. says: "We defined [unconvinced] researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC" How can the agreement about "the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" be measured by what petitions have been signed by whom, given that petitions are necessarily policy-relevant and the IPCC is policy-neutral? And since when have scientists expressed their scientific opinions by way of petitions? How many researchers see their scientific output evaluated in terms of the petitions they get themselves involved with, and therefore spend any of their time writing and signing petitions instead of scientific articles? Also: what is the relevance for science, policy and politics of an either/or approach, dividing the world in "IPCC True Believers" and "Everybody else"? Those are the questions that should have arisen during the PNAS's peer-review process, whose abject failure is now so clear for all to see. Perhaps, just perhaps, somebody should have remembered that when two groups of people are analysed statistically and the result has a P value smaller than one hundredth of a trillionth, then it is highly likely that there is something very wrong with the test's design itself. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:22 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Yes, BP and that's why you see so many proposals having to do with chasing down seeming paradoxes by investigating such matters as tropospheric-stratospheric flux, as well as models and observations being set in direct collision with one another to see what happens. Like I said, the "easy" stuff is done. This is something that does not escape you, I suspect (though in the interest of consistency I must ask, where were you on the Lon Hocker thread, hmmm?) but I think is easily missed, trampled in the confusion of what resembles a dust-up in the stands of a soccer game while the point of the "game" is entirely missed. Leaving aside folks with massive financial considerations hinging on public policy outcomes, for researchers this is in fact not a game in the sense of operating a big business, not a political contest, not popularity poll, not primarily about score-keeping at all. To the extent that research is connected with egos, it's all about who explains the most the soonest, but egotistical aggrandizement is not the coiled spring in the heart of most scientists' gear-trains. The prime motivator of researchers is intellectual vacuum, the lack of knowledge, the inability to cogently describe. To the extent noticeable discrepancies or mysteries such as BP points out continue to exist, the more fascination this topic will exert on researchers. Unexplained and unresolved phenomena motivate researchers to rise from their beds in the morning, slog through grant applications, deal with university administrators, pay dues by sitting on review panels, sometimes are the only things that can prod an otherwise sane person into teaching yet another section of "Freshman Topic X 101" to students who see the class only as a barrier to life's progress. This sense of wonder and curiosity is so powerful that even when researchers' work inadvertently leads into the harsh public limelight, causes them to be vilified in untruthful newspaper articles, deposits mindless hate in their mailboxes, they keep on bird-dogging their fascination. I can't help but shake my head at superficial score-keeping and gamesmanship by the likes of Watts as exemplified by his silly blacklist artifice. Watts just does not get it. There's no "defeat" possible here; the more weirdly "wrong" climate research results appear in juxtaposition with predictions the more intensely devoted will researchers be to sorting out why. Coming back to BP's remarks, we don't see fundamental work on "C02 saturation" being funded because it's no longer mysterious, no longer poses any significant conundrums, is not interesting and so will certainly be invisible in the funding record. "Saturation" behaves as expected, is passe, boring, a brick many layers down in the wall, done. On the other hand, if it appears to pose a real mystery, the subject of the article BP cites will be pounced upon by hungry researchers who will first try to tear it apart and if unable to do so will then happily turn to beavering away at whatever legitimate questions it poses. Nobody will walk off the field in defeat because it's not that kind of game. By the way, BP, I would not call that article by Wu and Liu "fundamental" research. It attempts to refine application of fundamentals but it upsets no applecarts. -
The Walrus at 10:11 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
David Horton: Amen, Brother. I've never seen a denier explain why billions upon billions of tons of CO2 above the baseline *wouldn't* affect climate change. GeoGuy's arguments look like an attempt to muddy the waters. These folk act as if the theory of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is in dispute. There is little attempt to falsify the theory; much more effort to confuse the average reader. -
Berényi Péter at 10:03 AM on 23 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
#226 Albatross at 06:10 AM on 23 June, 2010 am I correct in concluding that you believe/understand AGW to be (for want of a more appropriate word) "fraud"? I do not know. I am trying to figure it out for myself. In one thing you can be sure. I'll never believe a word based solely on the fact it appeared in a peer reviewed paper until I understand it properly and I think you'd better do the same. I've already seen quite some phony arguments here, on both "sides". I really need to know exactly where you stand on AGW in order to appropriately place your posts in context. That one you'll never get. This game with two camps and a noble cause is a rather silly one. What about truth? Many people here upon hearing a buzzword they reckon belongs to the other side get blind and don't even try to understand what's being said. One particular problem may be the English language lacks a genuine root for the concept "understand". People tend to underestimate the importance of a concept if it is not given at an early age as a primitive. Hungarian "ért" is a single sharp, well defined concept. It can be translated as understand, see, savvy, get, dig, catch on, etc. depending on context. With derivatives it gets even more interesting. Érthető is understandable, plain, luminous, lucid, intelligible, emphatic, comprehensible, clear, broad, articulate while értelem is understanding, signification, significance, senses, sense, reason, purport, mind, meaning, intelligence, intellect, import, headpiece, effect, comprehension or apprehension. But in fact it does not mean all these things, hardly any of them. It's a single coherent act. That's what I am looking for. -
David Horton at 09:54 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Reading a thread like this induces in me a profound sense of depression, I don't what it must be doing to John Cook's sense of well being. The logic, if I am understanding the arguments from the usual suspects is that having 98% (who are the other 2%, that is bizarre?) of the scientists who work in the field of climate change in agreement on the fundamental thrust of the research is a bad thing, a cause for suspicion, and it would be better if only 2% of scientists accepted AGW because then the deniers would believe in it wholeheartedly. Or have I missed something?Response: I'll give you my gripe about this discussion thread - that the subject of scientific consensus provokes so much interest and discussion compared to the subject of scientific evidence. This applies to both sides of the debate - frankly, you're all guilty! :-)
Personally, I'm persuaded by the consensus of evidence much more than the consensus of scientists. Eg - that there are multiple lines of empirical evidence all pointing at the same answer - that humans are causing global warming. And this is where I try to keep the emphasis on this website.
But the "there is no consensus" argument is so popular, occasionally it needs to be put into its proper perspective - that the vast majority of the people who matter, climate experts, are convinced by the evidence. The reason is simple - the consensus of scientists is due to the consensus of evidence.
Anyway, I'll be returning back to a discussion of scientific evidence in the next post, thank goodness! -
The Walrus at 09:49 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
I seee here many examples of how the deniers don't understand what science is, or what logic is, or what a logical fallacy is. One member suggested "publication bias" "favoring conventional wisdom." This commenter didn't suggest any method of controlling for that--he just suggested it's a reason not to trust the study. This commenter didn't explain why "publication bias" hasn't kept us in the dark ages; why science has done so well in spite of its mortal weakness of "publication bias." Another commenter didn't even try to address any of the facts of the article, but instead said Lord Monckton is right, that's that, end of discussion. And on and on and on. It disturbs me that so many people think they know what they're talking about, when it's so easy to show that they don't. -
Marcus at 09:41 AM on 23 June 2010Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?
Sorry moderator, but I just can't let John D's latest comments go by without a response. You seriously don't get it-do you John? Nobody here has claimed that-under ideal conditions-CO2 *can't* be a plant food. What they've claimed is that its not that simple because (a) global warming won't provide for ideal conditions & (b) that it is nitrogen, water & trace elements that are more limiting factors on plant growth than CO2 abundance. For all your talk, you've not managed to answer several key questions which are: (a) under ideal conditions, can increased CO2 levels enhance plant biomass for the long-term, given acclimation? (b) even ignoring acclimation, can increased CO2 levels enhance plant biomass given a warmer & drier environment? (c) will increased vegetative biomass, from increased CO2 levels, automatically translate into significantly greater seed yields? (d) does increased quantity of edible biomass automatically translate into increased *quality* of edible biomass. (e) will increased CO2 levels impose any additional costs on farmers? (very important given the slim margins on which most farmers operate). Based on the evidence provided by the *one* FACE trial you've linked to, I'd say the answer is that, (a) though increased CO2 can provide short-term increases in total biomass (under ideal conditions) acclimation might eventually erode those benefits; (b) that though there was a significant increase in total plant biomass, this wasn't translating into significant increases in seed yield for most varieties & (c) that seed quality (in terms of protein content) was decreased, but total nitrogen demand from the plant was increased. As someone who actually deals with farmers on a regular basis, if you were to try & promote that to farmers as a *benefit* from increasing CO2 emissions, they'd probably laugh in your face-rightly pointing out that ideal conditions are already hard to come by, that seed yield & seed quality are all that's ultimately important, & that they would be ill-equipped to afford the significant increase in fertilizer costs that this enriched CO2 environment would demand. -
How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy ... why should we allow scientists to be involved in a process that provides a level of quality or acceptance on something they themselves were involved in producing? Let's say you had a medical problem and different doctors made conflicting diagnoses. Which one would you trust more: the doctor that was directly involved in your medical testing and has experience with your specific problem, or one that gave you a diagnosis over the phone and works in a completely different field of medicine? If we reject the consensus of experts then what's the point of having experts in the first place? -
michael sweet at 09:11 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
What Doug Bostrom said at 70 times 2!! Good summary of the argument. -
Chemware at 09:11 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
There is way to much emphasis by climate change deniers on funding bodies and their alleged bias. They clearly do not know how science is done. Most academics have reasonably stable jobs doing a mix of teaching and research, and get a good supply of graduate students, who do most of the actual "work". Most of those graduate students are funded by their university or government - not by research grants - and their scholarships are generally based on their undergraduate performance and nothing else. It does not matter whether the academic or student is pro- or anti- AGW or any other theory. (Aside: those grad students generally want to make a name for themselves - and prove that their professor really is an idiot deep down - and so the good ones do their best to challenge accepted ideas - been there, done that, on both sides of the fence). In reality, funding is needed to purchase complex equipment, or do field trips to remote locations, or go to conferences. Nothing else. So if indeed there was a global conspiracy to deny funds to all climate change skeptics, it would cramp their research somewhat - but not stop it. Einstein didn't apply for any grants to do his work on Relativity. Neither did Heisenberg, or Bohr. Fermi did - to build the world's first nuclear reactor. Funding does help - but being a good scientist helps far more. So if AGW was a crock, and there was a global conspiracy, there would still be thousands of papers tearing it to shreds anyway, from really pissed off academics and lean, mean and hungry grad students. There isn't. -
Albatross at 09:06 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
This is from the paper's abstract: "(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." I concur with Anderegg et al., those skeptical of ACC (to use their abbreviation, anthropogenic climate change) have, for the most part, little expert credibility when it comes to climate science. That fact has dogged the "skeptics" from day one, and one of the reasons they had to generate several "petitions". Problem is, hardly any reputable climate scientists signed their petitions, and a petition is not as credible or subjected to rigorous vetting and critique (both prior to and after publication) as papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. All this bluster from the "skeptics" is not going to further their cause and only further undermines what little credibility they have left...it will get the faithful "skeptics" all riled up though, and perhaps that is the point. That or the belief held by some that the best form of defense is offense. -
How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy > To say some 30,000 scientists were beguiled by some fraudulent paper and hence they all signed the petition because they all believed the same fraudulent paper is the same as 30,000 lemmings following 1 lemming over a cliff in my book. Again, you should read the post before you attempt to criticize it. Nowhere does it say anything even remotely close to what you are describing - i.e., that the were being "beguiled" by a fraudulent paper. The main argument being made is summarized at the top of the post if you don't feel like reading: "The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science." The same point is also brought up by robhon in his comment here. -
Albatross at 08:55 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Doug @70, great post. IMHO, you just hit the nail on the head (well, several times it seems). It is depressing how effective the tactics used by the "skeptics" are. I guess they had ample opportunity to perfect them during the tobacco and CFC "wars". I didn't see this spin about an imaginary list coming....the "skeptics" are very creative and can keep up this take for decades. Roy Spencer has entered the fray and (on his blog) is making similar accusations as those made by Pielke Jnr. And very hypocritical of Pielke Jnr to cry foul over funding when he has in fact received NSF funds to do research. -
KR at 08:51 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
In regards to argumentive tactics - creating doubt, questioning expertise, nitpicking a small point and saying that invalidates a large body of evidence, and calling consensus into question, especially those from Luntz - you might want to take a look at "Thank You For Smoking", either the book or the movie. This is a very funny and illuminating look at the diversionary tactics taken by an industry hellbent on protecting itself from science. I have a personal connection with this - my brother had that job for years, of apologist/denier, for a major US tobacco firm. He gave me a copy of the book shortly after he started - he was very amused that Buckley had nailed it so cleanly. 'Tho he did get a bit tired of the "how much does a soul go for" questions at family gatherings... -
Doug Bostrom at 08:38 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Sigh. Geo Guy: ...there is a blatant bias to the result of the survey when 50% of the participants were in fact involved in the matter on which the survey was made. I really fail to understand your difficulty in grasping this concept. The concept I grasp is that the participants know what they're talking about, they're the people who come closest to understanding the topic, everybody else understands less. It's axiomatic. ...why should we allow scientists to be involved in a process that provides a level of quality or acceptance on something they themselves were involved in producing? Because they know what they're talking about and selecting people who don't know as much about the topic necessarily means inferior judgment? But let's back up for moment. This is a truly ridiculous discussion, a synthetically created argument, a dance choreographed by artistes having zero interest in scientific research. Our partners are bereft of useful arguments about actual scientific results, so we instead are locked in a conversational embrace about a process having nothing to do with the pursuit of climate research. We somehow find ourselves earnestly talking about whether scientists are qualified to talk about science, in particular whether experts should have a voice in their own field. How very absurd. The reason we're unwillingly enrolled as clowns in this theater of the bizarre, why we're seeing papers of the sort brought up in this post is in part because people who have no useful scientific arguments turn to impressionism, they resort to such concoctions as "there is no consensus." This tactic was suggested w/regard to climate research by a political consultant called Luntz (look it up) having originally been used in earlier "controversies" such as tobacco-related illnesses, chlorofluorocarbon impacts on the ozone layer and the like. Kabuki-style quibbling about whether scientists will disagree with the collective published research record is the work product of public relations experts and has no utility in the advancement of human understanding of our natural world. On a parenthetical note, it's ironically amusing that even as Roger Pielke Jr. is whining about politics infecting science, he's a funded expert on this sort of degenerate meta-discussion. He's obtained money from the NSF for researching such important matters as this: Understanding symbols in political discourse is important because symbols shape how policy problems and options are framed. This project focuses on understanding the origins, evolution, and dynamics of the concept of "basic research" in science policy discourse. Perhaps he's becoming a case of selection bias. -
Berényi Péter at 08:28 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#61 doug_bostrom at 07:23 AM on 23 June, 2010 The really foundational physics behind "ACC" were largely explored prior to the inception of NSF That is not the case. Different estimates of entropy production in the climate system has quite a range. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the production of entropy: life, Earth, and beyond. Kleidon, A. and Lorenz, R. D. (eds.) © 2004 Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. ISBN: 3-540-22495-5 REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 48, RG2003, 27 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2008RG000275 Radiation entropy flux and entropy production of the Earth system Wei Wu & Yangang Liu The former gives an estimated entropy production rate of 900 mW m-2 K-1, while the latter one settles on 1279±7 mW m-2 K-1 It is a 30% error margin. It does not sound like an area largely explored prior to anything. I wonder how computational climate models can do any useful work in describing the behavior of an intricate heat engine while one of the most basic state variables is essentially unknown. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:24 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy... I guess what has always bothered me about the Oregon Petition is that it casts a very wide and ambiguous net. So, 30,000 have signed it. That relates to what denominator? A million "scientists?" Ten million? who could potentially sign the petition? The 30,000 is a tiny tiny fraction of the broader scientific community as defined by the petition itself. But the way it's structured we have no idea. A numerator on its own tells us very little. At least the Anderegg study above makes the attempt to give us both a denominator and a numerator. -
KR at 08:23 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Berényi - a quick scan on the NSF search engine you pointed out using the term "radiative" found 10 funding opportunities, 5 or 6 of which (depending on how you read the summaries) are directly tied to climate change. These include "Water Cycle Research" involving latent heat transport versus radiative, "Synthesis of Arctic System Science" for studies of the Arctic, "Paleo Perspectives on Climate Change", "Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction using Earth System Models", and so on. Lots of funding opportunities. "Atmosphere thermal" gave five categories. Searching on "Climate" gave 101 funding opportunities, just within NSF. I'm certain you could submit radiative research to NSF, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (which funded the Trenberth 2009 paper, on very similar topics), or some other agency. And if it was a decent proposal, it would have a competitive chance of acceptance. -
Phila at 08:15 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
"We don't allow students to mark their own papers so why should we allow scientists to be involved in a process that provides a level of quality or acceptance on something they themselves were involved in producing?" Doing so is only a problem if you assume that international, interdisciplinary, multi-decade collusion is not only possible, but likely. Most of us, I think, are not prepared to do that without at least as much evidence as "skeptics" demand for AGW. Absent that evidence, you're basically just engaging in the fallacy of circumstantial ad hominem. Which is really a waste of time for all concerned, IMO. -
RickG at 08:14 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Roy Latham, It's not difficult to count the names of at least 300 qualified published climate scientists who are skeptics. Since climate science is a very narrow specialty, that enough to prove there is no consensus. Because the climate models are clearly not working, and the only basis of crisis theory is the models, if there is a consensus, then there shouldn't be. Validation of a scientific theory comes from observation of valid predictions, not a poll. Did you read the PNAS paper? It's not a poll. -
Phila at 08:01 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
The thing that always strikes me about the "funding bias" line of attack is that people who believe it tend to present it as self-evident...even as they subject every aspect of the consensus view on AGW to every sort of abstruse nitpicking. There's not enough evidence in the world to justify a belief in AGW, it seems. But hearsay and presumption are more than good enough to support accusations of groupthink, funding bias, conspiracy, etc. It's been said before, but this double standard is not what one would expect from real skeptics. -
Geo Guy at 07:51 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
e - # 60 While it didn't say that it certainly implied that. To say some 30,000 scientists were beguiled by some fraudulent paper and hence they all signed the petition because they all believed the same fraudulent paper is the same as 30,000 lemmings following 1 lemming over a cliff in my book. With regards to my mention of inaccuracies was to emphasis the fact the petition was rejected because of inaccuracies yet many reports and publications supporting AGW are equally misleading but are not being rejected because of that. Doug_b # 63 It is a simple. Given that there appears to be tens of thousands of climate scientists it should be rather easy to find those that have not been involved in the IPCC work to assess it and then provide a yea or nay. Allowing those who were involved with the IPCC work to subsequently provide a yea is like having those same scientists be a reviewer of their own work. "One of the very positive features of the IPCC synthesis work process is that it draws explicitly from the talents and direct efforts of the most productive and up-to-date researchers, meaning that the idealized survey you envision would automatically be substantially at variance with the state of the science. Inconvenient truth-- those words were chosen carefully and work in a lot of contexts." Sorry I disagree - there is a blatant bias to the result of the survey when 50% of the participants were in fact involved in the matter on which the survey was made. I really fail to understand your difficulty in grasping this concept. We don't allow students to mark their own papers so why should we allow scientists to be involved in a process that provides a level of quality or acceptance on something they themselves were involved in producing? Just makes no sense!!! -
Roy Latham at 07:41 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Asking if human activity is a "significant" contributor to global warming is the wrong question. As far as I know, virtually everyone, skeptics included, agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it can be expected to produce 0.75 degree of global warming. That's significant, so sure. The correct question would be something along the lines of "Is human produced CO2 the cause of a global warming climate crisis?" Even more interesting would be "Are climate models an accurate predictor of climate?" Since measurements are running below two-sigma of the predictions, that would tell how many climate scientists are paying attention. It's not difficult to count the names of at least 300 qualified published climate scientists who are skeptics. Since climate science is a very narrow specialty, that enough to prove there is no consensus. Because the climate models are clearly not working, and the only basis of crisis theory is the models, if there is a consensus, then there shouldn't be. Validation of a scientific theory comes from observation of valid predictions, not a poll. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:23 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
BP it's fun rummaging through that database. I don't think facilities substantially devoted to synoptic weather forecasting, engineering models are really very controversial. Do you? You'll notice big expenses wherever hardware is involved, for instance where actual physical experimentation is being undertaken. Models and experiments both cost a lot of money, thinking less so. W/regard to your earlier remarks, there are actually quite a few arguably fundamental projects on radiation, thermodynamics and the like, fundamental in the sense of being theoretically oriented and offering opportunities for experimental investigation. Nobody's going to get funding to reproduce the stuff that was done and accepted decades ago; I suspect that as one digs further back, the more fundamental the research. The really foundational physics behind "ACC" were largely explored prior to the inception of NSF, which is why in their database one sees a lot of more detailed investigation of troposphere-stratosphere flux, validation of models via occultation, etc. Snapple: pseudoscientific ideologies that masqueraded as "science" WUWT in a nutshell, for sure. Geo Guy: By all means do use research from climatologists, but keep them independent of those who contributed in some fashion to the IPCC reports. How exactly would that work? The work product directly related to climate and flowing into IPCC comes from climatologists some of whom actually participate directly with the IPCC synthesis process and some who don't. One of the very positive features of the IPCC synthesis work process is that it draws explicitly from the talents and direct efforts of the most productive and up-to-date researchers, meaning that the idealized survey you envision would automatically be substantially at variance with the state of the science. Inconvenient truth-- those words were chosen carefully and work in a lot of contexts. -
snapple at 06:57 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Doug B writes: "Checking in at WUWT, I see the Anderegg paper is being celebrated, with Anderegg et al likened somewhat paradoxically to both Nazis as well as Communists." National Socialism and "scientific" Marxism-Leninism aren't so different. Both were pseudoscientific ideologies that masqueraded as "science"... -
How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Geo Guy >... to state that those scientists who did sign the OIM petition were essentially all lemmings is equally unconvincing. Except nobody said that. Read the post before trying to comment on it. >Finally to say there hasn't been any misleading and inaccurate reports supporting AGW is equally misleading. Nobody said that either. Inaccuracies exist in all scientific disciplines, they will always exist, who here is claiming otherwise? You're arguing against strawmen. -
Berényi Péter at 06:39 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
#38 doug_bostrom at 03:53 AM on 23 June, 2010 how about some data? [...] Pielke-gripe awarded cohort Wow. That's four hundred million bucks (Awarded Amount to Date $393,767,453). Top six are- $172,942,477 (0856145) Management and Operation of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
- $64,449,492 (0711134) A National Institute for Computational Sciences to provide leading-edge computational support for breakthrough science and engineering research
- $15,031,990 (0425247) Center for Multi-Scale Modeling of Atmospheric Processes (MMAP)
- $13,669,386 (0735156) UNAVCO Community and Facility Support: Geodesy Advancing Earth Science Research
- $7,385,125 (0434946) UCAR Educational Outreach Program and Other UCAR Activities
- $6,407,036 (0410014) Joint Office for Science Support (JOSS)
-
Geo Guy at 06:38 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
robhon # 53 Conflicts of interest have to be managed. For instance a scientist might be asked to review or support an article that reports results that could refute a hypothesis that he has defended for over twenty years. Similarly he might be asked to support a petition that is being used to further support work he did on a paper or published report. In either case there is a clear conflict of interest involved with the actions. issue is not their experience but rather the underlying supposedly independent support they are giving themselves to the work they carried out. -
kdkd at 06:31 AM on 23 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP, #224 That's a great example of a suspect analysis combined with small picture thinking. It is also not relevant to the other matter raised in this thread, which was about philosophical issues. Your reply appears to be an attempt to mislead by misdirection. -
Albatross at 06:17 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Moderator, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think Pielke Jnr's proposal relevant to the story at hand? What is perhaps relevant is Pielke et al. trying to make it sound like there is some nefarious "black list" when there is in fact none. Going off on tangents about Pielke is seemingly an attempt to detract from the incredibly inconvenient findings (for those in denial of AGW or those skeptical of AGW) of this study. -
Geo Guy at 06:16 AM on 23 June 2010How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
Ian # 49 - Your phrase "denier" says it all. I could use the same arguments to discredit those who have signed petitions and letters supporting AGW but that serves no purpose. Also to state that those scientists who did sign the OIM petition were essentially all lemmings is equally unconvincing. Finally to say there hasn't been any misleading and inaccurate reports supporting AGW is equally misleading. It seems that when some people want to discredit the opposing view on the basis of certain parameters, they feel they can, however when those same parameters are used to support their view, all of a sudden they are acceptable. As the saying goes, you cannot have your cake and eat it to!! :) -
Albatross at 06:10 AM on 23 June 2010How climate skeptics mislead
BP, am I correct in concluding that you believe/understand AGW to be (for want of a more appropriate word) "fraud"? I really need to know exactly where you stand on AGW in order to appropriately place your posts in context. If you have stated so elsewhere, then please direct us there. Thanks. There is a fundamental flaw in your argument/s. You are clearly extremely critical of the scientific method, yet you seem to fail to recognize that some of the more credible AGW "skeptics" use the very same scientific method and scientific philosophy in their research. Intriguing then that you seem to have no issue with their science, and in fact cite their "science" to try and undermine the credibility of legitimacy of research which demonstrates that AGW is either real or a concern. Therefore, by your logic the science used by skeptics should also be dismissed. I agree, but I suspect for different reasons.
Prev 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 Next
