Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
Comments 122101 to 122150:
-
Jeff Freymueller at 16:34 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
#71 RSVP: 'The term "Global Warming" connotes continuous warming.' I have seen you posting on numerous threads here, so I assume you have read the main postings and a number of the comments. Given that, I have to say that I really can't imagine that anyone who has read much about climate would consider your statement to be a serious starting point for a discussion, or anything other than a strawman. "Continuous warming" in what way? Clearly, we still have a day-night cycle, so continuous can't mean continuous on that timescale. We still have seasons, too. And you really can't miss all the talk about year to year variation in climate due to El Niño/La Niña cycles, Arctic Oscillation, Pacfic Decadal Oscillation, etc, so even if you don't know what all those things are you really can't miss the fact that they are related to variations in climate on a timescale of years to a decade or two. I really can't imagine that anyone who has even a bit of knowledge (as you should) can seriously think that global warming means all parts of the globe are continuously getting warmer every year. Now if you mean continuous warming on a century-average timescale, maybe that statement might be correct, but I don't think that's the way people are thinking about it, or how you meant it. So tell me: what did you mean if you were not just setting up a strawman to knock down or justify doubt? -
HumanityRules at 16:32 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
72.SLRTX at 16:03 PM on 18 March, 2010 You could if you wished continue to extend that list of motivations..... and prove my point. Some might be motivated by intellectual integrity. (I'm mainly motivated by jelly snakes but lets not go there) -
Donald Lewis at 16:15 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Sic! "The Southern Oscillation Index shows no long term trend while the temperature record shows a long-term warming trend. Consequently, McLean et al found only a weak correlation between temperature and SOI. Next, they applied another filter to the data by subtracting the 12 month running average from the same average 1 year later..." So they showed SOI does not explain warming trend! Sweet! -
Steven Sullivan at 16:08 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
A trivial (and common) mistake: you wrote "according to one of it's authors". It should be "according to one of its authors".Response: Funnily enough, that same typo has existed on the El Nino page since July 2009. But you lot are in eagle-eyed nitpick mode now so no grammatical stone is left unturned. -
jyyh at 16:04 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
This would have gone past my radar in peer-review, indicating I'm not an expert on climatology... I so much like to see good correlation with as little variables as possible, it's easy to forget that exluding one variable may result in closer correlation in some instances (here done with the exclusion of the long term trends.) -
Donald Lewis at 16:04 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Wonderful, thanks! -
SLRTX at 16:03 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
HR (#68) "DENIERS ARE NOT ONE SINGLE GROUP." Agreed. There isn't an organized movement called the denialist group, or denialist organization. But, there are people who view the world in a particular irrational way that can be called denial. Ok. We don't have to call it "denialism". Instead, we can call it "motivated reasoning", or "cognitive dissonance". The meaning's the same. The point is, there are people out there that just can't accept anything that is outside their zone of comfort. And also there are people out there who use this "condition" to gain political advantage. -
Albatross at 16:01 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Swanson et al. (2009, PNAS) have examined the role of natural climate variability in the 20th century warming, from their abstract: "Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the component of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attributable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal, which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century." ENSO and other internal climate modes are oscillations on an underlying long-term warming trend, especially post 1950. Internal climate modes can and do of course play a role in modulating global air temperatures, and can either enhance (e.g., El Nino) or mute (e.g., La Nina) the underlying warming trend in global air temperatures (GAT), they are, however, not driving the warming. A super El Nino has been estimated to increase global temperatures by about 0.2 C (NASA). If what McLean et al. proposed were true, why then was 1983 not the warmest year in the 20th century, or why were global air temperatures in 1983 (GISS GAT +0.26C) not at least comparable to those in 1998 (GISS GAT anomaly +0.56); the 1982-1983 event was estimated to be the strongest of the 20th century (MEI >3). And why is 2010 probably going to be the warmest year in at least 130 years, even though the current El Nino is moderate, and we are just emerging from a unusually long and deep minimum in the solar cycle? According to the near real-time AMSU data (UAH), it looks like March 2010 is going to be the warmest in the satellite record, on the heels of the warmest November (2009) and the warmest January (2010). -
RSVP at 15:54 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The term "Global Warming" connotes continuous warming. What exactly are deniers denying? I personally believe human activity has contributed to a warmER planet, and without going into details, I do not believe the warming is continuous. The term "Global Warming" gives me only two choices, but neither choice is correct. -
HumanityRules at 15:21 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
#69 Agreed. -
gallopingcamel at 15:16 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The paper at the head of this thread (Diethelm & McKee, 2009) is not up to the standard I have come to expect on this blog. It is creating more heat than light. John Cook, please give us something more worthy of discussion. -
HumanityRules at 15:15 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
There is one huge false premise around this argument which seems to completely undermine this sort of argument and John alluded to it. DENIERS ARE NOT ONE SINGLE GROUP. They don’t think with a single mind. They approach the subject from all angles many from the positions of an expert in their field. Focusing on the right wing lobbyist, which seems to be the group described by this article, is insufficient. -
thefrogstar at 15:06 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Could someone explain a bit more how the white noise is generated (amplitude? frequency?). I don't have access to the full papers at the moment and I'm not sure if it is shown in the diagrams above. Also, why do they add a sine-wave to it? -
yocta at 14:15 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Great post! Small point: You have Foster et al 2009 referenced at the start of the post and then Foster et al 2010 at the end referencing the same hyperlinkResponse: Fixed. It's great having you guys all proof-reading my text for me :-) Of course, it would be even greater if I didn't make these obvious typos in the first place :-( In my defence, I was up late last night reading Foster20092010. -
SLRTX at 14:15 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Another general comment I'll just throw out there... The fact that this paper by McLean et. al. was published in a peer-reviewed journal proves: 1. There is no conspiracy to keep "skeptics" from publishing. Either that, or the conspiracy is full of holes. 2. The peer-review process is not perfect. No one ever said it was. It's a collective process that, over time, will weed out the papers that don't hold up to scrutiny (read the response in Foster, et. al.). So, true rational skeptics understand that getting to the truth is a process. Irrational skeptics have no process that they can describe. Science is, by it's very nature, skeptical, but rationally skeptical: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html -
David Horton at 14:09 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
"I do not like the use of the word "denialist". It is insulting (since it compares skeptics to Holocaust deniers)", Ah, TrueNorth, where did you get that thought from I wonder? Isn't it curious that all over the internet this phrase suddenly began appearing. I'm guessing it can probably be chased back to one starting point, or a group of similar starting points, and then off it goes with a life of its own. The purpose, of course, is to try to get us very polite AGWs to think, "Oh my goodness, we weren't doing THAT were we, how impolite, I suppose we better start calling them skeptics again". Nothing doing Mr North. As you know, the term "denier" or "denialist" apples equally well to Holocaust and climate change (and to evolution, tobacco, CFCs), nothing to do with the subject matter, everything to do with the approach. And that approach (eg for the Holocaust) consists of simply denying mountains of evidence, expert witnesses, documents, survivors, remains of camps and equipment, Nuremberg Trials, photographs, movies, chemical developments, and so on. No one could deny the evidence unless they had a strong ideological motive for doing so, and in this case they simply deny deny deny every piece of evidence individually (no matter how well these pieces mutually support each other) and come up with wildly implausible alternative explanations. Nothing can, or ever will, change this pattern of behaviour, because of the strong beliefs that underpin it. That is also precisely the case with climate change denial. So, no, you don't get to tell us what we can call you. -
mothincarnate at 14:07 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
You made a spelling mistake in the paragraph following figure 2, second sentence. Otherwise a very interesting piece. Thanks for posting it! -
angliss at 13:57 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Yet another example of why scientists desperately need to run synthetic data through their tests BEFORE they publish - having someone else do it for you makes you look incompetent at best. (My first exposure to this axiom was the Santer et al 2008 response to Douglass et al 2007) -
Marcus at 13:57 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Here's another point. We know there is at least *some* correlation between ENSO & Warming (however small), but in what direction does the correlation work? i.e. its just as possible that warming is *causing* more El Nino events as it is that El Nino is leading to increased warming. Strange, though, how the authors immediately took the latter meaning of the correlation. -
Marcus at 13:54 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Good point SLRTX. That's a question I often asked-namely "even if McLean et al are correct-& everyone else is *wrong*-how come the El Nino Events of the last 50-60 years are suddenly causing a long-term warming trend, but apparently were incapable of causing warming in the more than 300 years prior to this that El Nino's have been known to exist?" -
angliss at 13:49 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Typo right below figure 2: "This result contradicts virtually every other study into the connection between ENSO and temperature variability, particularly with regard to long-term warming trends."Response: Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunate misspelling :-( -
John Bruno at 13:47 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
Amazing. A scientist caught manipulating data to achieve a pre-determined result. Lets wait to see if the denial-o-spehere goes wild with outrage. I somehow doubt it. The conclusions Bob Carter drew from this work,even if it were not flawed, are nuts. I also wonder if he will now retract his opposition to carbon trading schemes... -
SLRTX at 13:36 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
The problem with McLean's "proof" is that El Ninos have been around for a long, long time (pre 1850). And was there the same level of warming then? Nope. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q4 http://www.atmos.washington.edu/gcg/RTN/rtnt.html There's strong evidence for historical ENSOs going way back in time. So what's suddenly so different now to think the ENSO is somehow driving the current global climate warming trend? What changed? Did McLean offer a reason? Nope. A great explanation for ENSO and climate is at Gavin Schmidt's RealClimate page: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/ -
David Horton at 13:25 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
I thought it was always obvious that if you removed the long term trend from the variability you would be left with the variability and that McLean et al had not hidden this procedure (which always made me wonder why on earth the paper was promoted as a disproving of global warming from GHG). But the details added here are useful. That division of the two graphs in figure 4 is becoming something of a standard in anti-GHW efforts isn't it? -
rmp at 13:24 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
I'm not a climatologist. I'm a lowly engineer. But anyone that now anything about control theory knows that a derivative is noise amplifier. If you're wrestling with getting control of a process, the FIRST thing you do is kill the derivative. -
D Kelly O at 13:18 PM on 18 March 2010A peer-reviewed response to McLean's El Nino paper
John Thanks for this post. Bob Tisdale at Climate Observations has a number of posts on ENSO. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Bob's work.Response: Thanks Kelly, like I didn't have enough on my to-do list :-) -
SLRTX at 12:34 PM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, Re: My post #63 Yes. We all fall into denialism from time to time. That's why the peer-review process is so great. It's a collective judgement call that a claim that someone is making is based on facts, and not personal bias, or denialism. Any rational scientist knows that if they fall into the denialism trap, they'll loose credibility. Now, let's look at it from the other side... Denialists and their related blog posts, like WUWT, have what process? Nothing that they can describe. At least the scientist (esp. climate scientist) can point to their process, which is peer review. One is a rational way to mitigate the bias and denialism, the other encourages bias and denialism. I'm sure you know about this, but here's a good video on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU (A related link is in my comment #2 in this thread.) BTW - I'm glad to see you have a post focusing on the subject of denialism vs. skepticism. Everyone can argue AGW/ACC all they want, but obvious logical fallacies are harder to defend, even for a denialist (unless they are just wacko cranks). ;-) -
shawnhet at 12:26 PM on 18 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
Ok, I'll give it a shot. Let's say that we could in theory(using physics and chemistry) calculate how each *individual* raindrop formed in the atmosphere. Such a calculation could never be performed for the entire atmosphere. So the folks who build models make guesses as to how raindrops form in much larger areas and come up with some sort of expressions to codify those guesses. These sorts of expressions are then subbed into the larger climate model to supposedly mimic the behavior of the actual climate. This is why there are many climate models, individual modellers make different guesses as to which expressions are the best approximations of the real world on the scale they are working with. If there were no differences in these parameters, each model would have identical outputs. How this applies to the theory is that changes in parameterizations will/must lead to changes in predictions of the behavior of the climate. Cheers, :) -
Alexandre at 11:59 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
It's alledgedly based on a book by Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", but I wasn't able to verify it. Anyway, it looks pretty much like a description of a climate denier to me! -
Alexandre at 11:56 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The Portuguese version of the Wikipedia lists an interesting list describing a "pseudo-skeptic" (under "Skepticism"): - the tendency of denying, instead of doubting. - the use of rigor standards above reasonable to assess the object of one's criticisms. - Making judgments without complete and conclusive investigation. - Tendency to discredit, instead of investigating. - Use of ridicule or personal attacks. - Presentation of insufficient evidence. - The attempt of desqualifying new ideas calling their promoters as 'pseudo-scientists'. - To assume that their criticisms don't have the burden of proof, and that their arguments don't have to be supported by evidence. - The presentation of counter-proof merely based on plausibility, instead of empirical evidence. - The suggestion that insufficient evidence is enough to prove that the theory is falsified. - The tendency of discrediting every presented evidence that counters their own beliefs. -
SLRTX at 11:15 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
True North (#62) - Rational skeptics should not be worried about the label "denialist". It's only the denialist who keeps insisting on being a skeptic, when clearly they are not. Here're a couple of links (one is to my site) that describes the difference between skeptics and denialists. http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html http://www.slrtx.com/blog/rational-skepticism-and-denialism/ And, just to show you this isn't just a climate change phenomenon, here's a great article from the NY Times about another group of denialists: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1 Denialism exists. It is real. Denialists are not true RATIONAL skeptics. This is completely in-line with John's post here.Response: That NY Times article is fascinating, particularly the study of the political partisan brain scans:When we contemplate contradictions in the rhetoric of the opposition party’s candidate, the rational centers of our brains are active, but contradictions from our own party’s candidate set off a different reaction: the emotional centers light up and levels of feel-good dopamine surge.
I especially note that this applies to both sides of the political fence. It's a universal human reaction, not restricted to one side. We all would do well to remember that and endeavour to apply skepticism to arguments whether they support or contradict our currently held beliefs. Hard, I know, it's defying human nature to do so. -
TrueNorth at 10:59 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I like the idea of this blog, but I do not like the use of the word "denialist". It is insulting (since it compares skeptics to Holocaust deniers) and it is misleading because it is applied to people with widely varying educational levels and opinions. Obviously, there are some people on the skeptical side who are naive or ignorant but there are also people on the other side who believe that global warming causes earthquakes or any of the other tabloid-style claims that are made to enhance the urgency of the argument. The truth is somewhere in the middle. So why be insulting? Can it not just be agreed that Prof. Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson and others who question the most dire global warming scenarios are sincere scientists who just honestly disagree with the current consensus? They may be wrong, but you have a better chance of convincing me that they are if you stick to science and avoid the "denialist" stuff. -
David Horton at 10:52 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
One of the curious things about "scientific denialism" (yes, an oxymoron, I know, but bear with me) is that there seems to be a disproportionate number of geologists who indulge in it. I have puzzled over this, some of my best friends being geologists, and not stupid people, and suspect there are two factors involved. The obvious one is that, unusually among the sciences, geology has an inbuilt strong link to people who dig things up and turn them into untold wealth for members of the Forbes Rich list. Other sciences can have potential for links to commercial activity (eg genetics), but only geology I think has the possibility of wealth from toil built into every geologist's pick or bore hole. So the proposition that some of this stuff, found by great exertion by geologists trudging, in dirty khaki shorts and sweaty shirt, over the sweeping plains, should be left in the ground for the good of the planet, must seem to be a viciously pernicious idea, to be fought on the beaches etc. It might also be that such a field of research carries inherently a tendency towards conservative libertarian-style thought patterns, but although you might say that I couldn't possibly comment. And, second, is what I hereby name the Crocodile Dundee fallacy. Geologists are used to the big picture (one once told me, my research being in the late Pleistocene-Holocene of Australia, that the sediments I was interested in were just the scum that geologists removed to get to the really interesting stuff) of enormous time depth, and moving continents, and mass extinctions, and huge ice caps, and basalt flows and all the rest. So the idea that the rapid change of climate of the last 100 years, especially the last thirty years, could be of concern to the 7 billion people now on the planet, seems nonsense to them. "Call that climate change? This is climate change". Hence the constant refrain that climatologists "don't realise that climate has changed in the past". A pity, it would have been good to have these guys onside. At least one of them has fought the good fight against creationists, and as members of the discipline that provided the original academic underpinning for Darwin, you would think that they would recognise the links, direct and indirect, between climate change deniers and evolution deniers, but it seems not. -
yocta at 10:34 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Cheers. "LINKS" at the top of the site takes us to the global warming directory and "Links" at the bottom of the site takes us to the Links/Resources section :) -
yocta at 10:26 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
RE# 43 frogstar: If I find myself in agreement with the "scientific consensus" on the first three topics (smoking/cancer, HIV/Aids, and Creationism), but have serious reservations about man-made climate change driven by CO2, does this make me "a denialist"? Not necessarily but it depends on your approach climate science. If you are in agreement in the scientific concensus with the first three points you mentioned, can you not see the sharp parallels in the methods and approach to the science between the "skeptics" of smoking/cancer etc and those in climate science? It's kind of interesting that yes you may get more legitimate climate skeptics writing on other blog sites or even in peer review but then when 'climate skeptics' readers get a hold of it, it doesn't really matter what they say, as long as it is against AGW. This quote I got from a recent reader on RealClimate I think sums up the mood: Obviously, there are plenty of ill-considered opinions to be found either side of any issue, but only the most ignorant person could fail to see the terrible intellectual gulf between the quality of so-called skeptic sites and those defending the science behind the AGW thesis. Note to John I can't see the Resource link on the main page anymore...I see the "links" section. But it could be my tired eyes...Response: The LINKS navigation button now goes to the global warming directory - this is now a key aspect of Skeptical Science so I gave it more prominence. So I moved the link to the previous Links/Resources section down to the footer. There's only so much real estate in the top navigation links. -
slimething at 09:48 AM on 18 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Looking at Southern Ocean SST, where is it accelerating again? http://i49.tinypic.com/jt6zvn.png -
Marcel Bökstedt at 09:13 AM on 18 March 2010CO2 was higher in the past
The lecture by Richard Alley is good! Very convincing piece of work. I'm wondering a little about why the "skeptic argument" above claims that there was glaciation in the "Jurassic-Cretaceous period". It would indeed be bad for the connection to CO2 if there was widespread glaciation during this period, but I can't find anything about that. -
tobyjoyce at 09:09 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
suibhne, Ah, shure & begorrah, fantasy is always to be preferred to the truth on St. Patrick's Day. But tomorrow the real world will be back, and then you can appreciate what Phil Jones actually said. Or, next time you are opening a bottle of Powers, here are some more of Pete Sinclair's excellent videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&annotation_id=annotation_984683&feature=iv -
sidd at 08:47 AM on 18 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Mr. Albatross: The post you link to seems to indicate greater stratification in the Southern Ocean. How then, as Mr. Berényi Péter asks, can we have the freshening signature extend to great depth ? I suppose I am asking about coupled AOGCMs that reproduce the deepwater freshening. Would someone care to comment ? -
suibhne at 07:24 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
tobyjoyce Greetings and a happy Saint Patrick's night to you. I thought at first the video might be fun but the phrase climate denier was used and proved to be a turn off. That should be a lesson for us all. Its completely counterproductive to start name calling. I think I will now watch John Wayne as the Quiet Man and drink a bottle of Powers. -
tobyjoyce at 06:40 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
re: #56 Ah, suibhne, Sweeney of the Nightingales, my celtic friend, you obviously have not seen this video: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/16/marc-morano-flogging-climate-scientists/ -
suibhne at 06:30 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Michael Trogdon And yet the world temperature has been falling slightly since 1998 - Phil Jones Looks Like the end has just fallen off the hockey stick! -
tobyjoyce at 06:26 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Geo Guy, It would be long and boring to cover everything in your screed, however I was struck by the "Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis" one. What has they to do with Global Warming? The trail led to this Daily Telegraph article: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ Unfortunately, the particular journalist, James Delingpole, is notorious for being a rampant denier, and for being (to use a roundabout way of saying it) "economical with the truth". It turns out there is no disagreement between Russian data and Hadley data. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php To the best of my knowledge, the claims that the CRU, NASA and NOAA had picked stations specifically to highlight warming has been shown to be totally without foundation. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/ Please investigate your claim further and get back to us. -
Ned at 06:25 AM on 18 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
Don't be silly. If we're able to alter the climate enough to prevent the next glacial cycle 50,000 years in advance by accident, I suspect our descendants will be able to come up with a way of dealing with the next glaciation whether it happens 50,000 or 130,000 years from now. 21st century climate change will mean real hardship for many people, primarily due to alterations of patterns of rainfall and drought, plus the impacts of sea level rise on poorer countries where "just rebuild on higher ground" isn't necessarily an option. (Who's going to offer to take in a few tens of millions of Bangladeshis?) I don't think it's reasonable to impose that kind of hardship on actual people living in this century while patting yourself on the back for "preventing" a very slow glacial advance 50,000 years in the future. -
Michael T. at 06:22 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
According to the GISS data, this was the 2nd warmest Dec-Feb on record (behind 2007): It was also the warmest summer on record in the SH: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/SH.Ts+dSST.txt Also Canada just had the warmest and driest winter ever recorded: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm -
We're heading into an ice age
Ned. You are saying that the CO2 is good since it will keep the next ice age off our backs? High sea levels (if slow enough) just means rebuilding on higher ground. Most commercial buildings last less than 30- years. Water is the ultimate recyclable commodity. We can manage water if we have enough energy. Solve the energy problem and food and water will be sufficient for all. -
It's not bad
Is warming good or bad? If it prevents an ice age it is good. In the ice age section it is said "we will not have an ice age because of the CO2 we have released." Well that may mean that in the future we do not get any warmer if the ice age mechanism continues and the CO2 effects cancel it out. So our greenhouse gases do good. If the ice age factors are at work. An ice age is not the only outcome, but the factors may be just as important as COP2. OK? -
Geo Guy at 05:05 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Interesting concept. However it it applies to both sides of the argument. Conspiracy - peoples' arguments are discounted because they work for oil companies or have been funded by oil companies. Who you work for has no impact on what your personal views are; oil companies also fund environmental groups such as WWF and the David Suzuki Foundation When you investigate the role of the IPCC, how it was established and the mandate that it was given on a go-ahead basis, plus the involvement of the WMO in the IPCC is enough fodder to support the concept of a conspiracy. Fake Experts - it has been documented that the individual who cited the melting of the Himalayan glaciers and whose position was incorporated into the IPCC report did not have the appropriate qualification to do so, nor was his version properly vetted. There are likely more within the dungeons in East Anglia. Cherry Picking - the Moscow based Institute of Economic Analysis recently issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change located in Exeter had likley tampered with the temperature data given to them as their analysis failed to support the anthropogenic global-warming theory. In addition, the temperature analysis carried out by NASA and NOAA to support the global warming theory used selective data to support the theory. Prior to 1970, they used data from some 600 stations located across Northern Canada yet for the subsequent years they used data from only 35 stations, of which only one is from the high arctic, despite the fact there are more than 100 weather stations operating in the high arctic. The net effect was to accentuate coolong prior to 1970 and warming in subsequent years. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver - This argument is simply a crutch for following poor scientific process. What is missing from the experts is the inclusion of the impact of increased water vapor in the atmosphere on temperatures, the separation of that impact from the impact of higher temperatures solely attributable to increased CO2 in the atmosphere; the scientific error associated with comparing accurate readings with those using proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and other indirect measurements. For instances, one of the "tricks" cited in the e-mails from East Anglia had to do with relating temperatures derived from tree ring data. They couldn't correlate modern temperatures with modern tree rings in the same way they used fossil tree rings to determine past temperatures. To over come this obstacle they relied on modern temperature measurements instead. The process followed by climate scientists over the past several decades and the use of the data in forms that are less than reliable are not what people expect. As we find out more about what was done by the ICPP and related bodies that have lead to the current positions, I believe that the entire process will be found to be at fault and less than reliable. Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - I believe that the e-mails from east anglia serve to support just how often the process that was followed has led to misrepresentations and fallacies (the Himalayan glaciers melting is just one example). For those interested in going through the e-mails that were obtained from the east anglia server, go to http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ In one final comment, supporters of the anthropogenic global-warming theory seem to group people who do not accept the theory AND people who do not accept global change into one group which would fall under the fifth point noted above - Misrepresentations and logical fallacies. Many geoscientists such as myself accept the fact that over time and based on a variety of observations made from within the geological time frame, the earth's climate changes in a cyclical fashion. Where we do not agree is the way data has been mishandled, the political agenda that was established when the IPCC was formed, the involvement of the WMO in IPCC (the WMO is the body responsible for collecting and storing weather data from around the world) which is a definite conflict of interest, the lack of true scientific investigation (beyond peer reviews which in fact were not all that wide spread), the last minute editing of the final IPCC reports AFTER they were signed off at the committee level; the apparent ignoring of the basic scientific premise that correlation does NOT prove causality, and the rather unusual reliance on climate models to propagate their message, despite the fact that those models do not predict some of the observations made today in places such as the North and South poles. -
JustQuixote at 04:44 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Just joined and find this information fascinating. I will attempt to read the indepth research provided when I get the time. That being said, it looks like every argument against man made global warming is shot down. Have there ever been any arguments against man made global warming that have been vindicated on this site? If so, got links? In any debate, political, scientific, sports, etc... there can be a few points given to the counterpart of an argument. I just do not see those here. -
Ned at 04:08 AM on 18 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Emotions are running high in this thread, which is great, but regrettably this often leads to comments that don't exactly comply with the spirit of the site's normal Comments Policy. I'd just encourage everyone to try to keep the politics etc. strictly limited to this thread, rather than letting them spread out into the rest of the site. If the tone of some of the comments in this thread starts "infecting" other threads, it will create a lot of moderation work for John, meaning he'll have less time to work on the next science post. And nobody wants that!
Prev 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 Next
