Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2437  2438  2439  2440  2441  2442  2443  2444  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  2451  2452  Next

Comments 122201 to 122250:

  1. The 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!
  2. The 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.
  3. The 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.
  4. The 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.
  5. The 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.
  6. The 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 :)
  7. The 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.
  8. Watts 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
  9. Marcel Bökstedt at 09:13 AM on 18 March 2010
    CO2 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.
  10. The 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
  11. Watts 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 ?
  12. The 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.
  13. The 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/
  14. The 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!
  15. The 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.
  16. We'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.
  17. The 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. The 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.
  21. The 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.
  22. The 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!
  23. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    thefrogstar wrote (#43): "Science is done by human beings and communicated to other human beings." Yes, but it is not a individual contribution like an artist (Michaelangelo or van Gogh). Every scientist stands on the shoulders of others. Einstein made perhaps the greatest individual contribution to physics ever, but even he had the work of Planck, Maxwell and Lorentz before him to build on. Science is collegiate, and not a disparate group of individuals perpetually arguing with each other. Eventually, hard nuggets of sound propositions precipitate from the ferment - they are treated sceptically and tested, but they are working hypotheses nevertheless. It is those propositions, the products of a collective research programme like climatology, that get communicated to the non-scientist.
  24. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Cheap point ...on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS........ Still I suppose its a move forward from implying that sceptics are as bad as Nazi's How many eminent doctors professors of medicine and surgeons could Mbeki summon for support of his views. Your other thread "scrutinising the 31000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project" Even if only half survived your scrutiny does it not give you pause? Stick to the science the rest is pointless hot air!
  25. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    In response to @ 34. GallopingCamel, and anyone else who holds on to perceived failings of "Mann's Hockey Stick", or Al Gore, or "Climategate", I have only this to offer: Timeline of climate science. This puts the history of climate science, policy and media reports into perspective. If, for example, someone argues against "Mann's Hockey Stick", just look at year 1998, then work backwards. You'll see that Mann's work, good as it is, is only a small step in the understanding of climate change. Denialists nit-pick on small snippets of factoids, but they ignore all the other evidence that AGW/ACC is real. They certainly aren't "big picture" people.
    Response: This is a great resource, I've added it to my list of Global Warming Resources. I love that you provide links to old papers.
  26. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    @ 34. GallopingCamel: "Most of the denizens of this site are living in a cozy cocoon where there is no Climategate." Anyone who still thinks "Climategate" was anything other than a sham is not a Galloping Camel; they are a Stationary Ostrich - one with its head buried deep in the sand. Even many conservative papers, like 'The Economist', have picked up on the gross misrepresentation behind the contrarian hysteria. Of course, the official inquiry may prove me wrong. I guess we should reserve final judgement until then.
  27. Marcel Bökstedt at 03:30 AM on 18 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Sean A. > Somehow I doubt that this approach works in politics. If you are the target of a misinformation campaign, analysing and dissecting it usually does not help you much. That's exactly why this method has become so popular. It is hard to defend against it. I think that the best strategy for the scientific community is to do what they are best at - doing science - and simultaneously try to build alliances with people inside politics and media.
  28. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    "Isn't it illustrative that the first comment in this thread about denialism is an attack on Al Gore? I have to say I'm getting very tired of this." Be prepared for a long, hard fight. These assertions are not going to evaporate-- or be less effective-- simply because they are so obviously wrong. Many people want to disbelieve the science; creating doubt about it is easy.
  29. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Question. 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"? Or merely 25% "denialist"? Science is done by human beings and communicated to other human beings. If a seemingly intelligent person disagrees with me about something I have attempted to explain to them, and I find their apparent intransigence frustrating, it might actually be my fault for not explaing it clearly enough. (It is also possible that I may be wrong, which is not enjoyable and I try to avoid it, but the scientific method obliges me to consider it). Different people may need different types of explanation to be convinced. Merely telling them that they are wrong only works with some people, and insulting them works with even fewer. The word "denialist" is perjorative. As such, I consider it to be political term that is coined merely to categorize, discredit and insult those who are not in agreement.
  30. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    "You are opening up a can of worms here you won't win." "JC should stick to science. This thread is Orwellian double speak, attributing the faults of the Alarmists to their opponents." Comments like these point to the effectiveness of addressing the tactics of the denialists. The propaganda machine hates having it's methods examined. The anti-science crowd would love to keep up the endless "debate" over the science. And while the science is fun and interesting, the best way to fight back against the misinformation campaign is to expose, analyse, and dissect the rhetorical methods being employed.
  31. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    In a little book called "Let the People Think" Bertrand Russell gave a most parsimonious piece of advice, that can save a person hundreds of hours not wasting time on junk that is not getting anywhere. Here it is: "When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; "When [they] are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; "When they all hold no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion to exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment." The validity of the climate warming denial is uncertain.
  32. Philippe Chantreau at 02:33 AM on 18 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Thingadonta says "Pro AGW advocates won't ultimately advance their cause by citing the history of science or politico-psychological arguments. Their only chance of success is verifiable, reproducible, empirically-based, open-data based science." And this site is full to the rim with exactly that kind of stuff. Whereas the self proclaimed "skeptics" have, what again? Soon&Baliunas, Carter&De Freitas, Lindzen&Choi. And that's the top of the top. The layer below is E&E, then Beck and then, well, whatever. The question is: where does the weight of the evidence lead? Not a very difficult question.
  33. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    It seems from some of the posts here, that there are some who are still confused about the difference between a skeptic and a denialist. I constantly hear denialists claim they are skeptics, but they fail to understand what a real skeptic is - or they deny it. I posted a summary of the differences on my site. To me, the differences are clear and consistent with what John posted here.
  34. Marcel Bökstedt at 01:37 AM on 18 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    carabanjo> I think that you can be a legitimate skeptic if you for instance accept the fact that the Earth is warming, accept the fact that we are increasing the CO2 levels, but doubt that the present climate models are accurate enough to predict the future effects of CO2 emissions(the Freeman Dyson type point of view). Or if you accept the present models, but think that there are more important things we have to use our limited resources on than bringing down the pollution of the atmosphere (the Bjorn Lomborg type point of view). I can image other possibilities. I don't agree with these points of view, but I don't think that they are inherently dishonest or fall within the list above. I understand the frustrations it causes that often incorrect arguments and big lies are more efficient in a political debate than statements based on sound science, but this is sadly a fact of political life. The list above has strange similarities with this completely unrelated list.
  35. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Isn't it illustrative that the first comment in this thread about denialism is an attack on Al Gore? I have to say I'm getting very tired of this. As a scientist (Ph.D. from UC Berkeley) I consider Mr. Gore to be a citizen-scientist of the highest order. I had the opportunity to spend a day with Mr. Gore listening to him talk about climate change and answer questions from an audience of 250 people. Richard Alley from Penn State was in the room (at Mr. Gore's invitation) to answer questions Mr. Gore could not, and to correct Mr. Gore if he answered questions incorrectly. Professor Alley only had to speak up twice all day. Can you imagine Singer, Watts, or any of the other famous denialists inviting Richard Alley to review their work publicly in real time?
    Response: Hard to imagine but I would pay good money to see it.
  36. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    ( #18 ) Regarding the place of consensus in science, I'll link to something I said on another thread: Science and consensus If there's no consensus, it's not science, it's a debate society. Note that this involves both a consensus of _evidence_, a body of facts that every agrees upon (with various levels of trust and certainty, depending on opinions about how the data was collected) and a consensus of theories that fit that data. Copernicus wouldn't have been able to formulate his heliocentric theory without a detailed body of data on planetary movements, and despite political issues it has become the consensus view since it fits the data best and makes testable (and tested) predictions that differ from other theories.
  37. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    BP and others: The coincidence of warmer air next to increasing sea ice is explained by the heat liberated by the phase change of freezing which is roughly 334 kJ/kG of ice frozen. If someone can find the number of kG of extra Antarctic sea ice, the heat energy released can be calculated. Where this heat goes in complex circulations is uncertain - but if must go somewhere.
  38. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    When writing about climate deniers / sceptics, there are often caveats about what true scepticism is and therefore what separates real or honest climate sceptics from those that clearly use the tactics described by Johns points 1 to 5. Could anyone please let me know of a respectable scientist, knowledgeable about climate science, but that is still sceptical, without falling into any of the 5 denialist categories? Is Lindzen one, or is he not respectable? Or, how can you be an honest legitimate knowledgeable climate change sceptic - what is the acceptable argument, without falling into any of the 5 traps?
  39. gallopingcamel at 23:59 PM on 17 March 2010
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    JC should stick to science. This thread is Orwellian double speak, attributing the faults of the Alarmists to their opponents. Most of the denizens of this site are living in a cozy cocoon where there is no Climategate. You are right to oppose junk science but most of that is coming from people like Gore, Pachauri and Mann. Your cause is doomed as long as you cling to false prophets.
  40. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    What an excellent post here. From the conversations I typically have I find at essense that the deniers assume there are political motives from the work of scientists, which ultimately is part of conspiracy theories. They believe that the scientific research has been deliberately tampered with to reach a pre-determed conclusion. In their minds, this obviously goes on repeatedly throughout the world and in every scientific journal. The glimmers of "truth" they see are a combination of the fake experts and cherry-picking (often in combination with logical fallicies). The somewhwat more intelligent in the denier crowd often stop short of the conspiracy story and state that the majority of scientists are merely naive and do the wrong research for funding and advancement reasons.
  41. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    thingadonta writes: "... Lysenkoism and Russian agricultural science ..." I think that's actually a pretty good analogy for "denialist science." Lysenkoism was essentially a contrarian attack on mainstream genetics and evolutionary biology, in which a handful of outsiders were promoted for political reasons, partly because they were more closely aligned with the dominant ideology and partly because of wishful thinking (their claims, if true, would have led to increased grain yields). Likewise, in the US (and elsewhere to a lesser extent) we see actual scientists being harassed and a small fringe group of contrarians being energetically promoted, because the latter's claims are more closely aligned to the conservative ideology of the dominant power structures in western societies. (And also because a similar kind of wishful thinking makes the argument "global warming is a hoax so we don't have to reduce CO2 emissions" far more appealing than the argument "global warming is real, so we might need to do something about it." ....)
  42. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Riccardo, oh... somehow I mentally inserted an "If" at the start of that sentence. Ok, just ignore me until I'm more awake. :]
  43. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    For anyone who isn't sure whether to believe Jeff Id's claims that Arctic sea ice extent has "recovered", here is a link to the actual data at NSIDC. Here are the trends in sea ice extent, in million km2/per year, starting in 1979: Through 2001: -0.046 Through 2002: -0.051 Through 2003: -0.053 Through 2004: -0.055 Through 2005: -0.059 Through 2006: -0.060 Through 2007: -0.072 Through 2008: -0.078 Through 2009: -0.079 Even if Sept. 2010 sea ice extent were a ridiculously high 8.5 million km/2 (much higher than any previous year) the 1979-2010 trend would still be steeper than the 1979-2006 trend.
  44. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    #64, How so? I wonder what you consider arm waiving about the claim that sea ice has recovered in 2009-10 along with the point that the minimums support it? Nice try, but no cigar. There are two completely different discussions going along in parallel here. One involves sea ice extent and the other the temperature trend in the Southern Ocean. On the latter, I addressed this in the previous thread (see references to Roemmich 2009, Mayewski 2009, and Convey 2009 in my comment here). Both ARGO data and satellite observations of sea surface temperature show that the Southern Ocean is warming faster than the mean of the oceans as a whole. This is the entire point of this thread -- Steve Goddard wrongly suggested that the (very small) increase in Antarctic sea ice extent indicates that the Southern Ocean is cooling, when in fact that increase is occurring in spite of the fact that the ocean around Antarctica is warming (and we have multiple lines of empirical evidence of that warming). As for the other point -- Arctic sea ice extent -- Peter Hogarth correctly notes that this is just semantics. You seem to be setting a very low bar for the use of the term "recovered." Monthly arctic sea ice extent reached a record low in September 2007. Since that date there have been exactly two more Septembers (2008 and 2009). Both of those were lower than all of the pre-2007 minima. Both of them were also well below the 1979-2006 trend line. So, in other words, from 1979-2006 September sea ice extent decreased, with a trend slope of -0.06 million km2/year. Since the 2007 record low, 2008 and 2009 did not "recover" to 1980s levels, they did not "recover" to 1990s levels, they did not "recover" to 2000-2006 levels, and they didn't even "recover" to the pre-2007 declining trend. Most of us try to use language as precisely as possible. You seem to be using the word "recovered" to refer to any 1-2 year rise. This obscures more than it illuminates. Which statement conveys more information: (1) Since 1979, September sea ice extent in the Arctic has collapsed (i.e., been lower than the previous year) 15 times, and has recovered (been higher than the previous year) 15 times. or (2) From 1979-2009, September sea ice extent in the Arctic has decreased by -0.08 million km2/year, and this trend has accelerated since 2001. Let's not hide the decline in sea ice extent by using vague and non-quantitative terms like "recovered" when all of the past three years were lower than every previous year on record.
  45. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    CBDunkerson, you don't need to convince me, this is exactly what i said :) "AGW theory is still here and confirmed after more than a century of scientific scrutiny"
  46. Berényi Péter at 22:55 PM on 17 March 2010
    Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    #63 Peter Hogarth at 12:46 PM on 17 March, 2010 You quote Johnson 2009 as "evidence of recent decadal warming of these Antarctic-derived abyssal waters around much of the global oceans, and recent freshening of these waters in some basins near their source regions" Question: How can warming & freshening of abyss occur at the same time? An additional energy source is needed to drive deep mixing against density gradient to overcome gravity. Can you identify this source?
  47. Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
    Jeff (#49), "I don't have time to find a source for you". Well, then given the existence of the several contrary sources I have already cited it comes down to your belief versus all available evidence. The available evidence shows that multi-year ice has continued to decline since 2007. Frankly, your wholly unsubstantiated belief to the contrary is not at all convincing. You say you have studied the matter and know better. I've studied the matter too... which is why I'm able to recall evidence I have seen in the past and quickly re-locate it with just a Google search. How is it that you aren't able to do the same?
  48. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    Riccardo, your statement about theories which can withstand a century of scientific scrutiny being likely to last is ironic given that the 'greenhouse effect' theory dates back to 1824 and the idea that humans could enhance it by increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to at least 1896. AGW already HAS withstood the 'test of time'... which is why you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist who disputes it. Lindzen, Spencer, even Singer (who I don't consider at all reputable)... they all admit that AGW is real. Only the degree of warming it will cause is still debated. That so many 'skeptics' still question the basic premise of AGW despite acceptance of the overwhelming proof by even skeptic scientists is indicative of just how much of this 'debate' is driven by the tactics of denial described in John's article.
  49. The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    @13 chriscanaris "..the sheer fervour with which the two sides advance their positions.." Fervour is defined as "great intensity of feeling or belief; ardour; zeal". I'm curious to see examples from the "pro" AGW side. Surely you can't be referring to the articles posted on this website?
  50. Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
    shawnhet, i'm still confused. Could you please elaborate on the link between parametrizations and AGW theory?

Prev  2437  2438  2439  2440  2441  2442  2443  2444  2445  2446  2447  2448  2449  2450  2451  2452  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us