Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 Next
Comments 122351 to 122400:
-
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! -
tobyjoyce at 04:00 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
suibhne at 03:59 AM on 18 March 2010The 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! -
SLRTX at 03:47 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Philip64 at 03:37 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 03:30 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Sean A at 03:22 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
thefrogstar at 03:19 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Sean A at 03:14 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
jimalakirti at 03:12 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Philippe Chantreau at 02:33 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
SLRTX at 02:08 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
Marcel Bökstedt at 01:37 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
ajgunther at 01:35 AM on 18 March 2010The 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. -
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. -
Ken Lambert at 00:20 AM on 18 March 2010Watts 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. -
canbanjo at 00:18 AM on 18 March 2010The 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? -
gallopingcamel at 23:59 PM on 17 March 2010The 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. -
Dennis at 23:54 PM on 17 March 2010The 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. -
Ned at 23:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 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." ....) -
CBDunkerson at 23:35 PM on 17 March 2010The 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. :] -
Ned at 23:12 PM on 17 March 2010Watts 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. -
Ned at 23:03 PM on 17 March 2010Watts 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. -
Riccardo at 22:55 PM on 17 March 2010The 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" -
Berényi Péter at 22:55 PM on 17 March 2010Watts 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? -
CBDunkerson at 22:47 PM on 17 March 2010Watts 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? -
CBDunkerson at 22:34 PM on 17 March 2010The 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. -
LauraM at 22:32 PM on 17 March 2010The 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? -
Riccardo at 22:14 PM on 17 March 2010Guest 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? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 22:04 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Consensus on the most. But first we need to prove "bad faith - bad intentions", then ... As a rule, however, the opposite is happening: first, "segregation", and only then the arguments or the lack thereof. -
lord_sidcup at 21:45 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I think we also need to be clear about the meaning of the term 'sceptic' (or 'skeptic' - if you must). Scepticism is a good thing and all scientists should be sceptics. However, everyone should ultimately be amenable to evidence and logic. The problem with most AGW so-called 'sceptics' is that they are not amenable to either of those things. Simply holding a contrary view does not make someone a sceptic, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. Fabricating and distorting evidence certainly doesn't make someone a sceptic. I do have misgivings about using the term 'denier' or 'denialism' as it can offend, but am far more wary of using the term 'sceptic' when discussing AGW simply because most of those I've come across from the anti-AGW side simply don't merit the term, and applying it to them devalues the concept of scientific scepticism. It is unfortunate that the term denialism has gained associations with the holocaust denial. I don't know who first made the connection, but suspect it was someone from the anti-AGW side trying to escape being labelled a denier. I wouldn't have the connection myself. My dictionary defines denial as "refusal to agree" and "the rejection of the truth of a proposition" which, to my mind, best describes the likes of Steve Goddard (see John’s previous posting). -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:44 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John Russell How insulting epithets used to help study the climate? I do not understand it ... Is better (which does not mean: "good") the excess of freedom in science, than not ... -
tobyjoyce at 21:37 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Thingadonta's (#22) list is interesting but only 3 items are post Second World War. Of those Lysenko's domination of genetics took place in the closed society of the USSR, and was confined to it. It did not gain adherance in the wider scientific community. Eugenics, social darwinism, and phrenology are more late Victorian that truly modern. Much of what we now understand as science was defined by the work of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos in the 1950s and 1960s. They would hardly make the grade as "sciences" today. Club of Rome etc. is economics, and there is an ongoing debate as to how much of the social sciences are "science". On the "Hockey Stick", thingadonta is only articulating his own prejudice, I believe. No doubt there are nooks and corners of "science" that do not make the grade - but climate science is not one of those. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:28 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
"Of course winds and ocean currents play a role, but they are not the sole players in modulating Arctic sea ice. To suggest otherwise is being anything but honest. These are the same myths that keep getting trotted out by those in denial and blog commentators like Watts." What reviewed science says: "The future is undecided, as studies of the Florida Current suggest that the Gulf Stream weakens with cooling and strengthens with warming, being weakest (by ~10%) during the Little Ice Age and strongest during 1,000-1,100 years BP (Before Present), the Medieval Warm Period ." Bersch 2007- "Recent changes of the thermohaline circulation in the subpolar North Atlantic" - "In the upper layer of the Labrador Sea, the advection of warm and saline water dominated over the heat loss to the atmosphere and the freshwater gain from melting ice and precipitation in the NAO-low period, so that no accumulation of freshwater but an increase of the heat and salt contents were observed, as in the whole eastern part of the subpolar gyre." "A northwards branch of the Gulf Stream, the North Atlantic Drift, is part of the thermohaline circulation (THC), transporting warmth further north to the North Atlantic, where its effect in warming the atmosphere contributes to warming Europe. Other factors are also important, such as atmospheric waves that bring subtropical air further north, which have been suggested to influence the Climate of the British Isles more than the Gulf Stream. The evaporation of ocean water in the North Atlantic increases the salinity of the water as well as cooling it, both actions increasing the density of water at the surface." "In January 2010 , the Gulf Stream briefly connected with the West Greenland Current after fluctuating for a few weeks due to an extreme negative phase of the Arctic oscillation , temporarily diverting it west of Greenland." THC reaches out further to the north so ... How to explain on the basis of AGW theory? "These studies have advanced considerably the comprehension of the dynamics and functioning of the North Atlantic Bottom Water (NABW) circulation. In comparison therewith, little is known about the southern sources of deepwater (AABW). It is important to bear in mind that the thermohaline circulation is operated by both deepwater sources, and therefore, the deficit of scientific knowledge limits the complete understanding of decadal to millennial time-scale climate change (Seidov, D., 2000). An example of such a deficit is whether the NADW is the ultimate driver of the conveyor, and if additional variability is generated by freshwater impacts in the Southern Ocean (Seidov, D., 2000). A significant influence of the Southern Ocean is supported by several scientific lines of evidence. First, many examples of climate intermittency during the glacial cycles of the Pleistocene remain poorly understood, even though they seem to correlate with major deglaciations (Seidov, D., 2000) http://www.coastalwiki.org/coastalwiki/Thermohaline_circulation_of_the_oceans About THC at SH so little we know ... "Reality is more complex. Pressure gradients at depth, resulting from density gradients in the overlying waters, are the driving force in the equations of motion. As the density forcing occurs at the surface (see above), a subtle question is why the density differences and the circulation affect the whole ocean depth and are not confined to a near-surface layer. [6] showed that a deep circulation only arises when heating (buoyancy source) is at depth and cooling at the surface. The reason that there is a deep circulation after all is turbulent mixing , which brings down the heat on a time scale of ~1000 YEARS. [?!] It has been shown that in the long-term equilibrium the strength of the thermohaline circulation in models depends on the turbulent mixing coefficient [7], and that the energy required for this turbulent mixing comes to a large extent from the MOON [...] via tidal currents ([8])." Rahmstorf - http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html Its "cherry picking"? Generally conclusion: Warming of the (part) southern ocean is not (can not !) evidence of AGW, or ... the lack of AGW ... -
Argus at 21:25 PM on 17 March 2010Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
A list of winter temperatures on Greenland, from the 1880's to the 1950's reads as follows: -11,7 -10,9 -11,1 -9,9 -8,4 -8,0 -7,2 If a climate scientist, with 'good insight' at that time (in 1960), would have projected this trend into a trajectory for temperatures to come, the temperatures for the following decades would have been: -6,5 -5,7 -4,8 -4,0 -3,2 We would now have a typical winter temperature of -3. But that is not what happened in real life. It is more like -10. The next five decades actually had the following temperatures: -8,4 -6,9 -8,6 -10,1 -10,3 So much for climate trends. -
John Russell at 21:16 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
How timely! While I wrote my post above, Arkadiusz Semczyszak's posted his comment, above mine, which makes my point perfectly. In response to his post: Arkadiusz uses false arguments that deniers repeat endlessly. The fact that some scientists who were once called deniers were subsequently proved right in no way sets a precedent. I'm sure history would show that deniers are proved wrong at least as many times as they are vindicated. Consequently there's no worthwhile rule that can be extrapolated, in either direction. The term 'scientific consensus' means only that it's the majority view amongst the scientifically-informed at a particular moment. On any subject, at any given time, there will always be a consensus view -- excepting the rare occasions when, temporarily, there is a 50:50 split. To attack the concept of scientific consensus seems to me to be tilting at windmills. -
Riccardo at 21:07 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I find the long, though partial, list given by thingadonta as the best evidence of the power of science. Science is a never ending process and anything can be proved false; the scientific process takes care of it and after a while false theories are rejected, they do notlast long. AGW theory is still here and confirmed after more than a century of scientific scrutiny, chances are it will last. -
thingadonta at 20:57 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
You are opening up a can of worms here you won't win. I definitely think some of the (better) papers presented on this site are stronger (eg absorption spectra for c02), arguments for strong AGW influence than some of the political/psychological arguments, such as the above. One could as easily respond to the above wth the "5 characteristics of scientific opportunism and distortion". But should I bother? I doubt it. Modern era-examples might include: phrenology, eugenics (some of the best recent reviews by eg S J Gould), social darwinism (particularly in Germany and the USA), limits to growth and eg the Club of Rome (some of the best recent reviews by eg B. Lomborg), Mann's tree ring hockeystick (yes, I insist, it's rubbish science), Lysenkoism and Russian agricultural science; whilst some older examples might include Pythagorean geometry and the suppression of the dodecahedron and the square root of 2, Plato's forms, Babylonian astrology, alchemy, various animal and human sacrifice to try and influence the weather and the climate, and so on. (The last one being a rather sensitive one, it seems, for some on this site). Note also: It doesn't have to come from the 'establishment' to qualify as opportunistic/ or noble cause corruption/disortion of 'science', (eg Carl Sagans various lists of pseudo science in the Demon Haunted World" etc); and just what constitutes the 'establishment' anyway opens up yet another can of worms, which is why this sort of pro- consenses/establishemnt argument will go round and round in circles and ultimately nowhere. 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. -
tobyjoyce at 20:56 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
#18 said: According to many theorists of scientific methodology - "scientific consensus" is a concept unscientific. I would like to know what philosophers of science said that. To me, science is a collegiate activity, and the scientific consensus on a topic should always be the starting point of any discussion. To name one historian of science (and geologist) Naomi Oreskes, a consensus of experts IS science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&eurl=http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459 Karl Popper & Thomas Kuhn are the philosophers everyone has heard of, but Imre Lakatos synthesised their work by defnining science as a set of fruitful research programmes. Creationism, astrology and most climate scepticism are not fruitful research programmes, much as they try to ape scientific method. Other parts of climate scepticism are marginally scientific at best. Climate science has been one of the major success stories in terms of fruitful research for the past 50 years. -
John Russell at 20:45 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Many sceptics get very upset when accused of 'climate denial', because of the phrase's similarity to 'holocaust denial' (yes, I know; it's illogical). For this reason I'm very careful not to call someone a 'denier' except in the instance of them wilfully distorting or obfuscating evidence. The vast majority of people recorded in polls as not accepting AGW are actually 'don't knows'; sceptics who find it difficult to accept the facts because the repercussions -- taxation, lifestyle changes -- are just too unpleasant to contemplate. While, scientifically speaking, using the correct meaning of the word, they ARE 'deniers', if we want to change their minds we would be best, pragmatically, not to address them as such directly. To do so is to create hostility and actually increase their resistance to listening to the facts and changing their minds. I recommend this policy as a professional film-maker who has spent thirty years being paid by companies, NGOs and the UK government to influence people's perception of things in order to create change. -
Peter Hogarth at 20:41 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id at 16:24 PM on 17 March, 2010 This is semantics. I appreciate that you are very familiar with the satellite derived ice extent data. If by “recovery” you mean an increase in minimum extent over previous year (etc from 2007) then granted. By this criterion there have been several multi-year “recoveries” over the past couple of decades. However if by “recovery” we mean a return to anything close to average minimum extents over those couple of decades, then clearly this has not happened. The overall trend over past few decades has been significantly downwards, in extent, and in thickness. Anyway, shall we leave this for some future Arctic post? I have a new diverting challenge for your animation skills, related to this post: Antarctic Ice shelf retreat, suspected of being caused by Ocean warming (losing 25,000 square km from “permanent” shelves over past 50 years?) We now have access to high resolution AVHRR or MODIS imagery of Ice shelves. Not sure if this has been done, or if the image library is dense enough for movies, but if possible this would be worthwhile (and cool). It’s a great resource even as is.
Prev 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 Next
