Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 Next
Comments 122401 to 122450:
-
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. -
LauraM at 20:34 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#44 CBDunkerson at 03:40 AM on 17 March, 2010 Thanks for those links. JeffID was confusing me for a minute, but those links cleared the air. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:17 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
While agreeing in general with the description of defects in the process of advertising education, especially the science that affects the economic fundamentals of the global economy ..., I have given: 1. In my country, I was repeatedly called denialist ..., the concept that this is often used when there is no scientific rebuttal ..., 2. denialism initially served for the determination of the people contradicting the Holocaust. Use it interchangeably for "skeptic" - is: unscientific, unethical and immoral (The broad use of the word "denialism" is controversial, as it has been criticized as a polemical method of suppressing non-mainstream views. Similarly, in an essay discussing the general importance of skepticism, Clive James objected to the use of the word denialist to describe climate change skeptics, stating that it "calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust" - Wikipedia), 3. Interests - lobbyists, often change their minds - in Europe: Statoil, Shell began to fund scientific work to confirm the accuracy of the theory of AGW ... (CCS very pays them ...), 4. Titles, the assumptions for grants, often suggest a research results. Without reform of science - the release of the "utopia" of grants, particularly in the complex area of science such as climatology, can never be said of the honest scientific consensus ... 5. According to many theorists of scientific methodology - "scientific consensus" is a concept unscientific ... This censorship ... 6. Until recently it was "scientific consensus" regarding LIA - Black Death - rats - bacteria, currently the last few years this pattern is different: LIA - black death - a man - a virus similar to HIV ... 7. Such researchers as e.g.: Copernicus, Bruno, Milankovitch, Wegener, etc.. by official science, de facto, too, were called "denialists" ... So Let's get the concept of "denialism" to the trash can and return to the discussion on climate. -
Jacob Bock Axelsen at 19:53 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Robert Park has an excellent book called:Voodoo Science which deals which anything from pathological through junk and pseudoscience ending with basic fraudulent science. The warning signs of bad science are (wikipedia): 1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists. 2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery. 3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal. 4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim. 5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim. 6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community. 7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature. All of the above criteria fits nicely onto various blogs and prominent figures in the non-scientific and very minor scientific community that strongly opposes mainstream climate science. Of course, you can be exited about discovering something new, just make sure it is not voodoo. -
Argus at 19:46 PM on 17 March 2010Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland
Yeah, sure. Also, if you take the current birth rate in the world, 2,6 child per woman, and apply it the development of the world's population, you get the frightening figure of 134000 billions of people on earth by the year 2300 (according to a UN report). In other words, stop projecting millimeter figures hundreds of years ahead! It's not going to happen according to our little curves, based on the years 2003 to 2007 or whatever is the latest alarming 'report'. We have no knowledge of what is going to happen to sea levels, temperatures, or ice sheets, with a perspective of hundreds of years into the future. It is just guess work.Response: Actually, the past gives us a good insight into where we're headed into the future. Our lower CO2 emission scenarios have global temperatures rising by around 2°C. The last time our climate was this warm, around 125,000 years ago, global sea levels were over 6 metres higher than today. So we are on a current trajectory for sea level rise of at least 6 metres. There is some uncertainty about how quickly this might happen - at the moment, the peer-review research indicates we'll face 1 to 2 metres sea level rise by 2100 but how quickly we reach 6 metres is uncertain. -
mikel01 at 19:03 PM on 17 March 2010Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Just a question on the temperature chart. I don't understand how you have interpreted the chart. The shape of the chart suggests the measurements for near surface are being taken in the northern hemisphere only, while the sea surface chart (I went and played on the site) appears more likely to be for the entire globe. For the near surface chart (the one you have shown) you state that Feb is the second hottest Feb on the satellite record, when the chart you are using for your point fairly clearly shows it is the hottest, yet as mentioned appears to only be for the northern hemisphere. I am not trying to deny any of the statements you have made, I am not nearly knowledgeable in the science to do so, but your use of information to support your point does leave it open to some questions and interpretation. Could you advise where the satellite data showing Feb 2010 as the second hottest on satellite record is since it is not the chart you have shown in support of it? ThanksResponse: As far as I can tell, Figure 1 is global, not Northern Hemisphere. I gather the seasonal aspect favours Northern Hemisphere seasons because the NH features more land than the SH hence the temperature variation is greater there.
Eyeballing Figure 1 shows February is clearly the hottest month on record. However, I've opted to quote Roy Spencer who claims February 2010 is the 2nd hottest year on record on his blog. I figure his data analysis is more rigorous than my eyeballing a graph (we've all seen the danger of citing eyeballing over data analysis). He also uses "lower atmosphere" but doesn't specify which altitude specifically.
Incidentally, here is the updated UAH satellite data captured today. Global temperatures for March 2010 have shot up and it's looking like 2010 is going to be a very hot year:
-
NewYorkJ at 18:35 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
"#62, It's also obvious that nobody can refute my claims b/c they are correct." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof Falls into characteristic #5 in John's recent post. -
ScaredAmoeba at 17:21 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, A slightly O.T. post, but one that I hope you'll find interesting and that I feel dovetails with your post on the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism, although these combine methods, tactics and motivation.Jacques, Peter J., Dunlap, Riley E. and Freeman, Mark(2008) 'The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism', Environmental Politics, 17: 3, 349 - 385 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09644010802055576 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
'Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs [conservative think tanks], designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement's efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of 'junk science' lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised 'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.'
Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks John R. Mashey February 11, 2010 V 1.0.1 www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out-wegman-fileDr Mashey meticulously chronicles and documents the vested interests' subversion of ideological propensities of certain political groups and the almost innumerable deceits, distortions conspiracies and the downright lies, used by right-wing Americans to undermine science, ever since the Tobacco Industry discovered that to combat science, all they needed was to spread doubt! Of course, the original Tobacco strategy has been expanded to exploit the power of internet blogs and websites. On page 22, Dr. Mashey catalogues the crescendo of Denial Industry manufactured stunts and events in the run-up to Copenhagen, which were intended to and succeeded in derailing the COP15 Climate conference and have led to a new low in public perception of AGW science, in sharp contrast with the continued accumulating of scientific evidence . The crescendo is in itself circumstantial evidence of a carefully planned and coordinated campaign, including the CRU hack
Of course, I couldn't omit 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science' - by The Union of Concerned Scientists.
-
RSVP at 16:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The last time I saw a definition of the Scientific Method it said nothing about reaching consensus. That said, perhaps the rise in obesity is making people feel that much warmer. It would be quite ironic if global warming turned out to be due to transfats. -
Jeff Id at 16:24 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#62, It's also obvious that nobody can refute my claims b/c they are correct. #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? I refuse to live in a world where other peoples words govern the truth. There is no need to have a reference to a different scientist pointing out the obvious - they do exist btw but if you want the truth you can look them up. Again, this isn't a complex point I made. You have the key's, it's up to you to look in the door. On your comments about Beck, I'm not at all familiar with his work. Tony B did a post which contained some Beck work at tAV, so far I've been critical of his statements and his results at tAV. Also, I think you agree with me that Beck so far at tAV was unconvincing. I like to offer people like him a chance to defend themselves but there were several problematic statements made. 1- referencing a paper supporting his CO2 argument with the same sort of bad math that the hockey sticks were made from. 2- accepting high CO2 values in local regions which were well outside of nearby values. These were then described as having an effect on temp. Even the most egregious believer would admit that a local CO2 variance wouldn't cause large warming. 3- he said he was attempting to prove that CO2 levels were not created anthropogenically, this was as unscientific as some of the advocacy posts we see too much of. The data must lead, not the conclusion. I'm sure there are other aspects that bothered different people, but I wasn't impressed. He really didn't make a full defense/description though. -
Albatross at 16:23 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Sidd @ 65, This post might helpful -
chris1204 at 15:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
JC @14 Fair enough! Motive however powerfully influences method. And the generally high level of courtesy on this site convinces me of the good will of contributors from both sides posting here. -
chris1204 at 15:31 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I confess I found the paper a touch simplistic in that it fails to recognise the complexities of human responses to unpalatable realities. In fairness, much of what the paper describes I encounter daily in my work as a medicolegal specialist reading reports by colleagues who act as 'guns for hire.' The motivation here is all too easy to discern. I would point out further that in this particular arena my professional body has been singularly unsuccessful in policing the activities of rogue experts. In this setting, the 'peer review' process has failed dismally. However, when it comes to an issue like AGW, many who take sides in the debates have overtly nothing personally to gain or lose. However, the sheer fervour with which the two sides advance their positions does sometimes leave me shaking my head (which is not to deny the importance of the issue). I feel for some people the issue taps into deep seated needs for a belief system in a world which has discarded spirituality. Equally, there are those on both sides of the divide who seem driven by a need to be noticed. In taking their strident stance, they fill a relational void in their lives. The latter two mechanisms can be seen in a range of fields of human endeavour - not merely the 'warmist/denialist' arena.Response: Lest I get too bogged down into psychoanalysing those who I encounter in the climate debate, I tend to focus on their methods, not motives. You could be onto something with that relational void theory though - my wife can often be heard calling "get off that damn computer!" :-) -
Bern at 13:55 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Thanks for the post - interesting & informative article. I see all five of the key aspects of denialism when I talk to a friend about climate change. He's a pretty smart guy, scientific training, but unfortunately he gets his world-view from right-leaning blogs & Fox News (which he regards as 'balanced', or at least 'restoring the balance'), and is thus politically opposed to the notion of AGW. My strategy is to reply to his emails (usually pointing me to some blog post of article 'debunking' AGW) with the best scientific references & explanations I can find. Skeptical Science has become an invaluable tool in that regard! -
citizenschallenge at 13:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
The report left out character assassination and ad hominem attacksResponse: Point 1 (conspiracy theories) and to a lesser extent Point 2 (fake experts) both cover these tactics. -
Albatross at 13:31 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Great post John. Peter Sinclair's latest Crock of the week is relevant to this story and well worth watching.Response: Funnily enough, I watched Peter's latest video earlier today and even tweeted it but didn't make the mental connection between his video and this latest post. Here is the video:
-
Stuart at 13:19 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Minor nitpick: "death of more than 330,000 lives" could be improved to "loss of..." or "... people". Otherwise, that's an insightful piece. It's not difficult to see similarities to other anti-science crusades popping up again and again, it's just unfortunate how much attention the crackpots are getting on this issue.Response: Thanks for the feedback. Funny how you can read and reread your own post over and over but still miss those little grammatical anomalies. -
SLRTX at 13:10 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Ned (#6) Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to make it sound like they themselves influence policy. But they were set up to help govts guide their nation's policies. The IPCC itself doesn't actively set policies. "By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive." http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm The point is, the IPCC does not do the science itself. Anyone railing against the IPCC is arguing policy, not science. The IPCC "does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports." Sorry for my misstatement. -
Ned at 13:07 PM on 17 March 2010We're heading into an ice age
At this point, given trends in atmospheric CO2, CH4, halocarbons, etc. "cooling" is not likely to be a problem for the foreseeable future. In fact, if we burn enough coal over the next century or two, it's entirely possible that there will still be enough additional CO2 in the atmosphere 50,000 years from now to prevent the next glacial cycle (Archer 2009). Cooling is not going to be a problem. Heat, sea level rise, and especially alterations to the hydrologic cycle will be. -
SLRTX at 13:01 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
NewYorkJ (#5) "Actually, #2 is technically a falsity too going by GISS's latest adjustment." Which adjustment is that? I didn't see a link in your post. But here's a link to the GISS site. Can you point out the "falsity" to us? Thanks. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Response: I think what NewYorkJ is getting at is that a recent adjustment of the U.S. temperature data has now moved 2006 and 1998 above 1934 as the hottest year on record for the United States. But the difference between the three years is statistically insignificant - as it was for the previous adjustment when 1934 was made the hottest year on U.S. record. NewYorkJ originally commented on this here... -
Chris G at 13:01 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
I've met a few rare birds that are rational and have a pretty solid understanding of the basic science, but are fully convinced that it's not CO2 that is causing the warming or ocean acidification. They are likable people. I don't quite get why they don't get it. One tried to convince me that, because the ocean has varying pH levels depending on time and location, it can't be that CO2 is causing a lowering of the pH. I was thinking, well, yeah, we know that there are other factors that affect pH, but that doesn't negate the basic chemistry of the solubility of CO2 in water, or the reaction that results in the formation of carbonic acid. It was like it had to be one thing or the other with him; when, the reality is that it is always a combination of factors. It's like there is some psychological blockage preventing these guys from connecting all the dots. Connect only some of the dots and you get a different picture. Otherwise, I find myself most often repeating the question, "What does the size Al Gore's bank account have to do with the absorption spectra of CO2?" -
Ned at 12:59 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
SLRTX writes: Same thing goes for the IPCC. That organization's main purpose is to influence policy, based on the evidence of AGW/ACC. But, the IPCC doesn't define the science. Er, actually I'd say exactly the opposite. The IPCC's role is simply to provide a conservative, cautious overview of the science of climate change based on the totality of the work in the field during the years prior to each updated report. -
sidd at 12:54 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Mr. Hogarth, thanx for the references. May I add Schuckmann, JGR, v114, C09007, 2009, which, in Figure 5 clearly shows lowered salinity to great depths in the Southern Ocean in the period 2003 to 2008. Would anyone care to comment on any possible connection this may have to surface ice (or the lack thereof) ? -
Ned at 12:52 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Peter, that is nice -- and I myself posted a reference to analysis of ARGO data from the Southern Ocean on another thread recently -- but there is no need to cater to Jeff Id's absurd and completely unjustified dismissal of satellite-based sea surface temperature retrievals. Jeff, that's enough arm-waving. It's increasingly clear that on this topic you simply don't know what you're talking about. Google Scholar lists over 9000 references to papers with the keywords "AVHRR" and "sea surface temperature". That's not surprising, because retrieval of SSTs from AVHRR imagery using various multiwindow algorithms is one of the most robust and best-validated methods in remote sensing. The use of these data has been a staple of quantitative meteorology and oceanography for three decades. I am uninterested in assurances that "you've spent hours with the actual data". Many, many people spend their entire careers working with AVHRR derived sea surface temperature measurements. I find it particularly ironic that you'd describe this very robust and high-quality data set as "the worst possible" considering that as of a few days ago your own blog was promoting E.G Beck's ridiculous interpretations of chemical CO2 measurements. In light of that, I think that you might want to back up your claims here by references to the peer reviewed literature rather than by references to rather dubious blog posts, since a visit to your blog is more likely to decrease than increase your credibility here. -
NewYorkJ at 12:51 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
They seem to need a category for basic falsities. Fallacies deal with poor logic. Falsities (such as "sea levels aren't rising") are demonstrably false statements. 1. Falsity: 1934 was the warmest year on record globally 2. Fallacy: 1934 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. Actually, #2 is technically a falsity too going by GISS's latest adjustment. Most on John's list I suppose could probably be categorized into cherry-picking (pretty extreme in some cases) or logical fallacies. So it seems that fighting denialism long-term might involve teaching critical thinking skills at all levels of education. -
Peter Hogarth at 12:46 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Here are some recently published papers which do not rely on AVHRR data and thus provide independent corroborating evidence that the Antarctic Ocean is warming, - at all depths. For depths down to 1000m, we have "Decadal-Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean" Gille 2008 "Long-term trends in the heat content of the Southern Hemisphere ocean are evaluated by comparing temperature profiles collected during the 1990s with profiles collected starting in the 1930s. Data are drawn both from ship-based hydrographic surveys and from autonomous floats. Results show that the upper 1000 m of the Southern Hemisphere ocean has warmed substantially during this time period at all depths. Warming is concentrated within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC." We also have "State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system" Mayewski 2009 "The upper kilometer of the circumpolar Southern Ocean has warmed, Antarctic Bottom Water across a wide sector off East Antarctica has freshened, and the densest bottom water in the Weddell Sea has warmed". For deeper waters we have "Decadal warming of the coldest Antarctic Bottom Water flow through the Vema Channel" Zenk 2007 "From today's perspective the apparent stagnant temperature level until 1991 can be interpreted as a period of feeble rising in comparison with a perspicuous warming trend of 2.8 mK yr−1 in the following 15 years." and also "Recent decadal warming and freshening of Antarctic-derived abyssal waters" Johnson 2009 "Here we review 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. We also attempt to assess the potential contribution of these changes to global heat and sea level budgets". And for a magnificent comprehensive recent overview of the Antarctic: Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment edited by Turner and many others, which also examines effects of warming such as recent Ice Shelf retreat (but be warned it is 20Mb) -
SLRTX at 12:40 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
josil (#1) Denialists mix ideology with science as if ideological arguments somehow define climate science. Al Gore is not a scientist. So he's a moot point. Same thing goes for the IPCC. That organization's main purpose is to influence policy, based on the evidence of AGW/ACC. But, the IPCC doesn't define the science. Denialists would like us to believe that somehow Al Gore and the IPCC is using the "hockey stick" to "swindle" us into believing in climate change. That simply isn't true. Those arguments are red herrings. They have nothing to do with the science of climate change. -
SLRTX at 12:32 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
John, Great post. Regardless of the evidence clearly supporting AGW/ACC, some people are beyond any rational comprehension of the evidence. When it comes to discussing climate science, I separate people into 4 categories: 1. Those who get it. 2. The rational ignorant. These people are rational and understand the experts may know a bit more about things than they do. They may not completely understand the science, but they know they don't have to understand everything to believe the experts. The "rational skeptic" may be in this group. Emphasis on "rational". These people would appreciate this site for its simplicity and links to solid references. (Here's a link to a description of a "rational skeptic": http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html) 3. The irrational ignorant. These people make up a large part of the denialist camp. They don't understand the science, argue the peer-review process is a conspiracy, and think they know more than the experts. This group thinks they are skeptics, but they certainly aren't rational. Forget even trying to convince these cranks. Their train left the station long ago. 4. The misinformer. These are the corporate or political hacks who (should) know better. They make up the remainder of the denialist camp. They have an agenda, and will do anything to stop actions to curb global warming. They use the irrational ignorant to amplify their lies. Too bad the irrational ignorant can't see the real conspiracy in front of them. The misinformers are part of the real conspiracy, and the irrational ignorant are just tools to further the denialist agenda. WUWT is a good example of a misinformer site. It sure attracts a lot of the irrational ignorant. -
shawnhet at 12:23 PM on 17 March 2010Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
"i can't understand why you continue to jump to different issues. What's the problem with parametrizations as far as the climate change thory is concerned? Is it included in the parametrizations? Again, it might be a problem of the models, not of the theory." Personally, I can't see how you don't see the relevance here. You were arguing that we can just plug "the physics and chemistry" into the models and come up with some predictions(or projections). The Wiki page discusses how this is *not* what the models do - "Parameterization in a climate model refers to the method of replacing (physical)processes that are too small-scale or complex to be physically represented in the model by a simplified process. This can be contrasted with other processes—e.g., large-scale flow of the atmosphere—that are explicitly resolved within the models."(bracketed term added by me for clarity) Notice how they replace a more complex real process with a simplified process. "You can make predictions without knowing how PDO works? You can not even hindcast, at best you could could do some regressions. But without the physics you are limited to correlations, which can dismiss but not affirm the validity of any theory." Well, we could make hindcasts for periods if we got some previously undiscovered data. If we found a way to reconstruct the PDO for the last 1000 years we could use that to hindcast the temperature. IAC, there is no requirement for a theory to make predictions of the past, just that it make some testable predictions that can be tested against real world observations. Thanks for the Atmoz link, I will need some time to digest it, though. Cheers, :) -
josil at 12:18 PM on 17 March 2010The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
Unfortunately, much of Al Gore's "work" has the flavor of denialism more than science. I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved. For example, even granting AGW there is still a wide range of alternatives for dealing it.Response: "I wonder if the "discussion" on climate would have been more civil if he hadn't been involved."
Considering much of the conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks are directly focused on climate scientists, my guess is there would've been little difference whether Al Gore existed or not. Nevertheless, it's hypothetical and beside the point - what matters is the science, not the former Vice President. -
NewYorkJ at 12:09 PM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
JeffId..."You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. " Compared with some of the comments I've seen of yours in more contrarian environments, you've done fairly well in that regard here. Unfortunately, there's still the persistent problem of unsubstantiated claims, which is arguably more disasteful than the ad hominens. Things like "I've blogged on it", "[people] agree with me", and "based on lots of hours with the data", all while constructing red herrings that divert attention from the topic, is good for show, and perhaps acceptable among contrarians, but isn't too useful and doesn't fly among critical thinkers. A good suggestion would be to start referencing actual data and papers and make an attempt to stay on topic. -
We're heading into an ice age
OK. This is what I have to say. I am not skeptical about the warming trend caused by atmospheric changes. I do think the current discussion in the media is limited. If we were about to enter an ice age, we might want more greenhouse gases to counter an ice age trend independent of the atmosphere and likely caused by astronomical features. The above discussion says an ice age is unlikely becasue of the warming forces. I say that gets to my basic point. The discussion is too narrow. Do not say "it is getting warmer, we must cool the earth." Ask what will come next? What should we do if the future will be warmer? and also ask "What should do if the trend is for cooler weather?" Our changes to the atmosphere must be in response to what we know about the climate in the future. Warmer will be inconvenient. Ice will kill most of us. I don't know what will happen. I know we need a wider discussion. Our most important question is "So what?" We need more data and a more comprehensive picture with many more questions. The cureent discussion in public is limited.Response: The question "so what?" is addressed in the positives and negatives of global warming. -
Jeff Id at 11:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
#59, There is nothing casual about my dismissal. It's based on a lot of hours with the actual data. AVHRR is probably a better measure over warmer areas than antarctic land, but over the land, it's just too noisy for good trends. I provided a link earlier. #60, I don't know what Goddard even said outside of this post. I'm sorry I didn't have time for discussion, I was at work. As far as a source for my statement that sea ice recovered further in 2009, I have several posts done by myself as well as pointed out that it's easy to figure out that there was a further recovery in the summer of 09 over summer 07 just by looking at the extent minimum. Because the winter freeze basically locks in multi-year ice in the center of the Antarctic, the extent minimum is closely associated with the amount of multi-year ice lost. -- It's during the melt when you loose more of the center see.... It's not like we need quantum physics. A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'.... My assertion is that the land has not appreciably warmed. The trend over 50 years is about 0.06 C/Decade and not significant. I said sea ice doesn't respond much to the small warming and responds far more to current, I provided the video of sea ice as evidence. That's all. I enjoy coming to blogs with groups of deep believers and having a discussion once in a while, just to see how open minded they are. You guys haven't done too badly. Very minimal name calling and accusation. BTW, I do believe in CO2 warming.Response: "A substantial point of this post was that despite 'warming land'...."
Quite the contrary, the main focus of this post is looking at warming trends over the Southern Ocean - specifically, where ice-covered regions where sea-ice forms. -
Berényi Péter at 10:34 AM on 17 March 2010CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
#84 gallopingcamel at 06:53 AM on 17 March, 2010 "seems pretty obvious that the GCMs are way too simplistic" It's not obvious at all, quite the contrary. I would say they are overcomplicated structures on rather shaky physical foundations. Terrestrial climate is a heat engine based on water as a working fluid. Common sense tells that much, one does not even have to be a climate scientist to know that much. Weather-talk is about precipitation or the lack of it, what else? And exactly the water cycle is the most poorly understood part of any computational model of climate. Need to say more? -
yocta at 10:04 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id you have thoroughly confused me. Uou say things like I don't have time to find a source for you. I have looked at the NSIDC data in great detail though. , and then claim you can find a decreasing trend looking at 3 points. You have managed to get everyone OT whilst actively avoiding answering the post's main point on Goddard. All this doesn't help your case for people to take you seriously. I don't understand how you can hope to educate people if you can't explain, or back up your statements with peer reviewed papers that the ice experts you mention have written that agree with you. No offense, but the best scientists I have ever encountered are also very good at explaining things. -
Ned at 09:42 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Jeff Id writes: I came to this blog after a comment was left at tAV and I saw the blog using the worst possible data for Antarctic trend above. It's a common mistake though because, how can people know that the data which was used isn't very good for trend. This thread is about temperatures in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica. Those figures were posted because they illustrate the warming trend in the Southern Ocean. This trend is calculated using measurements of sea surface temperature from AVHRR. Far from being the "worst possible data" AVHRR is routinely and reliably used to retrieve SST for applications ranging from hurricane forecasting to fisheries management. Thousands of scientists in many, many fields use SST data from AVHRR. Your casual dismissal of these data is frankly ridiculous. -
Jesús Rosino at 09:21 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
The link to Kwok & Comiso 2002 is wrong; it is here (or here in full). -
Jesús Rosino at 08:44 AM on 17 March 2010Watts Up With That's continued ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Further recommended reading for Steve Goddard would be Gille 2002, Kwok & Comiso 2002 and Fyfe 2006.
Prev 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 Next
