Recent Comments

Prev  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  Next

Comments 17751 to 17800:

17751. NotMuchHope at 13:34 PM on 28 September 2017
       It's too hard
       

       Seven years later, with all the action of the last decade having produced st best a plateau in emissions rise with minimal increases (and even then I have reasons to doubt that this is actually a sign of an end to increased emissions) is this article still valid?  Every year without a reduction in emissions makes the future reduction curve necessary steeper and steeper -I think Dr. Hansen has said it will take 6% decrease each year now to prevent 1.5 degrees in increase, and probably some car removal geoengineering scheme which may or may not even be possible.  

17752. Eclectic at 13:32 PM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Nigelj @33 and prior ,

       The Mail is a fine example of "corporate insanity" ( I almost said "institutional insanity" — but that might be misconstrued! ).    Insane in the Latinic sense of being unsound of mind or body.

       Of course, corporate insanity derives from individual insanity (at the leadership level).    The English language lacks the terminology to label the type of insanity demonstrable in climate-denialists / anti-vaxxers / Flat-Earthers etc.     "Legal insanity" is defined over a narrow range, which only partly overlaps with the "medical insanity" (which is primarily a psychosis-based diagnosis/definition).   Yet every day around us, we notice examples of degrees of insanity : exhibiting as poor decision-making and a partial denial of reality — and all at a much higher intensity than in the average mature sane person.    But the insanity of climate-science-denialism is the prime type being of interest here at SkS.

       Which leads us back to J. Curry and her motivations.  I am sure, Nigelj, that she is moved by many considerations (but lacking what Mr OPOF calls the rational consideration of distant motives).

       In my post #24 above, I sieved out 5 examples of Curry's "position".   I started with wikipedia and desmogblog, and jumped back and forth between Curry's own blog and those sources (plus a few others).   Desmogblog had a number of its links broken (or not easily available) so I didn't verify everything on them — nor did I think it warranted the waste of time to pursue them. ( Though I am half-puzzled by Tom13's violent contention that the quote: "And that's not human" has any real difference from the quote: "And that is not caused by humans".   I will have to give a shrug about that one ! )

       Fortunately I had a considerable amount of prior experience of Curry's blog, so I was able to quickly judge/assess the concordance of the selected quotes with Curry's historical position (or rather more accurately : her range of self-contradictory positions plural ).

       For my sins, I had (from some years ago) chosen to examine parts of Curry's blog extending up to now [but skipping sections randomly, of course].   Two motives for that examination ~ (A) I knew that Curry was one of the trio [Curry, Christy, Spencer] of "contrarians" who were academically active & knowledgeably up-to-date climatologists, and well above the likes of those denialist minds in their twilight years [Lindzen, Singer and suchlike].   And despite reading the mainstream's damning indictment of the trio, I hoped I might find some scientifically logically valid points that Curry had put forward.   But I found none whatsoever.

       ~ (B) I was interested to learn something of her psychology (or perhaps psycho-pathology is the better term).   Why would a nominally-rational person take up a denialist stance?   Putting aside all questions of corruption & financial inducement, there remains the "strange peculiarity of the human mind".    As I had mentioned to Rbrooks502 (on another thread) , there is the actually remarkably widespread condition of Encapsulated Paranoia, where the individual is sane in most areas but psychotic [psychotic = out of touch with reality] in one particular area — the textbook case being the man with paranoid jealousy re his wife/girlfriend.

       However, other types of encapsulated insanity exist, and the scientific-minded readers here will be well aware of the Conspiracy Theorism and other insanities underlying AGW denialism.  Including the pathological resistance to accepting the plain logical evidence produced by the totality of climate scientists.   (A resistance which is multi-factorial, of course.)

       But I am drifting off-topic — yet excusing myself by pointing to the whole basic purpose of SkS being the combination of general information/education plus the countering of (some of) the climate "madness".    Nigelj , please forgive my overly-long post here, but I thought that you, as a wide reader, would find some points of interest in it.   Finishing in a humorous vein — doubtless you are aware of Douglas Adams' classic Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where some [alien] inspector has given a one-line descriptor/assessment of Planet Earth . . . comprising just two words: "Mostly harmless".   I imagine that if the Inspector were to return to this solar system to assess the human race . . . he would use a 3-word descriptor: "Brilliant but mad".

17753. citizenschallenge at 08:35 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       I was wondering about that, thank you for clarified it so well, ... and for giving the Arctic some respect.  ;)

17754. nigelj at 06:54 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Just reading the above discussion various things come through. Judith Curry is clearly promoting sceptical arguments sometimes over even basic accepted physics, and encouraging doubt about climate change. She is clearly irrational in her thinking. Tom says she has said other things less sceptical, but its the doubt that comes through strongly.

       The interesting thing is she is not specific on her reasoning. Theres a lack of clarity and detail about why she thinks what she thinks, which is frustrating everyone, and just plays into the hands of the denialists.

       Perhaps she is filled with doubts, but unwilling to be open in specific ways, or perhaps she enjoys the attention. Or perhaps she is just a schill for commercial interests and this looks very likely.

       I wish she would be specific, or shut up. I think as a scientist payed out of public funds to some extent (as well as fossil fuel money) she owes us all a duty to be precise and stop in effect spreading nonsense, doubt, climate rumours and vague suspicions.

17755. Tom Dayton at 06:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502:

       1. No, that study described in the video did not measure only at the north east coast of the U.S. I don't understand how you got that idea. The narrator clearly says "The Eastern US and near Ascension Island."
       1. The name "Eastern US" means anything to the east of the midline of the continental US.
       2. Ascension Island is in the middle of the southern Atlantic Ocean.
       3. That was only one of many studies measuring the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. The video (at 3:22) explicitly says "We've also measured the greenhouse effect with satellites and at observatories all around the world." This video does not name them, because this video is not intended to be a survey of the entire scientific literature. This video is merely a simplified, introductory, overview lesson. One recent example of a ground-based study done in Oklahoma and Alaska in the US, was Feldman et al. (2015). (The news release summarizing it is here.) You can easily find more studies by reading the Intermediate and Advanced tabbed panes of that SkS post that has that video. Click the links in that text to find the details of the studies being cited. You can also look in the reference list of any study's paper. You can search the internet for other studies that reference that study. For example, you can use Google Scholar to find that study, and click the "Cited by" link below the study's name. And you can borrow a climatology or atmospheric science textbook.
       2. The amount of CO2 is not relevant for studies that verify the greenhouse gas signature spectra of absorption and emission. The patterns of absorption and emission are the same regardless of the amount of CO2. A separate question is whether the total amount of downwelling radiation in that CO2-signature-pattern has increased as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. The answer is yes, having been measured by Feldman et al. I linked to above.
       3. Wikipedia has an explanation of gas escaping the atmosphere to space.
17756. nigelj at 06:05 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @28

       "There is a huge body of scientific research showing CO2 has been a trailing indicator of climate change over the last 1.5m years, not the leading indicator.

       This trailing indicator phrasing of yours is unclear. The ice core samples show a strong correlation of CO2 and temperature and remember we have good causation as well given CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The samples show CO2 peaks lag temperature peaks, but the published research demonstrates with good certainty that while solar changes  caused the initial temperature peaks, CO2 was the dominant factor in the warming and amplified the warming as below:

       skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

       And more recent published evidence shows CO2 may well not have lagged temperature as below. So you are wrong on both counts. Just as Judith Curry is wrong to claim CO2 is not the main control knob.  

       www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

17757. HK at 04:26 AM on 28 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       Nigelj @3:
       No, the Millar study uses mid-19^th century as baseline, not 20^th.
       Dana's latest post contains most of the points I planned to use in my response to you, for instance that the HadCRUT4 data shows less warming because of its incomplete coverage in the Arctic.
       So, I agree with Dana that 1.5^oC might be impossible, but 2^oC is of course still better than 3^oC and much, much better than 4^oC!

17758. ubrew12 at 04:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       "the study authors... looked at how much carbon will be emitted at the time we reach 1.5°C warming"  In what way is this a useful metric?  It's like saying "if you burn this much diesel, your ship will get to Portsmouth harbor in one hour".  And a minute later, it'll sail right past it on its own momentum ("...because of what’s known as the ‘thermal inertia’ of the oceans" - yup). 

       A few years ago, Dr Mann published some calculations that indicated that if the ECS is 3C, as expected, then at todays 405ppm of CO2 we'll essentially hit 2C by 2100 (this assumes coal aerosols rain out, a 0.5C hit).  I find this a far more useful way of discussing how much wiggle room Earth has left before we exceed these targets.

17759. Geomancer at 03:55 AM on 28 September 2017
       Right-wing media could not be more wrong about the 1.5°C carbon budget paper
       

       Great explanation.  I saw the potholer video and he also gave this a thorough debunking.  Here are a couple more.

       https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

       http://www.factandmyth.com/climate-change/no-scientists-did-not-exaggerate-global-warming

17760. Inti at 03:50 AM on 28 September 2017
       It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming
       

       I hope it is not off topic here to ask whether there is a case for addressing the "consensus is not science" argument directly, as a myth in its own right? I appreciate that it isn't a claim about the content of the science itself, but it is a "metaclaim" about the methodology and philosphy of science in the context of climate. And it is an argument hat seems to come up frequently.

       Here, for what it's worth is how I'd frame a reply to the claim:

       Climate scientists don't base their conclusions on consensus. They base it on evidence, and that evidence is overwhelming.
       Consensus matters for the rest of us when we try to understand areas of science where we are not experts. That is when it is sensible to see what most true experts think. In this case they think that climate change is real and human-caused.
       In the same way, if I get cancer and someone claims that I can cure it myself with vitamin pills I will ask myself what the consensus of oncologists thinks.

       The common denialist meme says that "science does not work by consensus". Of course, that is true, but it is a straw man; nobody ever claims that it does. The point about consensus is that it arises amongst climate from the convergence or consilience of many strands of evidence, not that consensus is the evidence on which practicing climate scientists build their conclusions.

       So consensus is not central to the science itself, but to the understanding that the rest of us form as non-scientists (or at least non climate scientists). How else can a non-specialist form a well-founded opinion about any field in which they are not experts, but by asking themselves whether there is an informed consensus amongst actual experts? The only alternative would be for each of us to take advanced degrees in each field of expertise ourselves, before making a judgment. Good luck with that!

       (By the way, I think John Cook and colleagues are wise to shift from talking about consensus of evidence to consilience or convergence, to avoid confusion about that point.)

       Accepting the consensus is not a guarantee that we will be right. That's because neither science or any other form of human study promises certainty or "proof" (except, possibly , mathematics?). Consensus could be wrong, but at any one time it is the best bet, and other positions are sucker bets. It gives us the best chance of being right.

       Of course, that is only true if the consensus has arisen from well-founded scientific practice. Climate science is so formed, despite the deniers' best attempts to show otherwise. It is a mature, theoretically sophisticated field with a wide range of empirical and analytical methods at its disposal.

17761. Rbrooks502 at 03:42 AM on 28 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Tom@46 So after reading 1-3 as you posted and watching the video, one thing stands out. The video shows scientific study at the north east coast of the US to measure the IR. Why was this location chosin? Wouldnt the high population density have an effect on not only the CO2 produced but also the amount of IR released out? If so (and I believe it matters)  Wouldnt it be more logical to do this same experiment over all other areas? Using this experiment is very limited. While I love airplanes, this sole experiment is very limited and I think it should not be used as a sole test. It would be like putting a CO2 measuring instrument only on volcanic islands.  Imagine creating a thermometer if you will for the planet by using many measurements along the same criteria. IE more airplanes going up continously evenly spaced through out all the areas. 

       Also, (side thought) the thought of other gasses beside hydrogen and helium at a rate of 53KG per second be the only gases released into space came to mind. To date these are the only gases being released out of the atmosphere as far as I know. Do you have any data on this?

       Your thoughts?

       I will continue on you list and post where applicable. 

17762. Inti at 03:23 AM on 28 September 2017
       These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
       

       I've been asking myself why this "trace gas" claim keeps popping up.

       I believe that it appeals to two unspoken arguments:

       1. Obviously, the basic claim is that no substance can have a significant effect if it is only present in small proportions; or else that substance have effects in direct ratio to the their proportion in a mixture or system. The many counterexamples effectively refute that.

       2. There may be a further unspoken belief: that the effect of a trace substance must be diluted by the other elements of compounds present, in proportion to their relative amounts. So the intuition is that all the nitrogen or oxygen in the atmosphere must dilute the effect of CO2 until it is negligible.

       Now the second intuition is completely contrary to physics. Molecules of gases which do not absorb and re-emit IR do not interfere with the ability of greenhouse gases to do so. And as somebody mentioned on SKS, the real question is not the percentage or ppm of CO2, but how many atoms of it are present , and how likely and IR is to encounter them.

       There is an interesting parallel between the second "dilution" form of the false intuition with sceptical arguments against Darwin in his own day.. Perhaps the best objection (except perhaps Kelvin's?)that Darwin encountered in his lifetime to his theory of natural selection was that traits ought to become more and more diluted as they were "mixed" during reproduction. Thus selection should break down, because there could be no reliable transmission of traits.

       We know now that the correct answer to this was already printed, unnoticed in a paper by Gregor Mendel; genetics shows that traits don't blend like colours in a mixture.

       Now these sceptical replies to Darwin were not denialism at that time, because they were raised as part of a rational scientific scepticism. If the same arguments are posed today by creationists, they are just not scepticism but just PRATTs - Points refuted a Thousand Times".

       In the same way, almost every one of the denialist myths refuted here was once a reasonable hypothesis that needed to be considered carefully and tested. As they have been. But once they have comprehensively refuted, to keep resurrecting them as zombies is quite different from any genuine scepticism.

       I wonder in passing whether it would be worth analysing the denialist project in the light of Imre Lakatos's distinction between progressive and degenerating research programs https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lakatos/

       It would be interesting to trace the history of this process, and find out how many objections were tested and refuted by those climate scientists who pioneered the field, and how many (or few) genuinely arose from the so-called "skeptics".

17763. Inti at 03:20 AM on 28 September 2017
       These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.
       

       How does Roy Spencer reconcile raising his first point (trace gas) in the White paper with his blog article "Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water" from 2014?
       http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

       Spencer is pleading with fellow deniers not to embarrass themselves with these claims. The first 7 of his of 10 examples are various attempts to deny that CO2 causes warming:

       1. There is no greenhouse effect.
       2. The greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
       3. CO2 can’t cause warming because co2 emits IR as fast as it absorbs.
       4. CO2 cools, not warms, the atmosphere.
       5. Adding co2 to the atmosphere has no effect because the CO2 absorption bands are already 100% opaque.
       6. Lower atmospheric warmth is due to the lapse rate/adiabatic compression.
       7. Warming causes co2 to rise, not the other way around

       Yet surely by posing the old "trace gas" nonsense he is making exactly the claim that "there is no greenhouse effect"?

       Am I missing something, or is Spencer?

17764. Eclectic at 02:41 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Philippe Chantreau, I wish to spare you further blushes, so I will go no further than saying it is a pleasure to read your excellent posts.  Alas, in this Vale of Sorrows known as the internet, infested by angry illogical and semi-literate "deniers" . . . even posts of basic mental competence look quite good!

        

       Tom13 @25 , for readers' convenience, I have aimed to keep points (A) to (E) as reasonably brief as possible, and I have taken care to present these excerpts [from Curry's own blog, and elsewhere as indicated] in a manner consonant with their context.  All for your convenience.  There is no deception / quote-mining / or "verballing" involved here.

       if you wish to waste your own time verifying these quotes, then you are welcome to google away.  If you knew Curry's modus operandi as well as I do, then you will see how all these statements hang together — even where she shows some self-contradiction!

       Yes, Tom13, her comments present an ugly picture.  And if you didn't really know her before, then I can understand if you experience some shock & revulsion at her grossly unscientific statements.  The denial of fundamental physics (especially the radiational properties of CO2).  The denial of mainstream observations & research.  The lack of any coherent "contrarian" science (even if by plausible hypothesis only).  The coy flirting with crazy rubbish e.g. Salby's ideas.  The continual sophisms combined with intentional vagueness & evasiveness.

       Use your common sense, Tom13, and look at the big picture — Curry is obviously a shill (but not near as poor a case as the blogger who calls herself JoNova).   Sorry Tom, but your goddess has feet made of clay . . . extending up to her eyebrows.

17765. Tom13 at 02:10 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #29 - thanks for the more complete quote - Quite obvious that Eclectric was using an intentionally incomplete quote to imply she said something she did not say.

       Not a good way to establish credibilty.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory statements and charege of dishonesty snipped.

       [DB]  Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up or use sock puppet accounts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
        
       Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

        

17766. MA Rodger at 02:07 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @25.

       The 8th December 2015 Senate Committee hearing quote (B) "And that's not human" is probably taken from DeSmogBlog and (having hit upon the segment in the hearing video) it isn't a word-perfect quote from the hearing. The actual quote is:-

       "Yes, I do believe that we have overall been warming, but we have been warming for 200, maybe even 400 years, OK? And that is not caused by humans. OK. There is natural variability involved. And this is exactly what has not been sorted out. "

       But the hearing (nicely described as four denialists & one admiral by one of the senators) is more a deniers' revialist meet than enquiry. The hand-wringing from ex-climatologist-now-BlogMom Judy does require wider viewing/listening to fully appreciate the context of the quote which appears @2:26. A transcript is available here (with quote @pdf page 109).

17767. Tom13 at 01:39 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #27 -

       There is a huge body of scientific litterature supporting the idea that CO2 has been a dominant control knob over the past 1.5 million years or so, which for us humans really means for ever. It is because of the fact that there is all this scientific litterature that the idea now pervades the field. 

       There is a huge body of scientific research showing CO2 has been a trailing indicator of climate change over the last 1.5m years, not the leading indicator.  It has only been the last 50 or so years that co2 has been a leading indicator, which makes your statement that CO2 is the dominant control knob highly unlikely.  Curry, along with most everyone with knowledge of climate science agrees with that CO2 plays a role, with the open question as to how much of a role vs natural varibility.  

       Curry's statement goes beyond saying that it's not a factor, so even so she technically does not say that, what she says is even worse.

       Curry has made numerous public statements, etc.  None of which even remotely claims what you just stated.  At least make an attempt to be factually accurate.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory statement snipped. 

       BTW, you are are responding to Philippe Chantreau #26, not #27.

17768. Philippe Chantreau at 01:19 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       By the way thank you for the compliment Eclectic, and feel free to copy and distribute as much as you want, so long as there is attribution. You can also correct typos...

       I see as well that your statements on Curry are justified and that you were able to back them up. I thought that your words were a little too strong, but as it turns out, they seem appropriate in light of the supporting documentation you provided.

17769. Philippe Chantreau at 01:14 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Curry's quote goes: "I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales."

       Tom13 reads that as " A reasonable acknowledgement that Co2 may not play the dominant role which is consistent with the earth's past history. Note that not once does her statement say that CO2 is not a factor."

       That's really the kind of problem we're facing these days. Tom13 uses empty rethoric to minimize the enormity of Curry's nonsense, even managing to convince himself that it is reasonable. The pronouncement that a minor role for CO2 is consistent with Earth history is unsupported in Tom13 post. It certainly is, at best, highly debatable.

       There is a huge body of scientific litterature supporting the idea that CO2 has been a dominant control knob over the past 1.5 million years or so, which for us humans really means for ever. It is because of the fact that there is all this scientific litterature that the idea now pervades the field. The idea did not come out of the blue just because someone liked it or wanted to take down the fossil fuel industries. Fossil fuel industry researchers themselves came to the same conclusion early on.

       Curry's statement goes beyond saying that it's not a factor, so even so she technically does not say that, what she says is even worse.

       Curry does not have any of her own research to back her statements, nor does she attempts to invalidate even a little of the research supporting the CO2 control knob concept, soe her big pronouncement is just opinion. As the sayng goes, everybody has one.

17770. Tom13 at 00:04 AM on 28 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #24 eclectic

       (A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

       A reasonable acknowledgement that natural causes play a significant role (perhaps dominant role ) in climate change - to deny otherwise is anti science.

       (B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

       Do you have a citation and the full statement - the 4 word quote ilacks the full context of her statement.  

       (C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

        A reasonable acknowledgement that Co2 may not play the dominant role which is consistent with the earth's past history.  Note that not once does her statement say that CO2 is not a factor.

       (D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

       Based on the scientific data available at that time, this is a reasonably accurate statement.  While the 2015/2016 el nino started in early summer of 2015, the data showing showing a more than a little warming since 1998 wasnt strong until very early 2016.

       (E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

       Ths statement seems completely out of context with her other statements and writings.  J curry has repeatedly stated that the oceans play a key role in climate change and has repeatedly stated that OHC will play a huge role future climate change, including the build up of ohc.

17771. Eclectic at 20:59 PM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @22 , about your quote: "she was" (unquote)

       She was . . . what?  What are you talking about?  Please be precise!  Readers here don't wish to bother second-guessing what you intend to mean.

       Regarding Judith Curry :- the sources are her own comments :

       (A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

       (B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

       (C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen].  I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

       (D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

       (E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

       Now, Randman, consider each of the above 5 statements.  If you yourself had issued them, then it would be evidence that you were grossly ignorant about climate science.  If they had been made by a scientist (a scientist not specializing in climate related matters), then that would count as intellectual dishonesty.  Issued by a climatologist, that would rise to the level of gross intellectual dishonesty. 

       Individually, each of the above statements cannot be justified, for they are individually & severally false and/or misleading.   Randman, I could add others to the list . . . but (to paraphrase an Einstein quote) :- "It only takes one" !

        

       $$$$$$$

       Randman, I do not in any way suggest that Curry receives money illegally from the Oil industry & other anti-science propagandists.   Arguably, what money or other benefits she receives from such groups is immoral but not illegal.

       ~ In 2006, Judith Curry [climatologist] and Peter Webster [meteorologist] set up a private company "Climate Forecast Applications Network".  Judith Curry is President (not an unpaid job, I gather!).  Curry herself said (in an interview with Scientific American) : "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry ... [per my company] since 2007." (unquote).   Please note, Randman, that that sort of thing is not illegal — it is simply one of the many ways that the Oil industry slush funds operate.

       Perhaps you are innocently unaware, Randman, that the fossil fuel industry slush fund money percolates all around the place.  [Though I had to laugh when I saw that Peabody Energy's filing for bankruptcy in 2016 had "stiffed" the prominent science-denier Richard Lindzen, for a USD$25,000 "consultancy fee" that they owed him — though I don't know whether that $25,000 was a one-off or an annual stipend.]    Stipends, expenses, etc are paid in various ways — sometimes by "sinecure" payments, sometimes by propaganda "fronts" like Heartland or GWPF, sometimes by other under-the-counter indirect methods e.g. payments to a company (not to the individual).

       As to other benefits [in non-monetary form, not in cash] there are the examples of Curry appearing at least three times in front of Congressional-level hearings.   I am sure that even you, Randman, are not so naive as to believe that Curry paid for travel accommodation & incidental expenses, out of her own purse — if you act as a prominent stooge for Big Corporations, then they look after you in the premium style.   That's just the way the business world is, Randman.  (But it's not in any way illegal for her to be on the Big Oil teat.)   And then there's the purely psychological benefits she receives — definitely an ego boost for a mediocre climate scientist, to appear (and often) in the national Congressional limelight (etc).

       Then there are other benefits in cash e.g. in January and February this year [her academic retirement onto a teacher's pension, being at the end of December 2016] Judith Curry authored two reports, one for Koch Brothers and one for the British propaganda machine GWPF.  I don't know whether she was paid directly into her personal account or indirectly via her CFAN company, or by other means — but it would have been a generous*-sized benefit.  Again, not illegal — but of doubtful morality.   ( *Randman, it is extremely difficult for denialism-pushing Big Corporations to find any scientist with more than a shred of repectability/reputation who can be relied on as a stooge who will play the "Doubt & Uncertainty" game, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that proves "D&U" is unjustified/dishonest.)

        

       In Summary :

       So, all in all, Randman, your own phrasing: "her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies" . . . is a fairly good summation of the situation.

17772. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:33 PM on 27 September 2017
       Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
       

       David
       
       Thank you for this. That strongly matches the Andy we knew, often only online. He seems to have been that rare individual. Professional and very human (and humane). We will miss him.

17773. Rbrooks502 at 17:56 PM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Thank you Tom

17774. MA Rodger at 16:52 PM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @514.

       Let us stick with your ill-advised assertion that in June 1988 Hansen "told Congress 59 degrees was the mean for the years between 1950-1980." Let us deal with one-tree-at-a-time in your little forest of dodgy quotes.

       In that regard, @514 you claim of me and my rebutal: "So far you've provided no facts or sources to counter this except your own incredulity." Are you having a laugh? @512 you dismissed the documentation provided @501/511 by insisting the Q&As at that 1988 Senate Hearing were missing but required (when they are not required) any insisting this missing aspect of the Senate Hearing had already been highlighted by you (although I see no evidence of such prior comment up-thread). And now you attempt to ignore the link I provide to the full documentation @513 (complete with Q&As). What is your problem? Can you not see that link? Because I'm sure everybody else can!!

17775. nigelj at 14:30 PM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @22

       "Eclectic, she was. Please cite your source for your defamation of her character in claiming her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies."

       I'm sure Eclectic can answer for himself, but I just cannot see where he claimed or implied Curry was dishonest or biased as such. I just wonder where you get off thinking you can really blatantly shove words in peoples mouths like that? 

       Judith Currie has actually recieved funding from fossil fuel companies according to these sources, including scientific american:

       www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

       www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Fossil_fuel_industry_funding

       Currie claims it hasn't influenced her. Yeah well ha ha I draw my own conclusions.

       Curry is more climate sceptic than anything these days, constantly expressing somewhat vague doubts about the IPCC and whether we can be sure of anything. Its all utterly confusing, not really backed up with anything specific,  and thus unhelpful. Refer her wikipedia entry. People can join the dots and reach their own conclusions.

17776. randman at 11:57 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       THe NYTs said he told Congress 59 degrees was the mean for the years between 1950-1980. Other media reported he claimed that as well, and in 1992, media reported Jones said the same thing.
       
       And in 1981 in Hansen's paper, the mean he used for those years was roughly 59 degrees.
       
       So far you've provided no facts or sources to counter this except your own incredulity. Where are your sources? I have provided mine.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Excessive repetiton and false claims snipped.

       Either respond specifically to MA Rodger's #513 post or cease posting on this topic. 

17777. randman at 11:54 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic, she was. Please cite your source for your defamation of her character in claiming her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies.

17778. Eclectic at 10:20 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Philippe Chantreau @15 , please accept my vote of admiration for your well-expressed comments in post #15.

       ~ I have also printed off a copy of your similarly excellent post #20 in the "Al Gore got it wrong" thread.  (Not yet gotten around to framing it and hanging it on the living room wall, though!)

       Who says that Science and the Literary Arts cannot be combined !

17779. Eclectic at 10:06 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @16 , you are very wrong if you think that Judith Curry is a proponent* of AGW.

       Judith Curry receives considerable benefits from slush funds (from Oil corporations) as a separate matter from her regular retirement income.  She is, in effect, a paid opponent of mainstream science.   Please read her blog more carefully (as well as her other public comments) and you will see that she bends over backwards to give people the impression that AGW does not exist or only exists to a negligible degree.

       She was a climate scientist in the 1990's , but in more recent years she has slid into an anti-science role.  So, it's more accurate to consider her an "ex-scientist".

        

       [ * here you convey your meaning adequately, but your actual use of the word "proponent" is incorrect IMO.  There have been no proponents of AGW for about 20 years now (since AGW became a well-accepted & well-proven part of mainstream physical science).

       ~ An analogous case is the Round Earth situation : for several centuries now, there have been no "proponents" of the Round Earth, because the Round Earth is accepted & proven mainstream physical science.  Yes, there are "opponents" (called Flat-Earthers) but there are no "proponents", since the Round Earth is well past the stage of being a "proposed" matter.

       Randman : sloppy use of words tends to produce sloppy thinking.  Please aim for precision! 

       The concept AGW is distinct from the concept of "proposing" action to tackle the AGW problem. ]

17780. nigelj at 06:56 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       HK @1, I think you are taking the worst case basing temperatures against 1880 base line? I think the Miller study is based on taking 20th century as a baseline so temperatures are about 1 degree C above that. 

       However its hard work either way, but we should still try to do our best to reduce emissions. At this stage any reasonable reduction could help to at least reduce risks, and stop getting up into territory where things get really unstable.

17781. nigelj at 06:50 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       I agree the denialists have got things wrong here in several respects. No surprise there.

       But on another matter and I might be wrong on this but looking at discussion of the Miller study on realclimate.org I get the impression it is simply an over optimistic study on how much  we can burn. Not wrong just too optimistic. They base it on hadcrut temperature data which shows the least warming and this is criticised for leaving out arctic temperatures, so I'm not sure why they select that study, and their accounting for carbon budgets seems over optimistic and a bit impenetrable. 

       There is also an element of nit picking maths. Arguing about exact quantities is a waste of energy. It's obvious more cuts are needed than currently being implemented, and a slightly bigger budget doesn't change this.

17782. MA Rodger at 06:45 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       randman @512,

       You are entirely incorrect to state of the link I provided @501 and again @511 "that's not a transcript from that session." It is indeed a transcript. It is however not a transcript of the complete session. Being so, you are correct that it does not include the "question and answer part" of the session but if it had, my comment would have remained the same "Nowhere does Hansen ever report to that 1988 Senate Committee, either in writing or verbally, that there was an average global temperature of '59 degrees Fahrenheit'. Nowhere!" Perhaps you would care to check this by examining the transcript of the full session (which rather inconvenietly is somewhat longer than the part-transcript previously linked containing the relevant bit of Hansen's testiment.) This particular 'tree' within your 'forest' of unreliable quotes is as worthless in establishing your bold assertions as all the other 'trees'. I recommend you re-visit my comment @501 and consider each point in turn rather than ignoring them. Do note that the last does present irrefutable evidence which does actually make a complete nonsense of the bold assertions you have been making down this thread. (I even added a trace from Hansen et al (1981), just in case you start-up insisting that your 'randman event' was enacted on global temperature records prior to 1987.)

17783. Tom Dayton at 06:42 AM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks502: Novak’s first article you linked is all over the place, and is vague and ambiguous, so even dealing with only that one article first unfortunately will not let you stay linear in your research. There are too many misconceptions there for me to deal with all of them at once, but here is a starting set. SkS appreciates your attempt to deal with one topic at a time, so though I’ll list here several relevant posts, please focus on only one of them first (any one). Please make further comments on these specific topics on these listed threads, not here.

       1. Novak’s claims that there already is so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more won’t matter, and that scientists are wrong/crazy/stupid in explaining that what’s important happens high in the atmosphere:
       1. Read the analogy of the greenhouse effect as a stack of blankets.
       2. Then read "Is the CO2 Effect Saturated?." Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video there, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane, then the Advanced tabbed pane.
       3. Then read Eli Rabbett’s explanation.
       4. Then read RealClimate’s “A Saturated Gassy Argument” Part 1.
       5. Then read Part 2.
       6. Then play with this U. of Colorado PhET simulation.
       7. Then Stoat's simple explanation of the greenhouse effect.
       8. Then Science of Doom’s slightly less simple explanation of the Greenhouse Effect.
       9. Then V. Ramanthan’s Trace-Gas Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.
       2. Novak’s claim that “water vapor will swamp whatever CO2 does.”
       1. “Explaining How the Water Vapor Greenhouse Effect Works.” Read the Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane.
       2. If you want technical detail, see Science of Doom’s series on Clouds and Water Vapor, but remember that clouds are liquid water, not vapor.
       3. Novak’s claim in the last paragraph that “ice age” (really glacial cycles within an ice age) are not affected by CO2:
       1. First read “Milankovitch Cycles”
       2. Then read the multipart series that begins "The Last Interglacial - An Analogue for the Future?"
       3. Then "What Influence Do Underground Temperatures Have on Climate?"
       4. Then watch the excellent lecture “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
17784. Rob Honeycutt at 06:30 AM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       Rbrooks... If you apply this to issues that haven't been sufficiently researched, you usually end up with the wrong answer, and that's not science. The conclusion that the earth is flat is, and never was, a claim based in science. It was science which revealed the truth to us.

       I'm curious why you would want to start from Novak's paper? There is nothing, on the surface, that suggests the paper is credible. I've not read it yet so I don't know for sure, but what I do know is this:

       1) The source is suspicious. "lasersparkpluginc.com" somehow doesn't suggest to me this is coming from a reliable source.

       2) This is not a published paper and therefore likely it's not peer reviewed. 

       3) The subtitle straight up rejects what has been established science for over 100 years: "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming"

       Honestly, don't you think it would be more reasonable to start from work that is well established and thoroughly reviewed by leading experts around the world? I mean, if a student wants to learn about the planets in our solar system we don't start by trying to teach them the earth is flat. Right?

17785. nigelj at 06:27 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Randman @16

       "knaugle, if the NYTs and Washington Post get high marks on their facts, something is wrong with the rating group, at least if that concerns politics. '

       Can you please provide something specific to back up your vague rhetorical allegations. Nothing is wrong. Several reviews by various groups find these publications more accurate than others. This should be telling you something, namely they just are more accurate and so get their basic facts right better.

       "On global warming, I think they generally just report what the various agencies put out. So maybe they are better on that."

       Thats their job, to report on what the agencies say.

       "But there should be more reporting on skeptic's arguments, some of whom like Judith Curry were proponents of AGW and maybe still are for AGW-lite or somehing."

       Why? I dont think more reporting is required. The mainstream media already report sceptics arguments and in my view give them too much and disproportionate attention sometimes in a fake 50 / 50 balance. Numerous polls like the Cook study show over 90% of climate scientists think we are warming the climate, so the media should devote most attention to the 90% not the few dissenting voices many of which are funded by vested interests. And some of their claims are just nonsensical in the realms of flat earthers, so why report on that? Just having a view is not a reason for media being obliged to report it.

17786. nigelj at 06:16 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13 @12

       "This is supposed to be a science blog - are you stating the there should be a repeal of the first amendment - Are you saying there should be a "ministry of Truth"?

       Yes this is a science blog, but from time to time science intersects with politics and media or economics etc, and these things are worthy of discussion. This is such a case obviously.

       Regarding the first amendment on free speech,this only applies to America. Many people commenting here are not Americans.  

       Anyway the american constitution only says that governments may not pass laws restricting free speech. Private organisations however are allowed to have whatever rules they like.

       The supreme court in america has also historically recognised many exceptions to constitutional free speech eg time and place restrictions, defamation law, restrictions on pornography etc. However its fair to say legal restrictions requiring media balance would be unlikely in America.

       In my view free speech is very important but principally related to the right to have an opinion, and particularly without government censorship or the like and threats of violence or intimidation, just for expressing a view. It is not a right to shout whatever rubbish we want in any context at all and obviously there are unspoken cultural rules about whats acceptable.

       In that respect I dont think the media have the right to print blatant factual inaccuracies, and to be be totally unbalanced especially in smaller countries with just one main media outlet or only a couple. There needs to be a code of practice with some teeth. In america this would have to be self regulating, and not law as such given their constitution, but in other countries there are often legal provisions. It's obviously a balancing act between freedom of  expression, and commonsense limits. Websites usually have some form of sensible moderation with a few limited rules against personal abuse, off topic political ranting, threats etc. They do need to be just a few rules, and not excessive. This reduces clutter, and issues becoming clouded with emotion. Only morons and angry people have a problem with this. Its not rocket science.

17787. nigelj at 05:36 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Eclectic @8, I suspect you are right about all of that sadly to say. I spent a year as a quality assurance manager for a corporate, so you can see where I'm coming from. We can dream and idealise a bit, its healthy and nothing will change without that.

       My country actually came close to a really good media code with some teeth, it just fell a couple of votes short in parliament. They probably caved in to the lobbyists. Lobbying has overtaken and wrecked politics, its out of control with a disproportionate influence now.

17788. randman at 05:10 AM on 27 September 2017
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       MA Rodger, that's not a transcript from that session. Note how it does not include the question and answer part. Already informed you of this once, btw.
       
       The fact we see Hansen and Jones and others quoted by media in the years 1988-1991 or 1992 all using 59 degrees as the mean lends credence to the NYTs quote you diagree with being valid and not a misquote. The mean of 59 degrees in Hansen's 1988 paper does the same.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory and sloganeering snipped.

       [JH] You are also skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Poilicy.  

17789. randman at 05:04 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       knaugle, if the NYTs and Washington Post get high marks on their facts, something is wrong with the rating group, at least if that concerns politics. On global warming, I think they generally just report what the various agencies put out. So maybe they are better on that.
       
       But there should be more reporting on skeptic's arguments, some of whom like Judith Curry were proponents of AGW and maybe still are for AGW-lite or somehing.

17790. HK at 04:33 AM on 27 September 2017
       Potholer on the 1.5C carbon budget paper controversy
       

       With the warming since preindustrial quickly approaching 1.2C, it will be almost impossible to limit the warming to 1.5 C!

       

17791. Rbrooks502 at 03:50 AM on 27 September 2017
       Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
       

       I searched the website for an article by Gary Novak and came up empty. Self proclaimed Independent Scientist. Over the past 72 hours I read several papers and articles both for and against. Articles from NASA, the above mentioned "It's the Sun", reports from the Sierra Club, Lomborg.com, Naturalnews.com, the IPCC, EPA, David Biello of Scientific America and Yale, as well as others. I would like to see the response regarding Gary Novak's paper listed below. There are two links regariding his work. 

       Honeycutt @43 You are right regarding Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
       "The great thing about science is, it's true whether or not you believe it." But since we are talking about a constant influence of a new set of eyes, Science will show that this statement was wrong. If he had said this back in 1100 AD, 1400 AD, 1600 AD, and virtually any other time we would see that Science has been proven wrong consistantly. After all, the earth is not flat, and the earth is not the center of the universe. Science's job is to evolve and get smarter if you will. It is not to take hard black and white stances that can not see further than the current technologies or limited modelling. So here is Novak's work.

       LINK1

       LINK2

       I also discovered that looking at the list of papers by Biello over the last 10 years or so, and overlaying it on the data that I have consumed both here and other locations, it would appear that we are too late, and if the EIA is correct looking towards 2040, we should expect that we are screwed anyway based on thier findings. So should I pack my bags and move to the south pole with a bag of seeds? 

       LINK3

        I dont think I will look into this further, I would like to find the measureing sites that are used to CO2 for example as well as looking at the math. So far it is only cursory in my searches but I am held to the thought that if someone like myself who is novice and enters into this line of research, wouldnt it be wiser to be less derogitory to us and more instead be more supportive and offer more solutions than the Paris Accords. Solutions that are not only logical but are cost effective and motivator skeptics like myself to get on board with your agenda. For me, you have to walk us through the science better and more convincingly. 

       The last charts that I could find for example regarding what countries are producing what in terms of CO2 date back to 2009. Almost a decade old. Along with that is this logic that seems to permeate the research saying that we contributed 336 million tons CO2 from 2000-2006. Making it 1/3 of the maximum amount that we can produce up to 2030 when we must show a reversal. Meaning that if 2007-2013 represents another 1/3 of the maximum amount, and again from 2014-2020, we are just 2 years away from being screwed anyway. Witht that being said, Biello's report show that we are just not going to make the cut off regardless of what we do now short of turning off virtually all polluting products like trucks, cars, farming equipment, concrete manufacturers etc.

       LINK4

       So allow me to take you up on your offer regarding the challenge of me being willing to learn. Can we start with Novak's articles and move forward from there so that I can stay linear in my research. 

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Your links were breaking the format of the page in width.  I have shortened them for you.  Please learn to do this yourself with the link tool.

17792. Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Way to use words Tom13. This thread is about the use, or abuse, of information, and dissemination of information that concerns an area of science, so OPOF comment is not inappropriate. Some nations have had a ministry of propaganda, using the same methods as the Mail, which have been found to be condemnable. Would that be better?

       Talking about that, I like Robert Lustig's definitions: Putting forth favorable descriptions of anything using actual facts would qualify as marketing. Doing so with false information, or in blatant disregard of actual facts, is called propaganda. The ability to spew propaganda without any adverse consequence is a far cry from free speech. We're talking about lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, deception, dissimulation, all used for the purpose of advancing one's short term financial interest at the expense of pretty much everything else. That kind of propaganda does not deserve the protection of free speech. Free speech is intended to protect people from tyranny, not screw them with lies.

       Of course, in the US, the very definition of facts and what is a lie has been wringed to death, and one can have an endless argument over what fact is out of context, what constitutes a lie, etc, etc. So lies could take center stage, boosted by the enormous financial means of their backers, under the full protection of free speech, and the liers laughed all the way to the bank. That's a perverted system.

       There is a valid argument to be made that the liers deprived others of their right to free speech by drowning the entire scene with their message; that left no room and no attention span from the masses for anything else.

       It's not free speech that we had. It was for pay speech, and it quickly got expensive, allowing only a certain class to be heard on a large scale. The right to free speech became the right to shout louder than everybody else. The whole enterprise was made easier by the dismal state of education, which does very little to teach the functioning of institutions, and even less to train citizens to recognize mind manipulation methods. 

       I'm talking in the past because now everything has been thrown into a whole new world by the internet and social media. Anything goes, there is no absolute value of information, and no relative value either. The disconnection from reality is almost complete; the noise and frantic turnover drown virtually anything. A good system of troll farms can make it look like a great number of people adhere to some ideas, even if that is a complete fabrication. The emotional impact of internet bursts is always far above any correction realized afterwards, just like people remember the headlines but never see the errata in the papers. This is well understood by the clever users of the system, who have fostered the collapse of journalistic standards.

       The risk/benefit analysis of well protected free speech was not even given time to pan out on the long term, it has now entered a phase that none the thinkers who crafted it could have imagined. We'll see what happens next. Don't be too confident that you'll enjoy it.

17793. One Planet Only Forever at 03:35 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Tom13,
       This is a blog about increasing the awareness and understanding of climate science. It includes many OPs related to the challenge of doing hat because of how easy it is for misrepresentation of information to be 'popular' and how that misleading promotion of the popularity of unjustified beliefs is motivated by Private Interest in maximizing personal benefit any way that can be gotten away with. This specific item is exactly that type of item.

       "So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'."

       That is how I ended my comment, For Good Reason.

       The unethical pursuit of personal benefit from unrestricted pursuits of unjustified popularity and profitability (and unjustified making up of laws or selective distorted enforcement of laws by unethical Winners of the power to do such things) must not be able to be successfully excused. Claiming that such restrictions are contrary to 'Free Speech' is a Poor Excuse.

       All Science is about increasing awareness and better understanding what is going on. The ability to propagandize dogma based beliefs that are harmful to the public interests are undeniably a threat to the Public Interest, a threat to the future of humanity. That should be a new Amendment clarification of the First Amendment in the USA with similar changes made to clarify the Fundamental Proper Ethical Basis of Rule of Law everywhere.

       If that better understanding had been globally clarified earlier there would be little need for a website like this one.

17794. knaugle at 02:49 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #3 Randman

       Well, one source I've found when talking about media reporting is the Media Bias/Fact Check site.  Compare and contrast the London Daily Mail and the NY Times:

       Media Bias Fact Check - Daily Mail

       Media Bias Fact Check - NY Times

       As can be seen, the Mail is right biased and has a mixed record on its facts, while the NY Times and Wash. Post are center-left and get high marks for their facts.  Big difference.

17795. Tom13 at 01:37 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       #11 - One planet - 

       So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'.

       This is supposed to be a science blog - are you stating the there should be a repeal of the first amendment  - Are you saying there should be a "ministry of Truth"?

17796. One Planet Only Forever at 01:25 AM on 27 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Expanding on my original comment, and responding to the discussions regarding Free Speech:

       More advanced societies develop Regulation or Professionalization of activity that is 'learned/discovered' to have significant potential for 'Harm because of a less/improperly informed Public'. Some people may see the potential to get away with personal benefit from behaviour that is not in the Public Interest. It becomes understood that the Public Interest is served by having constraints on those activities.

       As John Stuart Mill warned in “On Liberty” ... “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

       It is now undeniable that the 'easy to make popular and profitable (easy ways to Win, at least temporarily) development and delivery of misleading information' has massive potential to harm the Public Interests, especially if Public Interest is understood to include the sustainable improvement of the future of all humanity as it should be (Tabloid Rags are no longer restricted to the 'relatively inconsequential to the future of humanity' invading the privacy of, and damaging the lives of, selected/targeted Celebrities who now have some legal power in some nations to penalize such callous pursuits of advertising revenue).

       My preference would be for the Independent Press Standards Organization to be the self regulating body overseeing the actions of Professional Press. The Government would be an observer with the responsibility and power to remove members of IPSO who can be proven to not have been responsibly overseeing the actions of the IPSO members, not properly protecting the public interest.

       The Canadian Professional Engineers are an example of how this would work. Individual engineers can be permitted to practice as well as organizations of multiple engineers and their related support staff. The individuals and the organizations have the responsibility to self-regulate their activity to Protect the Public Interest. The overseeing body has the power to remove the 'permission' of any of its members or organizations to act as engineers or engineering organizations if they are discovered to have deliberately acted contrary to the Public Interest. If what was done by The Mail was discovered to have been done by a Permitted to Practice Engineering Organization the overseeing body would like have censured all of the Professional Engineers involved and removed the Permit to Practice from the Organization for failing to properly monitor and control what happened in their organization. A Professional IPSO would have shut down The Mail.

       However, even professional self-regulation can be imperfect, especially in place where private interests gain significant power in public institutions. Like political elections, it is possible for the leadership of a self-regulating profession to be taken over by private interests. At one time the association that oversees engineering in Alberta ended up with a President who declared that the public interest was served by engineers defending and maximizing the profitability of their clients. That individual was swiftly censured by the Responsible Membership, but such actions by responsible membership may not occur. And if the government has been taken over by private interests it would fail to act responsibly. That is when the power of public legal actions exposing unacceptable behaviour could be required.

       So the popularity and profitability of unethical unjustified Free Speech in pursuit of personal benefit contrary to the Public Interest is what needs to be restricted. People cannot be allowed to 'believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'.

17797. citizenschallenge at 23:30 PM on 26 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       For a more detailed look (dissection) of Bate's actual maliciously contrived complaint, might I suggest - 

       http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/search?q=bates

       March 24, 2017
       ¶1 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

       http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/03/1-behind-curtain-of-bates-facade.html

       ¶2 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

       ¶3 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

       Looking at how Lamar Smith used Bates:

       BatesMotel#4 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected.http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/02/4usrep-smith-karl15-noaa-dissection.html

       BatesMotel#4B - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected - APPENDIX

       The real question is how to expose and shame the GOP's dependence on out and out lies and libel and slander to continue their outrageous denial of geophysical reality.  There the real question is how to wake up all those rational liberal minded folks, who continue sitting mum on the sides lines.

17798. Tom13 at 23:06 PM on 26 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Here is John Bates original statement which he posted at Judith curry's website. 

       judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

       His post is a 3,100 word statement.  Bates is later quoted with the following statement "I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people."

       With the quote cited above, some are arguing that Bates essentially repudiated his prior 3100 statement.  I find it doubltful that Bates actually repudiated his carefully crafted statement.

17799. Eclectic at 21:22 PM on 26 September 2017
       The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
       

       Nigelj @7 , I suspect things won't change regarding untruthful reportage by our "Free Press".   Big business interest groups pay and control the editors of papers and the producers of radio/television programs.  Politicians are reluctant (for many selfish reasons) to push real punitive measures against MSM that tells lies about climate science / vaccination science / or other important issues.  (Lies by omission, lies by commission, and lies by severe "spin".)

       In a very recent cause celebre, a certain well-nourished young Australian actress was awarded USD$3.6 million by the courts, as damages [and punitive damages] in compensation for lies told by an Australian print magazine.  Ouch!  (Though the decision may still be appealed, to reduce the quantum.)  The previous capped legal award limit, I gather, was only USD$200 thousand . . . and thus not at all bothersome to a big company.   So the courts can sometimes punish lies — but that sort of accountability is not going to happen with say the lies told by any MSM company about global warming.   There's no clearcut individual or company that can point to an indisputable "loss" resulting from those particular  lies/misrepresentations . . . and the whole thing would get bogged down in legal technicalities & wrangling about ambiguities of interpretation etc etc.    Plus, Murdoch Press (et alia) are working a long game of innuendo uncertainty & doubt.

       It won't happen : but (in my dreams) I see the only punitive accountability being visited upon newspapers, as an enforced requirement to print the corrigendum/correction/retraction on the entire lower-half of the front page of the [daily?] paper in large print (and for 3 consecutive days!).  Yeah, As If !!    The current system of corrections, if they occur at all, are typically limited to fine print covering two square inches on the bottom of Page 2 or Page 38, and published weeks later . . . completely under the radar of 99.9% of readers.

       I don't even bother to dream of corrections/apologies being mandated for 30 or 60 seconds of prime time radio/television — for that would fly under the radar of 98% of the total potential audience.

       Rearding the MSM, in practical terms our most likely success will come passively, with the natural attrition of the already very elderly [and very wealthy] individual Dinosaurs who are fighting such a strong rear-guard action against the interests of younger generations.  And in the case of Oil and MSM corporations, will come from an increasing level of shareholder revolt by the (currently) younger generations.

17800. bozzza at 21:19 PM on 26 September 2017
       2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
       

       Thankyou, OPOF,

       It's resource intensive to get these numbers, for sure, but we are getting to the pointy end of the deal and markets need to start making changes or it will be too late.

       I push for the multi-year sea ice statistics to be made known to the public because I think these are of the most significance. These are the kinds of numbers the consumers and suppliers in the market place need to make informed decisions about what this world should be doing from this point forward.

       When do multi-year sea ice numbers get updated? Are there different sources for these numbers?

       We absolutely must make these numbers more known to the public... if they aren't bad then that is fair enough but if they are then we need to start acting and that can only happen by conusmers and suppliers knowing what the facts are.

       The fabled free-markets exist on such assumptions as perfect information... not knowing relevant information makes the whole system shonky and 'inefficient'.

Prev  348  349  350  351  352  353  354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  Next