Recent Comments

Prev  459  460  461  462  463  464  465  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  474  Next

Comments 23301 to 23350:

23301. michael sweet at 19:59 PM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       Keithpickering,

       The primary reason for the decline of nuclear power is that it is by far the most expensive source of energy.  Current plants under construction are grossly overbudget and years behind schedule.  Currently operating nuclear plants with no mortgage cost more to generate electricity than new built wind and solar plants.  Existing nuclear plants are now asking for billions of dollars in subsidies because they are not economic.  The money would be better spent building wind and solar.  

       Nuclear plants need to own up for the people they killed and continue to displace in Japan.  When you claim that no-one was killed you take yourself out of the argument.  160,000 people were forced from their homes.  1600 died.  Radiation continues to be dumped in the ocean, damaging fisheries.  Own up to the damage nulcear caused.

       Utilities do not care about these numbers when they review nuclear, their primary concern is cost.  Nuclear is too expensive.  

23302. Dipper at 16:33 PM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       thanks all for the references and data.

       I strongly suggest that scientists on this site do not equate themselves with economists, which is the implication of the original headline. There is a long history of economists proven to have been on the wrong side of the argument and it is a very bad idea for scientists to claim common cause with them.

23303. meher engineer at 16:06 PM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       The graphs in the writeup comparing various energy storage systems are useful. But the International Electrotechnical Commison seems to be a better source for them: see for example the two figures on page 31, for rated power, energy content and discharge time and page 32 for power density and energy density (in relation to volume) of Electrical Energy Storage technologies at  http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-energystorage-LR-en.pdf

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link activated.

23304. ubrew12 at 12:01 PM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       To nitpick: "This purported fact [of zero rise]... is actually a fiction: the tide gauge data show [a rise]..."  Fictions can usefully entertain, broaden, teach or moralize more directly than nonfictions, so we've been telling them since caveman days.  But a lie has a sole purpose, to mislead.  It should be acceptable, especially this late in the game, to call Clexit's claim what it really is.  To do less out of courtesy may further confuse already confused readers brainwashed on fossil-fueled misinformation.

23305. keithpickering at 11:36 AM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       > the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 highlights how catastrophically dangerous nuclear power plants can be.

       The earthquake and tsunami killed 15,000 people, and the radiation from Fukushima killed zero. How much safer than zero deaths do you want nuclear to be?

       Meanwhile, the evacuation from Fukushima — which was not necessary under IAEA guidelines — killed 1600 people needlessly. Final score: radiation 0; fear of radiation, 1600. 

       At some point, we should hope that rationality overcomes irrationality.

23306. Paraquat at 11:14 AM on 10 August 2016
       As nuclear power plants close, states need to bet big on energy storage
       

       This is a good article, except that I don't really agree with the wording in this one sentence:

       "Currently in California, energy storage is effectively provided by fossil fuel power plants."

       A better way to put it might be that "Currently in California, there is insufficient energy storage available, and thus fossil fuel power plants are called upon to meet demand when sun/wind conditions are not favorable."

       The reason why I suggest the rewording is because a lot of people seem to think that somehow burning natural gas is not putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I see on numerous blogs claims that switching to natural gas is "green." I personally don't agree that switching from nuclear to natural gas is "green," and indeed it will considerably increase our carbon (and methane due to leaks) emissions into the atmosphere.

23307. Tom Curtis at 09:04 AM on 10 August 2016
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       dcordell @293, I think you will find that the figure above shows the fluxes in Gigatonnes of CO2, whereas the IPCC figure shows it in Gigatonnes of Carbon.  The fluxes from right to left in GtC are:

       7.9, 119.7, 122.7, 90.5 and 92.2

       

       According to the IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3 they are 8, 119.6, 122.6, 90.6 and 92.2, with the differences being down to rounding.

       

23308. Tom Curtis at 08:44 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper @10, the study in question was in Nature Climate Change.  The study found that the probability of once in a century flooding such as happened in Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Cornwall in 2014 had increased by 43% as a result of global warming.  Some reporters (but not the scientists) misreported that as AGW causing the floods.  The study found that due to the heightened risk from AGW, probably the peak river flows in 2014 were 21% higher then they would have been absent global warming, with a thousand houses at risk that would not have been.  Both values come with high uncertainties.

23309. Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper @4,

       1)  The OP made a comparison between Brexit and Clexit because that was a deliberate comparison made by the AGW deniers who have formed the "Clexit" movement, as seen in this press release.  The same AGW deniers, along with others, have welcomed Brexit itself as making action to oppose AGW more difficult.  Given that, it is very appropriate for this site to comment on that relationship.  When you do, some disturbing similarities are to be found, as noted in the first paragraph.  Those similarities commented on are in several instances, limited to some of the leaders of the Brexit campaign.  Presumably they are also found in a large number of people who voted "yes" to Brexit, but there is no implication from the OP that they are found in all, or even the majority of "yes" voters.  The relevance of the comparisons with some of the Brexit leaders is well documented in the OP, and so there is no reason to take exception to it.

       2)  Contrary to your assertion, the UK's consumption based emissions have declined relative to 1990 levels, and as of 2013 were at the fouth lowest level since 1990.  There decline has been nowhere near as sharp as the production based emissions, and until seven years ago, where in fact increasing, but that does not alter the fact that they have declined contrary to your claim:

       

       3)  While I have sympathy for the "British worker", the British worker has historically been a protected species.  In particular, during the period of the British Empire, the weaving of cotton clothe in India was prohibited by law, thereby forcing the cotton grown in India to be processed at greater expense in British factories.  The increase in employment for British workers that resulted came at a direct expense to Indian workers who were thereby impoverished.

       People who campaign against action on AGW out of similar concerns for "workers" are trying for a similar bargain.  In particular they are attempting to preserve an advantageous per capita emissions advantage for Western nations at the expense of workers in India and China and third world nations in general.

       If that were not the case, they would note that the same trade that is sustaining British consumption based emissions is rapidly driving down consumption based emissions in India and, especially China:

       

       That means the total global emissions change would be negative were it not for the strong growth in consumption world wide, including in the UK.  Economically, the UK as a whole is not being harmed by the change in emissions, and any disproportionate effects within the UK for a given social group are due to policital decisions within the UK and will not be harmed by tackling AGW (nor helped by Brexit).

23310. dcordell at 08:05 AM on 10 August 2016
       Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
       

       Your citation to the IPCC AR4 Figure 7.3 seems to be incorrect. The figure shown is shown here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf

        

       This figure states different numbers from yours. And I cannot find the 29 Gt/yr figure anywhere.

        

       Any further info or clarification is appreciated.

23311. Dipper at 04:38 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       ... and just to be really picky can you point to the research that confirms that recent floods in Somerset and the Lake District were caused by global warming and were not just part of the range of weather that naturally occurs?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Perhaps you would like to first point to where the claim is made that such events were caused by global warming? Because warming increases the moisture capacity of air, the science position as laid out in exhaustive detail in the IPCC report, is that such events will become more likely. Except where sealevel rise is clearly a compounding factor, you cannot easily blame any individual event on global warming.

       The IPCC statement is: "It is likely that the number of heavy precipitation events over land has increased in more regions than it has decreased in since the mid-20th century, and there is medium confidence that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to this increase." The papers that form the basis of this conclusion are discussed in chapter 10.6 of AR5, WG1.

       Please do not derail this topic with an offtopic discussion and please state source of assertions so we dont have pointless discussion of strawman arguments.

23312. Dipper at 04:36 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Paul D @ 8. Please can you point me to the right places to read up more about extreme weather. I'm naturally sceptical but having read up a bit can't see any viable alternatives to anthropogenic greenhouse gases causing observed warming but I'm still not convinced by extreme weather arguments.

       For instance, the poles are warming more than the equatorial regions so if, as I read, the earth's climate is driven by the difference in temperature between the equator and the pole why wouldn't melting at the ice caps reduce extreme weather?

23313. Paul D at 03:54 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper@4

       
       Extreme weather and warmer temperatures are effectively the same thing. It's all about how the energy that is slowed down from leaving the Earth by Green House Gases actually manifests itself around us. Extreme weather is a direct consequence of warming (as is drought). We have rain and winds because of warming and the fact that we have plenty of water around us!

       The BBC is broadcasting facts based on quite simple science.

23314. Paul D at 03:08 AM on 10 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Dipper@4

       Actually it is EU legislation that requires coal fired power stations be taken off line and shut down. Even without UK legislation to cut CO2 emissions, EU legislation would still be closing the power stations.

       It's the Large Combustion Plant Directive.
       It was replaced with the Industrial Emission Directive this year.

       
       It should also be pointed out that UKIPs policy was to increase the use of coal.

23315. rocketeers2001 at 23:52 PM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Regarding the sea level rise portion of the Clexit argument and this articles rebuttal....  
       
       Doing the math 1993 is 23 years ago.  4.3mm/yr x 23 yr = 98.9 mm of sea level rise, and rounding up, 10 cm.  Clearly not zero, but this articles rebuttal is a rate measured in millimeters per year and fractionally larger than the global average. That does not come across as alarming or a crisis.  10cm/23yr = X cm/100yr --> X=43.5cm sea level rise per century, less than half a meter.  However, combined with "king tide events lead to flooding of low lying areas, which is compounder when sea levels are further raised  by La Nina effects or local storms and waves. In the future, sea level rise may threaten to submerge the nation entirely as it is estimated that a sea level rise of 20-40 centimeters (8-16 inches) in the next 100 years could make Tuvalu uninhabitable." (1)
       
       The point then is that current sea level rise is already at half of the 20 cm low end of the estimated uninhabitable range. The current rate of sea level rise exceeds the 40 cm high end of that range sometime this century.

       Perhaps helpful in understanding the flooding concern is the geographic description of Tuvalu as an island group of nine coral atolls northeast of Australia and about halfway to Hawaii.  The total land mass is 26 sq km. The elevation  varies from 0m to 5m.  
       
       The max elevation occurs in two locations according to different sources. One is near the island of Fanafuti International Airport(2). The other is on the southernmost island of Niulakita (1). Most of the islands are much lower than 5m elevation. Six of the nine island have lagoons open to the ocean.  There are no freshwater rivers or lakes and groundwater is not drinkable (potable).  
       
       Sources:

       (All) CIA The World Factbook Online, Country Tuvalu, Section: Geography, accessed 8/9/2016. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tv.html

       (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Tuvalu, Geography of Tuvalu section and Environment-climate change issues section, accessed 8/9/2016.

       (2) http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=11846, Funafati High Point, Tuvalu, accessed 8/9/2016.

23316. José M. Sousa at 23:20 PM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       I agree with some of the previous comments that this is post is again somehow unfortunate. Mixing experts on the physical aspects of climate change  and "experts" in economics is not very wise since economics is subject to a lot of politics (I suggest this blog on a ongoing debate on the relevance of mainstream economics: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/key-member-of-swedish-academy-of-sciences-calls-for-immediate-suspension-of-the-nobel-prize-for-economics/ )

       Of course many prominent people on the Brexit side are deniers, but so what? This blog risks to turn away support from people who aren´t deniers but believe that the EU is no better place to defende the fight against climate change.

23317. Dipper at 22:39 PM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       owen is correct. A site like this should not start geting involved in comparisons with Brexit.

       It is worth noting that the UK has shut down all of its coal mines and is shutting down its coal-fired power stations all in the name of climate change whilst other nations are still opening new ones. The UK has cut down its emissions by taxing production so manufacturing moves overseas - there has been no reduction in consumption of carbon by the UK.

       This is why many who supported Brexit are fed-up with hearing about climate change. Because those proposing it are advancing their own personal agendas as world-saving politicians, all paid for by UK workers jobs whilst not making a molecule of difference to global emissions.

       Furthermore anyone who listens to or watches the BBC knows that every time it rains or the wind blows some "expert" pops up saying more extreme weather is a result of global warming. Whilst warming is proven and the link to human generated greenhouse gases is the only realistic explanation on the table, "extreme" weather is much more open to debate unless you are in the BBC in which case its a fact only a neanderthal would question.

       Stick to science please.

23318. nigelj at 07:53 AM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       owenmccormack @1

       The article is not mistaken. It never claimed that all climate sceptics or businesses are part of Brexit, simply that there appear to be a disproportionate number of climate sceptics in Brexit. The article also didn't claim all sceptics associate with Clexit, just that some well known ones do.

       Brexit is a complex combination of people often with competing agendas and beliefs. I agree the Brexit supporters do have some very valid concerns about the excesses of neoliberalism, but  some of their concerns are also mistaken. Its a very complex situation.

       The climate sceptics have attached themselves to Brexit as Brexit has taken a critical  stand against EU regulation and EU Parliament, and climate sceptics are sceptical of government regulation. However personally I dont think the things like pedantic rules about food safety mean the EU Parliament is a wrong idea. Regulation is about striking a balance which is always hard, but civilised countries still need regulation.

       Where Brexit has a point is concerns that blue collar workers are being left behind, and immigration has become problematic in some respects. But its an open question as to whether an independent Britain does any better solving these issues.

       But we have this  Clexit group of people and their climate scepticism. This is the main issue.

       Freedom of speeech may give them the right to their inane beliefs, but it becomes more serious when they tell lies about sea level rise in the Pacific Islands. These sorts of statements create confusion and doubt with the public.

       The media have not done a good enough job scrutinising climate denialists especially characters like Moncton, and consistently fail to ask the hard questions. (apart from this website). Politicians are no better, and have been entirely weak and have let an appalling standard of public debate that is full of missinformation gain traction, presumably due to their own lack of intellectual integrity, and pathetic fear of various lobby groups.

23319. Bob Loblaw at 07:19 AM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       Owen:

       I suggest that you follow the link in the second paragraph ("Graham Readfearn reported..."), which has more details about the specific group that has given themselves the monicker "Clexit". Dana's article doesn't say "everyone" fits the description - it only targets a specific group of self-identified individuals. That particular group clearly has the characteristics that dana has described, and they are firmly in the climate denial camp.

       It is your comment that is unfortunate and mistaken.

23320. owenmccormack at 02:13 AM on 9 August 2016
       Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit'
       

       This is an unfortunate and mistaken post. There are plenty of big business and climate sceptics on the remain side; not everyone who voted leave is a climate change denying  racist nationalist. In fact I would argue that a leave vote which dealt a blow to the neoliberal project is a better friend for climate campaigners than a remain vote which looked to corporations and big business interests in Europe.

23321. Haze at 19:44 PM on 8 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Tom Curtis @19  I've just read a piece in The Guardian tht suggests Mr Culleton was ineligible at the time of declaration of the results which is without precedent and is probably not likely to be settled simply.  The URL is here

23322. Tom Curtis at 16:21 PM on 8 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Chriskoz @18, sorry do disappoint:

       WA One Nation senator Rod Culleton has larceny conviction annulled

       Of course, the drama is not yet over in that he also faces charges in WA.  It is, however, a storm in a teacup given that if he is not elected, his place will be taken by his brother in law for one nation, and if he is unable to serve as Senator, by Rod Culleton's wife - all of which are from One Nation.

       So, fiasco yes - but not yet an implosion.

23323. chriskoz at 15:31 PM on 8 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       We already asserted above that small and exteremist (and irrational) parties like One Nation tend to implode quickly. I'm pleased (if you allow me a bit of sarcasm) to find out, that it's arleary happening:

       New One Nation senator Rod Culleton arrested over larceny conviction

       That's going far off the topic of climate science. The only point I want to make, is that One Nation, to my disappointment, cannot lose its seat if Mr Culleton continues his troubles with the law (likely he will), they can just replace him with another, similar candidate.

23324. nigelj at 13:02 PM on 8 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       I have already read some commentary on the Authoritarians, and would go along with what the book is basically concluding. It looks well worth reading in detail. It's certainly relevant to climate change denialism.

       As the book notes America does have a group on the extreme right in the Tea Party that combines elements of christian fundamentalism, liberatarian free market economics (or those elements that happen to suit these people) and authoritarian leaning personality traits, along with social conservatism. I dont know how all this co-exists, but clearly it does. It's an unusual alliance in some ways.

       The interesting point from a climate change perspective is how this group are so impervious to reasoned argument and empirical evidence. This makes convincing them very difficult.

       However we need to remember this group are in the minority or outer extreme. Most humans are "somewhere in the middle" in terms of beliefs / world views. I believe personality traits and world views probably sit on a bell curve (normal distribution) and beliefs like authoritarianism and libertarianism and religious fundamentalism are towards the outer part of the bell curve. Most people are more amenable to reason and evidence, but can of course be influenced or mislead by the extremists.

       There may be an underlying factor with all these types of people making up the tea party or similar groups in that they "believe" certain moral or economic positions are fixed and absolute. Like Platos absolutes. They are uncomfortable with uncertainty and relativity where liberals are more comfortable with these things. Liberals are however not immune to fundamentals beliefs like "fairness" although this can be explained to some extent in reasoned terms.

       I have a lot of respect for many strong moral positions, but the hard reality is none of these things are fixed and few have any evidential proof of the rigour demanded by science. But some people hold these beliefs with absolute commitment and its hard for them to let go.

       Morals and beliefs and ideologies are basically human inventions, and lack scientific proof or rigour. Hence the tension between these different worlds. Often they are just little more than gut instincts or emotional reactions. There is a good book on this called "Sapiens, a brief history of humankind" by Yuval Harari.

23325. Bob Loblaw at 00:01 AM on 8 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       The denial of such things as the human influence of climate is the result of a complex combination of attitudes towards government, captialism, science, etc. The same psychology influences people's approach to many things in life.

       I suggest reading Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. Based on his career of researching such attitudes, it provides a very interesting insight into the situation. A long read, but at least go to the web page and see what he has to say about the book. The book and its supplement are free PDF downloads.

23326. nigelj at 13:40 PM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Why is climate change scepticism more prevalent in America and England than other countries? I think this is because these are the self appointed bastions of free markets, capitalism, and so called individual liberty. In other words people should be free to do whatever they like, including polluting the atmosphere, free from government constraints, or any constraints are to be incredibly minimal. 

       So anyone who produces any science that suggests otherwise, is viewed as an enemy of free markets. 

       This is the simplest explanation. Maybe Exonn is a factor as well, but they are basically reinforcing the free market obsession).

       Don't get me wrong, I generally support capitalism and free markets, provided it doesnt become extreme and damaging to the public good. And I dont suggest everyone thinks exactly like my description above, but enough do to explain the difference in views between countries.

23327. Digby Scorgie at 09:54 AM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       JWRebel @3, shoyemore @8

       Since learning that it was Exxon that set in motion the campaign against climate action, perforce in the English language, I have wondered if this is not the reason for the preponderance of climate-change deniers in the "Anglo-Saxon sphere".

23328. nigelj at 09:54 AM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Tom Curtis @ 4

       Agee entirely.

       Couple of points. Australia appears to have the STV system of proportional representation, and this seems the best option to me.  I live in New Zealand, and we have MMP. We adopted this system partly as it was felt that STV was too "complex" for people to understand, Im embarrassed to say. MMP is a reasonable system but can give a lot of power to extremely small minorities, and creates other difficulties of numerous very small parties.

       You promoted better "critical thinking" being taught at school. I would agree, and have always thought the same. I would add have some actual courses in logic, and also more on basic economics and investment.

       I have often wondered why our own education system still doesn't do these things very well, and have concluded the "governing elite" dont want too many people becoming too smart. Maybe I'm too cynical.

       However the end result could backfire on everybody. Ignorance is never bliss in the longer term.

23329. Tom Curtis at 09:19 AM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       chriskoz @7, to be honest, what I originally meant has so slipped my mind that do not know whether the noteworthy cases were cases of media organizations that provide tacit support for racism, or examples of racism that the media go lightly on.  An example of the former would now have to include the Australian, whose publications and defence of Bill Leaks racist cartoons would have have to count (although the Australian has typically been very good on most forms of racism), and various radio shock jocks have been consistently far worse.  

       An example of the later would be the wide spread media support of the overtly racist state of Israel, whose immigration laws set a race bar on citizenship (ie, that you must be Jewish, although that is made slightly fuzzy by examples of people who are Jewish by religion only).  A clear case of the racism of Israel is indicated by the justification of Israels existence as the original homeland of the Jews, reinforced by the Law of Return which in effect indicates that anyone proving that their ancestors where Jews, and hence inhabitants of Palestine some 67 generations ago, are given a legal right to immigrate to Israel and become Jewish citizens coupled with the refusal to allow return of Palestinian refugees who were displaced (or whose ancestors within two generations were displaced) from  Israeli claimed lands within the last 70 years.

       I may even have had in mind Pauline Hanson, for while media condemnations of her racism are widespread, cricical discussion of why her and her parties policies are racist have been lacking.  This is similar to reporting of Robert's views on climate, where they are reported at face value without being torn to shreds (as they so easilly can be).  This false balance approach when applied to racism has allowed the cancer to spread, or at least become more virulent in Australia since Pauline Hanson's first arrival on the national stage.

23330. MA Rodger at 05:39 AM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       fpjohn @9.

       I'm not sure what exactly it is whetting your curiosity but the paper - Arrhenius (1896) - can be read. Note that he overestimates climate sensitivity any his oppo Arvid Högbom doesn't consider the spread of industrialisation and thus the effect of large increases in CO2 emissions that we have witnessed since 1896.

23331. JohnMacdonell at 01:36 AM on 7 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       I understand more than half of Roberts' votes came from preferences for excluded parties.
       
       One Nation had 4 senators voted in, though one is up for sentencing for larceny, and so may not be eligible to sit in the senate.
       
       Nevertheless, One Nation may sometimes hold the balance of power in the senate, depending on how other parties align on different issues.
       
       Could be an opportunity for Australians in general to become more familiar with Roberts' climate denial and conspiracy ideas. That may be a good thing.

23332. fpjohn at 23:12 PM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       I am curious as to the effectiveness of the assertion, a factual one, that global warming and consequent climate change fall out of the well established 19th physics of the greenhouse effect. That CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel would raise global temperature was correctly predicted by Arrhenius in 1896!

       yours

       Frank Johnston

23333. Eclectic at 20:56 PM on 6 August 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       Rex @12 : like you, I first thought that "Climate Change" was just a recently-coined euphemism for the harsher more-threatening sounding "Global Warming".

       However, on learning more of the history of it, I found I had been wrong - the term is quite some decades old and has been contemporary over many decades with "Global Warming".  Sure, "Warming" is more accurately depicting the mechanism and process and general effect of the Greenhouse Gas effect which has become so strong [geologically].

       Nevertheless, "Change" is a term having its own virtue, in that both hotter and colder events [as you may have seen with the N.E. of USA having a previous very cold winter from the so-called Polar Vortex] can occur on top of the overall warming.  So, "Climate Change" is not evasive or dishonest.

       Rex, you are also wrong about the many other points you raise.

       The very recent, very rapid global warming of the past century or two is a real, simple fact - and is nothing caused by "politics".  It simply exists, and is getting worse - as a consequence of simple physics: the Greenhouse Gas effect, almost entirely triggered and driven by the geologically-sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 caused by [you guessed it!!] the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuel.   The evidence is plain.   Physical evidence - entirely free of politics.

        

       In geological terms, the climate has been stable and unchanging for 8,000 years.  The very slight wiggles (during that time) in planetary surface temperature have been tiny and insignificant - until the major change of the past 100 years or so.

       To say that the climate is always changing, is a misleading/dishonest statement in terms of the context of our current modern problem of rapid Global Warming.  Remember please, that the planet was a super-hot molten blob about 5,000 million years ago - but that is a dishonest statement if I mean it to imply it doesn't matter if you (or anyone else) dies in a modern wildfire which is "relatively cool" compared with conditions 5,000 million years ago.

23334. shoyemore at 19:37 PM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       JWRebel,

       I have previously noted what you point out - it is only in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and possibly New Zealand that Magical Thinking took root in the mainstream of political life. In the UK, neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland voted for Brexit .

       While I would not tout the Celtic nations as models of brilliant governance, there does seem to be harder and more practical edge to decision making that is clouded in other English-speaking countries by deniers and ideologues who have somehow got a grip on parts of political life.

       I trace it to the Reagan-Thatcher years and the installation of a "free market" ideology at the heart of political life. Now, I am as pro-free-market as most people, but not as an ideological fetish. But it is a fetish that greatly assists those already in positions of power.

23335. chriskoz at 16:57 PM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Tom@4,

       and which [the media] gives climate science denial and racism no serious critical scrutiny (often being biased in favour of the former, and in noteworthy case, in favour of the later)

       [my emphasis]

       Can you please point that case? I've seen many cases of climate denial favourism in AUS media but not rasism. I think all major media here have commented unfavourably on Hansesn's racism be her party still recieved as big support as you describe. I think media did not fail in this case. If they only have been denouncing Robets as "Galileo" leader as widely as they did with Hansen's rasism, he would not have been elected, for sure.

23336. Tom Curtis at 16:06 PM on 6 August 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       Rex @12:

       " The American press NEVER uses the term Global Warming anymore and the same is true of our government and in the media. Period."

       A google search for "global warming" limited to news finds articles using the term by USA Today, Voice of America, the New York Times and the New York Post, just on the first page, and all on the first page of the search results.  Your doubly emphasized 'fact' is clearly a fiction.  I generally find that when people have to invent 'facts' that just ain't so to strengthen their argument, their argument doesn't hold water.

23337. Tom Curtis at 15:49 PM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       Digby @5, while I can interpret it as an inadvertent pun (given that elections sort parties), I am not sure how it makes sense as a Freudian slip.  I wouldn't read too much into it in either event, given that I am a haphazard speller at best. 

23338. Rex at 15:46 PM on 6 August 2016
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       

       I have not read everything here so i apologize if my questions duplicate others.  So, it seems to me that these changes have been tracked over an incredibly short time, geologically speaking.  How do scientists (NOT just scientists who support Global Warming or Global Climate Change) position their theories in light of a very short time we have tracked this.  In terms of geologic times we have seen evidence of major climate changes (not just warming).  Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects.  Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so!   Next, you say that the terms, Global Warming and Global Climate Change are "loosely" related after you make the case that this is not a loose relationship at all.  Finally, you say that the charge that "they have changed the name...." and that the terms have always been used and that the term Global Climate Change has been used for many years is therefore evidence that there has been no "change of name."  This is patently untrue.  The American press NEVER uses the term Global Warming anymore and the same is true of our government and in the media.  Period.  There was a change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change.  This is undeniable.  This also stokes skepticism on two levels; first, suspicion as to the reluctance to commit to "Global Warming."  If they are both legitimate according to your text, then why do proponents refuse to say the name?); second, it leaves many of us to charge that this is or at a minimum, has become a political, not a scientific issue.  Liberals have clearly used this as a political issue to demean those who express skepticism.  Your arguments are not conclusive.  There IS science that puts this into question in terms of GEOLOGIC time and the nature cycles of global climate change.  Plus, why the desire to use a term that does not enlighten and leaves itself open to skepticism?  One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception.  It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE.  So why use a term that does not enlighten?  Global Climate Change?  Might as well make it even more generic and meaningless by calling it simply, "Change."  

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] You wrote "Also, there is plenty of evidence that many, many scientists, as late is the 1970s, were trying to convince us we were in the beginning of a global cooling that would have devastating effects.  Of course, this leaves skeptics today, adamant about their skepticism and rightly so!" But you have repeated a myth--a false statement. For the facts, read the post "What Were Climate Scientists Predicting in the '70s?" After you read the Basic tabbed pane, read the Intermediate one. If you want to discuss that myth further, please do so on that thread, not this one.

       You wrote "One cannot deny that when speaking geolically, Global Climate Change is the NORM, not the exception.  It is not only NORMAL but EXPECTED and INEVITABLE." In fact, the change in global temperature from at least the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century was due partly and increasingly to human activities. The temperature change since the mid-20th Century has been due dominantly to human activities, and since the mid-1970s more than 100% due to human activities (because human emissions of reflective aerosols have caused cooling that offset some of the warming influence of greenhouse gases). See the posts "The Human Fingerprint in Global Warming," being sure to read not just the Basic tabbed pane, but then the Intermediate one and, crucially, the Advanced one. If you want to comment on that topic, do so on that thread, not this one.

23339. davidOnewell at 15:45 PM on 6 August 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       I am having trouble finding support for the contention that most CO2 which enters the ocean gets there through the action of falling rain.  

       can you point me in the right direction or otherwise advise me?

       Thank you.

       dn

23340. Digby Scorgie at 15:27 PM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       That was an interesting typo, Tom, or was it a Freudian slip?!  "parties sort election".  It took me a while to realize you meant "parties sought election", not that they "had the election sorted"!  Never mind, we're all guilty of such slips from time to time — but sometimes they're especially intriguing.

23341. Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       chriskoz @1, while it is a travesty that Malcolm Roberts got elected, it is not a travesty related to Australia's electoral system (which is one of the best in the world, and far superior to those of the US or Britain).  Pointing to his 77 personal first preference votes in no way makes it so.  The full statistics are that One Nation recieved 229,056 first preference votes above the line.  Pauline Hanson, who had the number one position for One Nation in Queensland recieved a further 20,927 which would have likely gont to Roberts had he been in the number one position on the ticket.  Combined, One Nation recieved 9.1% of the first preference vote.  With 12 Senators elected, that represents 1.1941 quotas, so the real question is how did Roberts get elected with just 19.4% of a quota in first preference votes (after the quota for Pauline Hanson's election was removed); and the answer is from second or later preferences from people who voted for the various other racist, anti-science and irrational parties that sort election.

       The failure in democracy here is not from the electoral system, but from the media which gave One Nation no serious critical scrutiny; and which gives climate science denial and racism no serious critical scrutiny (often being biased in favour of the former, and in noteworthy case, in favour of the later).  It is also represents a failure of the education system which has failed to teach critical thinking and basic statistics to over 20% of the Queensland population.  Finally, it represents a failure of the politicians of the established parties who have resorted to cheap untruths and half truths rather than having the courage to clearly articulate the reasons behind their policies; and who have refused time and again to make appropriate stands on principle (as for instance, against Australia's asylum seaker detention scheme).

       Far better to have an electoral system where such fringe parties get into parliament in low numbers where they typically implode, and where their views can be directly adressed and criticized than to allow large groups in the population to become so disenchanted with government and government policy that we have a situation such as in the US (Trump), Phillipines (Duarte), of Britain (Brexit) where irrational or worse candidates or policies can become mainstream.

23342. JWRebel at 11:00 AM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       One of the things that always strikes me is the stridency and intensity of much climate denial. At the same time, it seems largely limited to the Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere. In many other areas of the world (notably continental Europe) there is no such counter point. Shell in the Netherlands wouldn't dream of contradicting the science in public statements. There are a lot of people that think/hope that it isn't all that serious to varying degrees, but few who think climate science is made up.

       Perhaps the paid disinformation campaigns and media ownership play a large role in this strange Anglo anomaly, but such a suggestion risks charges of conspiratorial thinking — the problem is that a lot of plots, racketeering, conspiracy, politics, alliances, etc., do in fact take place.

23343. nigelj at 10:31 AM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       This webite is the voice of reason. Greenhouse fingerprints were the one thing more than anything else, that convinced me we are warming the climate.

       This message needs wider public dissemination somehow. It shifts the debate away from endless arguments about hockeysticks and cosmic rays etc. Its something the wider public would generally grasp.

       But I want to echo the comments by Chriskoz. How do these people even get elected? The trouble is politics is a "profession" open to anyone, and is sometimes persued by very uneducated people, or fanatics with ideological agendas.

       Of course many politicians mean well and are nice people, but its the fanatics that get attention and sadly sometimes have influence. I don't know what we do, because democracy demands the political system be open and I generally support this. Sometimes democracy is its own worst enemy.

       I imagine nothing will convince Malcolm Roberts, or he will soon forget, or is probably so invested in his particular world view he will be very reluctant to change. But we must still try to convince these people. I remain an optimist.

23344. chriskoz at 09:17 AM on 6 August 2016
       One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change
       

       One mioght think that preference voting system in AUS (the most complex in the world) in all its preference flow rules, gives fair outcome.

       Then, he's the outcome of senate election in QLD involving Roberts:

       A One Nation Senator Got Elected With Just 77 Personal Votes

       IMO, it's a farcical outcome, that just 77 votes for Roberts (probably only by his fellow members of so called "Galileo" movement - a marginal, flat-earth society type science denial group that we used to debunk here but don't bother anymore) resulted in Robetrs now representing 4.6m strong population in the parliament.

       Roberts is unfit for that role not only because he denies basic science but also he denies basic rules of the society he lives in

       One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts wrote bizarre 'sovereign citizen' letter to Julia Gillard

        

       How can a person with any integrity run (and succeed!) for the tax funded public office, while not wanting to be part of this very taxable society? That's simply a self-contradiction. I call such outcome farcical, that the voting system trying to be as democratic as possible resulted in such absurd outcome. That proves the senate voting system in AUS needs improvement to avoid such outcome in the future.

       The fact that the founder of so called "Galileo" movement got elected to the senate is more bizzare IMO, than the candidacy of Trump to US president. Although Roberts is less likely to do the damage to the society he represents (let's hope reasonable people will effectively silence him) than would-be trump-president would do.

23345. gpace at 04:49 AM on 6 August 2016
       Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
       

       Hallo, this is my first post. I am Giancarlo Pace, ex- astronomer. I am spending some time checking some deniers' arguments. Most of them are easily debunked and do not deserve scientifical attention. 

       However, I did find something that still sounds reasonable to my non-expert ears. Bjorn Lomborg (who is not exactly a deniers but seems to be not too worried about climate change) shows in a video of a terrible youtube channel, a plot that seems to indicate that droughts are decreasing. Misteriously, he does not indicate the name of the authors of the paper, he says that it is a Nature paper of 2014. However, the paper exists:  Hao et al. 2014
        http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141

       The paper does not state any decline in droughts, but actually their Figure 5 shows what definitely seems to be a decline in number of droughts since the 80s.

       If you want to watch the video, here it is:

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWtaackIJU

        

       I read here that collectively, the number of extreme weather events is declining, but I only get an insurance company as source. Do you have some scientific research on it?

        

       Thanks a lot

23346. climatehawk1 at 01:44 AM on 6 August 2016
       Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
       

       Thanks, I understand about using the original headline, just want to urge careful consideration, as with all due respect, I don't think it's the best choice in this case.

       chriskoz @2, the question is not scientific integrity, but of communication with a general audience. Try to see the headline for a moment with "fresh eyes"--as if you knew nothing about climate science. The other articles, with different headlines, are all scientifically accurate, as far as I can tell--the question is what the headline conveys.

       OK, thanks all for listening.

23347. Art Vandelay at 23:17 PM on 5 August 2016
       Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
       

       "As I understand it, the Midwest has warmed more in the Fall, Winter and Spring than it has warmed in the Summer. Since they have not warmed much in the summer yet, they have not seen an increase in summer heat waves".

       Perhaps that's an expected consequence of a falling temperature gradient between the equator and the N pole. (?) 

       The situation is different in Australia for a variety of reasons but it's nonetheless interesting to note that far more high temperature records are being set in urban areas than rural, and even with "angry summers" the pre 1980 state records have not yet been superseded. 

23348. Art Vandelay at 23:00 PM on 5 August 2016
       Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
       

       "The six coastal stations are nestled quite closely together near the tip of the peninsula, as the map below shows. Together they cover an area equivalent to 1% of the Antarctic ice sheet. As the authors acknowledge, this means their results do not imply anything about the Antarctic Peninsula as a whole, much less the entire Antarctic continent"

       The problem I see here is that it logically follows that previous high rates of warming at the tip of the peninsula must be as equally insignificant as the recent cooling trend.  

       I gues we call it global warming for good reason, because localised regional climate changes, regardless of sign or phase are not necessarily related to human induced climate change. 

       Whether intended or not, readers will infer fromn this study that the previous attributed warming of the peninsula to greenhouse warming was exaggerated.  

          

23349. chriskoz at 18:55 PM on 5 August 2016
       Natural forces overpowering Antarctic Peninsula warming
       

       climatehawk1@1,

       There are different explanations for the processes going on in the Antarctic, that have little to do with "natural variability". For example, the observation:

       The portion of ice that floats on the water rather than sitting on land has increased over the satellite record

       can be explained by decreased salinity of the shalow waters in Southern Ocean, thus giving it better chance to the winter freezing.

       The fact that this article does not focus on such explanations, but tries to find other factors, does not make it bad. Its title reflects the actual focus of the article therefore appears adequate. On top of that, the article does not claim that other factors do not exists. Your argument that Google search finds all those other unmentioned factors, does not invalidates the integrity of this article, nor its title.

23350. topal at 13:00 PM on 5 August 2016
       New research shows penguins will suffer in a warming world
       

       "But the important extension of this work is into the future." Making predictions is difficult especially about the future. At best, this work is a What-if analysis.

Prev  459  460  461  462  463  464  465  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  474  Next