Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Next
Comments 3151 to 3200:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:38 AM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @20... I haven't the slightest clue what you're referencing in this comment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:35 AM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @19... Are you trying to suggest I am required to allow people to say anything they like in my own home?
-
peppers at 23:03 PM on 22 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Rob,
I just happened across this and it will likely be the most remarkable thing I see today. Opposing views of anyone, anyone else are harmful misunderstandings, and the person needs to be inculcated and re-oriented to be less harmful/more helpful.
"The serious problem is people who believe they are Right to persist in believing and sharing harmful misunderstandings rather than responsibly considerately learning and self-governing to be less harmful and more helpful 'To Others'."
Such a statement is the very basis of hubris thinking. having it all figured out just yourself and all others should comply, might be the main problem of the world. Mark Twain, "The main problem of the world, the number one unsolvable thing is that there is just one true religion. Several of em".
To make yourself the only truth sayer and everyone else wrong and dangerous is the very beginning of the worlds lack of peace. I apologies in advance for any alternate opinion.
And such a comment is that the comment itself becomes the first evidence to the falibility of the speaker actually knowing it all, as proposed.
-
peppers at 22:17 PM on 22 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Rob Honeycutt, free speech is in the category of free culture and religion, etc. You may be christian but some worship muslim, judaism, et al. You cannot decide yours is only it and call all others as toxic. For speech, you also seem to reference free speech in only one category, death threat, and apply that backwards up the rope. Free speech includes hate speech becuse you cannot say just your viewpoint counts. America allowed the Nazi party to continue through the 50's here, based on freedom rights to religion, to assemble, freedom of points of view. ( do we assemble online now?). I think sad and dangerous viewpoints have their own reward anbd you do not need to operate using the tactics and pronouns so that you can homogenize america to just your viewpoint. We already agree that the content of the hate speech is wrong, even dispicable. You end up commiting a greater unamerican behavior to toss out pronouns and censor others, than the failure destined opinions they may state which will sink them on their own when left to the public.
Moderator Response:[BL] Yet you seem to insist that your definition of "free speech" is the only one that is acceptable. And that "the American way" is the only acceptable international standard of conduct.
A reminder: this is not a government-run we site, and this site does have a Comments Policy that all participants must adhere to.
-
peppers at 22:02 PM on 22 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
BaerbelW, moving to another specific named platform, as an alternative to Twitter is referenced 5-6 times in the article.
Moderator Response:[BL] If t his is in reference to comment #9, asking why you think that the article is an advertisement, you are failing to make a convincing argument.
-
peppers at 21:53 PM on 22 December 20221.5 Degree Climate Target: Dead or Alive?!
I saw that 'article'. Content aside, it was an ad for a twitter alternative. I posted as such. Was that removed? Actions like that define the quality and depth of the site, and such response would be most unfortunate.
Moderator Response:[BL] "that article" refers to what? Have you posted this in the wrong thread? None of your comments here have been remove - yet.
This comment appears to be mostly a complaint about moderation policies. Such complaints are a violation of the Comments Policy. Please read the policy and abide by it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:28 AM on 21 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
Thank you for curating another excellent set of recent news items.
The Story of the Week is very informative. And it contains a gem: the indication that in 1990 there was a rational evidence-based presentation indicating that warming above 1.0 C would be entering unsafe, increasingly risky and harder to predict climate territory.
What is not presented, but is clear from the evidence, is that the SSP studied pathways were constrained to 'not harm economic perceptions that have developed and not restrict the development of increased perceptions of prosperity'. That constraint of understanding was/is part of the systemic problem that needs to be corrected.
Said another way a sustainable effective solution to the problem will require 'the thinking and investigation, the science, to be unrestricted'. There should be no protection for harmful developed economic interests. even if opening up that line of thinking would more significantly annoy some already annoyed powerful wealthy people. That harmful 'protection of economic perceptions' can also be seen to have harmfully compromised the interactions at the Diversity COP15.
The 'more common sense awareness and understanding regarding climate impacts' should be that by 1990 a substantial amount of developed perceptions of economic prosperity and status were built and based on harmful unsustainable activity. It was harmful at that time to deny the need to reduce the amount of harmful developed activity. It was harmful to hope that continued, and growing, harmful economic activity only being displaced by 'cheaper and more popular' technological developments would 'achieve the required limit of harm to future generations'. The situation is worse today, and continues to be made worse, because of excusing already more than adequately wealthy people who continue pursuing more personal benefit from understandably harmful activity.
That common sense understanding is still far from being a common enough understanding to effectively govern and correct the harmful over-development. In spite of all the evidence of that common sense understanding regarding the systemic problems developed by 'popularity and profitability being the measures of what is desirable and acceptable', many people continue to be free to act on harmful misunderstandings. And they are fighting harder to resist learning that important lesson from recent history, a lesson that has tragically been able to be learned repeatedly throughout history.
-
EddieEvans at 00:04 AM on 21 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
It's not a big risk for Carlson; he probably has other beachfront homes and more. He probably believes the new climate change is for real, but he's ethically challenged. He makes money fighting climate science.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:46 AM on 19 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Rob Honeycutt @16,
Excellent reference video. Indeed, everyone should watch it.
I would add an important word to clarify that it explains that "... we should all limit our speech, as a normal course of social interaction, all the time."
The serious problem is people who believe they are Right to persist in believing and sharing harmful misunderstandings rather than responsibly considerately learning and self-governing to be less harmful and more helpful 'To Others'.
-
MNESTHEUS at 07:54 AM on 19 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
" people in the US are moving from areas facing one type of climate risk and straight into other affected regions, only with different specific risks. In... Flocking to fire.... Clark, Nkonya & Galford examine these accidental choices and offer advice to policymakers."
The most conspicuous example may the Fox News anchors who winter on Florida
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
-
GP Alldredge at 22:32 PM on 18 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #49 2022
Oops, a fat finger effect; Should be ".. not a former subscriber of GRl."
-
GP Alldredge at 22:29 PM on 18 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #49 2022
Don't be sad about Eric Rignot et al. "Changes in Antarctic ice sheet motion derived from satellite radar interferometry between 1995 and 2022" in GRL.
It is already Open Access. In fact I recall seeing a email notice from AGU that GRL will be OA in future. (I seem to recall it was to start OA 1 Jan 2023, but when I followed the doi to the article webpage it was already OA. I'm member of AGU, but not a former subscriber of GEL.)
--An interestng, but not comforting, read!
-
Doug Bostrom at 17:30 PM on 18 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
Peppers: "Is this serious?"
Peppers, every week we include a huge clue to the answer for that question. It's the author count for the given week's edition of New Research. This week it's 1,261. Last week it was 1,011. The week before that, 848. Prior, 904. Then 1,320. Keep going back. It adds up.
"Argument by authority?" No, these numbers help to quantify something called "consilience." Here consilience is overwhelmingly powerful.
But perhaps this consilience is somehow wrong and you've twigged to an astoundingly remarkable realization, here in the unlikely locale of an obscure comments thread. Somehow all these thousands of experts in diverse fields in theoretical and observational consistency and agreement have been wrong all along, and you're the solo super genius who has penetrated the fog all by yourself, using simple principles found 'round the home. Granted that's as probable as if you'd spewed a loose deck of cards into the air in a strong wind and had it come back down neatly stacked and in order. But not strictly impossible. Or at least not according to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
So do keep talking, if you don't mind sounding rather foolish in the face of very long odds.
[For the bystander worrying that Peppers is getting short shrift, on another thread here at Skeptical Science this same person can be found arguing that hate speech on the internet is a problem mostly for people who've invited it. Here and there, Peppers is either starkly uninformed but willing to assert ignorance as capable of forming conclusions, or having a bit of odd fun. Either way, this needs a sharp yank on the leash, a pointer to the virtue called humility.]
-
EddieEvans at 03:04 AM on 18 December 2022DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Good. "“Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.”1 2"
-
MA Rodger at 02:38 AM on 18 December 2022DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
EddieEvans @43,
The most recent activity by this particular bunch was back in 2013-17 when they wrote out a second edition of their 'Climate Change Reconsidered' which did no more than use a serious number of words (again) spouting the same old nonsense. There was also alongside a strange 100-page publication with the title 'Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming', strange in that it was simply setting out again their nonsensical reasons for why they disagree with the IPCC about Global Warming. It concluded with a quote from the past that so easily is a warning about the NSIPCC itself:-
Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups [to silence scientists] who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941,
"It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true" (Waddington, 1941).
This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert [the fashionable belief], in the face of strong empirical evidence [to the contrary], that human CO2 emissions are {not} going to cause dangerous global warming.
There are of course "others like it" who do continue oressing their nonsense onto the world. On my neck of the woods, the GWPF continue to shovel their nonsense into the world although not as energetically as previously. It is presently under investigation by the UK Charity Commission (again), the last time keeping its charitable status (an 'educational charity' would you believe) by forming the Global Warming Policy Forum to spout all the lies and leave the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a squeaky-clean charity. (As if that was going to happen!!) The Forum, now re-branded 'Net Zero Watch' continues its nonsense-generating.
-
BaerbelW at 02:25 AM on 18 December 2022DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
EddieEvans @43
You'll find lots of information about The Heartland Institute (HI) and other "think tanks" like them on the Desmog Website and their research database.
Here is the link to HI:
https://www.desmog.com/heartland-institute/
Hope this helps!
-
EddieEvans at 02:11 AM on 18 December 2022DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Denial Gate on Youtube robot reading.
-
EddieEvans at 00:52 AM on 18 December 2022DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
Is there anything recent on this organization or others like it? Just wondering.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:48 PM on 17 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a really good explanation of how we all limit our speech, as a normal course of social interaction, all the time. This is well worth the 5 mins it takes to watch the video.
-
nigelj at 11:43 AM on 17 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Free speech has generally recognised limits such as time and place restrictions, like some of Rob Honeycutt's examples. Only the fanatics think the limits are wrong, and I bet there are things they wouldn't tolerate in their own homes over the dinner table.
But we are really talking about information and opinions (sometimes hate filled) posted on websites, and whether there should be moderation of that.
I used to believe websites should delete the very worst misinformation, and ban the most serious offenders that spread misinformation (Like Trump) but now I'm just not sure. Twitter had literally thousands of people trying to moderate this sort of thing, and I wonder if its really feasible to keep that up. Banning opinions or information is also going against the spirit of free speech.
Of course there are things that can be done that dont go against the spirit of free speech like rules against spamming, requiring people to back up claims by reference to published science, and boreholes like at realclimate.org that silo the drivel while still allowing people to have a say. Maybe thats the best approach generally.
I loathe hate speech especially when it targets vulnerable people. But the problem is that hate speech is very difficult to define and could be widened out to include almost anything. Racist speech is relatively easy to define and is illegal in New Zealand, and I support that because it effectively incites violence. But I believe limits on free speech should be kept quite minimal.
-
nigelj at 11:11 AM on 17 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
Peppers
"Humidity and clouds cannot be modeled, tracked or controlled, which will be vexing to all the white knights out there."
We do have an understanding of clouds. Latest research:
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/12/climate-change-clouds-equilibrium-sensitivity/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:21 AM on 17 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
The following NPR article "Maria Ressa's 'How to Stand Up to a Dictator' is a memoir and manifesto", is an example of the harmful results of a failure to effectively govern and limit the influence of harmful misunderstandings.
Advocates of 'more free speech' seem to conveniently ignore the harmful realities of their 'theoretical belief in the Ultimate Good of more freedom'. Another reality they ignore is that their argument would include leaving graffiti on publicly visible surfaces. I personally believe that graffiti, well done, can improve the vibrancy and inclusiveness of public spaces (or the otherwise boring passing of string of train cars). But harmful graffiti should be removed (and so should poor quality graffiti, even if it is not harmful).
Another reality that appears to be ignored by people who declare that harmful misunderstandings will natural fail to be influential are the many examples of success through the promotion of harmful misunderstandings. The following CBC News item "Indigenous-provincial relationship is a long road. Danielle Smith is making potholes" is an example of a 'Leader' who seems confident that her fans will believe her claim that her undeniable declaration of an understandably harmful misunderstanding 'may have been misunderstood by some people' who are now attacking her for saying something she now claims is not what she said - she claims to be the victim of misunderstanding.
There are many Leaders who have made absurd presentations of harmful misunderstanding regarding climate science. They seem to be confident that they can rely on their fans to believe the harmful misunderstandings. And, if they get publicly directly challenged regarding their presentation of a harmful misunderstanding (by a predatory news investigator) they will follow the play-book of being more misleading and claiming that they are being 'attacked by woke people (with the understanding that 'their fans' misunderstand being Woke to be a Bad Thing).
Having social media and other media full of presentations of harmful misunderstanding is not helpful. However, I consider it important to preserve each unique presentation of harmful misunderstanding (not allowing multiple instances to spawn all over) along with a detailed explanation of why it is not to be believed.
Some group should do that regarding climate science - Oh Wait - maybe there already are groups doing that (if only people who claim to be self-researching to self-learn could find such resources).
That leaves the required actions to be the limiting of harmful production and spreading of understandably harmful misinformation. If only all Leaders would help with that effort.
There will always be people who dislike restrictions on their freedom to benefit from harmful misunderstandings. But it is not necessary to compromise 'responsible ethical leadership efforts to limit harm done' in an effort to 'not disappoint the people who want more freedom to act harmfully and be excused by harmful misunderstandings'.
Leadership is about deciding who to disappoint, what actions to discourage, and who should be helped. Harmful misleading has no real future, but it can be popular and profitable for as long as it can be gotten away with.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:33 AM on 17 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Follow-up to my comment @12,
This NPR report about changes in leadership of the Westlands Water District (the largest agricultural irrigation agency in the US):
Some of America's biggest vegetable growers fought for water. Then the water ran out'
is a good example of the type of leadership change needed at all levels of leadership on all issues related to climate change impact (and many other issues).
What is not mentioned, and is an important part of the required systemic change of leadership, is whether the changing leadership will also be pushing for higher-level leadership to do more to limit the harm of increased climate change impacts.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:15 AM on 17 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
Peppers @ 4:
Your first sentence covers two standard myths, found on the SkS list of "Most used climate myths" (upper left of every page - here is a direct link to the list).
Your second sentence in nonsense. Humidity and clouds are indeed modelled and tracked. After all, we know that humidity exists (and changes with location and time), and I can see clouds out my window right now. We have long-standing data sets recording both for well over a century. Weather forecasts and climate models routinely include both in their calculations.
Controlling clouds and humidity? Maybe there you have a bit of a point. On a global scale, our "control" is limited to the changes we are causing due to warming caused by our emissions of CO2. (Read the above lings on trace gas and water vapor.)
In the rest of your paragraph, you seem to be confusing hydrogen and nitrogen. Nitrogen is 78% of the atmospheric gases. Hydrogen is less than 1%. And the information in the original post is how hydrogen will affect methane concentrations.
Whatever is guiding your understanding, you really badly need to find some better sources of information (or find a way of getting a better understanding of what you are reading).
-
peppers at 00:06 AM on 17 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
I am still struggling with our involvement with Co2 at .04 of 1% and water vapor is the main ghg factor at a hundred times more the effect at up to 4% of the total volume. Humidity and clouds cannot be modeled, tracked or controlled, which will be vexing to all the white knights out there. And now we are considering dangerously affecting hoydrogen which is 78.02% of our atmosphere? I am not getting the data here that we have the power or culpability to be significant in these regards. But I seriously question whether we can affect anything involving 78% of our entire atmosphere. Is this serious?
-
MA Rodger at 23:30 PM on 16 December 2022It's a natural cycle
Long Knoll @33,
If confusion is sought, the early attempts at creating an Arctic Sea Ice Extent/Area record is a good place to start.
The 'splice' of two of these early attempts was probably not the work of Heller but of a Kenneth Richard shiown in this NoTricksZone post from 2016.
The more recent part of the spliced graph is taken from Fig 7.20a in the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990. A similar graph appears in the second IPCC Assessment Report of 1995 as Fig 3.8a. These Arctic Ice records do not match later records which begin to appear in Chapman & Walsh (1993). I have plotted out these various records (see here the graph posted 16/12/22) but have not had any success finding an explanation for the dip in Arctic Ice levels 1973-76. (The use of US Navy data is not something considered accurate today, but the decision not to use it or to use it differently is not something I have seen explained.)
The earlier part of the 'spliced' graph is from Vinnikov et al (1980) which isn't on-line but note the graphic in this 2013 slide show by Vinnikov from Vinnikov et al (1999) (abstract on-line) presents a record consistent with the current records. And for good measure Walsh is one of the co-authors of Vinnikov et al (1999). So again we see a major reappraisal of the data which hasn't been explained in the literature. And without access to these early papers, the question remains of what the basis for these early records actually is. (And my assertion back in 2017 that Vinnikov et al (1980) was plotting summer ice levels is probably wrong.)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:01 AM on 16 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
But Philippe, he seems to have worked very hard finding the answers that confirmed his predetermined conclusions. (sarc)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:46 AM on 16 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
I suggest to enter this one in a new, specially created category: longest, most tedious Gish-Gallop ever. I can't recall any previous utterance that would have a chance to compete; congratulations, you win. The enormous amount of verbiage does not manage to hide the lack of specifics, which itself is beaten by the lack of substantiation, the latter being still far behind the lack of understanding of the many subjects grazed. Koonin and 10 minutes of PragerU? Consider me unimpressed...
-
peterklein at 07:12 AM on 16 December 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2022
I mostly became mostly aware of the climate and global warming issue about the time that Al Gore began beating the drum (even while he continued to fly globally in his private jet). Since then, I've read about climate change and climate modeling from many sources, including ones taking the position that ‘it is not a question if it is a big-time issue, but what to do about it now, ASAP?’.
In the past few weeks, it appeared to me there has been a of articles, issued reports, and federal government activity, including recently approved legislation, related to this topic. While it obviously has been one of the major global topics for the past 3+ decades, the amount of public domain ‘heightened activity’ seems (to me) to come in waves every 4-6 months. That said, I decided to write on the topic based on what I learned and observed over time from articles, research reports, and TV/newspaper interviews.
There clearly are folks, associations, formal and informal groups, and even governments on both sides of the topic (issue). I also have seen over the decades how the need for and the flow of money sometimes (many times?) taints the results of what appear to be ‘expert-driven and expert-executed’ quantitative research. For example, in medical research some of the top 5% of researchers have been found altering their data and conclusions because of the source of their research funding, peer ‘industry’ pressure and/or pressure from senior academic administrators.
Many climate and weather-related articles state that 95+% of researchers agree on major climate changes; however (at least to me) many appear to disagree on the short-medium-longer term implications and timeframes.
What I conclude (as of now)
1. This as a very complex subject about which few experts have been correct.
2. We are learning more and more every day about this subject, and most of what we learn suggests that what we thought we knew isn't really correct or at least as perfectly accurate as many believe.
3. The U.S. alone cannot solve whatever problem exists. If we want to do something constructive, build lots of nuclear power plants ASAP (more on that to follow)!
4. Any rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels will devastate many economies, especially those like China, India, Africa and most of Asia. Interestingly, the U.S. can probably survive a 3 or 4% reduction in carbon footprint annually over the next 15 years better than almost any country in the world, but this requires the aforementioned construction of multiple nuclear electrical generating facilities. In the rest of the world, especially the developing world, their economies will crash, and famine would ensue; not a pretty picture.
5. I am NOT a reflexive “climate denier” but rather a real-time skeptic that humans will be rendered into bacon crisps sometime in the next 50, 100 or 500+ years!
6. One reason I'm not nearly as concerned as others is my belief in the concept of ‘progress’. Look at what we accomplished as a society over the last century, over the last 50, 10, 5 and 3 years (e.g., Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles about every two years!). It is easy to conclude that we will develop better storage batteries and better, more efficient electrical grids that will reduce our carbon footprint. I'm not so sure about China, India and the developing world!
7. So, don't put me down as a climate denier even though I do not believe that the climate is rapidly deteriorating or will rapidly deteriorate as a result of CO2 upload. Part of my calm on this subject is because I have read a lot about the ‘coefficient of correlation of CO2 and global warming, and I really don't think it's that high. I won't be around to know if I was right in being relaxed on this subject, but then I have more important things to worry about (including whether the NY Yankees can beat Houston in the ACLS playoffs, assuming they meet!).My Net/Net (As of Now!)
I am not a researcher or a scientist, and I recognize I know far less than all there is to know on this very complex topic, and I am not a ‘climate change denier’… but, after
also reading a lot of material over the years from ‘the other side’ on this topic, I conclude it is monumentally blown out of proportion relative to those claiming: ‘the sky is falling and fast’!
• Read or skim the book by Steven Koonin: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters /April 27, 2021; https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
• Google ‘satellite measures of temperature’; also, very revealing… see one attachment as an example.
• Look at what is happening in the Netherlands and Sri Lanka! Adherence to UN and ESG mandates are starving countries; and it appears Canada is about to go over the edge!
• None of the climate models are accurate for a whole range of reasons; the most accurate oddly enough is the Russian model but that one is even wrong by orders of magnitude!
• My absolute favorite fact is that based on data from our own governmental observation satellites: the oceans have been rising over the last 15 years at the astonishing rate of 1/8th of an inch annually; and my elementary mathematics suggests that if this rate continues, the sea will rise by an inch sometime around 2030 and by a foot in the year 2118… so, no need to buy a lifeboat if you live in Miami, Manhattan, Boston, Los Angeles, or San Francisco!
• Attached is a recent article and a Research Report summary.
Probably the most damning is the Research Report comparison of the climate model predictions from 2000, pointing to 2020 versus the actual increase in temperature that has taken place in that timeframe (Pages 9-13). It's tough going and I suggest you just read the yellow areas on Page 9 (the Abstract and Introduction, very short) and the 2 Conclusions on Page 12. But the point is someone is going to the trouble to actually analyze this data on global warming coefficients!
My Observations and Thinking
In the 1970s Time Magazine ran a cover story about our entering a new Ice Age. Sometime in the early 1990s, I recall a climate scientist sounding the first warning about global warming and the potentially disastrous consequences. He specifically predicted high temperatures and massive floods in the early 2000’s. Of course, that did not occur; however, others picked up on his concern and began to drive it forward, with Al Gore being one of the primary voices of climate concern. He often cited the work in the 1990’s of a climate scientist at Penn State University who predicted a rapid increase in temperature, supposedly occurring in 2010 and, of course, this also did not occur.Nonetheless many scientists from various disciplines also began to warn about global warming starting in the early 2000’s. It was this growing body of ‘scientific’ concern that stimulated Al Gore's concern and his subsequent movie. It would be useful for you to go back to that and review the apocalyptic pronouncements from that time; most of which predicted dire consequences, high temperatures, massive flooding, etc. which were to occur in 10 or 12 years, certainly by 2020. None of this even closely occurred to the extent they predicted.
That said, I was still generally aware of the calamities predicted by a large and diverse body of global researchers and scientists, even though their specific predictions did not take place in the time frame or to the extent that they predicted. As a result, I become a ‘very casual student’ of climate modeling.
Over the past 15 years climate modeling has become a popular practice in universities, think-tanks and governmental organizations around the globe. Similar to medical and other research (e.g., think-tanks, etc.) I recognized that some of the work may have been driven by folks looking for grants and money to keep them and their staff busy.
A climate model is basically a multi-variate model in which the dependent variable is global temperature. All of these models try to identify the independent variables which drive change in global temperature. These independent variables range from parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to sunspot activity, the distance of the earth from the sun, ocean temperatures, cloud cover, etc. The challenge of a multi-variant model is first to identify all of the various independent variables affecting the climate and then to estimate the percent contribution to global warming made by a change in any of these independent variables. For example, what would be the coefficient of correlation for an increase in carbon dioxide parts per million to global warming?
You might find that an interesting cocktail party question to ask your friends “what is the coefficient of correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide parts per million and the effect on global warming?” I would be shocked if any of them even understood what you were saying and flabbergasted if they could give you an intelligent answer! There are dozens of these climate models. You might be surprised that none of them has been particularly accurate if we go back 12 years to 2010, for example, and look at the prediction that the models made for global warming in ten years, by 2020, and how accurate any given model would be.
An enterprising scientist did go back and collected the predictions from a score of climate models and found that a model by scientists from Moscow University was actually closer to being accurate than any of the other models. But the point is none were accurate! They all were wrong on the high side, dramatically over predicting the actual temperature in 2020. Part of the problem was that in several of those years, there was no increase in the global temperature at all. This caused great consternation among global warming believers and the scientific community!A particularly interesting metric relates to the rise in the level of the ocean. Several different departments in the U.S. government actually measures this important number. You might be surprised to know, as stated earlier, that over the past 15 or so years the oceans have risen at the dramatic rate of 1/8th of an inch annually. This means that if the oceans continued to rise at that level, we would see a rise of an inch in about 8 years, sometime around 2030, and a rise of a foot sometime around the year 2118. I suspect Barack Obama had seen this data and that's why he was comfortable in buying an oceanfront estate on Martha's Vineyard when his presidency ended!
The ‘Milankovitch Theory’ (a Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different and at different times have the greatest impact on earth's changing climate patterns) states that as the earth proceeds on its orbit, and as the axis shifts, the earth warms and cools depending on where it is relative to the sun over a 100,000-year, and 40,000-year cycle. Milankovitch cycles are involved in long-term changes to Earth's climate as the cycles operate over timescales of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.
So, consider this: we did not suddenly get a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere this year than we had in 2019 (or other years!), but maybe the planet has shifted slightly as the Milankovitch Theory states, and is now a little closer to the sun, which is why we have the massive drought. Nothing man has done would suddenly make the drought so severe, but a shift in the axis or orbit bringing the planet a bit closer to the sun would. It just seems logical to me. NASA publicly says that the theory is accurate, so it seems that is the real cause; but the press and politicians will claim it is all man caused! You can shut down all oil production and junk all the vehicles, and it will not matter per the Theory! Before the mid-1800’s there were no factories or cars, but the earth cooled and warmed, glaciers formed and melted, and droughts and massive floods happened. The public is up against the education industrial complex of immense corruption!
In the various and universally wrong ‘climate models’, one of the ‘independent’ variables is similar to the Milankovitch Theory. Unfortunately, it is not to the advantage of the climate cabal to admit this or more importantly give it the importance it probably deserves.
People who are concerned about the climate often cite an ‘increase in forest fires, hurricanes, heat waves, etc. as proof of global warming’. And many climate deniers point out that most forest fires are proven to be caused by careless humans tossing cigarettes into a pile of leaves or leaving their campfire unattended, and that there has been a dramatic decrease globally on deaths caused by various climate factors. I often read from climate alarmists (journalists, politicians, friends, etc.), what I believe are ‘knee-jerk’ responses since they are not supported by meaningful and relevant data/facts, see typical comments below:
• “The skeptical climate change deniers remind me of the doctors hired by the tobacco industry to refute the charges by the lung cancer physicians that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. The planet is experiencing unprecedented extreme climate events: droughts, fires, floods etc. and the once in 500-year catastrophic climate event seems to be happening every other year. Slow motion disasters are very difficult to deal with politically. When a 200-mph hurricane hits the east coast and causes a trillion dollars in losses then will deal with it and then climate deniers will throw in the towel!”These above comments may be right, but to date the forecasts on timing implications across all the models are wrong! It just ‘may be’ in 3, 10 or 50 years… or in 500-5000+ before the ‘sky is falling’ devastating events directly linked to climate occur. If some of the forecasts, models were even close to accuracy to date I would feel differently.
I do not deny there are climate related changes I just don’t see any evidence their impact is anywhere near the professional researchers’ forecasts/models on their impact as well as being ‘off the charts’ different than has happened in the past 100-1000+ years.
But a larger question is “suppose various anthropogenetic actions (e.g., chiefly environmental pollution and pollutants originating in human activity like anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide) are causing global warming?”. What are they, who is doing it, and what do we do about it? The first thing one must do is recognize that this is a global problem and that therefore the actions of any one country has an effect on the overall climate depending upon its population and actions. Many in the United States focus intensely upon reducing carbon emissions in the U.S. when of course the U.S. is only 5% of the world population. We are however responsible for a disproportionate part of the global carbon footprint; we contribute about 12%. The good news is that the U.S. has dramatically reduced its share of the global carbon footprint over the past 20 years and doing so while dramatically increasing our GDP (up until the 1st Half of 2022).
Many factors have contributed to the relative reduction of the U.S. carbon footprint. Chief among these are much more efficient automobiles and the switch from coal-driven electric generation plants to those driven by natural gas, a much cleaner fossil fuel.
While the U.S. is reducing its carbon footprint more than any other country in the world, China has dramatically increased its carbon footprint and now contributes about 30% of the carbon expelled into the atmosphere. China is also building 100 coal-fired plants!
Additional facts, verified by multiple sources including SNOPES, the U.,S. government, engineering firms, etc.:
• No big signatories to the Paris Accord are now complying; the U.S. is out-performing all of them.
• EU is building 28 new coal plants; Germany gets 40% of its power from 84 coal plants; Turkey is building 93 new coal plants, India 446, South Korea 26, Japan 45, China has 2363 coal plants and is building 1174 new ones; the U.S. has 15 and is building no new ones and will close about 15 coal plants.
• Real cost example: Windmills need power plants run on gas for backup; building one windmill needs 1100 tons of concrete & rebar, 370 tons of steel, 1000 lbs of mined minerals (e.g., rare earths, iron and copper) + very long transmission lines (lots of copper & rubber covering for those) + many transmission towers… rare earths come from the Uighur areas of China (who use slave labor), cobalt comes from places using child labor and use lots of oil to run required rock crushers... all to build one windmill! One windmill also has a back-up, inefficient, partially running, gas-powered generating plant to keep the grid functioning! To make enough power to really matter, we need millions of acres of land & water, filled with windmills which consume habitats & generate light distortions and some noise, which can create health issues for humans and animals living near a windmill (this leaves out thousands of dead eagles and other birds).• So, if we want to decrease the carbon footprint on the assumption that this is what is driving the rise in the sea levels (see POV that sea levels are not rising at: www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRChoNTg) and any increase in global temperature, we need to figure out how to convince China, India and the rest of the world from fouling the air with fossil fuels. In fact, if the U.S. wanted to dramatically reduce its own carbon footprint, we would immediately begin building 30 new nuclear electrical generating plants around the country! France produces about 85% of its electrical power from its nuclear-driven generators. Separately, but related, do your own homework on fossil fuels (e.g., oil) versus electric; especially on the big-time move to electric and hybrid vehicles. Engineering analyses show you need to drive an electric car about 22 years (a hybrid car about 15-18 years) to breakeven on the savings versus the cost involved in using fossil fuels needed to manufacture, distribute and maintain an electric car! Also, see page 14 on the availability inside the U.S. of oil to offset what the U.S. purchases from the middle east and elsewhere, without building the Keystone pipeline from Canada.
Two 4-5-minute videos* on the climate change/C02/new green deal issue, in my opinion, should be required viewing in every high school and college; minimally because it provides perspective and data on the ‘other’ side of the issue while the public gets bombarded almost daily by the ‘sky is falling now or soon’ side on climate change!
* https://www.prageru.com/video/is-there-really-a-climate-emergency and
https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-change-whats-so-alarmingModerator Response:[DB] Gish Gallop snipped. Please use the Search function to place comments and questions on the most appropriate chat threads. Simply dumping everything minus a kitchen sink into one comment is a Gish Gallop, and in violation of this venue's Comments Policy. Please read that policy and better construct future comments to comply with it. Thanks!
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:28 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Slight clarification/correction of my last sentence in comment # 11.
If someone were to threaten anyone else with violence for any reason, they would be instantly banned....
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:02 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Agreeing with Bob, likewise, rules of grammar are not a limit on free speech. They're there to assist you in becoming a better communicator. By the same right, commenting policies can assist the user in effectively communicating their ideas without devolving into methods that destroy good exchanges of ideas.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:52 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Further to Pepper's comment at 4 and the responses.
Elon Musk has reportedly criticised Apple for a lack of commitment to "free speech", due to Apple reducing advertising on Twitter and threatening to block Twitter from its app store.
"Free speech" does not allow someone to force themselves into getting access to someone else's platform/megaphone. Surely Musk must recognize that Apple is free to not speak on Twitter (ads), and free to not spread products it does not like via its own store? Or is it only certain types of "free speech" that Musk supports?
Twitter, Facebook, other social media sites, Apple's App store, etc. are not (AFAIK) considered common carriers, where there are obligations to accept traffic from everyone (but still subject to regulation - for example, dangerous goods).
And there is a world outside the U.S.A., and Twitter is not an exclusively-U.S. business. There are laws in most countries against hate speech, inciting violence, etc.
On a slight tangent, it might be worth reminding you that Skeptical Science is not the government, is multi-national, and has it's own rules for people participating here. (It's call "the Comments Policy".) Your "free speech" position would seem to imply that anyone would be allowed to say anything here (they cannot). The rules may limit you - but they also limit people responding to you. If anyone were to threaten you with violence here, because of your position, they would be instantly banned.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:25 AM on 16 December 2022It's a natural cycle
Long Knoll:
Note that the comment you refer to from MA Rodger was made 5 years ago.
Is this the figure you are referring to from the Carbon Brief article you mention? (I can only link to the image, not embed it here.)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Walsh-et-al.-2016-Fig8.png
Note that the values in that figure are for sea ice extent. That is not the same as sea ice area.
- Sea ice area in the area that is actually ice.
- Sea ice extent is the are of ocean that has at least 15% ice cover. Up to 85% of that area is water, not ice. 1 million km2 of sea ice extent at 15% ice is only 150,000km2 of sea ice area.
Further explanation is available here.
So, you should not be comparing area and extent numbers. The area number will be much smaller.
As for Heller: yes, he is simply combining two different things: full year vs. late summer.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:01 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers: "Meaning if you seek out hate speech you can find it, but it will not come up without actively looking for it."
That's a remarkably oblivious claim, objectively so ignorant as to make one wonder if it was truly spoken from a stance of "I believe this." Not to go ad hominem about it but this kind of abject seeming blindness is a legitimate topic in itself.
There's a UW professor Carl T. Bergstrom on Twitter. He's routinely threatened with various forms of bodily harm there including "you should be killed." He's not even at the top of the Bell curve demographic for being a target of such speech. For Bergstrom, "actively looking for it [death threats]" consisted of talking truthfully about matters of which Bergstrom is well informed. He's one of myriad examples, many of those loudly surfaced in lots of easily visible forms.
Obtain situational awareness and speak truthfully, please.
-
BaerbelW at 04:47 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers @6
In what way and for what do you see the article as an Advertisement?
-
Long Knoll at 03:54 AM on 16 December 2022It's a natural cycle
MA Rodger @30,
I'm confused by this post, and have probably just misinterpreted it. If, as you say "Vinnikov (1980) fig5 is a plot of the annual ice coverage for the months of July, August & September" that would imply ice coverage was similar in 1935-1960 to what it is now; NSIDC data shows that July, August and September mean Arctic ice cover averages at about 6 million square kilometres in recent years, just as the Vinnikov graph does from 1935-1960. That can't be right. In fact, the idea that there was 6 million square miles of coverage for July-August-September over 1935-1960 is contradicted by the recent study Walsh et al 2016, Carbon Brief story In the study, the month September, which obviously has coverage below the July-August-September average, had an average cover of over 7 million square kilometres from 1935-1960.
And what error has Heller made exactly in his attempt to graft the two graphs together? Has he incorrectly aligned them, or are the data between the two graphs simply showing different things?
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:47 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
I believe the fundamental conundrum Twitter faces is to allow as much free exchange of ideas as possible within the scope of the necessity to keep both users and advertisers. Rampant antisemitism definitely drives away advertisers who need to protect their brand. Rampant conspiracy theories are great for flaming interactions but also drive away users with large followings. To my understanding, that's exactly what Twitter was actively doing moderately well and what "critics" believed was wrong with the site.
Even Musk is saying (though I remain dubious he'll accomplish this) is going to find ways to algorithmicly drive hate speech to the bottom of the conversation heap. How is that different? Above, Pepper seems to believe hateful, awful, and vocal people are to be celebrated because it means we're free. I believe it's a recipe for devolving into social chaos. Musk's attemps to detrend hate will just lead to the same complaints if the hateful can't see their hate rise to the top.
I've always held, Twitter doesn't have an engineering problem, it has a people problem that is amplified by revenue requirements. And I actually think that is exactly the problem Mastodon solves. Mastodon is essentially a social media site with no stock ticker, no revenue, no investors. It's a distributed structure where each instance operates their own resources at their own costs.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:21 AM on 16 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 4... "Free speech" is about what the government can do to limit your criticisms of the government. I am fully within my rights to kick you out of my home if I don't like the things you say, and that would not be an infringement on your free speech.
It's fascinating to me how such a large number of people have come to believe that "free speech" means they can say anything they like anytime they like. Go sit in a courtroom and start yelling anything you like. See what happens. Go sit in your local church and start reciting Nietzschi at the top of your lungs. See what happens. We do, as a matter of regular social interaction, necessarily limit people's speech.
-
peppers at 23:17 PM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
This article is entirely an Advertisement.
-
djinghis at 23:08 PM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Incredibly immature and inaccurate article and a total embarrasment to an otherwise great web site.
"Emotional damage"
"Elon is a Nazi"
"Elon Musk’s recent acquisition was launched with the explicit intent of normalizing hate speech,"
Who's the clown who wrote this?Moderator Response:[BL] Inflammatory portions deleted.
"Quotes" that are not quotes (i.e., do not actually appear in the article) deleted.
Please read the comments policy. In particular, it says:
No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.
-
peppers at 21:16 PM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
I was under the impression that free speech was facilitated by speaking freely. Twitter is now allowing all Americans to have freedom of speech, but the scope of casting it becomes limited. Meaning if you seek out hate speech you can find it, but it will not come up without actively looking for it. But it is not another Americans legal and moral activity to interfer with anothers right to speak. From the movie 'An American President': "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
You cannot re-name what another American says as Hate Speech or any pronoun, because it is against what you believe is right, and then moderate or remove that other American or thier view based on that. They cannot silence you as well.
Having an opposing view has a function. In addition to giving America as many choices as possible, it cauterizes your opposing viewpoint and strentghens your own beliefs. Death enlivens life and losing hieghtens efforts to win.
This article suggests unamerican activity which goes against the free discussions of the cranky uncle. As confident as the uncle is of winning, the discussion constitutes the nessasary freedom of the american forum.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:42 PM on 15 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
EddieEvans @11,
There is indeed serious ethical concern regarding the actions of someone like E.E. David, Jr. But the more serious ethical concerns are people in leadership roles (in Exxon, other businesses, and Government) who choose to be influenced by harmful misunderstandings presented by people like E.E. David, Jr.
I recommend focusing more on the behaviour of Leaders.
The common sense understanding should be that leaders need to be ethically responsible for: paying attention, learning to limit harm done, and helping to make amends for harm done. Leaders who are not 'ethical in that sense’ will fail to develop sustainable improvements (in business or government). Leaders choosing to compromise their judgment because of ‘other interests’ (like popularity or profitability), will most likely make harmful decisions and fail to produce lasting benefits (because the harm being done gets harder to hide or excuse).
I try to focus on the need for ethical governing/limiting of harmful impacts, with ‘ethics’ being understood to be about limiting harm done and helping to correct for harm done. It leads to understanding that ‘it would be great if everyone self-governed that way’.
Everyone pursuing increased awareness and understanding of what is harmful and trying to help minimize and repair harm done is clearly a fantasy. There will always be some people trying to hide or excuse harm done because of benefits obtained (by them or their group). That is the absurd result of ‘ethical perspectives’ claiming to seek things like ‘the Greatest Good’ (like Utilitarianism). That type of thinking can justify ‘an individual (or group) obtaining massive benefit to the detriment of all others’ (they are shown to be self-defeating theories by Derek Parfit’s ethical evaluations in “Reasons and Persons” published in 1984 – cited more than 14,000 times. Parfit’s presentation includes ‘responsibility towards future generations’).
Clearly there will always be a need for people who will not responsibly ethically self-govern to be 'Governed and limited by Ethical Others'. The problem becomes more challenging when ‘ethically compromised’ competitors win significant leadership influence through popularity or profitability.
That is a long way of saying that “What happened at the leadership levels regarding climate science was most likely the result of unethical people winning significant influence over leadership”. The result was probably not because of the actions of people who present misunderstandings. The problem is leaders who seek out and act based on harmful misunderstandings. The people developing harmful misunderstanding share in the blame. But decision-makers who seek out, and allow themselves to believe, harmful misunderstandings are the root of the problem. And that systemic problem has to be corrected to develop sustainable improvements.
Also, in case there was a misunderstanding, I wish to clarify that the Sustainable Development Goals include Climate Change. In addition to Climate Action being identified as Goal 13, limiting Climate Change impacts makes it easier to achieve, and improve on, many of the other SDGs.
-
scaddenp at 08:49 AM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
I have responded to ecgberht on a more appropriate place. I would urge ecgberht to read the article the comment is associated with.
-
scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 15 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Responding to ecgberht
I believe the MIT referred to is this one.
"Greater than 90 per cent of the carbon dioxide input to the atmosphere–ocean system each year derives from the natural decay of organic carbon"
However, they contribute zero % to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as this article explains. ecgberht is falling foul of misinformation.
The IPCC reports cover ongoing research into the natural CO2 fluxes in great detail. ecgberht would do well to read the relevant chapter in the report.
-
ecgberht at 02:51 AM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Why is there no article on the MIT study that shows that 90% of CO2 released comes from rotting leaves?
Moderator Response:[BL] If you want to claim that some "MIT study" shows something, you are going to actually have to provide a link to the study. And you're going to have to explain why it is relevant to the blog post at hand.
-
ecgberht at 02:45 AM on 15 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
The "hate speech" graphic on new Twitter has been completely debunked. It's made up.
Moderator Response:[BL] If you want us to believe that you are not just making things up, you are going to have to actually provide a link to where this supposed "debunking" has been done.
-
EddieEvans at 22:41 PM on 14 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
I'm not so sure that ethics will help with denial or the climate, but I seem to think so at times.
We are speaking of ethics in climate science. Here's an example of the problem.
In a recent publication, J. Hansen et al., footnote #9, says that E.E. David, Jr. later became a global warming "denier." I'd like to know more about David's history with Exxon. It's part of the denier's legacy. This stuff needs to be documented, something like in Speth's "They Knew."
David's turnabout is especially egregious because he previously said in David, E.E., Jr.: (American Geographical Union Monograph 29), footnote #8 of Hansen et al.
I'm not sure what constituted a "denier" at the time, but the consequences outweighed a "fair and balanced" opinion, a lingering assumption on David's part. David had no right, no duty to declare anthropogenic climate change a dead idea if that's what "denier" meant. He's like Exxon's guy.
Exxon and the others are still at it.
I'm arguing with myself here. Venting after running into Hansen's paper.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:17 PM on 12 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
EddieEvans,
I agree that a major part of the problem is the lack of legitimate ethical considerations governing thoughts and actions. Misleading marketing is a serious ethical problem.
I read Stephen M. Gardner's "A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change" several years ago. It is an easy read compared to other presentations on ethics. It is encouraging that more books are being produced by a diversity of people on a diversity of issues related to ethical understanding. And those books are aligned with the consensus understanding presented in the Sustainable Development Goals. Those diverse converging lines of thought develop increasing awareness and improved understanding that competition for status needs to be governed to limit the development of harmful unsustainable results (and some current perceived winners need to lose status).
Effectively solving the climate change problem, and many other developed problems, will require systemic changes that increase governing by ‘ethical consideration’ rather than ‘popularity or profitability’. Competition based on popularity and profitability has a tragic history of developing harmful results when it is not rigorously governed by the ethical objective of constantly improved learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. And when it is poorly governed the competition for status develops harmful undeserving winners who can powerfully resist their deserved loss of status, especially through misleading marketing of harmful misunderstanding.
-
Long Knoll at 11:56 AM on 12 December 2022Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Thanks for the quick response.
The article 'Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC' shows evidence that the working group did not suppress contrarian papers but honestly critiqued them, hence it can be argued that they also honestly critiqued Briffa's tree ring data (and from what I know, they did indeed and there was a detailed discussion of Briffa's tree ring data in the report). But someone making the argument I laid out in the above post might still say the quotes, including apparently quite explicit ones from Briffa himself, are evidence of improper pressure to create consensus rather than uncertainty for the policy makers, even if in this case there was ultimately no impact on the results. As you say, I think there's a good chance the quotes are taken out of context like so much of the selective quoting done by 'Climategate' proponents, but if they have been I can't find any material showing how they have been taken out of context.
-
John Hartz at 04:01 AM on 12 December 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Jonas: As always, thank you for the positive feedback.
