Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 Next
Comments 32151 to 32200:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:12 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
william, I am frankly astonished at your introduction of a statement by the UK Greens to the discussion as something that should not be said, because saying it supresses free speach. Can you not see the irony in your position? Apparently, in your opinion, there is a range of political views that cannot be expressed, because expressing them violates the principles of free speech. And let us be clear on this, the UK Greens is a political party, and who is and is not fit to be a minister is a political issue.
Regarding teaching, I am of the firm opinion that teaching at universities should always teach the consensus position, and show why it is a reasonable position from the evidence. Where there is no single consensus position, all major views should be taught, and why they are reasonable positions should also be taught (but this is not relevant in climate science in which their is a clear consensus o attribution if not on more detailed issues). Having done that, the teacher should be free to point out that they disagree with the consensus position, and why they think their view is also reasonable. A teacher who portrays a consensus position as not having reasonable epistemic grounds is doing their students a disservice and, prima facie, indulging in indoctrination by evading evidence that has clearly convinced a majority (indeed, a super majority) of their peers. Drapela, Carter and Salby have all violated this principle either in formal teaching, or in informal teaching.
By your comments on your own teaching, you appear to have practised this principle and agree with it. Yet you gloss over Drapela's clear violation of that principle! Once again, Drapela in his presentation did not present an iota of the very large amount of evidence in favour of the consensus view of climate change. Rather, he simply charged acceptors of that theory of doing so for some combination of financial gain, notoriety or gain of political influence. Further, he treated the mere charge of that reason as itself a refutation of the consensus position in a clear non-sequitur. Finally, in presenting his own opinion, the only evidence he presented was clearly dated, and refuted by later evidence. Please state clearly why you think that sort of propaganda is acceptable by anyone, least of all a university professor?
-
william11409 at 08:07 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
PW Of course. unfortunately I responded to the introduction of the topic by scaddenp@23 without realising I should not have done so. That said, you are very free to steal any and all of my emails as they are very mundane indeed
-
william11409 at 07:05 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
John Hartz-apologies a typographical error I will not repeat. See here for UK Greens amazing policy statements (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100259728/are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been-a-climate-change-sceptic/}
Phil@21 I live in the UK and really don't need to be told what is and what isn't happening here politically. DSL@22 I taught biochemistry and endocrinology. scaddenp@23. Not sure the climategate emails are the best thing to introduce on this particular forum dealing with freedom of speech, considering the comments made in those emails about how to treat journals and their editors. As for false information being spread, surely it is just being put out there for discussion. Isn't it? Just because the "authorities" claim one thing it isn'rt necessarily always entirely the case.
Moderator Response:[PW] No discussion is really needed to address the so-called Climategate emails: no fewer than 7 independent studies have shown there to be NO credible error in their data, or the analysis, thereof. Was there some inappropriate language, used by the *humans* who were involved? Yes. May we steal your private correspondence and peruse it? I think we'd likely find verbiage you'd likely not want made public.
To close this comment: When the data shown in all the so-called Climategate emails, *none* were found to have been false, misrepresented, or outright wrong. I hope this ends this discussion about a dead horse that ong ago has been flogged to death.
[JH] Link activated.
-
scaddenp at 06:07 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Universities should indeed welcome differing views and robust debate certainly goes on in climate circles (eg witness the "climategate" emails which would be robust enough for anyone). Other obvious examples would be the hypothesis that jet streams are influenced by polar melting, causes for Antarctic sea ice expansion, effect of GW on ENSO, effect of GW on hurricanes, on tornados, effect of meltwater of ice sheet dynamics etc.
What you dont expect in university environment is pulmagation of misinformation and crackpot theories from people with little to no background in climate science who are informed from their political values and not by even textbook physics.
What would you make of someone who continues to spread false information to an uninformed public when it is clear that they have been shown that the presentation is misleading and/or wrong and do not hold those views when talking to a professional audience? Does that strike you as the actions of a responsible academic?
-
DSL at 05:48 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
@William: William, your comment does nothing to weaken Tom's response to you. You simply don't recognize his primary points in your responses.
Tom: "So in response to William's rhetorical question, I would have to say that Universities should welcome the airing of well presented, scientific views supported by data which the person discussing the topic has taken every effort to ensure is accurate, up to date and germain. On the other hand they should take a very dim view of staff discussing outside their discipline and teaching by example that conspiracy theories are an adequate substitute for scientific rebutal, and that cherry picked falsified data are permissible means of supporting your "science"."
William, what did you teach at university? I ask so that I can establish a basis for useful illustration of your method. -
Phil at 05:41 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
And as for ministers being sacked if they don't conform to the thinking to which the Greens consider they should conform, that is bordering on the sort of society satirised by George Orwell in "1984".
The suggestion that the UK Green Party has any influence over UK government policy shows a woeful ignorance of the current political situation in the UK.
-
william11409 at 05:30 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
John Hart Point taken I need to replace Solely with pre-dominantly. As for sloganeering well you're the moderator but the UK Greens are attempting to suppress freedom of speech i much the same way Professor Mann claims ""It is difficult to take on an entire group of scientists at once," Mann explains. "But bringing down individuals is easier, and it serves the larger effort of dismissing, obscuring, and misrepresenting well-established science and its implications. What’s more, these highly visible tactics create such a negative atmosphere that other scientists are discouraged from conveying their research’s implications to the public.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please provide specific examples to back-up your sweeping claims about the UK's Green Party.
Also, please spell my last name correctly.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:51 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Another more general presentation of my previous post:
Leaders should be striving to better understand what is going on and be striving to develop a sustainable better future for all. That action would include striving to ensure the better understanding of what is going on is better understood by the entire population. Anyone in a leadership role who does not share that ethos needs to be understood by everyone to be a threat to the advancement of society. The observations of what is going and has been going on are well explained by that understanding of what is going on.
Everyone under the leaders should also share that ethos for the same reasons. And those who are best at understanding and developing further understanding and who work to effectively properly inform and educate the entire population (help everyone understand what is going on), need to be recognized as the best leaders.
People with an area of specialization that would become the focus of their efforts should still apply the concept of striving to best understand what is going on to everything they think about and do.
So when a person who 'has no reason not to know better' is discovered to willfully persistently fight deceptively against the development of the better understanding of what is going on they need to be kept from having significant influence, for the good of the future of humanity and all other life on this amazing planet.
The 'freedom' argument only defends a person's choices. It does not mean they have to be allowed to succeed by being able to be in positions of significant influence. It is very dangerous to try to isolate Freedom from responsible considerate activity. If society did that, chaos would ensue. That is why we have speeding limits rather than letting everyone drive the way they wish and only punishing them after they caused a problem only if we can prove beyond a doubt that they should have known better. I present that case, and drunk driving is another one, because in those cases the one who caused the problem may at least suffer a penalty. This climate change delay game has no such opportunity to penalize he deliberate trouble makers. How do today's generations get compensated from the previous generations who did nothing through these past 25 years? How do we extract the penalty from groups like the previous generatons of Canadians who chose to benefit from increasing CO2 emission 25% from 1990 levels by 2005 as well as increasing the amount of benefit they get from selling stuff that gets burned in other nations. The Canadian position now is they will match the US post 2005 goal of 17% reduction by 2020. For the US that means getting back to 1990 levels by 2020. For Canada that means staying 8% above 1990 levels and selling even more stuff to burn elsewhere. And Canada is very unlikely to even meet the 17% reduction commitment. What should the thoughts be about 'that type of leadership'? They should have the freedom to get away with it if they can?
-
John Hartz at 04:42 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Moderator's Comment
William: Your "Afterthought" comment was deleted in its entirety because it was nothing more than inflamatory sloganeering.
-
william11409 at 04:30 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
The phrase "human consumption of fossil fuels is the sole reason for AGW" should read "human consumption of fossil fuels is the sole reason for global warming"
Moderator Response:[JH] Please cite a specific example of a climate scientist who has asserted, "human consumption of fossil fuels is the sole reason for global warming".
-
william11409 at 04:03 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Tom Curtis you're correct on Bob Carter at JCU not Macquarie. Whilewriting I was thnking of Prof Salby but left him out as I didn't think he really fitted. I wrote Drapela but the spell interferer on Word altered it to Draper and I didn't check carefully enoiugh. Phillippe Chantreau and Tom Curtis, I taught in a University for just over 33 years reaching the position of Professor and certainly at my university contrarian views on many things were put forward. Universities are of course the places were controversy is or should be brought up and discussed civilly. I used to tell my students each year that some of the concepts in Biochemistry might well be proven wrong by next year but at the moment I was presenting the current thinking. And of course one man's garbage may be another man's treasure. And as for ministers being sacked if they don't conform to the thinking to which the Greens consider they should conform, that is bordering on the sort of society satirised by George Orwell in "1984". Of course univerities will say they dismissed an academic for whatever reason, it may not always be the real reason and who can prove otherwise?
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflamatory sloganeering snipped. Plesse comply with the SkS Comments Policy in your future posts.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:49 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
In rebuttal to William's comment about what Universities should do, and connecting it with the information shared by Tom Curtis (and Tamino):
Drapela's presentation can be seen to be based on chosing some 'valid' points about this issue and abusing them to present a clearly deceptive and openly disingenuous appeal to people inclined to be impressed by that type of made-up claim.
There is no doubt that the required action to limit human impacts must apply to all people. All trhe caring people doing everythingtheycan will nt solve this issue because the uncaring being free to do as they please make the problem bigger. So the Power needs to curtail those unacceptable freedoms. However, that isn't quite the way it got presented.
As for the science part, the target audience would obviously not care about the legitimacy of the presentation on the science.
Universities are the places for leading the development of the best understanding of what is going on. So it is totally appropriate for a University to not want to support willful efforts to limit or delay or deliberately counteract the development of the better understanding of what is going on.
Similarly, industry and government is the leadership of society to an advanced better future for all. That clearly needs to be done based on the best understanding of what is going on. Anyone who is unwilling to better understand what is going on, or who deliberetely tries to get away with known to be unacceptable behaviour, or tries to limit or delay the required actions to advance society, or tries to counteract the development of the better understanding among the population should indeed "Not be allowed to hold or pursue a position of leadership".
-
amhartley at 02:12 AM on 12 January 2015There is no consensus
That helps, Tom.
In fairness to Forbes, it is good to see them publishing a pro-environment perspective, too:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2015/01/09/four-reasons-to-worry-about-anthropogenic-global-warming-independent-of-what-97-of-scientists-believe/
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:34 AM on 12 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
WIlliam says "Surely a University with any credibility should welcome the airing of differing views." This is nonsense and a quite common fallacy thrown around by pseudo-skeptics. A differing view does not have validity just by virtue of its differing. All universities welcome valid views, regardless how different. Having an open mind does not mean one should clutter it with garbage.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:19 PM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
William @10 skates very quickly through some faux controversies regarding the dissassociation between certain professors known to have contrarian views on climate and their universities. In every case he mentions, the university has denied the association was dissolved due to the persons views on climate, but William uncritically accepts the views of the contrarian on this, rather than the stated views of those in the know. Further, he gets the facts wrong in both cases. Bob Carter was Adjunct Professor at James Cook University (in northern Queensland), not at Macquarie University (in Sydney, New South Wales). And Nicholas Drapela (not Draper) was informed that his contract would not be renewed, he was not sacked.
What intrigues me is William's view that, "Surely a University with any credibility should welcome the airing of differing views". As it happens, Drapela's "differing views" still survive on the internet, in the from of 80 slides from a 2008 talk. The tone is easilly determined by considering slide 8:
This is not atypical. Indeed, the first 77 slides contain an indepth diatribe against climate science as being promoted by scientists and media personalities for notoriety and money, which is provided by government to further its assault on freedom. He does take the time, however, to swipe at the Oregone State University (his employer) for founding an "Oregon Climate Change Research Institute" for the purposes of garnering more money (slides 11 &12).
Of course, Drapela does (eventually) get of the conspiracy theories and starts discussing science. On slide 77 he asks "If not CO2, then what?". At that stage, however, he has not given one reason why not CO2. Not a scintilla of science has crossed his path. But all the science behind climate science is swept away as irrelevant because he wants to spin a conspiracy theory.
But he does get onto his two slides of "skeptical" science eventually, with the first presenting his theory (solar fluctuations modulated by cosmic rays), and the second presenting the evidence in support of the theory:
That is right. His evidence is a graph from a 1991 paper, that was refuted by one of its coauthors in 1999, nine years before Drapela used it as the only scientific "data" in an 80 slide talk on cimate change.
So in response to William's rhetorical question, I would have to say that Universities should welcome the airing of well presented, scientific views supported by data which the person discussing the topic has taken every effort to ensure is accurate, up to date and germain. On the other hand they should take a very dim view of staff discussing outside their discipline and teaching by example that conspiracy theories are an adequate substitute for scientific rebutal, and that cherry picked falsified data are permissible means of supporting your "science".
Perhaps William could clariffy his view? Does he believe the openness of universities to debate should mean the complete dropping of any intellectual standards to make that debate possible? Or should they perhaps require of their staff that they conduct scientific debates scientifically?
h/t to Tamino, from whom you can get the link to the slides.
-
michael sweet at 23:06 PM on 11 January 2015Sea level rise is exaggerated
Whsmith,
Perhaps looking at pictures of beaches at low tide do not show the sea level rise much. As Tom states, it has only been 4 inches and they are used to meters of tidal range there. I note many pictures show beach erosion and cliff retreat, but I do not know if the cliffs were eroding before the war.
If you looked a little harder you might find a reference like this which documents the increase in sediment accretion of salt marshes in Normandy, France over the past 120 years. The marshes must accumulate sediment to keep ahead of sea level rise. These marshes are expanding since more area is salty now due to sea level rise.
-
Phil at 21:45 PM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
William @10
Does he consider Owen Paterson, the UK Environmental Secretary, should have been sacked from his position as he was less than totally supportive of AGW?
Firstly note that "Environment Secretary" is a post that doesn't exist. Paterson was secretary of state for DEFRA. As such he was never in charge of climate change policy, which is the remit of DECC (Minister Ed Davey). The asssertion that Paterson was sacked because of his views on climate change, is one that Paterson has made, but remains unconfirmed by Government. In the UK, that speech was was generally interpretted as "sour grapes" from a minister widely seen as incompetent and out of touch over policies, such as his handling of the 2014 flooding of the Somerset Levels and Badger culling (to handle bovine TB)
UK Greens to call for the sacking of "any cabinet Ministers or senior governmental advisors who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won’t take the risks to the UK seriously"?
Do you then you feel it is acceptable for Ministers of State to dismiss any risk without proper investigation ? If not what do you think the word "seriously" means ?
-
william11409 at 21:41 PM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
My sincere apologies. I had absolutely no thought at all of taunting a moderator my comment was sincere in that I did think the view I put forward might not be published due to its somehat controversial context.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] The comments policy only requires that the comment is on-topic, it doesn't specify that comments should agree with the article. As long as you adhere to the comments policy, posts won't be moderated.
-
william11409 at 21:09 PM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
At the very real risk I run of being moderated to oblivion, Professor Mann conveniently, if understandably, totally ignores the the actions of the anthropogenic global warming proponents. Does Professor Mann consider it acceptable for the UK Greens to call for the sacking of "any cabinet Ministers or senior governmental advisors who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change or who won’t take the risks to the UK seriously"? Does he consider Owen Paterson, the UK Environmental Secretary, should have been sacked from his position as he was less than totally supportive of AGW? Should Professor Nicholas Draper have been fired from Oregon State University becasue he gives anti-climate change lectures? Surely a University with any credibility should welcome the airing of differing views. Should Professor BobCarter have had his position of Adjunct Professor at Macquarie University terminated, arguably because of his "Climate denier" views? The role of human activity in causing Climate Change is a politically hot topic that has resulted in acres of the printed word and galaxies of electrons poured into emails and the internet in the on-going debate, a debate clearly not yet conclusively settled in the minds of many lay people.
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Taunting moderators is really rather childish behaviour and detracts from the point you are making. Moderating posts is a pretty tiresome activity, so please don't make it any more tiresome than it really needs to be. Please also read the comments policy.
[JH] Excessive white space deleted.
-
BaerbelW at 19:05 PM on 11 January 2015Ice age predicted in the 70s
Peter Gwynne, the author of the referenced Newsweek article from 1975, recently published the article "My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong" which is well worth a read.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:14 PM on 11 January 2015Sea level rise is exaggerated
whsmith @213, the IPCC stated:
"It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century, with estimates that range from 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2. It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m."
I'll take the high end of that likely range, so 1.9 mm per year, or 95 mm over the 50 years from 1944 to 2014. So, you are claiming, by showing those photos that you can detect a difference of just under 4 inches in sea level between the Normandy landing photos, and the present day photos and conclude that it is not their. You can do this, moreover, without knowing the relative state of the tide, and despite obvious changes in the water front structures (in the first photo).
It is amazing the perceptive powers ideology grants ... (ROFLAO)
-
whsmith at 17:35 PM on 11 January 2015Sea level rise is exaggerated
If you would like a pictorial measure of sea level change, there are some great interactive photos taken in England and of the Normandy landings 70 years ago, and again last summer. Little has changed. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/ng-interactive/2014/jun/01/d-day-landings-scenes-in-1944-and-now-interactive
There are other phots, not interactive, which show the same thing.
Of course, these photos were simply before and after photos, with NO agenda.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - You can't expect to be taken seriously unless you provide some background context for the photos. All readers here will be familiar with high and low tide.
-
dvaytw at 13:28 PM on 11 January 2015Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
CBD, will read through those links. Much appreciated.
-
dvaytw at 13:27 PM on 11 January 2015Why is the IPCC AR5 so much more confident in human-caused global warming?
Thank you, Tom. So is figure 10.5 above the closest thing one finds in the IPCC report to the beautiful charts SkS has quantifying the human contribution to global warming?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:54 AM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
denisaf,
I am not sure it was your intent, but your message appears to indicate that the reduction of CO2 can be gradual, to suit the pace that interests those among the current generations who want to amximize the benefit they can get from creating a bigger problem.
The human impacts should have been limited to 1.5 C, but the lack of action by previous generations doing what they were 'willing to do' has now made 2.0 C the expected lowest achievable impact. And further lack of interest in dramatically reducing impacts will make that impact limit impossible to achieve.
Also, there is much more impact than rising sea levels or ocean acidity changes. There is the difficulty of predicting and adapting agriculture to rapidly changing difficult to predict climate changes. And there are many other difficulties that will only be discovered when they occur. This rapid change of the planet's environment is uncharted territory. A lot has been learned and the concern is valid and significant, but far more is still needing to be understood. Anyone claiming that the future impacts to be planned for are certain is as foolish as those who say there is not enough proof that there is any reason for concern.
So facing the facts of the need to limit what is done and limit it to the lowest possible impact is now critical. The actions of our predecessors have eliminated the option of going for a target but knowing it was a 'nice to have' target that it is totally OK to exceed. And overcoming the delaying tactics of those with 'the largest amount of potential undeserved benefit to lose' is also critical. Many of those people knew exactly what was going on and have gambled big on getting away with more unacceptable behaviour.
This truly is a matter of the future of humanity. And it is made worse by people who do not care about anything beyond their personal interest, especially those who have gotten away with becoming wealthy and powerful. And the current socio-economic-political sysetm encourages many people to adopt that attitude and allows them to become wealthy, because having that attitude is a competitive advantage for those who get away with it.
-
Doug Mackie at 10:53 AM on 11 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
All right already. I'll work on an update.The impact of OA is the change is SW chemistry (specifically the decrease in CO3=). Calcification itself varies for different organisms and is not well studied (compared to say bird egg formation). e.g. consider the case where instead of directly using CO3= a calcifier takes HCO3- from SW or body fluids and then converts to CO3= before forming CaCO3. In such a case the OA caused decrease in SW [CO3=] might appear less important, excpet that actually the decrease in SW [CO3=] increases the dissolution of CaCO3 regardless of how calcification occurs(see posts about common ion and omega). More in update.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Cheers Doug, that would be rather splendid. And yes, you (and Stephen) make a good point that either manner of calcification is impeded by the decline in carbonate ion abundance. Still, it gives me a opportunity to write about coral calcification & OA.
-
denisaf at 10:02 AM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Mann says "We must be honest as we convey the threat posed by climate change to the public. But we must also be effective. The stakes are simply too great for us to fail to communicate the risks of inaction." This carries the implication that action initiated by humans can control climate change. This is not so. The best that can be done is adopt measures that will gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so slow down the rate of global warming. These mitigation measures should be coupled with major measures to adapt to the irreversible unintended consequences of past usage of fossil fuels. The major challenges of preparing for the impact on cities for sea level rise and society for the impact on seafood availability due to ocean acidification need to be addressed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:33 AM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Peter Lloyd,
My observations of the 'public discussion' related to this issue indicates there needs to be far more convincing presentations of the best understanding of what is going on. Too much money and communication power is in the hands of those who do not want this subject to be better understood. The proposal would make it more difficult for that group to claim their side has substantial factual justification for their claims. Something needs to change. Scientists speaking out more publicly and assertively sounds like it would help.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 07:38 AM on 11 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
Sometimes artists say it best, without words,
(sorry, that may have to be reformatted)
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
[RH] Link shortened.
-
Stephen Baines at 05:19 AM on 11 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Technically, in my # three above I should say...
3. Production of calcium carbonate has the net effect of producing CO2 and reducing alkalinity.
-
jenna at 03:44 AM on 11 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
Somewhat related, The Carbon Brief (blog) has an article on the implications of falling oil and gas prices and how that may affect investment in renewables;
Jen.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
Peter Lloyd at 03:05 AM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
It is incredibly risky to mix up science and advocacy on the same topic because of the temptation to see certainty where there is none, let alone the obvious conflict of interest.
"If scientists choose not to engage on matters of policy-relevant science, then we leave a void that will be filled by industry-funded disinformation"
That statement in the article by Stephen Schneider which implies that no one who might opposes a view or policy position will be doing it in a reasonable and unbiased way shows the risk of such distortion perfectly.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:42 AM on 11 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
Regarding my suggestion that Senator Inhofe should be mentioned in every clarfication regarding the impacts of CO2 from burning buried hydrocarbons, there is an article at Time (here) providing some Inane Inhofe claims.
-
billthefrog at 22:19 PM on 10 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Stephen @ 34
Thanks for this. Your closing bservation... "If both the weathering and production of calcium carbonate consumed CO2 you'd have a real problem balancing the equations!" is certainly intriguing. Sounds a bit like a one-way ticket back to the Cryogenic.
On the other hand, if it was sufficiently exothermic.....
Bill F ;)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:00 PM on 10 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
KR,
The Republicans may have made a perfect target for what you suggest.
They named Senator Inhofe as their most knowledgable and informed member regarding the Environment.
Approprieate Inhofe quotes, and he has made a few really absurd ones, could be the introduction to every clarification of a denier claim.
-
Stephen Baines at 09:14 AM on 10 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Bill @ 33
The problem is that you have a lot of linked reactions, involving different reactants, and phase changes. I had to solve these when studying water chemistry back in the dark ages, but it's been a long time and it's really hard to describe simply how these interact. But for my students I try to focus on four things.
1. Adding CO2 reduces the amount of carbonate in the ocean. This is because the acidity, which is produced when carbonic acid dissociates to form bicarbonate at pH 8 (AO is not OK #8), then combines with preexisting carbonate ions to form more bicarbonate (AO is not OK #7).
2. Decreasing carbonate concentrations make calcium carbonate formation more difficult. This is because calcium carbonate formation is favored when the product of carbonate and calcium ion concentrations is higher (AO not OK #15). Calcifying organisms have a harder time manipulating these concentrations to promote calcification when the background concentrations of these two ions are low.
3. Production of calcium carbonate has the net effect of producing CO2 and increasing acidity (AO is not OK #1). Production of a mole of calcium carbonate by definition removes a mole of bivalent calcium ions from seawater. Change balance must be maintained in seawater to counter this loss. Because univalent bicarbonate ions predominate at pH~8 (AO is not OK #8), approximately two moles of univalent bicarbonate anions must therefore be lost from seawater with each mole of calcium lost. One mole carbon goes to form the 1 mole of calcium carbonate. The other forms H2CO3 that readily dissociates to H2O and CO2, which in turn can exhange with the atmosphere.
(This sequence is behind the equation 1 in the AO is not OK series, I believe. The equation really reflects the net effect of calcification on seawater chemistry rather than what happens exactly at the moment of calcium carbonate precipitation).
4. The opposite reaction (weathering, or dissolution of calcium carbonate) obviously consumes CO2 and produces bicarbonate for the same reasons. Doug brings up the consumption of CO2 by weathering of calcareous deposits on land because it implies that formation of those cliffs must have released CO2. If both the weathering and production of calcium carbonate consumed CO2 you'd have a real problem balancing the equations!
-
Stephen Baines at 07:40 AM on 10 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
Rob P. @33
I agree the equation may be a bit misleading. The actual calcification step involves carbonate and calcium becoming supersaturating and forming mineral. The organisms promote this by transporting bicarbonate and Ca ions to specific areas of deposition, because those are the ions for which they have transporters, as far as I know. But it is the carbonate concentrations that result when the pH is ratched up that are relevant to mineral formation. High carbonate concentrations are easier to acheive when the pH and the starting concentration of carbonate is greater.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - I sense a blog post/rebuttal in my future, as this aspect has been somewhat glossed over. It's important for readers to be able to close the loop and understand how it all fits together. The calcification process, and how equation one fits into the loop, is one of the missing elements.
-
Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
OPOF - "I wonder if a coordinated collective action of "scientist-advocates" targetting a single prey among the wealthy and powerful at the top of the denier pyramid would be successful."
Probably not. The really wealthy will continue to contribute via cut-outs (Donors Trust and the like), and front-man spokespeople will continue to be recruited to fill gaps whenever someone with apparent science credentials is revealed to be a shill or simply loses credibility.
There are always lobbying paths available.
I would much rather show that the arguments used by the deniers are baseless (h/t SkS), and that the science is clear, which gets at the root of the public policy issue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:37 AM on 10 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
r.pauli,
I have an MBA (I am also an Engineer, please do not hold either of those against me, I try to not be like the stereotypes).
The problem with relying on ethics and morals and decency is that those are actually competitive disadvantages in almost all of the popular socio-economic-political systems, particularly the ones with 'more freedom for unethical, immoral, indecent actions to be successful'.
In my MBA courses we did have a course on Corpoarte Ethics. The not too shocking part of that course was the lack of a significant number of case studies presenting ethical, moral, decent behaviour. The case studies were a diverse variety of examples of the other type of behaviour. And that was simply because unethical, immoral, indecent behaviour can easily be more profitable if it can be gotten away with.
We also learned about the unsustainable but temporary effectiveness of deliberately deceptive marketing. There is a lot of science behind deceptive marketing. It is not just an art. Some people make a very good living from it (temporarily on each campaign or business venture, but that is all that matters because they only need benefit in their lifetime and they can always move on to the next unsustainable damaging venture).
So ethics only matter to people who care. Sadly the current socio-economic-political systems (all of them, not just democratic free-market ones), continue to allow unethical actions to succeed which encourages others to try to be similarly successful. It truly is a spiral of activity that never can be expected to lead toward a sustainable better future. Love is the answer, but quoting the likes of John Lennon won't be enough, and certainly won't change the minds of people who really want to get away with unacceptable pursuits of what they want.
As Naomi Klein's latest book "This Changes Everything" points out, the system needs to be fundamentally changed. I refer to what is required as a Signicant System Update and Reboot. And as fatalistic as this may sound, that change is essential to the future of humanity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:15 AM on 10 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
A major part of the real problem is people who are actually aware of the problem but want to be part of the group benefiting most from getting away with creating the problem. They create and support the attacks on climate science and specific scientists.
I wonder if a coordinated collective action of "scientist-advocates" targetting a single prey among the wealthy and powerful at the top of the denier pyramid would be successful. Relentlessly naming and shaming them seems appropriate. Rolling Stone Magazine is one publication that is clearly trying to do that. But they present a broad variety of trouble makers rather than coordinating a relentless focus on exposing the unacceptability of the actions of a particular target until that target changes their mind. There are so many deserving targets it is almost like the carnival game Whack-a-Mole where a hit counts but it does not stop the critter from trying to re-emerge.
Better still would be getting coordinated action among lawmakers to one-at-a-time pointedly significantly penalize the 'deliberate decievers among the wealthiest and most powerful who know better'. But that would require people who aren't willing to be part of the problem to be successful at winning leadership roles. Which would require voters who do not wish to benefit from being part of the problem to succeed in electing such people as leaders.
-
billthefrog at 06:02 AM on 10 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
@ Moderator Comment
Thanks Rob. It's nice to know that there's even more stuff that I don't know anything about, even when I started by knowing so little. ;)
(That's just one of the reasons why I was glad that we only had to do Chemistry in First Year.)
-
r.pauli at 05:44 AM on 10 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
Rather than economics, "Ethics supports immediate action on global warming"
-
wili at 05:41 AM on 10 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
"The actions of a current generation must make the future better."
No chance of that, at this point. -
kiwipoet at 04:03 AM on 10 January 2015Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist
A brilliant, apt metaphor for what is happening. As with bullying, which this Serengeti strategy is, it is vital to shine a light on the behaviour. To identify and name it, as Mann has done. Abuse thrives in unseen, and while these ad hominem attacks are very public, their affects and intentions are cloaked behind a pretend regard for science. This, to extend the metaphor, is the predators' camouflage. Courageous scientists like Dr Mann deserve our full and public support.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 10 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
My previous comment presents an 'aspiration' or 'guiding principle' that I am aware can be difficult for some people to clearly understand. Other ways to say my previous point are:
No person or group of people should try to obtain benefit at the expense of other people. Things need to be getting better for everyone. So any 'future cost' resulting from a current generaton's pursuits of its own benefits is unacceptable. And it is more unacceptable if the benefits in a current generation involve some in the current generation benefiting at the expense of others in the current generation.
The actions of a current generation must make the future better. It is unacceptable for a current generation to benefit in a way that reduces the value of the future or creates costs or challenges that will be faced in the future. Everyone benefiting needs to be required to also expend their own money and effort to ensure there is no future problem or expense as a result of their actions in pursuit of benefit.
All people must strive to live in a way that is a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet.
All people should be striving to participate in advancing things toward a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet. And the ones who don't care to help need to be kept from doing any harm because whatever harm they cause (are able to get away with creating without be required to fully mitigate at their own expense), makes it more difficult for everyone else to do what needs to be done.
-
Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Douglas and Knox have a couple of follow-up papers in press here and here, being published by the same journal as their previous work. In those they claim that they have identified solar 'phase-locked' temperature changes in Paciffic SST3.4 of cycle lengths 1 and 2-3 years, extending to 2000m depth (!), and conclude that ENSO is due to short solar variations. Any longer trends are said to be due to the 'climate shifts' they have presented before (which are debunked here).
Note that climate is a curious topic for that journal, Physics Letters A, which states it's focus as "General Physics, Nonlinear Science, Statistical Physics, Atomic, Molecular and Cluster Physics, Plasma and Fluid Physics, Condensed Matter, Cross-disciplinary Physics, Biological Physics, Nanosciences, Quantum Physics, Optical physics". This follows a common pattern of publishing contrarian papers in low circulation off-topic journals.
I will note that there is no mention whatsoever of statistical significance or testing in these papers - D&K are IMO drawing amazing conclusions from periods far too short to be anything but noise.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:52 AM on 10 January 2015Economics supports immediate action on global warming
It is even incorrect to claim that 'all is OK as long as an honest thorough economic assessment shows that the costs a future generation faces trying to adapt to climate disruption due to the impacts of previous generations are a match for the benefits obtained by previous generations creating those costs faced by the future generations.'
And it is laughable that anyone would claim to be able to accurately thoroughly estimate the costs required to adapt to the difficult to predict but rapidly changing climate, especially laughable if that person has been inclined to believe or create claims that any perieved inaccuracy of the current predictions of climate science justifies ignoring the science until it is much better able to exactly predict every future moment of regional climate impact.
However, those 'laughable' type of people have succeeded in becoming wealthy and powerful because of he ability toget away with unsustainable ad damaging actions. Including the ability to temporaily tempt many people into supporting their laughably irrational but very damaging desired beliefs (particularly at the moment of an election), which is no laughing matter.
-
billthefrog at 01:31 AM on 10 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
@ Stephen & Doug et al
As I only did Chemistry in First Year (and that was a long, long time ago) I am struggling to keep up with the subtleties here. Would I be correct in thinking that this represents a good example of le Chatelier's Principle in action?
If memory serves, an over-abundance of one of the components in an equilibrium-type reaction would tend to force the equilibrium point in the opposite direction. Hence, this would act as a sort of negative feedback and consequently would somewhat compensate for the initial over-abundance.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Cheers Bill F
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - I would recommend you read the OA not OK series (left hand column of the page). Part 7 deals with Le Chatelier's principle.
I do wonder, however, if this series may be slightly revised as some stage because equation 1 is very confusing for most. A naive interpretation could be that increased bicarbonate in the ocean, as a result increased CO2 dissolved in seawater, might be expected to aid biological marine calcification, rather than hinder it.
Bicarbonate is indeed a source of calcification, but it looks like marine calcifiers convert the bicarbonate ion to carbonate in order to form calcium carbonate structures by pumping hydrogen ions out of internal chambers where this calcification takes place. The decrease in the number of hydrogen ions raises the pH of the calcifying fluid considerably and this is what enables the building of the shell or skeleton. There's much more it than that of course, but that's the basic gist.
The concentration of carbonate ions represents an energy gradient upon which calcification must operate. More carbonate ions and less bicarbonate ions make calcification easier, and less carbonate ions and more bicarbonate ions (as in OA) makes shell formation more difficult - the organism has to work harder, pumping more hydrogen ions out of the calcification chamber in order to reach the required level of carbonate saturation.
So, well before carbonate undersaturation is reached (i.e. seawater becomes physically corrosive to calcium carbonate forms), ocean acidification will affect growth rates in many marine organisms.
-
slowtojump at 00:24 AM on 10 January 2015A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
I would like to see these graphs updated to 2015 and have the discussion again.
-
Doug Mackie at 17:12 PM on 9 January 2015Not pHraud but pHoolishness
siloch @28: umm you get deposits like the cliffs at Dover.And then those deposits weather (OA not OK post #6).Increased CO2 in atmosphere leads to increase in acidity of rain, leading to increased weathering of rocks. (Calcification is a source of CO2, weathering of rocks is a sink). Appendix 1 shows this process alone is sufficient (in absence of other processes, see caveats) to remove all CO2 from atmosphere in 3,000-4,000 years.Read the rest of the OA series and then get back with questions.
Prev 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 Next
