Recent Comments

Prev  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  Next

Comments 34301 to 34350:

34301. chrisd3 at 23:00 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       @Jim Hunt #23

       At what venue might an analogy assist then? I negotiate the maze of twisty passages, all alike, in the perhaps naive belief that some people read that stuff who aren't dyed in the wool "skeptics". Am I in fact wasting my time?

       Not at all. You've nailed the real reason for posting analogies, or anything else for that matter: The real target of the analogy (or whatever it is that you're posting) is not the "skeptic" to whom you're responding but the much larger number of individuals who are simply reading the comments silently, many of whom may be open minded but underinformed.

       Analogies do work. They just don't work with "skeptics." 

34302. Dikran Marsupial at 22:47 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       CB Dunkerson, very good example, Angstrom's (1901) argument that the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide was saturated close to the surface held back research on the greenhouse effect until the work of Callendar in the 30s & 40s and Plass in the 50s and 60s.  See the relevant entry in Spencer Wearts jooly good "The Discovery of Global Warming".

34303. CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       You know what is really a good example of a now accepted theory which was initially dismissed by the scientific community?

       Anthropogenic Global Warming

       The 'skeptics' should use the early rejection of Arrhenius's work to show how scientific consensus can be wrong. :]

34304. Leto at 20:00 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom,

       I was a medical student in 1989 and, in the lecture about peptic ulcers, the H pylori theory was presented as one that was yet to reach full acceptance, but one that was likely to be generally accepted by the medical establishment as further evidence came in.

       As you note, it is not a particularly good example of the supposed inability of scientists to respond intelligently to dissent and new ideas.

       Cheers,

       Leto.

34305. MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Aston @60.

       I have met this particular denialist argument in the past. My response is that I must have missed something because I didn't know Lindzen & Curry had been awarded a Nobel Prize.

       Do note that the 1998 quote you cite does not (indeed cannot) refer to opposition to Marshal & Warren occuring in 1998. The timeline is as follows. The pair of them worked together from 1981 investigating bacteria in the gut that would develop into their theory that stress was not the sole cause of peptic ulsers. They published in 1985. The opposition to their findings was officially marginalised in February 1994 (see here in Warren's own words - "I had been waiting for ten years for this day") with Marshall starting to pick up awards, receiving the Nobel Prize in 2005.

       So from the Marshal & Warren example, it is a decade from published pariah to praise-laden prophet. Where then is the denialist equivalent?

34306. Tom Curtis at 19:44 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @60 should be thanked for his creative efforts to provide live samples of "skeptical" trolling to enliven this topic.  In this case he demonstrates a trojan horse tactic in which he first disavows the argument he is about to present is his own, then presents it as creatively as he is able without any comments showing the flaws in the argument.  In the particular example @60 he even strengthens that be explicitly stating that true claims made elsewhere are false, misrepresenting the contents of wikipedia, and claiming a false authority based on a purported geographical and professional connection to the events described.

       The actual facts of the case he discusses are that by February of 1994, the US National Institute of Health had released a consensus statement (their description) stating among other things:

       "The discovery of H. pylori as a gastrointestinal pathogen has had a profound effect on current concepts of peptic ulcer disease pathogenesis. Evidence presented at this Consensus Development Conference has led to the following conclusions:

       • Ulcer patients with H. pylori infection require treatment with antimicrobial agents in addition to antisecretory drugs whether on first presentation with the illness or on recurrence.
       • The value of treatment of nonulcer dyspepsia patients with H. pylori infection remains to be determined.
       • The interesting relationship between H. pylori infection and gastric cancers requires further exploration."

       That establishes that by 1994, ie, within ten years of first publication of the theory, acceptance was wide spread.  Despite this acceptance, a year later Marshal himself acknowledged that the case for H Pylori as the causative factor in peptic ulcers had not been demonstrated to the normally accepted standard, stating:

       "Koch’s postulates for H. pylori have not been fulfilled in the case of peptic ulceration because, at present, no human or animal experimental model has produced peptic ulcer after inoculation with H. pylori"

       Clearly consensus in favour of the theory was not lagging the evidence significantly.  Kimball Atwood has an extensive survey of the literature and response to Warren and Marshall's theory, which shows that interest in the theory was keen from the start, with many other researchers immediately investigating the theory - and that acceptance was rapidly forthcoming as the evidence mounted for the theory.

       Turning to Ashton's specific claims:

       1)  Asthon claims that Orac's claim about scientifid research by 1992, was false.  However, a search on google scholar excluding citations and patents for "Pylori" and "Peptic" returns from 1984-1992 returns 2,300 results, and as noted above, by Feb 1994 it was the NIH's recommendation that patients presenting with ulcers be treated with antimicrobial agents.  Clearly it is the case that in less than ten years of publication of the theory (in June 1984), " multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease" and that "medical practice rapidly changed".

       2)   Ashton quotes wikipedia about Marshal saying in 1998 that "Everyone was against me".  While true, however, what he actually said in a 1998 interview was:

       "Q: Is it frustrating when you're at that point in your research and things are not going your way and people are weighing in with those kinds of dismissive remarks?

       Barry Marshall: I'm a lot more mature now, and I know that this is how science works. You've got to be pretty thick-skinned and ready to take the blows. In those days, it used to really cut me to the quick when people — even my boss — would get up and criticize my work this way. I was a... "brash young man" is a term that came out of the Reader's Digest article many years ago. "Zealot" was another of the names that I was given. I read the history of the zealots, and you know, I was exactly like that.

       It was a campaign, everyone was against me. But I knew I was right, because I actually had done a couple of years' work at that point. I had a few backers. And when I was criticized by gastroenterologists, I knew that they were mostly making their living doing endoscopies on ulcer patients. So I'm going to show you guys. A few years from now you'll be saying, "Hey! Where did all those endoscopies go to?" And it will be because I was treating ulcers with antibiotics. "

       (Italics in original)

       In context, it is very clear that Marshall was describing his attitude several years in the past.  Indeed, given that he had done "a couple years work" that was his attitude around 1986 or so, when indeed, presenting a revolutionary new theory he was indeed expected to prove it.  As he himself says "this is how science works".

       We might ask how Marshall's work was regarded in 1998, and that can be answered by his list of honours up to that point:

       "Marshall also received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998"

       So, within 14 years of first publication, Marshall has recieved six prestigious awards for his work, and all prior to (or in the same year as) that interview.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You have described Ashton's schtick to a tee.  Thank you. 

34307. scaddenp at 19:43 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       If some skeptic climate scientists were able to successfully challenge the scientitic consensus, then frankly I would praise them to skies. A successful challenge has to mounted with data and proper analysis. The pseudo-skeptics (because I think most scientists are real skeptics) however mistake blog-"scientists" for real science and misinformation for data. If you are seriously able to challenge the science then you do so in peer-reviewed journals. If your arguments are judged to have merit, then they will be tested by others and  change will occur. Now get your "skeptics" to point to these challenging papers please.

34308. Kevin C at 19:23 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       I would love skeptics/deniers to raise this argument, as long as they follow through with it.

       What would that involve? The most naive analysis would be to roughly enumerate the number of scientific disciplines of comparable scope to the peptic ulcer community. My half-arsed guess as an interdisciplinary scientist whose main field has some overlap with drug design is that it is in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

       Then enumerate the number of cases in which a consensus of corresponding strength has been overthrown. I'm guessing that's in the ones, just possibly tens.

       From this we can infer a crude estimate of probability that the climate science consensus is wrong under the assumption that the situations are, as you suggest, in some way analogous.

       Now, that's hopelessly naive. Ideally we'd look at the sociology as well. In the case of peptic ulcers the fact that there were major financial interests in providing drugs for their treatment may have had a role in maintaining the consensus, with no corresponding interests on the other side. I can't speak to the size of the financial interests supporting the climate science consensus, but there are clearly significant financial interests in disputing it.

       So I think this is a very useful line of argument. There might be an interesting sociology of science paper in it, but doing it properly is beyond my expertise.

34309. Ashton at 17:36 PM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Would you please note that the comment that follows does not, repeat does not, reflect my own views on the "97% consensus" on climate change but is put forward as an example that might be used by sceptic/deniers when challenging this aspect of climate change science.   I also think this is relevant to this thread and hope the moderators agree.  I should note I was involved in medical science in Pert/Fremantle at the time Marshall carried out his now renowned experiment.  

       I am interested in the comments in this and many other articles on sceptic/deniers choice of Galileo as an example of how scientific consensus  is not necessarily correct.  Possibly a better example and one that is a) very recent and b) compatible with my own areas of interest is the discovery by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that H.pylori is a major cause of peptic ulcers.  Use of this of an example of how consensus is not always right has been addressed and "debunked" in ScienceBlog (http://tinyurl.com/oduwnxg).  However the "debunking" is factually incorrect.  In the article it is stated that:

       "By 1992, multiple studies had been published establishing the causative role of H. pylori in peptic ulcer disease, and medical practice rapidly changed. That’s less than ten years, which, given how long it takes to organize and carry out clinical trials, is amazingly fast. Yet somehow a favorite denialist myth is that “dogmatic,” “close-minded” scientists refused to accept Marshall and Warren’s findings. It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       The medical fraternity and the drug companies most definitely did not accept the findings of Marshall and Warren.  From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall):

       "Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "(e)veryone was against me, but I knew I was right" On the other hand, it has also been argued that medical researchers showed a proper degree of scientific scepticism until the H. pylori hypothesis could be supported by evidence.

       As is now very well known Marshall, to prove his point, drank a culture of H.pylori and developed gastritis thus establishing the point he was making.  This experiment lead directly to revision of the prior consensus that spicy foods and acidity caused peptic ulcers. 

       The final sentence in the quote  I referred to above is:

       "It’s an example of a scientific consensus that deserved to be questioned, was questioned in the right way, and was overthrown"

       Surely questioning the current consensus is exactly what sceptical climate scientists  are engaged in and for which they are often denigrated.

        

34310. bill4344 at 12:48 PM on 3 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       I'm also curious about the 'dark widget'. Links to a similarly darkened full-frame interactive flash carousel thingy, complete with the ominous countdown, but what's it all about? Curious minds etc. ...

34311. Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       The only possible answer to the question "what is the optimum global temperature?" is to say "what do you mean by optimum?".

       The question is so ill-defined as to be meaningless. It's like saying "provide me with the optimum code for this problem". Is the optimum code the one that

       • runs the fastest?
       • uses the least memory?
       • takes the least amount of development time?
       • is most robust to input errors?
       • takes the least maintenance time?
       • runs on the most operating systems?
       • maintains the company's monopoly?
       • produces the most patents?
       • is the most profitable?

       There is no "all of the above" answer.

       Even the (now frail and elderly) Koppen Climate Classification System, developed in the 1800s, was intended to explain global patterns of vegetation, not climate. The fact that different vegetation types do better in different parts of the world, due to different climates, is an indication that biology finds different regions "optimal" for different organisms. Each has its own niche.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] I think this one has been done to death. Please respect no dog-piling.

34312. michael sweet at 07:43 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom,

       Your mention of Curry was so small I did not see it. 

       I stand by the point of my post: Ashton's reference to Curry was primarily to distract from your proof that Ashton's "skeptic" question was completely answered over a year ago.

       This is one of the primary issues dealing with Skeptics.  They do not keep up on what is known and are angry that their questions have not been addressed.  In fact, their questions have been addressed and they have ignored the answer. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH]  Please let the Moderators do their job and keep your focus on the facts of the matter under discussion.  

34313. Ashton at 06:19 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom Curtis.  Thanks for putting the record straight

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] And thank you Ashton for acknowledging the effort. Can everyone take a deep breath and continue a focus on the science, without meta-comment on motives etc?

34314. Tom Curtis at 02:33 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Michael Sweet, it was in fact I who first mentioned Curry on this thread.  Nor was my mention particularly respectful, although I would not call it "dissing" and it gave Curry more respect than she probably deserves.  Your first point is, however, exactly correct.

34315. Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       MA Rodger @53, thanks.

       With regard to Curry, I had in mind particularly her Italian Flag post, but examplars are easilly multiplied.

34316. michael sweet at 02:28 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton has demonstrated another key denier tactic: to insult the person you are talking with when you have no data to support your position.

       I noticed that Ashton was the first person who mentioned Curry.  Ashton accused Tom fo dissing Curry when Tom had done nothing of the sort.  This accomplished two things at once:

       1) It changed the subject without Ashton having to conceed that Tom had answered Ashtons primary question from his previous post (it would be polite to acknowledge that his question was completely answered).

       2) It allowed Ashton to (falsely) accuse Tom of being disrespectful for  no legitimate reason.

       A brief review of the posts here shows that Tom had cited a Real Climate post (about Curry) that contained the specific data  that Ashton had asked for.  Tom's purpose in the cite was to provide support for his argument from an authorative source.  Tom never dissed, or indeed never commented on Curry before Ashton brought her up.  Ashton was successful in changing the subject to Curry from his failed attempt to claim that the question:

       "that sceptic/deniers often ask is what percentage of climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuels."

       has not been answered at length.  Ashton should apologize for his false claim about Curry and acknowledge that his previous question has been answered.

       Moderator Response:

       [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we keep the discussion focused on the topic of the article, rather than focus on the behaviour of particular individuals.  Please leave it to the moderators to take appropriate action if there are infringements of the comments policy.

34317. One Planet Only Forever at 00:54 AM on 3 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       A clarification of what I mean by impacts in my earlier comment. They would include the impacts that currently have no financial value in the marketplace. And the risks of impacts like a pipeline leak or ocean tanker accident also need to be included in the ranking of the differenet resources and how they become end-user energy.

       The lack of up-front financial implications for these impacts and risks in the marketplace leads to the development of higher impact less safe ways of doing things because it is cheaper and more profitable to get away with less decent ways of doing things. Some may argue that investors include an assessment of risk of harm. But many of hose investors have proven to be gamblers betting on getting away with their quick early profit and escaping serious personal consequence from a 'future accident' that is no real accident, it was made more likely because of their desire for more quicker profit. That is the reason the free action of everyone in the marketplace is unlikely to properly address this issue.

34318. MA Rodger at 00:51 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Tom Curtis @51.

       It might be useful to show AR5 WG1 Fig 10.5 so folk know where you're calculating your PDFs from.

       

       I note in her running tiff with Gavin Schmidt over attribution, Judy Curry recently made clear how wedded she is to recent warming being about 50:50 anthro and natural. She wrote "I think both 0% and 100% are extremely unlikely.”

       And with Ashton @47 accusing you of "dissing Judith Curry" for your comment @45 saying "I see ... concerted efforts to obfusticate (a la Curry)," I would suggest Exhibit A in any case against Curry for "concerted obfuscation" would be her 2011 'Nullifying the climate null hypothesis' paper that does a pretty good job of leaving no twist untied.

34319. KR at 00:28 AM on 3 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton - "...let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking..."

       This is the very essence of concern trolling - tossing out well-refuted denial talking points but refusing to own the questions raised. You have, I'm certain, sufficient critical capacity to evaluate these questions and decide whether (in your opinion) they are significant. If they are, ask them as your questions, taking ownership by having raised them. If not, don't bother repeating questions you consider nonsensical; that's just noise. You've made quite a lot of noise in these threads, supplying little content in the process. 

       WRT the "what's the optimum global temperature" canard, the global temperature is a measure of global climate, while "optimum" only makes sense on a regional basis with that microclimate and biota. In that regard the 'optimum' is whatever temperature, precipitation, agriculture, etc., the region is adapted to. Changes from the point of adaptation induce costs (both biological adaptive and financial), with faster changes costing more. Change, particularly rapid change, is the problem. 

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Plese note that I have informed Ashton that his schtick is wearing thin. I have also advised him to carefully read and adhere to the SkS Comments Policy. 

34320. Tom Curtis at 23:47 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ammendment to my posts @45 and 49.

       I have discovered my error in calculating the attribution likelihoods.  Therefore here is an ammended graph correcting the error:

       

       Further, the 5-95% confidence interval are:

       GHG contribution to recent warming: 138% +/- 107%

       Total anthropogenic contribution has been 108% +/- 29%

       Non-GHG anthropogenic factors was -38% +/-93%

       There is a 99.94% likelihood that the anthropogenic contribution was >50%, and a 99.07% chance that it was greater than 66%.  Any further differences between my and Gavin Schmidt's figures should only be due to rounding errors.

34321. DSL at 23:23 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton: "Read what I wrote. First let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking."

       What Leto wrote. 

       Ashton: "Second I agree there is a range of temperatures. That being so how can the IPCC or anyone else give a global temperature? But they do. Are the satellite measurements giving global temperatures meaningless?"

       Global temp is meaningless as an absolute figure in isolation.  As a time series (and, by extension, the anomaly), it is quite useful.

       Ashton: "In the context you describe, apparently they are. So can you advise if why, on the one hand global temperatures are reported while on the other you say optimum has no meaning? If it has no meaning how can decisions be made as to the effect of an increase of, say, 2C will have?"

       Global mean surface temperature isn't used as anything other than as a time series (note that you use the word "increase").  You're trying to turn a strawman into Godzilla.  It's embarrassing.  

34322. Tom Curtis at 22:32 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton:

       1)  Judith Curry quotes the IPCC as saying:

       "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

       As the IPCC explains in a footnote that "Extremely likely" means a likelihood of "95–100%".  Therefore the above statement can be parsed as

       "There is a likelihood of at least 95% that more than 50% of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

       That is, I put it to you, not at all ambiguous or imprecise.  Further, as based on Fig 10.5 the likelihood of the anthropogenic contribution being 50% or less is 0.000027%(*), and thus that the IPCC statement is extremely conservative given the likilihoods represented in Fig 10.5.

       In response to this, Curry writes:

       "I’ve remarked on the ‘most’ (previous incarnation of ‘more than half’, equivalent in meaning) in my Uncertainty Monster paper:

       Further, the attribution statement itself is at best imprecise and at worst ambiguous: what does “most” mean – 51% or 99%?

       Whether it is 51% or 99% would seem to make a rather big difference regarding the policy response. It’s time for climate scientists to refine this range."

       If "most" is equivalent in meaning to "more than half", than the IPCC statement is not at all imprecise, and it is hardly beneath anybodies dignity to make it clear when a purported authority on a subject takes what is clear and precise and tries to get people to believe it is the opposite.

       (* - My calculation still gives a far more restricted likelihood than does that by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate - a discrepancy I cannot at present account for. He, however, gives a likelihood of 99.5% that the anthropogenic contribution is greater than 66%, so the difference in no way affects the logic of the argument.)

       2)  The Earth's surface does indeed experience a range of temperatures, and that in no way prevents it from having a Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST).  Not distinguishing between a mean temperature and a common temperature for all the globe, as you do is some pretty sterling obfustication itself.  Even if we take you to be talking about the GMST, your point is a non sequitur.  If you disagree, I am willing to discuss the point in detail where it is on topic.  

34323. chriskoz at 20:53 PM on 2 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       What's the top-right "dark shadow" image above heat_widget.htm and what is it down counting? Currently, it's 5 days (?) of the countdown left...

34324. Leto at 19:56 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton,

       It is tiresome enough reading simplistic denialist talking points without the added vexation of having those talking points tossed into the debate by someone who will not then take responsibility for them. If you personally think the question: 'What is the optimum global temperature?' is worthwhile, and more than a distracting rhetorical trick, defend it as your own. If you don't think it is a worthwhile question, please don't give it airtime.

       The diss-worthiness of Curry is a whole extra debate, but it is disingenuous and unfair to accuse Tom, who always scrupulously sticks to the data, of dissing someone merely because they disagree with him. Your own interactions with him should already have been enough to make you realise that. If you knew more about climate science, and more about Curry in particular, you would recognise the remarkable restraint with which Tom describes Curry's position.

       If you do not want to be dismissed as a concern troll, I suggest you stop quoting the ideas of others and stick to comments about the actual data and your own interpretation of it.

34325. Ashton at 16:50 PM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Mancan18.  A couple of points.  You ask: "Your question, what is the optimum temperature has no meaning when you consider the temperature gradient across the planet from the equator to the poles, between the hemispheres and between the ocean and the land. Also, the context of the question is important".

       Read what I wrote. First let me make it very plain to you I'm not asking the questions sceptics/deniers that I have spoken to are doing the asking.  

       Second I agree there is a range of temperatures.  That being so how can the IPCC or anyone else give a global temperature?  But they do.  Are the satellite measurements giving global temperatures meaningless? In the context you describe, apparently they are.  So can you advise if why, on the one hand global temperatures are reported while on the other you say optimum has no meaning?  If it has no meaning how can decisions be made as to the effect of an increase of, say, 2C will have?  That question also is relevant to the comment by Tom Curtis that "the question "What is the ideal global temperature" is too simplistic"

       But all that aside, my point was that far from being trolls and thickos and dunderheads and lower forms of life, many sceptic/deniers I have spoken to clearly are not.  And Tom Curtis, dissing Judith Curry because she does not agree with you is a bit infra dig.  Does she diss you because you don't agree with her?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your schtick is wearing thin. 

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

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

34326. One Planet Only Forever at 15:12 PM on 2 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       This issue highlights the reality that the currently developed global financial, industrial, and trade systems cannot be expected to 'lead to the development of a sustainable better future for all'. All signs point to 'something' needing to be done to change what is happening. Yet the decades pass without anything significant being done.

       The impacts of the XL pipeline would be irrelevant if it were determined that the Oil Sands are undeserving of being part of the buried hydrocarbons that are allowed to be burned.

       It is clear that to develop a sustainable better future there must be a limit on the benefits people can get for themselves in their time. But the system that has developed is all about encouraging the attempts of people to maximize the short-term benefit they can get without a concern for the future, or even a concernb for the current day impacts. The future is an easy target to harm because it has no vote, no buying power, and no legal recourse.

       As unpopular and unprofitable and impossible as this may sound one solution would be for the global community to collectively agree to an evaluaton of all the buried hydrocarbons we have located and know how to extract and burn. The evaluation would measure the impacts of each resource per unit of end-user energy obtained for comparison. The impacts would not just be CO2, they would be all impacts. The different resource promoters have already done a lot of the leg-work for the comparisons. All their internal data and their deceptive marketing pitches would contain the majority of the required data. All their information would just need to be evaluated by a team of scientists, like the IPCC. Then the resources could be ranked from least impact per unit of end-use energy obtained and the resources that add up to something like a 1.5 degree C limit would become the resources that can be extracted. And all the resources below that line would be quickly, but rationally shut-in with an expected impact of approximately 0.5 C as they are curtailed bringing the total impact to 2.0 C .

       This approach would mean that regions and investors that gambled on benefiting from the high-impact operations that don't make the cut would "lose their bets". Someone has to lose. Those who still have high-stakes gambles on getting away with high-impact actvity deserve to lose. Game-on.

34327. Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       On a side note, "ideal temperature" differs by organism, by mass (larger prefers cooler), by metabolism (ectothermic prefers warmer up to about 40 C, endothermic prefers colder), and by specific adaption (polar bears prefer cold, thermophiles prefer hot).  Because different organisms will respond differently to changes in temperature, rate of change in temperature becomes a relevant factor.  For example, trees, ceterus paribus, do better with warmer than typical north american summer temperatures, but beetles do even better still so that the net effect of warming is devestating to trees - at least in the short term.  Consequently rates of change in temperature greater than 0.01 C per century sustained over multiple decades would be net harmfull to ecosystems regardless of whether or not they are net beneficial or harmfull after several thousand years of adaption.

       Given all of the above, the question "What is the ideal global temperature" is too simplistic even assuming it is intended seriously rather than as a rhetorical ploy.

34328. Tom Curtis at 10:44 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @39, the GHG contribution to recent warming (since 1950) has been 138% +/- 63% (90% confidence range).  The total anthropogenic contribution has been 108% +/- 19%.  The combined contribution of all non-GHG anthropogenic factors was -38% +/-54%.  Negative contributions indicate that the factor would have cooled temperatures in the absense of other effects; while contributions greater than 100% means that absent some cooling effect, the factor would have caused the warming to be greater than that observed.  The large uncertainties for GHG contribution and Other Anthropogenic (OA) contributions are not independent.  A larger GHG contribution implies a more negative OA contribution, and vice versa.  The PDFs of the three factors is plotted below:

       

       Like the figures for the total anthropogenic contribution in a recent Real Climate post, these figures are derived from the AR5 WG1 figure 10.5.  There figures differ slightly from mine.  They round the mean estimate of total anthropogenic contributions up to 110%, and give a 90% confidence interval of 80-130% compared to my 89-127%.  I am not sure of the reason for the difference.  It may be due to aggressive rounding of the 95% confidence interval mistakenly attributed (84.7-130.8% by my calculation), or to an error on my behalf.  The difference is not large enough to be relevant for internet discussions.

       This information has been in the public domain now for a year.  Sufficiently accurate equivalent information has been in the public domain since 2007 (AR4).  I do not see any skeptics/deniers accepting their "question" as having been answered.  Rather, I see either concerted efforts to obfusticate (a la Curry) or outright dismissal of the figures because they come from the IPCC.  The reason is simple - it is not an answer that sits comfortably with skeptics'/deniers' ideology. Granted a small percentage of skeptics/deniers may be simply scientifically confused, but polls show that most adhere to a right wing economic ideology - in many cases an extremist right wing economic ideology; and an astonishingly large percentage of their leading lights have direct connections with righ wing think tanks.  By objective measure, it is opposition to the findings of the IPCC that is politically motivated - not acceptance.

       I think this example, chosen by you, shows very clearly that AGW "skepticism" is not based simply on having some relevant questions unanswered.  That is only a plausible supposition if the questions have in fact not been answered.  

       Further, in this case, the straightforward answer of the IPCC that it is 90-100% certain (ie, "is very likely") that "More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is ... due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations"  is more than sufficient to give mitigating AGW a high policy priority.  Quibling because exact mean and range estimates are not given in executive summaries is plainly an obfusticatory tactic, ie, it is trolling.  This is particularly the case given that the more detailed answer can be obtained by simple maths from that same report.  (I assume that somebody genuinely interested in a more detailed result would do the maths themselves, or at least consult the figure to obtain the mean and 90% range of temperature contribution, which requires no more than a pixel count.)

34329. mancan18 at 08:32 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton

       In this debate, it is not only the quality of the arguments that are important, it is also the quality of the questions asked. Your question, what is the optimum temperature has no meaning when you consider the temperature gradient across the planet from the equator to the poles, between the hemispheres and between the ocean and the land. Also,  the context of the question is important.

       Perhaps, you need to explain how increasing greenhouse gases are NOT going to warm the planet and change the climate? Also, you need to explain why these greenhouse gases are at least 40% above the norm of the past million years, even through the ice ages and inter-glacials,  particularly since we have seen this increase occur in under 200 years when normally, in the past, such a change would take thousands or tens of thousands of years. Also, you need to explain why we are seeing a change of 2 ppm annually, which again is unprecedented prior to the industrial era? What is different today that these changes are happening  if they are all occurring naturally? Magic or do you think all the scientists who have observed these changes are just fudging the figures? You could also answer, how burning all the known reserves of fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere back to the age of the dinosaurs, considering that the Sun's radiance level was at least 10% lower at that time, could possibly be good for the global climate considering that this was the climate that allowed us to evolve into who we are today?

       Answer those questions and show that it is all just natural and then perhaps you will be taken seriously.

34330. pete best at 05:17 AM on 2 September 2014
       Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
       

       Oil and Gas are very hard energy sources to replace, but coal is the easiest but economically and politically it does not look so easy. For some reason some countries either produce a lot of it or use a lot of it and it employs a lot of people, and makes money for producers and consumers. I always felt that technologically coal was the easiest to replace, its a baseload power source and hence there are lots of suitable alternatives available such as wind, solar, solar thermal, nuclear, tidal, wave and gas etc but as they grow so does demand and globally coal usage is not slowing at the rates needed if at all.

       we need to clean up our grids to zero coal or CCS coal.

34331. jimspy at 03:57 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       In my experience, the Galileo Gambit most frequently arises in the context of the "science doesn't work by concensus" myth.  "The consensus in Galileo's time," trills the troll, "was that the sun went around the earth.  Galileo stood alone against that model."  My response takes a somewhat Socratic approach: "How do you know Galileo was right?  Have you yourself peered through a telescope and done the various orbital calculations?  I'm guessing not.  I propose that you learned he was right by reading science texts, which represent the aggregate opinion of modern astronomers.  In other words...consensus!" 

34332. Charliec65 at 01:06 AM on 2 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       It's isn't the science that's frequently in question.  The argument is about "selling newspapers," "garnering alliances," and individual and social power relationships.  Humans, chimps and baboons do it along with all other primates, and that's the dynamic in play.  For better or worse, factuality is frequently a wallflower in the great social debate.  It always has been.

34333. DSL at 23:19 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton (or the fake skeptics he represents): "What is the optimum global temperature?"

       Optimum temperature for what?

       
       Before you respond, I'll point out that the question is irrelevant.  It's a rhetorical ploy designed for those who don't understand the central problem with global warming.  There is an optimum temperature range for life on planet Earth.  The danger from global warming is the rapidity of the change in temperature.  Now that you're included in the group the meme targets, perhaps you might want to do a bit more reading before simply acting as a parrot for those who design these sorts of ploys.

34334. MA Rodger at 23:00 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Ashton @39.

       Good of you to volunteer to role-play for this thread on trolling. In citing Ólafsdóttir et al (2013) as some form of evidence for the existence of "long term cycles in natural phenomena such as in the NAO and AMO" that may or may not have played a significant role in recent warming, did you manage to read it? If not, you may find this bundle of 2 studies useful as it is open access and includes the Hvítárvatn study.

       Also note that the "clearly isn't 100%" message assumes all those devilish natural wobbles don't go and all cancel themselves out, which they probably would do at some point in time, just as they would at times produce a net cooling resulting in an embarrasing +100% AGW contribution.

34335. Ashton at 20:56 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       There's a few strawmen around in this discussion perhaps the most egregious of which are that sceptics/deniers claim there is no climate change and/or all climate change is due to natural causes.  Obviously I haven't met every sceptic/denier but based on the comments from those that  I have, the sceptics/deniers view on climate change is:

       "of course climate change is happening it has been happening since the earth began"  and

       "of course CO2 from the burning of fossils fuels is contributing to climate change in addition to the contributions from natural causes"

       A question  that sceptic/deniers often ask is what percentage of climate  change is due to the burning of fossil fuels.  Various scientific bodies have stated: "Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." (American Geophysical Union 2013}.  This doesn't of course specifically address burning of fosil fuels aa deafforestation and other activities are covered by this sweeping statement.  Others state "anthropogenic contributions are significant." (American Medical Association2013), "the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases", (American Meteorological Society 2012) and the IPCC states "“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

       Clearly these august bodies do regard burning of fossil fuels as contributing significantly (as indeed do the sceptics/deniers I have spoken to) but do not put any sort of a figure on how much this contribution is.  Consequently it seems a fair question from sceptics/deniers as to what percentage is due to human activities.  It clearly isn't 100% else unless the roles of the AMO and PDO and other natural factors is nil and taking the change over 50 years may not exclude long term cycles in natural phenomena such as in the NAO and AMO (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113001145)

       Another question asked by many of the sceptic/deniers I have met is"What is the optimum global temperature?"  Most sceptoics/deniers are aware the global temperature in  the Mediaeval Warm Period may well have been cooler than today but that doesn't answer the question of what is the optimum.  

       Naturally, I expect this post to be classed as trolling and if so, so be it.  But uncritically dismissing sceptics/deniers as trolls is perhaps not justified.

       I don't think that has been answered above.  Other questions are"What is the ideal global temperature

34336. localis at 17:06 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       It might be interesting to challenge deniers to try and convince us "warmists" that Co2 in the atmosphere isn't rising by 2ppm per year and the science that proves Co2 creates warming is false. Given that they won't be able to a more revealing question might then be to ask them why they would want to deny something so well proven. All weather forecasters should include current Co2 levels as part of their forecasts. At least that might start a few million people to actually start thinking about the issue. The biggest problem at the moment aren't the deniers, it is the total lack of interest the majority of people have in the subject. Those of us who argue about it are still a minority of the population.

34337. bouke at 16:25 PM on 1 September 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #35
       

       The link "The EPA’s limits on emissions are important but not enough" is broken

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Link fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention. 

34338. scaddenp at 14:58 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Okay Tom, understood in the context your analysis.

34339. citizenschallenge at 14:56 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Michael J. I. Brown wrote up at Broken logic:

       "There’s no reason for natural and anthropogenic climate change to be mutually exclusive, and yet climate change deniers frequently use natural climate change in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming."

       ~ ~ ~

       It reminded me of a bit of a dialogue I had going with a contrarian --

       This character insists that: "The null hypothesis, is of course, natural climate change explains all observed climate change." ~~~

       my response: "To begin with this "null hypothesis" doesn't make any sense because if we look at the situation from a geophysical perspective there is nothing unnatural about today's increasing greenhouse gas levels causing our atmosphere's insulation ability to increase, in turn causing our planet to warm.

       It is only the source, human burning of fossil fuels, that is unique in the long varied history of our planet.

       It would be interesting if K or any other science contrarian can suggest a more meaningful null hypothesis, since his is broken." ~~~

       whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/08/falsify-this-what-contrarians-ignore.html

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

       Everything humans do is acting upon "natural patterns" and there is nothing "unnatural" with rapidly increasing greenhouse gases sending the planet's weather system into higher gear.

       We are injecting extra energy/heat/moisture into huge geophysical entities, that we call "patterns" to help distance ourselves from the reality of what our planet's global heat distribution engine is all about. 

34340. Tristan at 14:28 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       chrisd3, I have had exactly the same result when using analogies.

       
       It's not just climate skeptics, but applies to anyone who has a view that can be easily demonstrated to be silly via an analogous concept.

        

       Another 'tactic' I have seen, is 'forgetfulness' (which may be intnetional or the brain protecting itself from dissonance). I've managed to extract concessions from skeptics at times, and then a week later have them repeating exactly the mantra that they acknowledged was flawed.

34341. Wol at 12:44 PM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Andy @ 33

       
       If you re-read my post (above) you will see that I said that the way to *start* is to determine what the sustainable population level would be if everyone had the same level as the European middle class. I don't think it's unrealistic to think that the third world would not aspire to that.

       Also, I don't think that bringing down the overconsumption (and who's to define that anyway) of the West to a hair shirt level is (a) necessary or (b) desirable and/or (c) remotely possible by democratic means.

       If a "sustainability study" had been done before the industrial revolution it might (and I'm just playing with numbers here) have come up with a population of say 5Bn. Starting from here and now, with the historical consumption of energy and resources, it might be 3Bn. In any case, I would bet quite a bit on it being well short of 9Bn odd.

       Frankly, efforts to reduce CO² emissions sufficiently to avoid tipping points are not going to work unless population is the prime target, or possibly unless the third world is to be kept at a very low standard of living.

34342. Tom Curtis at 12:25 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp @320, I agree.  However, in caclulating the correlation coefficient, the mean of each time series is subtracted from each value in the time series.  Therefore the correlation of absolute temperature values and temperature anomalies will be the same.  That is why in calculating the comparison to closest neighbours (as in my third graph @311) it is important to use anomalies, as I did.  That is what I did do, although I failed to state it.  In contrast, in calculating the correlation coefficient (as in my second graph @316) it is irrelevant whether you use anomalies or (as I did) absolute temperature values.

       As I said before, I should have mentioned that I was using anomalies for the neighbour comparisons, but it is irrelevant for correlation coefficients (the point on which you raised the matter).

34343. scaddenp at 12:02 PM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Tom, it's a subtle point, but temperature anomaly is difference between temperature and the long term average for the station. So a station on by the sea and a station high on a hill might have very different temperatures, but the difference from a long term average at each station will be very similar. That is what I think was missing from your discussion.

34344. Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       scaddenp @317, as the temperature anomaly is derived by subtracting a constant value from the temperature, the correlation of anomalies and temperatures is the same.  What is true is that the average of nearby stations does not predict the temperature at a given station, but the rather the average of the anomalies of nearby stations predicts the anomaly at a given station.  Although I did not specify it, I have used the anomalies in my neighbour comparisons.

34345. mjibrown at 10:41 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       There are a surprising number of claims that the heliocentric model was not central to Galileo's trials. While Galileo definitely didn't do himself any favours via his combative style, the interpretation of the bible and Solar System was definitely central to his trials.

       For details see translations of the original documents (e.g., in "The Essential Galileo").

       A useful introduction is also available at http://vaticanobservatory.org/research/history-of-astronomy/54-history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair/370-the-galileo-affair

34346. scaddenp at 10:22 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       A very slight correction to Tom's work-

       "the correlation of temperatures with distance."

       It should be the correlation of temperature anomalies with distance.

34347. Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton @314, that report is certainly off topic on this thread, and introducing it looks remarkably like introducing a new line of attack to me.

34348. Tom Curtis at 10:19 AM on 1 September 2014
       Temp record is unreliable
       

       Ashton @313:

       1) Scientific studies have shown that correlation between neigbouring temperature records are high out to a distance of 1200 km.  That is unsurprising given the average size of weather systems found on synoptic charts:

       

       In this case, the 10 "nearest" neigbours used were all within 55.1 kms of Amberley.  I have since expanded that to the twenty "nearest" neigbours, which are all within 93.4 km of Amberley.  Given that, it is hardly surprising that the running 11 year correlation between Amberley and the mean of the twenty nearest neighbours is 0.71, nor that the number would be significantly higher except for an excursion down due to the 1981 inhomegeniety and another around 1963 due to an inhomgeniety at UQ Gatton:

       

       You are are either simply mistaken about the distances involved, or you and your friends are misinformed about the correlation of temperatures with distance.

       2)  The distinction between weather and climate has no bearing on this topic as it is short term fluctuations in temperature we are concerned about.  However, it need not be daily temperatures.  My analysis with BOM data has beed done with annual means to make the analysis easier, for example.  Monthly means are more commonly used for this type of analysis.

       3)  We are given many reasons for the repetition of denier memes on this site, and the most common is "I was just asking a question/seeking clariffication".  Try as hard as I can, however, I cannot see the question or request for clarrification in the following (from your comment @305):

       "More questions regarding the treatment of temperature data by the BoM which is not coming across at all well in the MSM. It really does give one cause for pause in blindly accepting that what they say is gospel."

       (My emphasis)

       4)  I cannot comment on the Gaurdian, which I do not read.  The Australian, on the other hand has four types of stories on climate change.  They have the stories in which they report a denier/skeptical point of view in which the denier/skeptic is quoted but no comment is sort from mainstream climate scientists.  They have the report of major climate change news (release of IPCC reports etc) that they have to cover, in which the news is reported together with a denier/skeptic take on the news.  They have reports of mainstream science fed to them by a denier/skeptic with a ready made criticism by said denier/skeptic which is given most prominence.  And they have the reports on some stated (often inaccurate) problem with renewable energy.

       Sometimes they are subtle.  On one story on sea levels, there "mainstream" contact was in fact a "skeptic", and they failed to contact any genuine mainstream scientists on the subject, even though one of the world's top five scientists in that field is based in Australia.

       You may regard that as reporting "on both sides of the AGW debate" but I cannot help but notice that even on the mainstream news items, the denier point of view is given the most prominence.

       Further, we do not consider a newspaper reputable if it reports "both sides" of the 911 conspiracy theories.  In many cases in which The Australian reports both sides (including this one), the "skeptic" side which is given most prominence by The Australian has as little merit as 911 trutherism.

34349. Andy Skuce at 09:19 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       Wol @28

       I disagree that cutting emissions is harder than reducing population growth. According to Hans Rosling we have already reached "peak child" or  at least "plateau child": there are more or as many children alive to day than there ever will be in the future. Population will continue to grow, perhaps to 9 billion, because today's children will inevitably become parents. The great news is that nearly every country is now appraoching low numbers of children per women. If this continues, then population should stablize around 9-10 billion.

       In contrast, emission rates continue an upward climb and nobody has a clue where the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will plateau and when the rate of emissions will equal the rate of absorption in the oceans and biosphere. Population almost certainly will increase by 30-40% and then likely stop growing. CO2 concentrations could more than double and there is no sign of the growth curve bending downward yet.

       I agree that it is hard, probably impossible, to imagine 10 billion people in the future living the way we do in rich countries today. But it does not follow that that the lot of the poor cannot greatly improve, while the wealthy scale back our often wasteful and extravagant ways. Technology is no panacea, but, if history is a guide, there are grounds for optimism. The Malthusians have been wrong before and let's hope that they will be wrong again.

34350. Paleo Cello at 08:15 AM on 1 September 2014
       What I learned from debating science with trolls
       

       My experience with trolls encompasses both climate change deniers and evolution deniers. Their most common tactic is to denounce any and all scientific, evidence based statements as religious justification for obtaining government grants which are themselves evidence of a gigantic conspiracy involving all the world's scientific societies as well as individual scientists. Anything you say in response will be attacked in similar terms. All this delivered with scathing invective and plenty of ad hominem rhetoric. There is simply no way to break through to them since they have already rejected the logical, evidence based way of reasoning that we take for granted. Whether they do this for personal, religious reasons or because they are in the pay of the fossil fuel interests is impossible to say and frankly, does not matter. Their object is to sway public opinion against science and scientists by relentless, unending assaults. Responding to them merely fuels the fire and may be seriously counter-productive.

Prev  679  680  681  682  683  684  685  686  687  688  689  690  691  692  693  694  Next