Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 Next
Comments 36451 to 36500:
-
chriskoz at 12:50 PM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
From the article:
Climate change is not as well understood as vaccination or evolution, and I would not put deniers of climate science in the same camp as anti-vaccination and anti-evolution movements, but there is an increasing trend among them all to adopt similar methods.
(my emphasis)
I would question the emphsised part. Knowledge of vaccination effects is always inferred from the statistics and lots of evidence in evolution is based from paleo observations, that silimar to paleo-climate have their uncertainties. The climate science however, is not based on statistics, but mainly on well understood physical processes. Also because of these physics foundations, climate science would stand on its own, even if paleo-climate did not exist. Therefore, I find climate science better understood than both vaccination and evolution, contrary to the assertion above.
-
Dave123 at 11:46 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Ah.... Warren, this is where you got to.
I'm still hoping you'll provide some instance related to global warming where your mnd was changed by the evidence.
I also continue to hope why you think that the people posting at WUWT can be convinced by evidence, given their disparate and fatally inadequate backgrounds and the overwhelming malice they display
and of course, what difference it would make if they could be convinced. As in if Tony Watts threw in the towel and declared that he wanted to have Mike Mann's babies, would James Inhofe turn?
I'm not too miffed that you moved onto another thread however, I don't think I'm willing to let you off the hook either.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
The following image shows the radiative forcing from CO2 plus changes in solar brightness over time:
The interesting comparison is between RCP 8.5, ie, the BAU scenario in the last panel, with the rise in forcing at about 250 million years before the present in the first panel (ie, the end Permian extinction). The later shows a rise of about 10 W/m^2, slightly less than the circa 12 W/m^2 associated with RCP 8.5. The absolute level of forcing associated with RCP 8.5 has never been matched in the planets history.
The 12 W/m^2 forcing associated with the RCP 8.5 scenario shows clearly that not all forcings are considered. When all known forcings are considered, the RCP forcing will drop towards 8.5 W/m^2. Similarly, with all forcings considered the change in forcing associated with the end Permian mass extinction may be slightly greater, or less than that shown. Therefore we cannot conclude that the change in forcing associated with RCP 8.5 is greater than that associated with the Permian mass extinction. We can conclude, however, that the BAU (RCP 8.5) scenario will result in a forcing change of similar magnitude to that in the Permian mass extinction; that it will certainly occur over a much shorter time; and that it is more likely than not to result absolute levels of forcing never before encountered on this planet.
For those not familiar with the Permian mass extinction, it resulted in the extinction of around 90% of marine invertebrates, around two thirds of terrestial vertebrate species, and possibly as much as 50% of terrestial plant species. There is little reason to think an equivalent change in forcing would not result in similar exinction levels today. Indeed, given that the impacts on the extinction rates would be addition to those already driven by over fishing, deforestation, and colonizing species due to international travel, overall extinction rates with RCP 8.5 have a good chance of being higher than those in the end Permian extinction.
It should be noted that the change in forcing is not the only potential explanation of the end Permian mass extinction, but its major rival, ocean acidification, gives us an equally pessimistic prospect. RCP 8.5 will result in ocean acidification levels comparable with or higher than during the end Permian mass extinction. This is because, despite the lower CO2 levels, the rapid accidification removes pH buffers from the ocean that would have retained a lower pH during the Permean mass extinction.
Given these facts, it is foolhardy to think human civilization will proceed untroubled by such potential ecological catastrophes. These facts by themselves establish there is a considerable risk that a BAU policy will create sufficient strains on human society as to result in massive, potentially devestating reductions in human well being and population. That is not certain, but the odds are sufficiently high to make the risk entirely unacceptable.
Warren Hindmarsh asks, "what is the evidence that you use to convince a contrarian of alarming warming?"
If the evidence summarized in that image, and its implications is not evidence enough to convince him, then nothing will be. -
Terranova at 10:40 AM on 7 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Mods, why has my previous post in this thread been deleted?
Moderator Response:[JH] All moderation complaints are summarily deleted. Please read the SkS Comments Policy and adhere to it. You are on the cusp of relinquishing your privilege of posting comments on this website.
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea culpa!
I mistakenly thought that I was responding to someone else.
Another member of the SkS Moderation team deleted your comment because he found it to be "off-topic & tone trolling."
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 10:30 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
DIkran it is warming, that is beyond doubt. It is the alarming amounts that we need to worry about so the "Expressed as a global average, surface temperatures have increased by about 0.74°C over the past hundred years (between 1906 and 2005" is the warming that you worry about?
-
mancan18 at 10:13 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
The Brandis statement, that climate change skeptics are being silenced by the authoritarian advocates of climate change and should be given equal opportunity to make their argument, doesn't actually agree with the reality of the Australian media. In fact the reverse is true. When you consider that newspapers like the Daily Telegraph or the Herald Sun command around 70% of the Australian market and that these papers reach about 83% of Australia's reading public, and that their 3 most popular writers, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman, are all climate change/global warming skeptics/deniers tirelessly repeating the same old "it's not happening"/"it's all natural" arguments and referencing scientists like Curry, Monkton, Spenser, Lindzen, Carter and Pilmer et. al. to justify their views, hardly indicates that the deniers are being silenced. On top of this you also have the shock jocks on radio like Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and others who also command a significant percentage of the radio market also promoting climate change/global warming denial, and with climate scientists and advocates like David Karoly and Tim Flannery being brow beaten into silence, it seems that Brandis's statement is nothing but hubris.
Now if Brandis is complaining that denier skeptics are not getting equal time in reputable science journals like American Scientist, Scientific America and Nature and other reputable magazines like New Scientist and National Geographic, and science shows like Catalyst, then it indicates he doesn't truly understand the difference between a political argument where anything goes versus a scientific argument where verifiable evidence and scientific reasoning are required.
I would have thought a venue like Skeptical Science does give deniers and skeptics a chance to air their views in the Brandis meaning of equal time, due its tendency to have direct links to the denier argument references. However, Skeptical Science and sites like it also provide direct links to the counter argument references as well. Unfortunately, the denier/skeptic arguments don't stand up to the intense scrutiny required of a scientific debate, even when a few of the arguments occasionally do merit further research. This is why, generally, the denier/skeptics resort to political tactics rather than make proper scientific arguments to get what they think is equal time. The trouble with all this is that the public remains confused, which I guess is the whole point anyway, to stop positive action on climate change being taken. -
Warren Hindmarsh at 10:07 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
moderator: sorry neve never
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 10:03 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dikran my aplogies in misspelling your name.
Moderator: I would neve misspell someones name deliberately.
-
peter10486 at 10:03 AM on 7 May 2014Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
the last 10,000 years of GISP2 data
If you have done any form of stock chart or commodity chart analysis you will se that the past 10,000 years shows no up or down trend in global temperatures.(or temperatures of the Greenland Ice Core)
What it does show is Temperature Range of approx 5 degrees - or a sideways trend. That is the Long Term Trend.
Its completely irrelvant as to whether or not Eastwards "present" is 1855.
Focusing on short term trends are extemly misleading and in the case of stocks or commodities can be very expensive.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:45 AM on 7 May 2014IPCC issue official rebuttal to more David Rose/Daily Mail nonsense
peter:
With regard to your first paragraph, people in the UK were working on analyzing temperature data long before 1990. For instance:
Northern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984
P. D. Jones, , S. C. B. Raper, , R. S. Bradley, , H. F. Diaz, , P. M. Kellyo, and , and T. M. L. WigleyAs you start with the wrong facts, you end with the wrong conclusion. But don't let the facts get in the way of your story.
Moderator Response:[JH] Peter's post was pure unadulterated sloganeering and was therefore deleted.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Here is a further comparison between evolution deniers and AGW deniers, linking to specific examples. The list of 10 characteristics may need to be reduced to a list of 9, as a creationist example of the explicit offering of money based on opinion was not offered in the OP. The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth was suggested as a creationist counterpart, and does indeed include a monetary component; but it is not clear it is entirely analogous.
I also want to note the way that the "evidence based" Warren Hindmarsh, when presented with clear and cogent comparisons that he had asked for immediately started talking about something else. That is probably more characteristic of trolls than of evolution deniers per se, but it is inconsistent with his claim of evidence based belief.
-
Alexandre at 08:43 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
Coming from an active climate scientist, arguments like "Is CO2 bad?" are disappointing.
He even accuses fellow scientists of liars that use fudge factors - which in itself is below the behavior expected from a serious scientist. But if he himself resorts to the things he tries to impute to others, then it's downright sarcasm.
-
KR at 06:59 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
I find it a fascinating comparison to look at Spencers 10 worst 'skeptic' arguments and 10 best 'skeptic' arguments. And yes, I'm using quotes because they are really pseudoskeptical, grasping at any straw to support their views rather than following the evidence.
- The 10 worst arguments are wrong because the science says they are according to Spencer (and the rest of physics and climate science).
- The 10 best arguments are best because of, well, some pretty poor rhetoric. Not science, certainly none presented by Spencer.
Quite a difference there. And emblematic of climate denail in general.
-
Andy Skuce at 06:49 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Composer99 @13
On "impossible expectations", I believe that the creationists who demand transitional forms are secretly pleased when one is actually found, since then they can point to the absence of not one, but two transitional fossils, younger and older than the newly found one.
It's bit like it is for our contrarian friends when temperature or sea ice hit new records; it just provides a new starting point for a trend reversal.
-
shoyemore at 05:30 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
I am always looking into Spencer's site this time of the monh, because UAH are the first to publish a temperature anomaly.
Thanks for this response to his post.
Today, he is pouring scorn on the White House Climate Report announced earlier. But for the first time, I thought his attempts at humourous dissent were so forced that he sounded ... pathetic, even pitiful. Like a Flat Earther who cannot figure how why no one is convinced by his invincible logic.
Tomorrow I might go back to feeling irritated again.
-
Composer99 at 03:59 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
Dr Spencer's list is pretty much the reason why I maintain that self-styled climate science "skeptics" are anything but.
If those are the top ten, climate skepticism is a complete and total bust.
-
BWTrainer at 02:50 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
How is this man still employed at the university level?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:07 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
I would agree with Dr. Spencer on this. These are clearly the best arguments the denialist community has, and they are profoundly weak.
I was even more amused by his list of 10 bad skeptical arguments, in part because I still read all of them being used all over the internet.
-
John Hartz at 01:41 AM on 7 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
Climate change: what are the worst impacts facing America?
A government report has found the US is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Karl Mathiesen, with your help, investigates where it will cut deepest.
Join the debate. Post your views in the comments below, email karl.mathiesen.freelance@guardian.co.uk or tweet @karlmathiesen
This EcoAudit post is now live.
-
Doug Bostrom at 01:22 AM on 7 May 2014Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
These people labor in such a shabby edifice, like a casino; a structure of misdirection engineered to inspire misplaced confidence and entice gullible commitment but so obviously grubby, shopworn and fraudulent when the lights are turned up.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:21 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren Hindmarsh asks: "what is the evidence that you use to convince a contrarian of alarming warming?"
This is a pretty good place to start. Whether someone views this as alarming is for them to decide; that it is likely to be problematic and adaption expensive, is sufficient to warrant efforts at mitigation IMHO. Sorry if you find that a bit dull and reasonable and you would prefer some hyperbole instead, but it isn't my style.
-
John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 7 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
White House Hangout: Commitment to #ActOnClimate
Phil Larson
May 06, 2014
10:58 AM EDTToday, the White House is hosting an event highlighting the release of the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment – a major scientific report on the impacts of climate change on all regions of the United States and key sectors of the national economy. The report was called for in the President’s Climate Action Plan, launched last June, to cut carbon pollution in America, prepare communities for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to fight this global challenge.
The event will include remarks by senior Obama Administration officials and experts who contributed to the development of the new National Climate Assessment. Tune in to WhiteHouse.gov/live at 2 p.m. ET.
And on Thursday, we’re co-hosting a conversation with the Weather Channel about the current state of climate science and impacts and what work we are doing to make a difference. Use the hashtag #ActOnClimate to ask questions and join the conversation with these participants via Google+ Hangout on Thursday, May 8 at 2 p.m. ET:
- Sam Champion, host, The Weather Channel
- Carl Parker, Meteorologist, Hurricane Specialist, The Weather Channel
- Kathy Sullivan, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Dan Utech, White House Domestic Policy Council
- Mike Boots, White House Council on Environmental Quality
- Laura Petes, White House Office of Science & Technology Policy
Find out more about the National Climate Assessment, and check out some of the graphics and videos about the findings by visiting the website here.
Watch today’s event at 2 p.m. ET, and then join and ask your questions for Thursday’s White House hangout on the National Climate Assessment at 2 p.m. ET right here, or on the White House Google+ page.
Phil Larson is Senior Advisor for Space and Innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
-
John Hartz at 01:00 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren Hindmarsh:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
To elaborate a bit on the characteristics of denialism, and how creationists, climate science deniers, and anti-vaccine activists share them in common, let me provide some examples:
1. Fake or Misleading Experts
Creationism - Ken Ham, Dr Michael Egnor (a neurosurgeon), William Dembski
Anti-Vaccine Activism - Andrew Wakefield, Dr Jay Gordon (*), Dr Vera Scheibner (a micropaleontologist)
Climate Science Denial - Christopher Monckton, Dr Roy Spencer (*), Dr S. Fred Singer (*), Dr Richard Lindzen (*), Ian McIntyre
(*) denotes misleading experts - people with pertinent expertise in the subject (e.g. Dr Jay Gordon is a pediatrician) but who are using their credentials to support or propagate false or misleading information, in the public sphere at least, if not in the literature (e.g. Dr Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance). (Some creationists I have named above might be misleading experts; but I'm not familiar enough with them to say so.)
2. Cherry-Picking & Misrepresentation
Creationism - claims about radiocarbon dating, this article showing distortion of so-called "No Free Lunch" algorithms, claims about the eye, or flagellum, making Charles Darwin out to be a proto-eugenicist, etc.
Anti-Vaccine - Wakefield's (retracted) 1998 Lancet paper (I don't recall seeing that one get trotted out as much since its retraction), some rubbish papers by Laura Hewitson et al (also retracted), claims about various ingredients in vaccines (formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.), the "Fourteen Studies". I could go on - maybe search the vaccine topic thread on Science-Based Medicine for some more examples.
Climate Science Denial - the "pause" in global warming (cherry picking a small portion of the surface temperature record while ignoring the behaviour of 95+% of the climate system), the obsession over outdated papers (Hansen et al 1988 and Mann et al 1999), Anthony Watts' "surface stations project".
3. Logical Fallacies
Creationism - false dichotomy (either their misrepresentation of evolutionary processes must be true, or God/an "Intelligent Designer" did it), ad hominem or similar argument (e.g. accepting evolution leads to the Holocaust, courtesy of Ben Stein).
Anti-Vaccine - ad hominem (what Dr David Gorski calls the "pharma shill gambit"), red herrings (appeals to the issues surrounding thalidomide, Vioxx, or, say, the Tuskegee experiments).
Global Warming Denial - ad hominem (pretty much whenever Al Gore or David Suzuki's names come up), strawman argument ("CAGW"), appeal to popularity (here's a good example, or you could bring up the Orgeon Petition), guilt by association (Donna Laframboise's book about the IPCC).
4. Conspiratorial Ideation
Creationism - In Expelled, Ben Stein alleges that the scientific community conspires to ruin the careers of those who express any doubt in the "scientific orthodoxy of Darwinism" (quotes used to denote sarcasm, not direct quote). Especially religious creationists are liable to discern the influence of Satan or other supernatural forces of wickedness in the widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists.
Anti-Vaccine - One activist, Jake Crosby, is famed for trying to playing "six degrees of separation" to try and tie pro-vaccine advocates to pharmaceutical companies. Conspiracy theories are also called upon to explain why public health departments & researchers would continue to support vaccination programs despite the alleged harms of vaccines.
Global Warming Denial - The allegations that the UEA-CRU hack exposed fraud, or that the subsequent inquiry findings were whitewashing. Any time the claim is made that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax or fraud for the purpose of securing grant money. Any time the claim is made that climate science is part of a wider "eco-fascist", "Marxist", or what-have-you plot to establish despotism.
5. Impossible Expectations/Shifting Goalposts
Creationism - I'm not as well-read on creationist tactics on this front, but I understand that creationists have made a big fuss about lack of certain transitional forms, or even set up impossible expectations for what sort of transitional forms might be found (e.g. the "crocoduck"). The shift to "Intelligent Design" as the primary public vehicle of creationism is a goalpost shift.
Anti-Vaccine - Despite its unethical nature, many anti-vaccine activists call for a double-blind trial of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Anti-vaccine activists occasionally demand 100% certainty of the safety or efficacy of vaccines. I have personally had an anti-vaccine commenter demand that science either develop the capacity to predict who would be harmed by vaccines (an impossible expectation at present).
Climate Science Denial - The "quantum" behaviour of denial as recently discussed on Skeptical Science is a perfect example of shifting goalposts. A good example of impossible expectations would be Judith Curry's "Uncertainty Monster", or similar claims that we just need to do more research for a few more years/decades before we can make policy decisions (because it's all so uncertain).
-
John Hartz at 00:16 AM on 7 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
All:
I have deleted the recent exchange of comments between Adamski and Warren Hindmarsh. They were "off-topic".
-
Composer99 at 23:28 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren:
Dr Spencer is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
The Declaration also includes the statement:
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
So, yes, Dr Spencer is a perfect example of the connections (and parallels) between creationism and climate science denial. Which you, unsurprisingly, reflexively dismiss.
(Incidentally, Dr Lindzen, one of the other atmospheric scientist "skeptics" has endorsed the Evangelical Declaration, although he is not a signatory.)
To further Tom Curtis' examples, both creationists and climate deniers also make liberal use of the known techniques of denialism (as do anti-vaccine activists): fake or misleading experts, cherry-picking, logical fallacies, conspiratorial ideation, and impossible expectations/shifting goalposts (I am certain that someone has linked to the Skeptical Science article describing them in a thread you have participated in).
Your platitudes about the virtue of skepticism notwithstanding, the simple fact is that if you read or listen or watch enough material produced by self-styled "skeptics" of climate science you find that they are (a) uncritically accepting of outrageously, obviously false claims (c.f. the Evangelical Declaration, claims about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, any myth addressed on Skeptical Science, etc.) and (b) appear unable to accept even the most preponderant, clear-cut evidence that climate research reveals. That's not skepticism, plain and simple.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 21:32 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dipkran Dikran I am evidence based, what is the evidence that you use to convince a contrarian of alarming warming?
Moderator Response:[JH] If your mispelling orf Dikran's name was intentional, it was a very juvenile prank. If you are "evidenced based"as you claim, you would double-check the spelling of someone's name before hitting the "Submit" button.
-
adamski5807 at 21:10 PM on 6 May 2014Palmer United Party needs to go back to school on carbon facts
composer. on your radiative forcings, I thought methane was 24 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
-
Dikran Marsupial at 20:22 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren Hindmarsh, true skepticism includes agreeing with contrarians when they are right, rather than only agreeing with people on a strictly partisan basis. Give it a try, you might find you make more progress.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 19:15 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Dumb Scientist is that Dr Roy Spencer at the top of your list the same Dr Roy Spencer NASA UHA used by this site to debunk skeptical attitudes?
Let's get real I'm sure I could find 10 people who believe in, let's say, Marxism who also support warming. Would that prove a connection between the beliefs? Of course not.
-
carbtheory at 19:01 PM on 6 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
@ 16, those numbers could almost support a psychological profile of some sort.
-
Dumb Scientist at 16:28 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
A few dozen other parallels.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:57 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Parallel #1: Misrepresentation of the rejected theory including strawman labelling:
One of the most common features of evolution denial is the complete misrepresentation of Darwinian evolution as a purely random process. In fact Darwinian evolution is a process which takes random inputs (mutations) and results in highly ordered outputs through a non-random process (natural selection). Despite this evolution deniers persist in irrelevant analogies (tornado in a junk yard), and misleading labelling, calling evolution "random evolution" to promote the strawman view of the theory they oppose.
In like manner, AGW deniers persistently misrepresent AGW. One of the most common strawman misrepresentations is the lable CAGW (Catastrophic AGW). Anybody familiar with the theory is aware that AGW represents a potential of catastrophe, but may not be catastrophic. This straightforward misrepresentation in labelling is a clear, and persistent parallel between evolution and AGW denial.
Parallel #2: Persistent accusations of wide spread fraud and/or conspiracy by scientists as a means of explaining contrary data.
Parallel #3: Complete lack of skepticism with regard to supposedly supporting data. Examples from evolution denial include river dinosaur tracks, supposed C14 anomalies, supposed lack of discontinuities at sheer faults. Examples from AGW denial include the massive lack of skepticism involved in "dragon slayer" and "CO2 is saturated", and "CO2 increase is not anthropogenic" arguments.
Parallel #4: Falacitious (and trivially false) third law of thermodynamics arguments
This is nowhere near an exhaustive list of parallels, but they are striking and obvious to anyone who has participated in both the creation wars and the public debate over global warming (as I have).
-
Rob Painting at 14:57 PM on 6 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Attached is a list of replies to some of the above questions by Dr Foster.
Thanks all for your comments on our contribution. I will try here to answer a few of your questions here.
#2. Stephen Baines – How should I best reference this?
We are writing this up for a publication but as with most academics I have a lot of competition for my time (i.e. teaching vs. research) and this will have to wait till the summer. In the meantime just reference the descent into the icehouse website where this originally appeared (www.descentintotheicehouse.org.uk).
#3. gindupBaker – asked about the resolution of the records. Certainly short intervals could exhibit more variability than is shown in the plots. Mostly though we are reconstructing averages of relatively long periods of time with the techniques used – e.g. thousands of years. The 7 W/m2 you are referring to includes the forcing from changes in albedo related to the waxing and waning of the ice sheets. The CO2 (and solar forcing) we calculate here is entirely consistent with Hansen’s calculations.
#5. Rob Honeycutt – This is a really interesting observation and something I had also thought about. Glenn Tamblyn’s comment #7 I hope answers your question though.
#6. macoles – has anyone got a handle on how long it would take to reach that equilibrium?
The slowest parts of the climate system are the continental ice sheets. These respond very slowly to forcing and will take something like 1000 years to reach equilibrium (though no one can put an exact figure on this), more if we are looking at melting all the continental ice on the planet, but that sort of order. This implies of course that if even if we stop CO2 emissions tomorrow, we are in for a long period of climate change as the Earth system readjusts to the new forcing. There was a Skeptical Science post about some of our other work that relates to this that you may be interested in (https://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon-Dioxide-the-Dominant-Control-on-Global-Temperature-and-Sea-Level-Over-the-Last-40-Million-Years.html)
#10. Chriskov – your “hump” is portrayed inaccurately on fig.1. if you look at the more detailed Cenozoic reconstruction e.g. here.
Chriskov you have to be careful with what you accept as a reconstruction of CO2 here. What we plotted and compiled are the latest published proxy estimates of CO2 based on several tried and test techniques (albeit each with its own particular group of weaknesses and limitations). What you have plotted is a simple transformation of the benthic foraminiferal oxygen isotope compilation of Jim Zachos (performed by Jim Hansen). Benthic foram d18O is a proxy of deep water temperature AND ice volume but NOT CO2. It is therefore very dangerous to use this to calculate CO2 as you are directly linking cause (CO2 change) with effect (ice volume and deep sea temperature change). Furthermore, the relationship between global temperature and deep sea temperature is not straightforward, nor is the way in which you deconvolve d18O into a temperature and ice volume record. For instance, to make the plot you show one has to firstly remove the ice component of the d18O (which is difficult without a 65 million year record of sea-level), then assume a constant relationship between deep sea temperature and global temperature, and then assume a climate sensitivity to radiative forcing (and assume it’s only CO2 change that is doing the forcing). This approach has its uses but our research is focused on using the geological past to try to independently estimate parameters like climate sensitivity from the geological record (e.g. see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/nature11574.html). For this you obviously need independent estimates of CO2 and climate change.
The record aside, the reason for elevated CO2 in the Early Cenozoic (which is evident in our record but maybe obscured partially by the log-scale) is, as Chriskoz notes, most likely due to enhanced outgassing as the Tethys ocean was subducted below the Asian continent (that culminated with the Indian-Asian continent collision).
#12. Glenn Tamblyn – That CO2 weathering thermostat surely is a really useful thing to have around…
We couldn’t agree more. Though of course, as with all things in science, it’s not necessarily a done deal that silicate weathering is responsible. Lots more work to be done!
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 14:31 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
mbryson please provide the "plenty of evidence of parallels between denial of AGW and other forms of denial like vaccine and evolution denial"
-
Michael Whittemore at 13:38 PM on 6 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
localis, I pay a little more for my electricity so that I am supplied with carbon free (green) electricity. When I fly I pay extra to offset my carbon emissions, I also drive a small car.. But its a choice.. because I research climate change, I know.. But we can't expect everyone or even more than 5% of the population of the world to know anything about climate change or about a carbon foot print. My point is even if this 5% of people reduced their emissions, no one would even notice because governments are not passing laws that force people to reduce their emissions. At the end we all need energy to live, we cant be expected to sit around doing nothing in the hope to reduce our carbon foot print. Electricity companies need to go green so as everyone can live normally. Carbon tax that gives the revenue back to the poor is spot on.
-
tcflood at 13:18 PM on 6 May 2014Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
Sorry to go back to such an old issue, but it the seriousness of methane forcing still conduses me a bit.
Both of the CH modes of methane (T2 and E) in the spectral region of Earth's emission are completely overwhelmed by the HOH bending mode of water. This seems to imply that the only region of the atmosphere where methane could have a distinct effect would be at the top of the troposphere and the in stratosphere where water concentrations drop to a few ppm.
Do models bear out that concentrations of methane well above the current 1.8 ppm (1) could have a large warming effect and that (2) this effect would overwhelmingly take place in the upper troposphere and stratosphere?
-
mbryson at 12:38 PM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Warren: There's plenty of evidence of parallels between denial of AGW and other forms of denial like vaccine and evolution denial-- just like there's plenty of evidence for AGW (in both cases, I recommend follow-up reading in the published, peer-reviewed literature). The moves are always the same: denial is defended as an 'epistemic fixed point', and all else is "in doubt". Real skepticism questions hypotheses (like the claim that AGW isn't happening and/or poses no threat) when multiple independent lines of evidence indicate that their contraries (it is happening, and it poses a threat) are much better supported. Your selective zombie skepticism is not a strength at all-- it's a (catastrophic) weakness.
(BTW, the 'C' in your 'CAGW' is not helping your case: it was invented by deniers and always comes with a sneer. If you want to be taken seriously, you should use the terms/acronyms actually used in the literature.)
-
jetfuel at 12:02 PM on 6 May 2014The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
How much will be said on here about the recent run-up in polar ice? It seems like my world got so cold this winter. 15 below zero on the saturday morning after my ski trip Feb 10th. I'm happy that 97% of the Arctic ice is back and Antarctic ice is above normal. But I know next winter will be another one with high heating bills. My house uses nat gas so that tempers things a little, but electricity per kwh has gone up 40% since 2009.
One thing I don't get is how the 33 cu miles of land melt on Antarctica can be the reason for a run uo to 13 million sq km of sea ice there? Seems like a drop in the bucket to me.
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 11:52 AM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Here we go again, claiming those who are skepitcal of (snip) AGW are linked to conspiracy theories etc.and are unwilling to "step up". Okay don't agree with Brandis but don't imply the skeptical view is linked to "similarities with vaccination and evolution" I notice you couldn't resist throwing in "alien abduction" and "conspiracy theories" as well. To be skeptical is a strength not a weakness. Even if you have a belief you should always still question it.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are continuing to skate on the thin ice of excessive repetition and sloganeering-- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
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.
[PW] In further support of JH's appropriate moderation of this comment, any mention of "CAGW" will have the "C" removed, replaced with a plain "snip." This is nothing but a dismissives' tactic of denigrating the robust and well-supported theory of AGW, and it will no longer be tolerated by this Moderator. Its inclusion has no place at all within the bounds of rational and science-based dialogue.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:40 AM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
The,
Demand that consideration must be given to the interests of those who are not interested in developing the best understanding of what is going on when doing so would contradict their desire to be free to benefit from unacceptable unsustainable and damaging actions,
is an obviously absurd demand (except in the mind of someone who want to prolong and maximize their ability to get away with unacceptable behaviour).
The attempt, and ability, to attract popular support through such absurdity is also easy to understand, but it clearly is not acceptable regardless of its potential popularity.
Democracy and Society only benefit from the actions of people who place the developent of a sustainable bettre future for all above their personal desire for profit, pleasure, comfort or convenience.
Those who only care about themselves are worse than useless - They can be damaging - No matter how poular it may be to believe otherwise.
-
ubrew12 at 04:58 AM on 6 May 2014Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
"The debate is over when I say it is" just allows deep pockets to maintain 'the debate' long past the time for taking evidence-based action. Perhaps the public needs a better understanding of two things: 1) All science is debatable, and it always will be. Its in the nature of open inquiry. 2) Not taking action is taking action. So, from the point of view of Science nothing is ever resolved, while in the view of Policy, everything in Science is always resolved. You take action based on the information you have. You can moderate your action based on Scientific uncertainty, but you can't Not take action. Saying you won't take evidence-based action until 'the debate is over' evokes that warning by Confucius: "He who deliberates fully before taking a step will spend his entire life on one leg."
-
localis at 04:27 AM on 6 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
Until enough of us are dramatically and obviously reducing our carbon emissions others won't feel any compulsion to do likewise. It will only be when the worlds' more conspicuous fossil fuel consumers start to feel some guilt and embarrassment about their life-style that there may be some hope of a better future. Those of us who are making a determined effort to reduce our emissions are but a tiny fraction of the population for the majority will always blame the government for their own lack of action at an individual level. Until the media and governments make a forthright condemnation of the denialist agenda I fear little will change.
-
John Hartz at 04:09 AM on 6 May 2014Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
The Editor's Summary of Lobell (2014) cited in my prior post speaks directly to the issues raised in the OP.
Predicting Responses to Drought
The U.S. Corn Belt accounts for a sizeable portion of the world's maize growth. Various influences have increased yields over the years. Lobell et al. (p. 516; see the Perspective by Ort and Long) now show that sensitivity to drought has been increasing as well. It seems that as plants have been bred for increased yield under ideal conditions, the plants become more sensitive to non-ideal conditions. A key factor may be the planting density. Although today's maize varieties are more robust to crowding and the farmer can get more plants in per field, this same crowding takes a toll when water resources are limited.
-
John Hartz at 04:06 AM on 6 May 2014Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Here's another "hot off the press" article. This one addresses climate change's potential impact on corn production in the U.S.
How Climate Change Is Making America’s Favorite Crop More Vulnerable by Emily Atkin, Climate Proress, May 5, 2014.
Atkin's article is based on the peer-reviewed, Greater Sensitivity to Drought Accompanies Maize Yield Increase in the U.S. Midwest, David E. Lobell et al, Science, May 2, 2014
-
wili at 23:14 PM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
The legislator who authored the bill outlawing indoor smoking in my state was himself a smoker. He recognized it as an addiction, and he recognized that he and other smokers did not have the right to polute other people's lungs.
We are indeed in the position of having to be 'slave holders advocating for emancipation.' Of course, it's good to try to free as many of your own 'carbon slaves' as you can, but that alone is not going to end the 'peculiar institution' we find ourselves inevitably participating in.
But yes, by all means, join me and others in not flying or taking any (motorized) long-distance trips unless it is absolutely necessary (and how often is that). Minimize or eliminate meat and dairy and car trips. Consume little and consume local. Encourage others to do the same, individuals and institutions.
But also demand changes in legislation and demand divestment from ff...
We have to be able to "chew gum and whistle at the same time." The merchants of death are certainly multi-tasking and are very well organized in their very successful campaign to make the planet essentially unlivable for our kids and for most other species.
-
chriskoz at 21:26 PM on 5 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
wideEyedPupil@13,
Wehre did you source your assertion that "55% of Australian emissions come from Land Use Sector"? My data below from www.environment.gov.au:
Table 1: Australia’s Direct Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector 2011-12(a)
Sector Emissions (Mt CO2-e) Share of total emissions (%)Primary Industries 172.2 31.0
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 106.2 19.2
Mining 66.0 11.9
Manufacturing 66.3 11.9
Electricity, Gas and Water 199.2 35.9
Services, Construction and Transport 62.1 11.2
Residential 54.9 9.9Contradicts your assertion. Total Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (commonly known as "Land Use sector") emissions are only 19.2%.
-
Michael Whittemore at 15:32 PM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
Trevor, I don't think a person needs to have zero emissions before they have the right to support the science and ask the government to do something about it. If everyone asked the power companies to supply them with green electricity (like i do) it would be a start, but that does not mean factors and businesses will do the same. Big and small business needs to be taxed to give them an incentive to reduce their carbon foot print. This is the same for everyday people, you reduce your carbon foot print because you care, but that is not good enough, skeptics need to be forced to care with a tax. If skeptics have a problem with the science they can do their own science or reference science that proves their point, until then a tax needs to be introduced.
-
John Hartz at 14:09 PM on 5 May 2014Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
@John Mason:
It's time for you to write a sequel to your excellent OP.
-
John Hartz at 14:07 PM on 5 May 2014Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Here are a couple of "hot off the press" on-topic articles.
Wake Up and Smell the Soaring Cost of Coffee by Kieran Cooke, Climate News Network, Climate Central, May 4, 2014
Drought Causes Chipotle To Increase Its Steak Prices by Katie Valentine, Climate Progress, Apr 29, 2014
Prev 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 Next
