Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 Next
Comments 36501 to 36550:
-
michael sweet at 11:46 AM on 5 May 2014Food Security: the first big hit from Climate Change will be to our pockets
Klapper,
If you wish to continue your discussion of crop yields they would be on topic on this thread. I read the reference you cited in your deleted post. If the best that you can find in the peer reviewed literature is a paper from Bulgaria written in 2000 I suggest that you are way out of date. (Although Bulgaria might be far enough north to benefit from the warming so far). The citations that I quoted from the IPCC report are up to date and claim world wide decrease in yield of wheat and maize (corn). I am also unimpressed with your claims that you eyeballed the data and found a different result. Can you find more recent citations that support your claims?
-
Trevor_S at 10:44 AM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
"People who campaign against slavery don't own slaves. People who campaign against smoking don't smoke. People who campaign against violence against women do not commit violence against women. And so it goes for almost all causes - except for climate change. Then, somehow, it becomes not only acceptable but almost obligatory for people who campaign against fossil fuels to burn more than their fair share of them."
"You have people who support a cause in the abstract, general sense, while acting against the cause in their personal life. The typical rationalisation is to view one's personal contribution to a problem as being an insignificant part of the whole problem. But this ignores the fact that the problem results from vast numbers of people making similarly insignificant contributions. It will be just as hard for any of them to stop and they can all make the same excuse that their bit doesn't matter"
-The Guardian Comments section
We have to stop emitting first. My parter and I are working hard to get our emisisons as close to zero as we can. How can we convince others to recue thier emisisons if we won't ?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:32 AM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
I am very much looking forward to the skewering George "people have a right to be bigots" Brandis by Ellerton. His recent comments complaining about the infringement of the right to free speech of climate change deniers (who from 2% of the scientific literature receive 50% of the press coverage, and nearly 100% of the commentary in The Australian) is patently absurd, and yet more evidence that Australia has a government of climate change deniers - determined to place posterity in hock for the short term benefit of investors.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:21 AM on 5 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Klapper @15, it is worthwhile noting that of the 32 posts deleted, eight were by me, four each by Michael Sweet and KR, three by chriskoz, and one each by Roger D, Mal Adapted and GrindupBaker; making a total of twenty two (68.75%) by those accepting the science of climate change. The deletions, therefore, have been far harsher on those supporters than on anyone else. You (four posts) and Poster (four posts) are of course welcome to reraise the issues being discussed on other more appropriate threads. Therefore, while inconvenient, these deletions are not censorship. Jetfuel (2 posts), however, should probably not bother given that his post was both original and then respammed, was pure sloganeering.
Frankly, I would think Poster would be very happy to have what must have been very embarassing posts for him deleted from the record so that this moderation decision has done the "skeptics" a favour.
The moral from this is stray from the comments policy (by being off topic) at your own peril.
-
Klapper at 08:39 AM on 5 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
@moderator:
This thread dropped from 46 comments to 14. I'm wondering if you are having technical difficulties?
Moderator Response:[DB] Comments not pertaining to the subject of the OP of this thread were removed.
-
Mal Adapted at 04:16 AM on 5 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren Hindmarsh may not know what a tone troll is, but I suspect MartinG does. They both appear to think that the scientific "debate" about AGW will be won with smooth talk. While it may shock laypeople, actual working scientists often dispense with urbanity among their peers. They can be unsparing when criticizing arguments that aren't well thought out or well supported by evidence. That's the role of "peer review", broadly defined. It's the process by which incorrect ideas and spurious facts are kept out of the accumulating body of scientific knowledge.
Despite what MartinG reads on WUWT, within the peer community of climate scientists, the debate over whether AGW is happening, what the causes are, and what the consequences are likely to be, was over by the early 1990s. The discussion may have gotten downright vituperative at times, but rigorously gathered evidence and careful analysis have led to an overwhelming consensus among scientists if not the lay public. For genuine skeptics who are just starting to pay attention, the consensus is concisely laid out in Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, a 36-page booklet published jointly by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of the U.K., free to download at the link.
With the debate over among scientists, policy responses to AGW are now in the hands of politicians. A seasoned politician knows (in the privacy of her own thoughts, at least) that a polite liar is still lying, and that some sources of information are more trustworthy than others. We should be reassured that the U.S. Congress can consult the NAS, formed in 1865 expressly to advise the nation on scientific matters, because if the NAS isn't trustworthy, no-one is. And when representatives of the NAS speak in their official capacity, they at least are careful to be polite.
Nevertheless, 163 members of the 113th Congress have made statements explicitly denying either that AGW is happening, or that humans are responsible. The reasons for that have everything to do with the money invested by fossil-fuel interests in lobbying and public relations. Complaints that scientists respond impolitely to persistent AGW-denial memes are just a distraction from the man behind the curtain.
-
michael sweet at 02:59 AM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
Jetfuel,
Here is a better thread for you to post on. It is on the topic of sea level rise. Current projections are around 0.5-1 meter by 2100. This is a combination of ice melt and thermal expansion. Ice melt on Greenland has accelerated substantially since 2008. It is currently estimated at 0.5 mm/yr and accelerating.
-
Timothy Chase at 01:34 AM on 5 May 2014Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
Kevin Cowan's video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk
... is private. However, it gets used on at least the two following pages:
http://skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htmYou can see the image that indicates what the video is about, but when you press play the message "This video is private" appears against a dark snowy background.
Please feel free to delete my comment once this issue is fixed.
-
jetfuel at 00:21 AM on 5 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
"2003 and 2008, reports an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers (47 cu mi) per year.[8] These measurements came from the US space agency's GRACE" Wikipedia. They go on to say that most of the melt is at coastal glaciers. Again, .6% of Greenland's total ice in the next 86 years at 48 cu mile per year. The Great lakes added about 10 cubic miles of water level increase this past year. Right now, all that Great Lakes water is still 35% ice covered.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please provide the sources of the data you have cited.
-
Mich at 23:36 PM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Hi John,
I wrote about the EEG (green energy law) of Germany and the related problems.
Today in an ecologic TV-show (Planet E) they discuss about the problems with wind energy destroying important eco-systems (woods).
Here is the link:
http://planete.zdf.de/planet-e/planet-e.-6019322.html
I hope it's ok to post links here.
I guess that 99% of the german and european population want green energy. But we need to think before we act. We had the problems with bio-fuel and now with wind energy. Probably german nukes will not be shut down as planned. But we all hope to find a better way.
Nothing is just black or white. We don't have the same political bias as in the US. But above all in Germany there live very agressive "eco-fighters". When 99% of the population want a cleaner world, fighting is not the solution imho.
Best regards
Mich (and sorry for the extra spaces)
-
Marcin Popkiewicz at 23:31 PM on 4 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
Thank you for comments!
I've fixed the download links.
We are (unfortunately slowly, due to the lack of funds and parallel work on other projects) working on a new version of the calculator, with improved interface (including adaptation to various high and low resolutions), updated data, improved algorithms, more options, calculation of energy and fuels consumption and more. If you have any suggestions, remarks etc. please contact me: marcin.popkiewicz@ziemianarozdrozu.pl
-
jetfuel at 23:31 PM on 4 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18B
What is the ice sheet that is melting that is causing sea level rise? It takes 2285 cubic miles of melt (over and above the replenish rate due to snow, lake level rise, lake freeze, and river freeze) for the sea level to rise one inch. Even at 150 cu miles per year that a SS video says is happening recently, that is 15.23 years without any replenishment. Being realistic, counting 2014 as a net gain in ice, etc, that is maybe only an inch in the rest of my lifetime. So there you have it. "Apex of carbon dioxide"
Moderator Response:[JH] Please provide the sources of the data you have cited. Also, please use the acronym "SkS" for Skeptical Science. Finally, please read and adhere to the SkS Comments Policy when composing future posts.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:59 PM on 4 May 2014Past and Future CO2
What is also striking in Fig 1 is just how wide the confidence intervals aren't!
That CO2 Weathering thermostat surely is a really useful thing to have around. Real neat if you like having a planet with life on it.
-
grindupBaker at 12:50 PM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
mancan18 #4 synthetic oil can be manufactured from coal at a ratio of 1:3.
-
grindupBaker at 12:04 PM on 4 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
We had a 6'4" 250# road cyclist in the Toronto group and he says he bought Carnac carbon road shoes so he has a huge carbon footprint. I'm at 20.06t on this so I'm average yet again. It don't quite understand my methods but I like its suggestion I get somebody else to shower with me (if I'm understanding that right).
-
mbryson at 11:31 AM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Just to return to the main topic, the phenomenon of polarization provides a nice extension of the metaphor of "quantum denial". Consider a beam of randomly polarized light striking filter 1, which passes only horizontally polarized light. If we then apply to the light that passes filter 1) a filter (2) that passes only vertically polarized light, no light at all will pass through. But if we then add a filter between 1 and 2 that passes light polarized at 45 degrees, some light actually passes through all three. Something like this seems to happen with deniers as well-- having entered the "it's not happening" state, they are often reluctant to shift to the "it's the sun" state immediately. But if we add an intermediary state (perhaps "CO2 absorption is saturated"), then "it's the sun" becomes comfortably available as a subsequent state. So contradicting yourself is fine, so long as there at least one intermediate statement occurs that isn't directly contradictory to either the starting statement or the final statement.
-
michael sweet at 09:17 AM on 4 May 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Typo: my previous post should say "warm the lower atmosphere and cool the stratosphere"
-
michael sweet at 09:15 AM on 4 May 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Old Engineer,
One of the basic predictions of Climate Theory is that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere and warm the stratosphere. The measurement of this effect is one of the long term successes of Climate Science. Your reference describes the absorption of a small amount of energy from a solar flare in the stratosphere that is then radiated back into space as was long ago predicted by Climate Theory.
Your source states at the end "Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed", acknowledging that this is the accepted effect.
If you read the "start here" button at the top of the page it will explain this and many other basics to you.
-
Old engineer at 08:28 AM on 4 May 2014Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
http://www.principia-scientific.org/Current-News/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
how does this square with what you have here?
-
Mich at 04:03 AM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Hi John,
Do you know the problems we have in Germany with "Erneuerbare Energien"(green energy)?
Electricity costs for consumers are rising. industrial companies that use a lot of electricity are being given more and more tax breaks.
Some people can no longer pay the price for electricity. Those problem are real in Germany.
Best regartds,
Mich
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive white space deleted.
-
geoffrey brooks at 03:57 AM on 4 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
One thing that is clear from a "self-evaluation", is the realization that US residents are doing more than their share to "burn up the world". At 24 average tons per US resident, one has to believe that a reduction of 10% can most easily be achieved by reducing the no. of Americans from 320 million to 290 million!
The key to achieving carbon reduction is population control, reducing the number of humans on this over-crowded planet.
Two major religions are against birth control, abortions, prefering to enhance the number of adherents within their flocks. American aid cant be used for disseminating birth control advice, devices and pills in the poorer parts of our planet.
Stabilizing the number and ultimately reducing humans on the planet is a necessity if we are to survive...
-
citizenschallenge at 03:04 AM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Another indefensible tactic of climate science denialists is using the label "CAGW" as some sort of bludgeon for ridiculing serious experts. I've put together a collection of the growing weather related catastrophies that are linked to an energized global climate system that I hope you don't mind me sharing.
Saturday, May 3, 2014Judith Curry's cynical game: "CAGW Memeplex"
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/05/currys-cynical-cagw-memeplex.html
-
MThompson at 00:04 AM on 4 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Oh, I get it. There are quantum states of denial, just as there are quantum states of gaseous CO2 vibration modes. Like a collection of CO2 molecules, with increasing pressure and temperature, these states can broaden into bands of denial. Even a single CO2 molecule can hold multiple vibration modes. In fact it must hold all of the possible modes … until the instant of observation!
-
chriskoz at 22:07 PM on 3 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
Recently released TED talk by Gavin Schmidt. You likely know what Gavin talks about there (cliiamte model skills). But worth watching just for the beautiful global animations supporting Gavin's points. Brilliant presentation!
-
Martin Lack at 19:47 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
#5 @chriskoz: I am glad you understood #1. However, even if people could have guessed what I meant to say, my second sentence is grammatically incomplete without the missing words. (But, hey, what does language and grammar matter?)
#7 @One Planet Only Forever: Thanks for clearing that up (I for one was very confused).
-
Dave123 at 16:05 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren- now why should anyone presume you've made a competenet interpretation of Curry or much of anything else. You don't respond to Glen's points. Do you somehow think you're setting an example of debating evidence....or that amateurs can't recognize when they're in over their heads?
Warren, you start in this frame with zero or negative personal credibility. Glen on the other hand is well established as a competent and accurate reader of the scientific literature. When you ignore his responses, repeat assertions you have no personal credibility to debate you're simply demonstrating to this audience and anyone else wandering by that your notion of debate is basically the drunken ravings at a frat kegger.
And Warren....it's also not really a debate when you're are so obviously enslaved by whatever you think Curry says, and demonstrate no independent critical thinking of your own, "why isn't curry right" isn't a debate,, although it could be part of one.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:40 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Doug @6,
I believe your comment is regarding MartinG's comment @38 on the earlier Quantum Theory story. And in that comment string, the part you quoted has been appropriately snipped by the moderator.
-
DavidSSS at 14:57 PM on 3 May 2014What’s your carbon footprint and where does it come from?
What got me was the impact of international air travel. Without that my emissions are very low. We have solar panels, no dishwasher, no dryer, no air conditioning and I ride a bike to work. But one international trip a year (I would average a bit less but I thought that was reasonable) from Melbourne which means a lot of hours in the air, means I'm getting towards the US average. It makes me wonder about what we need to do to reduce carbon emissions and how we should concentrate more on transport than electricity generation, especially international air transport.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:53 PM on 3 May 2014Past and Future CO2
Thanks chriskoz
I had thought of the increased weathering due to the formation of thr Himalayas but had not twigged to the increased outgassing due to subduction. That makes a lot of sense.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 14:48 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren
Reread my comment @22.
They didn't adjust one decade. The adjusted the entire record based on the impact of the ENSO system. Not just for La Nina's or just for El Nino's. The effect of this was a significant change in the later decade because that decade has been more strongly affected by La Nina's.
Judith Curry hasn't made a point. Judith Curry has presented some misrepresentation. Question is, when I have already pointed this out, why do not see that and change your view? Why persist in trying to argue using something that is an obvious piece of distortion?
-
Warren Hindmarsh at 14:12 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
chriskoz @31
The grammar I admit is a little obtuse but I think these quotes from
" The rate of sea-level rise" Anny Cazenave et al
"when corrected for an abundance of La Ninas, sea level rise from 2003-2011 is ‘adjusted’ to 3.3 mm/yr"
More than likely is referring to Adusting (for) the 2003-11 period's results than the earlier period however, that aside, the adjusted figures smoothed out the earlier decades's higher rate increase as well as increasing the later decade's lower inreases.
Judith's point is; if you adust the rate of the slow down for the past decade then why wasn't it done during the increases of the earlier decade? saving everyone a lot of angst.
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Doug Bostrom at 14:00 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Martin:
Get real - and join the scientific debate, which will never be a yes or no, but a series of scenarios probabilities and uncertainties which I personally believe 80% of the public would agree with if they were portrayed in a logical and balanced manner using all the evidence.
In other words, the IPCC process and reports.
I'll take Martin's words as an endorsement of the IPCC. To do otherwise would be disrespectful.
-
Dave123 at 13:47 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
One more point for Martin and Warren- the real debate is carried out in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not in blogs pages. Who is right about the jet stream- Frances or Trenberth? I don't know, but that's a real debate amoung people of high competence.
Your "debate"in the blogs of self-appointed amateurs- dens of incompetence and malice, it isn't really debate....it's propaganda in its own malign right.... your inability to tell the difference suggests mountains about you.
-
chriskoz at 13:10 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Martin Lack@2,
No need for correction, @1 is understandable without.
Thanks for the NYT archive. It's 16yold now but sadly, reads like it was published yesterday (just replace Clinton with Obama which is realy not much or a replacement), so US made absolute zero progress on AGW mitigation during that time. Especially the sentence:
A proposed media-relations budget of $600,000, [...], using as many as 20 ''respected climate scientists'' recruited expressly ''to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.' ''
is a stark reminder, that so called "climate skepticism" has ideological roots and has nothing to do with science.
-
mancan18 at 12:39 PM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
The article rightly points out that the climate denier/sceptic’s arguments in the media are not consistent. It also points out that their arguments are more ideological (and political) than scientific. When the arguments (ideological v. scientific) are compared side by side then it is much easier for someone who is just seeking information to believe the ideological (and conspiratorial and sensationalist) argument than the scientific argument. This is because understanding the scientific argument requires a certain level of scientific knowledge that they may not possess and they need to be sympathetic to the process of scientific reasoning. It is because of this that some sceptics/deniers tend to portray the "we have a problem" argument as something akin to a religion. As a result they dogmatically state that they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming. However, someone who advocates the "we have a problem" argument tends to do so from an actual scientific understanding of the issue, which is not in any way religious. So the debate is also between faith based ideology and reasoned and verifiable science.
As for expecting any positive action on climate change, don’t hold your breath. Historically, it has taken around 10 years to a generation for some new technological paradigm to infiltrate society. It took that long for cars, aeroplanes, jets and computer technology to become more widespread as prices reduced because the better off had something new to play with or could make some money. Unfortunately, action on climate change is not something trendy that the well off seem to want to embrace. It is just too easy to dig up and burn fossil fuels, and since it can also make a lot money, don’t expect anything to happen real soon. This is a bit worrying considering the simple math of dividing the known recoverable reserves of oil globally divided by the current global consumption rate (with all the CO2 that this implies) yields a figure of about 50 years. This simple fact alone questions the long term viability of operating aircraft and cars amongst other things. This means that a huge social change is coming and it will happen within the lifetime of our children even if the world doesn’t act on AGW and climate change by investing in newer less polluting technologies to reduce emissions.
-
Dave123 at 12:20 PM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin- As some privileged SkS members are aware, I've written professionally on the topic of backgrounds of groupmembers contributing to problem solving, an area of expertise added late in life. While mixtures of people with stong skills in their respective technical areas have been shown to be strongly associated with success (that is SkSs team) confederacies of dunces ala WUWT are not successful. The B school literature is pretty clear on this.
Yet another piece of "evidence" about why you and they have nothing at all to contribute to the world.
-
chriskoz at 11:55 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin@37,
Get real - and join the scientific debate, which will never be a yes or no, but a series of scenarios probabilities and uncertainties which I personally believe 80% of the public would agree with if they were portrayed in a logical and balanced manner using all the evidence. Then we might get some progress.
(my emphasis)
Emphasised part is your wishful thinking - contradiction of how the scientific understaning progresses over time, according to the inferential statistics. Said statistcs teach us that once the uncertainty of any theory falls below certain threshold (p-value, commonly 5%), the theory is confirmed as fact and move on. Further "debate" will not increase our understanding of the world but only create confusion. In fact too much debate can derail said understanding by introducing the additional uncertainty of skewed results from experiments setup incorrectly or biased interpretation by the contrarians.
In case of climate science here, when 97% of experts agree on the AGW and IPCC concluded AGW to be "unequivocal" (which translates to the 5% p-value above) there is no debate anymore, and any wishful thinkers like yourself who would like the "debate" to continue indefinitely, are not trying to improve our understanding of science but trying to confuse it. Such attitude will not create any "progress".
-
MichaelK at 10:54 AM on 3 May 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A
I agree with the article 'It is very likely scientists are confusing us...' from Chris Mooney. I just re-read the Summary for Policymakers from WG1 AR5. It is indeed heavy going with all the 'very likely', 'extremely likely', 'virtually certain' etc - 10 different ranges of probability in all. Then there are all the confidence level definitions to deal with. While such a summary is a necessary part of the IPCC reports, I suspect the take-away message gets confused and leaves it open to exploitation from deniers.
One of the few points from WG1 I heard reported in the main stream media was the attribution of climate change. That section (D.3) begins with 'Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere.....'. Is that the best lead in to this section? To me that implies something barely significant. That paragraph was ended with the statement that human influence was extremely likely to be the dominant cause of warming. This was reported along the lines that the IPCC were 95% confident of human causation, whereas the definition is 95 to 100%. A small point, but in terms of perception I feel the difference is significant.
Do IPCC reports need a 'Plain English' summary, with what is know/unknown (and the implications) expressed in terms that don't need definitions? I realize the IPCC have press releases but they still talk in much the same way. Something with more substance than a press release but still readily understandable would be nice. Something with impact, with IPCC endorsement, that you could give to your neighbour .
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
Another indefensible tactic of the likes of Lomborg is attempting to justify today's generation of fortunate people benefiting from the creation of problems for future generations by financial evaluations showing that the "net effect is almost balanced".
Lomborg and others calculate what they beleive would be the "cost of lost benefit by today's most fortunate reducing their benefits obtained from burning of fossil fuels" against what they believe would be the "costs faced by future generation due to the impacts of today's burning up of the non-renewable resource". They can easily overestimate and underestimate this evaluation to suit their motivation. And they never require the group today that is benefiting to be the ones to spend the required money to address the future costs they create the need for.
They also do a "trick" called "Net-present-value" adjustments to reduce the cost of future troubles compared to their current day costs. Though a net-present-value evaluation can be sensible when a person is deciding what personal action they will take when they face the future consequences, it is not sensible, or decent, to do when different people are on the benefit and consequence side.
Now reflect on what they are really doing. They are trying to say it is OK for them and others like them to benefit as long as the troubles they think they create for others are less severe than the benefit they think they would lose out on if they didn't create those trouble others have to deal with. It is like saying it is OK for me to make $100 as long as I think that the harm I do to you is less than $100, and you have absolutely no say in what I choose to do or how I figure out what is fair and balanced.
What they also do is restrict the evaluation to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. There are many other harmful impacts of burning fossil fuels they "leave out of their evaluation" because they will claim they are just "evaluating" the climate science issue. The full facts of the matter need to be evaluated including all the other impacts from activities related to burning fossil fuels. And the fact that benefiting from burning fossil fuels is a limited opportunity that people have already been fighting over for decades needs to be included in the evaluation of what is going and waht changes are required.
All things considered, all of the most fortunate have to adapt to life without benefiting from burning of fossil fuels, and help the less fortunate deveop to that sustainable better future for all. Allowing any of the already fortunate to have the potential advantage of benefiting from unsustainable and damaging actions is "Unsustainable and Damaging".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:16 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin G, Nothing you have presented contradicts my assertion that the critics of the best understanding of the climate science simply dislike the potential diminished personal opportunity to benefit from the unsustainable and damaging burning of fossil fuels.
Pointing out the scientific indequacy of their hoped to be popular criticisms is an endless activity, because the critics are so motivated by their desire to find any way of keeping public opinion with them. They have absolutely no interest in the development of the best understanding. And that is proven by the fact that they do not admit when the implausibility of their claims are conclusively presented. They claim unfair dismissive treatment and try to come up with a new one (and continue to repeat the already proven to be implausible claims). All they accomplish is the maintenance of popular support from like-minded people (something that is as unsustainable as the harmful activities they want to get away with benefiting from).
-
Dave123 at 06:41 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
More howlers Martin. You've haven't touched this issue that your alleged diversity of points of view is a diversity of incompetence, You only imagine a debate exists and that convincing people like yourself would have any impact.
Martin-put the shoe on the other foot for one moment- why should anyone with my level of scientific expertise and global reputation be persuaded by your assertions, your interpretations, your fourth hand expertise, What I see reading SkS is people who really read, test and understand the scientific literature. And I see evidence all over the place that be it the consensus project, Lewandowski's determination of conspiratorialist associations, publications refuting erroneous publications, Cowtan and Way- in fact SkS has matured into a goto organization for scientific information.
Martin, I'm not arguing from authority here....I'm merely pointing out that you and your fellow travelers don't have the chops to mess with me over evidence,...and when confronted you simply dismiss what you don't like.
You would like to make it the case that I and the vast majority somehow have to prove things to the willfully ignorant. Sorry Martin, the burden is on you to earn a place at the table. You're not entitled to one, and the diversity of incompetence and malice that is WUWT has no place in civilized society.
Martin I do track the effectiveness of the memes I launch into the world. they're sticking. I know the change I'm making by my presence in those fora. But wasting my time with the self-important imposters at WUWT... do consider the possibility that I'm way, way smarter than you and can't be tricked into lending my legitimacy to them or you in the form of what you misunderstand to be debate.
Same question for you Martin, what have you changed your mind about in climate science based on the evidence. Betcha can't name one.
And Martin it's not temerty on my part....my arrogance is earned. Your sense of privilege isn't.
-
MartinG at 06:20 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Very funny Dave, and after you have wrecked your keyboard you might like to re read the main article, which details the "deniers" of having shifting opinions which often are contradictory (a diversity of points of view - as you yourself put it).
(-snip-).
Then we might get some progress.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped.
-
Dave123 at 04:08 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Martin- I very nearly wrecked my keyboard snorting at your unintentioned howler about WUWT having a diversity of points of view.
If I were to kidnap 100 random scientists from the next AAAS meeting, I would not find people who didn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, who would dispute the possibility of obtaining a global average surface temperature measurement, measure the pH and temperature of the ocean, the incoming radition from the sun, that conservation of matter and energy apply to everything, all subjetcs of a "diversity" of thinking from the crowd of amateurs, dismissives and envious at WUWT. In other words there will a near universal understanding of the workings of the basic physical universe in a random grab sample from AAAS members.
Your sense of entitlement is precious Martin, but not useful.
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:52 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Characterizing a group of people some of whom can't add, some who cannot divide and others who are unable to subtract as collectively "unskilled with arithmetic" is not an ugly portrayal but simply an observation, and a way of referring to these people for the purposes of discussion.
The population in contradiction with facts and evidence on climate change is itself an interesting phenomenon, a topic of research. In his article above, John Cook referred to people professing to be climate skeptics as "nonsensical," the most direct and least euphemistic term in the piece. John's piece seems light-hearted but nonsense in this case is indeed a phenomonen of interest. It's rare to see so many people behaving nonsensically about the same topic.
Warren, what would you suggest as a neutral descriptor for people firmly attached to a counter-factual worldview and who share in common a myriad of incorrect alternatives as a substitute?
-
Ridley at 02:55 AM on 3 May 2014CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused
Oh Dear......
1) http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
2) http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Carbon-Isotopes-Prove-Humans-Have-Caused-Global-Warming.html
3) or maybe it is greed: http://www.the-one-project.net/survival_of_human_beings_and_the_danger_of_economic_growth.htm
-
Martin Lack at 01:44 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
My apologies, line 1in #1shoud read as follows:
"...for bringing into sharp focus the..."
-
Martin Lack at 01:41 AM on 3 May 2014The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
I love this. Congratulations to John for bringing the intellectual incoherence of so much circular argumentation and tactical avoidance deployed by the vast majority of climate change 'contrarians': Those who so stubbornly refuse to recognise that they have been duped by the 'astroturfing' of the fossil fuel lobby, itself a strategy developed by the tobacco industry, which has been a matter of public record since at least 1998.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_(1998)
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html
-
Dave123 at 00:28 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren,
I'm puzzled. I've stated a that I have no interest in "debating" because it's not a useful tactic in motivating the public towards change. There is nothing to be gained by trying to show people evidence, especially when they make it clear that they don't understand the evidence in the first place, and regard the whole climate science enterprize as a fraud. Since the disrespect for the scientific community is so high at WUWT...one can't use them as an example of much of anything but amateurs with chips on their shoulders. A waste of time. A tiny group of people with increasingly less visbility and voice,. I suggest you monitor the comments about Spencer's recent lists and honestly asked yourself if 90% of those commenters could ever change their minds no matter what evidence was presented to them.
Warren, for that matter, as a token of good faith, can you describe anything in climate science where you've been shown evidence and changed your mind? I'll make a wager that in fact you'll not be able to state one.
But moving on- if debating climate change deniers is as futile an enterprize as trying to debate a creationist such as the unlamented late Duane Gish (I could, but that's a skills issue), what is the objective of what I do? First, providing evidence and reasoning for those with truly open minds is worthwhile. If that happens in the course responding to the assertions made by deniers so be it.
The real objective is to provide a good cooperative shove as deniers marginalize themselves- Hence the Cliven Bundy example. Bundy had sympathy while he kept his mouth shut about blacks being happier as slaves. Crossing that red-line vitiated any platform Bundy otherwise had for his treasonous, seditious views and his theft from the US government. Debate Bundy on "government overeach"....never. Shun him for racism...perfect. And that is why the Lewandowsky papers are important. Demonatrating the climate change deniers believe 5 other lunatic fringe ideas before breakfast is good way to demonstrate to the public that those views are marginal. Most people have their crazy uncle who bores them at family gatherings with his wearisome talks of conspiracies. The evidence is there (remember "evidence") that a good fraction of the climate change denial industry overlaps with the various conspiracy theorys. Making sure everyone knows this is good tactics, and why it scares the WUWT so much....deep down they know who they are and what they believe and that the shoe fits.
Here's a good example of successful marginalization: the NIPPCC. This puppet group of the HeartLand Institute had a press conference a few days ago to oppose the release of IPCC reports with their own....and no one came.
Now Warren, you made a few assertions... none of which you've backed up. Why don't you try:
You asserted there is a debate. Sez who?
You have asserted that even accurate personal characterizations are a weak tactic. Sez who. Can you provide any evidence to back that up? You see, US political campaigns show "going negative" is in fact effective. So you have some evidence...or is this just you expressing yet another opinion, and your entitlement to express the opinion without evidence?
You've also asserted, indirectly, that persuading you or the denizens of Wattsopia is useful. You've made no case why it's useful. I suggest that as much as practicle leaving them to stew in their own juices is the most appropriate response.
-
vrooomie at 00:16 AM on 3 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Rob Honeycutt sez.."See! Look, there's a blimp now!"
You mean...the *Goodrich* blimp?
:D
-
MartinG at 23:11 PM on 2 May 2014The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial
Warren
Well done for your input. Its a logical conclusion which will appeal to everyone with an interest in the scientific method, and in uncovering the facts. Of course a site like WUWT will have many differing opinions if it allows a free and open debate. I don’t think theres a “party line” there which you have to adhere to get space. So its not WUWT writing, its whoever the author is. Natural science, and especially predictions of future behavior is not an exact study, and uncertainties will have to be handled with probabilistic scenarios, some of which will be mutually exclusive. Nothing wrong with that – its normal scientific procedure. We only get in trouble when we make a “party line” on this subject, and furthermore begin to brand those who do not tow the party line as members of another “party” with an imagined equally strict party line – and thereafter loose the dogs on them. I agree that any sensible and thoughtful person trying to assess whats happening in the climate blogosphere will be negatively influenced by abuse, and positively influenced by evidence. If the case is strong then the evidence will win the case. Abuse tastes of a coverup of a weak argument and should be avoided.
Prev 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 Next
