Recent Comments

Prev  730  731  732  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  Next

Comments 36851 to 36900:

36851. Dikran Marsupial at 17:43 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren, the claim that the Arctic may be ice free by 2013 was made by one (1) scientist, the IPCC reports (and the majority of Arctic sea ice scientists) did not agree with that projection.  So what you are doing is cherry picking headlines and not bothering to check whether they were actually in accordance with the mainstream scientific position. 

       Here is a hint, if you think some climate change claim is alarmist, try looking to see what the IPCC reports say about it.

36852. Sapient Fridge at 17:38 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren might be interested to know that this is the first year I can remember that it didn't snow at all over winter in my part of England (Cambridge, just North of London).   We had about 5 frosty mornings, but no snow.

       
       Not proof of anything of course, but still an interesting data point.

36853. Dikran Marsupial at 17:36 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren Hindmarsh wrote "Dikran and Composer99 You seem to be concerned that "about 0.75C" global temperature rise in 100 years is "something to be concerned about" and "quite possibly unique" evidence like this or this or this may help."

       So I point you to the IPCC reports (which describe the work of many thousands of scientists) and your only comment on it is to post links to three rather questionable (see Glen's post above) pictures from Jo Nova's website? 

       It seems to me that you have paid no attention whatsoever to the answer I gave to your question, which makes me wonder what you had in mind when you asked it.  I suspect the answer is that you are just trolling.

36854. Dave123 at 17:25 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren, I'd like to have said I was astonished by your reply, but I found it sadly predictable.

       I still believe these are great outcomes but the increasingly outlandish claims of 9m sealevel rise and 6c temp rise by the end of the century and the increasingly absolute belief systems of the AGW lobby (Mann's flawed hockey stick graph, climate gate, It won't snow in London again, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013, etc.etc.) caused me to adopt a contrarian and skeptical view.

        

       As others have noted, the moment you added the "C" to AGW you betrayed a propagandistic stance towards matters.  Adding the 'catastrophic' to AGW was simply a branding tactic by a political opposition that had no basis in published work.  Your use suggests either you don't know manipulation and propaganda when you see it, or that you are willfully interested in propogating a false meme.  Which is it?

       Moving on to the hockey stick, I'm not sure what your apparent concession to TonyW means, but in any case you've not made it clear what you think the importance of the hockey stick is.   Again, this is a dismissive stance, that isn't about understanding but about something else entirely.  To be blunt: do you recognize that Mann's original 1998 work has been replicated and extended by other groups using other proxies and statistical methods?  If not, in terms of this debate you're talking about, I and many others here are far more technically competent than you to evaluate the claims and methods:  what hope do you have of persuading us?  Referring to JoNova?  Part of the issue Warren, is that you have to have the technical chops to know when a McIntyre or Nova is simply wrong.  If you don't have those skills, like I do, then you can't be a skeptic... you're simply a bystander to something you don't understand.

       Moving on then to the disappearance of Artic sea ice in summer, you surely know that one group reported results of 2013-2019.  It's one group, reporting a preliminary result, not a consensus opinion and you distort it when you aren't sayig 2016+/- 3 years.  It is a perfectly normal and expected part of science for someone to publish a finding of this sort "hey, we tried a new approach and it gave these interesting results".  The whole point of this is so that other people can look at the approach, see if they think it is correct.  You don't seem to register this part of normal science and instead seem to be taking a legalistic approach of constructing an advocacy case- an approach with no obligation to consider the findings as a whole.  So if this is the sort of debate you think is productive, you've probably signed your death warrant as far as being seen as someone who a scientist can have a productive discussion with.

       I think the same applies to the "no snow in London" business.  AFAIK that was one remark, not published paper, and the modeling results for the UK tend to show the kind of winter England just had.  And again it seems that you have a barrister's approach to things- finding one little thing and stripping it of context.

       This is what the UK Met office shows these days.  Why is it not the story rather than whatever the no snow in London story?

       So when you say "increasingly outlandish claims" say for sea level, you ignore the mainstream projections, and take some sort of odd umbrage that outliers in the scientific work exist.

       Beyond that you give the appearance of advocating some sort of censorship of worst case assessments.  Kerry Emmanual, of MIT (where I got my doctorate) makes a strong case for the importance of including the long tail risks, because leaving them out would be misleading.  On my own authority and training (industrial process safety and hazards analysis) I think he's quite right.  In my reports to management I certainly included the long tail risks and mitigation strategies.

       In toto, I don't think you've provided an example of facts changing your mind, rather you've provided examples of how you get lost in the whole business and can't see the forest from the trees.  It certainly doesn't give me any warm feelings on the possibility of rational interchange with the WUWT and JoNova factories, and even further ignores whether these folks or you really matter anyhow. 

       Moderator Response:

       [PW] Unnecessary white space removed.

36855. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:53 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren

       Regarding your links - all generated by CO2Science or JoNoova by the way, not links to the actual data sources or papers - you might find these things interesting

       Your first link is for ice core data from Greenland. Not the globe. We can't assess the globe from data from just one location.

       Here is your image, taken from JoNova. Here is the paper by Richard Alley that the graph is based on. Firstly this graph does not appear in Alley's paper. You can get the actual data here. Notably the data ends in 1905. So most of the warming we are disscussing here isn't included on the graph. And this is Greenland so we can't just add what the global temperature change has been since warming is greater in the Arctic. Here is the record for one station in Greenland that is continuous since the start of the 20th century. Around 2.5 Deg C of warming. So that would possibly put temperatures at Greenland today back to the levels labelled Minoan Warming

        

       

       \Next look at this graph - I even obtained it from a skeptic website. Vostoc Ice Core data from Antarctica for a similar period. And there are spikes labelled with the same 'warm period' names.

       N

       Notice the difference between the two graphs. Your graph shows Medieval Warming as a spike around 1050 while the Antarctic data shows a narrow spike around 1550. 1050 was actually quite cool in the Antarctic. The Roman warming was a narrow spike around 100 BC in Greenland but a narrow spike around 350 BC in Antarctica. The Minoan period was around 1300 C in Greenland but around 1700 BC in Antarctica. Is there seems to be a bit of a problem with dates here Warren? No, just with the assumption that we can use one location to tell us what was happening over the entire planet.

36856. Warren Hindmarsh at 16:33 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       TonyW I will give you the "Hockey Stick" but you still have to give me "Ice free Arctic" "it won't snow in London" and we will just wait on the upcoming court case on the "Hockey Stick" 

36857. TonyW at 16:11 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       I think we can determine Warren's line of "reasoning" when he bring up long debunked ideas like the supposed flawed hockey stick, which has been confirmed in numerous other studies.
36858. Warren Hindmarsh at 15:56 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Tom Curtis thank you for the comment your "evidence" is a model using only CO2 and sunlight and a host of assumptions concluding with the possibility of the extermination of just about all life on the planet. The alarmism is about as absolute as you can get but to rest your concern most of the models have been wrong, I admit the jury is still out, the warming will come back, CO2 is a green house gas but at alarmist rates? lets follow the evidence.

36859. Warren Hindmarsh at 15:14 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Dave123 You asked where I have changed  my mind and I have to be careful here because the last few comments have been way off topic of this post which is about the link of set beliefs and AGW denial.

       Any way, yes I did follow the warming debate and you could probably say I was a strong supporter of alarming warming during the 90's. I considered it had a lot of credibility after all, no matter what the case, to cut CO2 emissions pollution and promote renewable energy are all great outcomes. 

       I still believe these are great outcomes but the increasingly outlandish claims of 9m sealevel rise and 6c temp rise by the end of the century and the increasingly absolute belief systems of the AGW lobby (Mann's flawed hockey stick graph, climate gate, It won't snow in London again, the Arctic will be ice free by 2013, etc.etc.) caused me to adopt a contrarian and skeptical view.

       In other words with each global warming claim now I go and check the fact, it's not that difficult these days.

       Contrary to the above post I consider a skeptical inquiring mind as a strength.  I recommend it.

36860. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:46 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Dikran and Composer99 You seem to be concerned that "about 0.75C" global temperature rise in 100 years is "something to be concerned about" and "quite possibly unique" evidence like this or this or this may help.

36861. Composer99 at 13:18 PM on 7 May 2014
       Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer
       

       peter @50:

       10,000 years is not exactly "short term".

       Further, the behaviour of stocks and commodities and the behaviour of ice cores as a proxy for local temperatures are rather different, for what I hope are rather obvious reasons. If you are trying to make a claim about ice cores based on stock or commodity charts, you are doing it wrong.

       So, you're going to need to provide citations - to papers regarding the Greenland ice cores, not to papers discussing equity markets - to support your assertions.

36862. Composer99 at 13:06 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       Warren @21:

       A 5-6°C drop in temperature would mean very little in our day-to-day experience. Maybe the difference between t-shirt and long-sleeve shirt weather on a sunny day.

       But a similar drop in global mean temperature means mile-high ice sheets covering large chunks of the Northern Hemisphere, as was observed during previous glacial periods.

       Cooling or warming, small numbers at the global scale lead to big changes.

       So, yes, a 0.74°C rise in global mean temperature over the 20th century is something to be concerned about. In fact, a 0.74°C change in global mean temperature over 100 years is quite possibly unique in the geological history of the Earth over the Phanerozoic, save for the most violent of geological upheavals.

36863. chriskoz at 12:53 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       A typo in my post@24. The "vaccination effects is always inferred" should read as "vaccination effects is often inferred".

36864. chriskoz at 12:50 PM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36865. Dave123 at 11:46 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36866. Tom Curtis at 11:35 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.  

36867. Terranova at 10:40 AM on 7 May 2014
       The 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."

        

36868. Warren Hindmarsh at 10:30 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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?

36869. mancan18 at 10:13 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36870. Warren Hindmarsh at 10:07 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       moderator: sorry neve never

36871. Warren Hindmarsh at 10:03 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36872. peter10486 at 10:03 AM on 7 May 2014
       Most 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.

        

36873. Bob Loblaw at 09:45 AM on 7 May 2014
       IPCC 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. Wigley

       As 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. 

36874. Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36875. Alexandre at 08:43 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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.

36876. KR at 06:59 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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. 

36877. Andy Skuce at 06:49 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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. 

36878. shoyemore at 05:30 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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.

        

36879. Composer99 at 03:59 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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.

36880. BWTrainer at 02:50 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
       

       How is this man still employed at the university level?

36881. Rob Honeycutt at 02:07 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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.

36882. John Hartz at 01:41 AM on 7 May 2014
       2014 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.

36883. Doug Bostrom at 01:22 AM on 7 May 2014
       Answers 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.

36884. Dikran Marsupial at 01:21 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36885. John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 7 May 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #18
       

       White House Hangout: Commitment to #ActOnClimate

       Phil Larson
       May 06, 2014
       10:58 AM EDT

       Today, 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.
       
       

36886. John Hartz at 01:00 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36887. Composer99 at 00:43 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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).

36888. John Hartz at 00:16 AM on 7 May 2014
       Brandis 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". 

36889. Composer99 at 23:28 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36890. Warren Hindmarsh at 21:32 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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. 

36891. adamski5807 at 21:10 PM on 6 May 2014
       Palmer 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

36892. Dikran Marsupial at 20:22 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36893. Warren Hindmarsh at 19:15 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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.

36894. carbtheory at 19:01 PM on 6 May 2014
       The Australian quantum theory of climate denial
       

       @ 16, those numbers could almost support a psychological profile of some sort.

36895. Dumb Scientist at 16:28 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
       

       A few dozen other parallels.

36896. Tom Curtis at 14:57 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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).

36897. Rob Painting at 14:57 PM on 6 May 2014
       Past 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!

36898. Warren Hindmarsh at 14:31 PM on 6 May 2014
       Brandis 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" 

36899. Michael Whittemore at 13:38 PM on 6 May 2014
       2014 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.

36900. tcflood at 13:18 PM on 6 May 2014
       Toward 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? 

Prev  730  731  732  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  Next