Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 Next
Comments 38001 to 38050:
-
Tom Dayton at 06:15 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: A caveat about the theory evaluation explanation I just gave you. Note that the term "disprove" in the first paragraph there is in quotes. That's important, because science does not really disprove nor prove anything, per Tom Curtis's comment above. It really all comes down to subjective probability, eventually.
Often people say "proof is for math, not science." But even math does not have absolute proof, because mathematicians can make mistakes. Otherwise there would be no "proofs" disproving other "proofs." -
Tom Dayton at 06:10 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: Following up on Michael Sweet's reply, I suggest you research "theory evaluation." Here is one of a great many excellent explanations. I found this one at the top of my Google search results page just now: http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/theoryeval.html
-
michael sweet at 05:32 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Panicbusiness,
I noticed that you skipped the content of the first two paragraph of the link you have. The theory of AGW meets all the descriptions in your link, including the falsifiability provision.
I listed 5 falsifiable predictions of AGW in my post above. Several other posters have either listed what you need to show or linked to other sites which list a variety of additional experiments you can do to show your point. It is not really our responsibility to repost these links every time a new person appears who does not want to read the posts already on this thread.
When scientists have been working on a theory for 180 years, they solve most of the problems with the theory. This has happened with the theory of AGW. All the major issues were addressed 50-150 years ago. The falsibility tests have been done and the theory has correctly predicted what would be measured in the new experiments. AGW has stood the test of time. Deniers do not want to acknowledge these results so they claim that is impossible to falsify the theory.
You are correct in one way though: it is impossible to falsify a theory that is correct.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:10 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
no, IIRC it was blank at that time as well.
-
John Hartz at 05:05 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dikran:
Was there an OP posted when you commented on Jan 24?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:44 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, Please read the comments policy; your previous post is in contravention of the comments policy in a number of respects: (1) sloganeering - you are just repeating a point that has already been addressed by Tom (2) accusation of dishonesty: (3) inflamatory tone. I suspect if you continue in this way, your posts will soon attract the attention of the moderators (I would already have taken action if not for the fact I have already participated in the discussion).
DNFTT.
-
Phil at 03:38 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
SteveS @14 no I don't see an article either !
Here <sarc>is the proof that Einsteins general theory of relativity is unfalsifiable. Why don't "skeptics" complain about that too ? </sarc>
-
PanicBusiness at 03:36 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
@Tom Dayton, @Composer99, @JH and others. It is a pleasure to introduce you to the scientific method.
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.1
Now, I am not claiming that the current widespread AGW belief system cannot be formulated in a scientific manner, quite on the contrary I urge the AGW/CAGW community to commit themselves to do so.
In particular, as the AGW belief system happens to be strongly tied to devastating2 political regulations3, I further urge the community to propose experimets that could potentially exclude models and theories with high climate sensitivity i.e. higher than, say 1.5°C.
In science, scientists are actively looking for experiments that would potentially falsify their theories and they proudly announce if they find such. Because this makes their theories scientific. Yet the vast majority of commenters here attempt to bend the definition of science to make "climate science" a better fit.
Again, I urge the AGW community to stop this dishonest behavior and start discussing potential ways to falsify AGW/CAGW theories and announce it when they reach a "consensus". Until then you not only cannot assert that AGW/CAGW is settled science, you can not even assert that it is science.
-
SteveS at 03:23 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Is there supposed to be an actual article associated with this? All I can see is the Myth (Global warming theory isn't falsifiable) followed immediately by the comments. I see the same thing on an iPhone, an iPad, and an iMac (using both Safari and Firefox). I don't notice this on other posts. Don't get me wrong: the comments have been very interesting, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something (and why that might be).
Moderator Response:[SkS] The author team is looking into this matter.
-
climatelurker at 03:09 AM on 2 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
These 3 blogs have been very fascinating reads. It's opened my eyes about SQL vulnerabilities (I'm no expert but learning every day), and the fact that you're able to track this guy's every step is really interesting too. Thank you for sharing this story, and I also think it's a very Important story that lots of people need to see. Opens up the black box that is hacking, and knowledge is power, power to protect ourselves from creeps like this.
-
dana1981 at 03:03 AM on 2 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Sheesh Martin @12! First of all this isn't 'my mantra', this is the result of Skeptical Science Cook et al. (2013) study. I repeat the result a lot because...well, for the reasons I explained in the above post!
I agree we should be debating what to do about it (policy), and have said so many times. But we're not, in large part because of the consensus gap. Just look at the BBC and all these other media examples - they're still 'debating' science instead of policy.
Then you say the BBC shouldn't have one-sided arguments. On climate science? When the debate is between fact and fiction, yes, it should be "one-sided". Especially when the other side is comprised of political ideologues.
I'll close with a quote from Frank Luntz.
"there's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time."
-
Tom Curtis at 02:35 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
In answer to the moderator inline @9, Karl Popper did, or at least something very like it. In fact, he wrote:
"According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival."
(Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 20)
The odd thing is that a great deal of science was done before Popper published that "definition" of science in 1959. Some of the very best of that science (the development of heliocentrism, of Newton's laws of motion and graviation, of the principle of conservation of energy) was done by methods which do not meet the imprimature of Popper's methods. Either what the great scientists of the ages has been doing was not, after all, science - or Popper was wrong.
However, even if Popper was right, that would not justify the naive methodological falsificationism to which PanicBusiness appeals. As Popper writes:
"Every test of a theory, whether resulting in its corroboration or falsification, must stop at some basic statement or other which we decide to accept. If we do not come to any decision, and do not accept some basic statement or other, then the test will have led nowhere. But considered from a logical point of view, the situation is never such that it compels us to stop at this particular basic statement rather than at that, or else give up the test altogether. For any basic statement can again in its turn be subjected to tests, using as a touchstone any of the basic statements which can be deduced from it with the help of some theory, either the one under test, or another. This procedure has no natural end. Thus if the test is to lead us anywhere, nothing remains but to stop at some point or other and say that we are satisfied, for the time being."
(Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 86, my emphasis)
That may be a bit obscure to people unused to the philsophy of science, but what Popper is saying is that when we have a purported falsifying instance (ie, the "basic sentences" mentioned in this passage), the truth or otherwise of that sentence can also be called into question. And if called into question, it can be tested and potentially falsified. (This is just the Duhem-Quine thesis in a different guise.)
The obvious question then becomes, what happens to your falsification if the basic sentence which falsified the theory is itself falsified?
Regardless of how we answer that question, Popper is very clear that the acceptance that a basic sentence falsifies a theory is a matter of pragmatic convention. Clearly that convention must be heavilly influenced by empirical facts, and Popper specifies certain methodological conventions to ensure that this is so. Those conventions cannot be determinative, however. They must always leave room for essentially subjective choice. If they did not, then Popper would be claiming to have solved Hume's problem of induction, something he was certain could not be solved, and which his theory was intended to side step be developing a science without induction.
The consequence is that a truly Popperian science would proceed much as I described @7. So, PanicBusiness has not only mistaken Popperian science for naive falsificationist science, and but he(?) has mistaken a statement of how Popperian science must, logically proceed as a rejection of Popper.
-
michael sweet at 02:03 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #9A
A new report from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Science is more readable than the IPCC report. It starts with 20 FAQ's about climate change. It looks like a good starting reference for climate science.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:03 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Mod inline @79, I assume he means data produced from a climate model, eg, model derived climate sensitivity estimates.
Full response to Russ @78 and @79 tomorrow.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:00 AM on 2 March 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
Jonathon Swift @109, the conversion to differences between centigrade and fahrenheight is accomplished simply by multiplying by 1.8. You only add 32 if you are comparing absolute values, and need to account for the difference in the zero point (ie, the temperature at which ice melts, or -17.8 C degrees.
This would be plainer if instead of saying "approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler", the OP had said that the Earth would have had a mean global surface temperature of approximately -18 C (ie, 33 degrees below the current value of approximately 15 C), or -0.4 F (59.4 F below the current value of approximately 59 F).
-
Jonathan Swift at 01:22 AM on 2 March 2014Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
"The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is." Don't misunderstand me---I do think that anthropogenic effects appears to be the dominant factor in global warming--but 33 Celsius is significantly warmer than 59.4 Fahrenheit. A bit over 90 degrees F, actually. Perhaps the author should take another look at his/her calculations.
-
Russ R. at 00:45 AM on 2 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #7
Tom Curtis @55,
Continuing with your points:
"Despite my heavy emphasis on observational estimates of ECS in my preceding post, many of which are paleo estimates (for which estimates of anthropogenic aerosol forcing, and thermal inertia are irrelevant), you again focus solely on computer models."
Can we agree on a few things:
- Observational data are preferable to modeled "data".
- Direct measurements more reliable than proxies.
- Longer data periods are preferable to shorter periods.
- Recent data are more relevant to current conditions than ancient data.
- Higher resolution data (both spatially and temporally) is better than lower resolution data.
If you agree with those, you might see why one might give some weight to a study using recent, higher resolution data, that doesn't rely on proxies, with the caveat that some of the data are modeled and the time period (decades) is relatively short.
Taking a step back, your objection to my referencing a peer-reviewed study by an assortment of well-credentialed climate scientists, and your argument that I should instead base my beliefs on other peer-reviewed scientific studies means only one thing... there is no scientific consensus on climate sensitivity. If there were a consensus, you wouldn't have needed to make an argument... the papers would have said effectively the same thing.
But let's look at what the IPCC AR5 says: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
The word "consensus" seems to be thrown around rather freely to mean whatever someone wants it to mean, but one thing it can't possibly mean is "a lack of agreement".
Moderator Response:[JH] Please explain what you mean by "modeled 'data' " and provide an example of such 'data'. Thank you.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 00:16 AM on 2 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness, as I showed at 2, AGW is a theory that is every bit as falsifiable as pretty much any science where designed experiments are not possible. The caveats that Tom gives are equally applicable to many other sciences. The idea that AGW is not falsifiable is an obvious canard, and you would do better by learning something about the philosopgy of science from Tom.
-
Russ R. at 22:52 PM on 1 March 2014Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
KR,
"Considering that the document in question was anonymously sent to Gleick in hard copy..."
Do you have any evidence to back that up apart from Peter Gleick's own account? He's hardly an objective source. Pardon me for being skeptical.
CBDunkerson,
"If it were provably faked, as you seem to assume, then I'd agree it shouldn't be linked..."
Okay. Then what would, in your opinion, constitute proof?
-
Composer99 at 19:42 PM on 1 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
IMO going on about falsifiability without any other support is just another tired rhetorical argument against the available evidence.
It's the philosophy-of-science version of "pounding the table" as per what I understand is a well-known joke among lawyers. (*)
(*) To whit:
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you don't have either the facts or the law on your side, pound the table. -
Tom Dayton at 15:27 PM on 1 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
PanicBusiness: You are incorrect that falsifiability is "the very definition of science." That is something you would know if you had gotten past introductory science classes in college. (It is sad that such fundamentals of science are inadequately taught at the introductory course level.) It happens that there is a recent and excellent post on falsifiability of anthropocentric global warming, by Hans Custers.
-
PanicBusiness at 14:27 PM on 1 March 2014Global warming theory isn't falsifiable
Dear @Tom Curtis,
Falsifiability may very well seem like a "strange concept of limited use" to an AGW believer, but nevertheless it happens to be the very definition of science. Be sure to note that you happen to be in an absolute minority in your way of looking for an alternative definition for science.Also I am pleased to learn that the AGW community is looking for ways to formulate the AGW theory in a (more) scientific manner, but I think it is very inappropriate for Mr Curtis to use ad hominem political classifications to those who happen to disagree with his beliefs. I read somewhere that these types of comments have no place on this site.
Moderator Response:[JH] You assert that falsibility "happens to be the very definition of science." Please document the source of your statement.
-
michael sweet at 13:41 PM on 1 March 2014Newcomers, Start Here
Radapo,
Welcome to Skeptical Science. The more you read the more you will find interesting. SkS is a good source because many people check the calculations.
My computer says 1 km3 is 1 billion m3 so the volume is 1.335 E18 m3 and the temperature rise is only .0353 degrees. This seems like a reasonable amount to me. Obviously some parts warm more than others.
-
radapo at 13:29 PM on 1 March 2014Newcomers, Start Here
I am new to climate change and find the Comments educational. I was struck by the graph of increase of heat stored on the earth and believe it is key to climate change. However, a quick calculation will show this graph must be in error. NOAA states the ocean's volume is 1.355 E9 cubic Kilometers. This is 1.355 E15 cubic meters and a mass of 1.355 E18 Kg. If you add 20 E22 joules to that mass of water is raises the temperature of the water 35.3 degrees C. (20 E22J=4168x1.335 E18 x change in T assuming a specific heat of 4168 joule/kg/degrees C). Errors in Specific Heat and Density tend to increase this number.
-
jyyh at 13:25 PM on 1 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
I can't believe sql-injection that sql-injection looks that easy to do. wouldn't it suffice to use some sort of special character, say '¤', that has little use elsewhere to initiate a computer command and automatically delete these everytime whe encountered in forms or querys? I understand there are more clever ways to get in a system, but could that sort of thing help or would it require changing the programming language or what?
Moderator Response:[BL] It's not that easy to do SQL injection (I offered a grossly oversimplified example), but it's also not that hard to block. I'm not sure what your strategy is supposed to do (or how it works), but the most basic solution is simply to "escape" quotation marks in a user supplied parameter. This makes the quote inside the WHERE clause mean "I want to find a quote" as opposed to meaning "this is the end of that part of the WHERE clause and the beginning of a new part."
Thus,
climate change’ UNION SELECT...
becomes
climate change\’ UNION SELECT...
and the computer looks for that whole thing. The UNION SELECT part is no longer part of the database command, and instead part of the "search string," and so has been rendered harmless.
It's really not hard to do. The vulnerability comes from all of the programmers who don't expect that sort of hack and so don't watch out for it (or other details not mentioned here), or else they make a mistake and fail to preprocess a parameter or two (you need to do it everywhere!), leaving the site vulnerable.
-
Maggnum at 09:55 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Frankly I am horrified at the nonsense Forbes is allowing into print. I have reached the opinion that they have no credibilty at all when it comes to issues of climate, and that has caused me to look with a jaundiced eye at everything they report on now.
I am fine with people expressing their opinions, but it seems the editorial board at Forbes has given up all pretence at objectivity and has become as non-scientific and biased as Fox News.
-
davidnewell at 09:14 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
I am a principal at a board, and thankfully not the IT person, as it is a PITA, with asshoules (french term) continuously mounting new exploits, just for the apparent hell of it.
This is a complex post, (the above) and a lot of work. I look forwrad to the denoument.
-
KR at 08:59 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Tom Dayton - Fascinating article, if only for the author bio:
Alex Epstein, an energy philosopher, debater, and communications consultant, is Founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress, head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign, and author of Fossil Fuels Improve the Planet, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: The Key to Winning Hearts and Minds,” and the forthcoming book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (Penguin/Portfolio, 2014).
Of course, there's no chance whatsoever that he might be biased against the science or anything... (/sarc)
On a more serious note, many conservative business oriented publications in the US like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal seem predisposed to printing disturbingly influential nonsense. Again, the science is a matter of facts and data, not opinion.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:44 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Here is yet another illustration of chriskoz's point: Yesterday's opinion piece in Forbes, denying the existence of an expert consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
-
chriskoz at 08:31 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
MartinG@12,
In case you've fogrotten, I suggest you refresh your understanding of 5 stages of climate denial.
A appriciate that you're past most (if not all) of the stages and you now think about mitigation and you're bored by "Dana's mantra".
However, please note that not all people are as fortunate as yourself with respect to the knowledge of AGW. And these are not marginal Joes no one listens to: these are influential poloicy makers like over half of US congress or current govs in Australia or UK. Those 1 & 2 stage deniers are unable to think about the problem at your level of understanding because they lack the basics. Therefore "Dana's mantra" is the appropriate way of arguing with these deniers. First things first. They will not understand your argumentation "what do we do about it" because their response is "nothing as the problem is imaginary" (it is not, as proven many times).
The only alternative is to "silence" the deniers (i.e. get rid of 50%+ of US congress, and get rid of BBC who inappropriately gives voice to deniers like Lawson, relplacing it with other, better balanced news orgs like Al Jazeera) which will diminish the gap in public mind.
These are roughly the 2 broad strategies of addressing the problem of AGW. You have to consider them. Your statement "lets (sic!) get on with the stuff thats really important" indicates your lack of due consideration of the issue.
-
MA Rodger at 06:18 AM on 1 March 2014Temp record is unreliable
rivetz @296.
Bar the 2012 post with Gobhard spouting off about US temperatures & discussed @297, I note in a later post from March 2013 it is GISS global temperature that the cretin is getting in a huff over. As examining the ravings of a lunatic is not my favorite pass time, I cannot guarantee that Gobhard is totally out of his tree, but I see no evidence to suggest that he is in his tree.
GISS do not "tamper" but make documented amendments. The only significant amendment since Feb 2012 is the change from using HadOISST to ERSST in January 2013. When I plot the data-copy Goddard shows with the latest GISS data I get the same 1880-2012 graph as Sato did for ERESST-Had+OISST. It is not greatly dissimilar to the plot Gobhard presents 1910-2011.
If there are other posts by the cretin, I would hazard a guess that they are similarly well grounded on another planet (probably the planet Wattsupia).
-
Rob Painting at 06:13 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
MartinG@12 - "How long do we have to read Dana's mantra about 97%. It just gives deniers more ammunition to fuel the fire."
I suspect you're trolling here, but putting that aside, once the 'consensus gap' - the gap between the scientific reality (97%) and public perception - is closed we won't really need to blog about it anymore. We're a long way from that largely (I believe) to rubbish reporting of climate-related matters in the mainstream media.
To be sure there's a nutty fringe element no matter what the topic of discussion is, however the mainstream media have falsely elevated the one-eyed skeptics stature in the public eye. They may have fooled the public for a brief time, but the physics of global warming & the chemistry of ocean acidification will not be denied.
-
John Cook at 05:39 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
Aryt, it took 2 years of me nagging Bob :-) You wouldn't believe how much work has gone into this series of blog posts. The writing is just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:28 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
aryt... Is there a problem with that?
-
aryt.alasti at 05:25 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 3
If this took place in 2012, why are we reading about it only now?
-
Doug Bostrom at 04:58 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Comparing Gleick to a common thief without informed consideration is to wade into an ethical morass, wearing naivete instead of waders.
Of the people in the crowd here Tom is probably most likely to emerge on the the other side of the swamp without being covered in mud.
For the rest of us, before saying a word about Gleick and then going on to make comparisons do read the necessary fundamental primer on how and when to compromise ethics and morality, "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life" by Sissela Bok. If you're not up to at least that level you're not capable of making the kind of comparisons being posed here.
-
KR at 04:50 AM on 1 March 2014Temp record is unreliable
rivetz - It's the same deal, the same nonsense, as has been pushed by climate denialists and conspiracy theorists before. They are claims that corrections for known errors and biases are somehow the result of an Evil Plot, usually tied to Agenda 21 or some other fever dream. And they consist of ignoring known biases, cherrypicking single stations, and other errors.
The adjustments made to the US temperature data, most of which consist of time of observation (TOBS) bias correction, are clearly and publicly documented (see here and here) - the TOBS issue has been a known bias for over 150 years, and its correction entirely justified if you want accurate data.
Here are the various adjustments, along with a link to their public description, documentation, and reasoning. Note the similarity to the data adjustments Goddard and others claim as sinister and underhanded, while congratulating themselves for the discovery! If the people making such claims ever cared to read the documentation they would realize their mistakes.
[Source]
As I've said in previous discussions on the topic, looking at temperatures without correcting for these known and well quantified errors is as foolish as looking for stars without cleaning the dust and oil off your telescope lenses. The results will, in both cases, contain errors.
-
rivetz at 04:25 AM on 1 March 2014Temp record is unreliable
Hoping this is the right argument/thread for this - as a rank amateur in climate science who logs time in the trenches of conservative message boards trying to engage skeptics on the fence in rational conversation, I continue to run up against folks holding up Mr. S. Goddard's accusations of NASA data fudging courtesy of Dr. Hansen. (I'm not referring to the WUWT-related sea ice debacle, this is brand-new 2013 stuff.)
I won't sully these pages with a link to the nonsense; Google "Goddard Hansen tampering" or just go to his site and you'll find it easily enough. The problem is that I'm unfortunately not statistician enough to refute these charges on a technical platform, so I'm stuck with supplying admittedly ad hom responses pointing out his abyssmal track record and the like.
Could someone provide a concise answer as to where specifically Goddard has been misreading or miscalculating temp data in the last year specifically? More specifically, is the adjustment of the temperature record valid and due to the dropout of poorly cited or obsolete stations, or has there been no adjustment and SG's just misrepresenting the data via improperly constructed graphs, or both?
I've found plenty of explanations for the 2012 debacle, but little re his latest round of histrionics, and would love to know if this is the same deal or some new angle he's adopted. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
DW -
Russ R. at 03:40 AM on 1 March 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
scaddenp, Rob Honeycutt, and michael sweet:
Because you asked, here are 3 examples of prominent individuals condoning Gleick's actions. And for balance, one example of a prominent individual who responded very appropriately, in my opinion.
- Naomi Klein: "Send @PeterGleick some Twitter love, he took big risks to bring important truths about the deniers to light." Twitter and Facebook, Feb 20, 2012
- While she may have little to do with climate science, she certainly is prominent. But maybe 140 characters is insufficient to fully express an opinion on the immorality of the act.
- Scott Mandia: ""Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years," wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. "They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ;'teach the controversy' where none exists." He went on: "Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him." The Guardian, Feb 21, 2012
- He uses more words but still can't find anything negative to say about Gleick's actions. Maybe he was quoted out of context by the Guardian. Such things happen.
- George Monbiot: "I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society." The Guardian and his own website, Feb 24, 2012
- Hard to be quoted out of context on your own website.
Anyway, here's someone who I believe responded appropriately:
- Gavin Schmidt: "Gleick’s actions were completely irresponsible and while the information uncovered was interesting (if unsurprising), it in no way justified his actions. There is an integrity required to do science (and talk about it credibly), and he has unfortunately failed this test. The public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this – both directly because this event is (yet) another reason not to have a serious discussion, but also indirectly because his voice as an advocate of science, once powerful, has now been diminished." RealClimate, Feb 21, 2012
-
MA Rodger at 01:11 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
Chris Snow @11.
Back in October the BBC Radio 4 Today programme reported that the BBC could not find a British climate scientist that was not signed up to the IPCC's findings. That morning there were 6 items on the IPCC AR5 SPM release. The only skeptical voice was that of Lawson but from the archive and presented as an exemplar of wrongheadedness. It made for refreshing listening.
However, by luchtime the numpties had managed to get Bob Carter onto The World At One, resulting in an attrocious piece of news reporting by the BBC (transcript here - Peter Stott was not even allowed to hear what Carter had said, due to 'technical problems' apparently). Of course, in 'finding' Carter the BBC had not found a British climatologist. Carter is Australian and a geolologist. But he does have a UK connection - as one of Lawson's Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy, by dint of the GWPF being a charity, he is thus able to spread his untruths at the UK taxpayer's expense.
-
Composer99 at 01:00 AM on 1 March 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
MartinG:
Carefully collected and analyzed survey data is more valuable than personal impressions.
The underpinning of the Consensus Project is made plain in the infographic at the head of the OP: in the first place there is a gap between the public perception of scientists' findings and the findings themselves, and in the second place narrowing the gap increases the likelihood that laypeople (such as myself) will support making climate policy.
This is exacerbated by the fact that those engaged in disinformation, such as Lawson, are certainly not interested in "get[ing] on with the stuff that's really important" and are still trying to call very basic, solid scientific conclusions into question.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:44 PM on 28 February 2014Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
As I recall, most of the information in the strategy document was also corroborated by the documents Gleick tricked Heartland into sending to him. Indeed, the only quotation from the strategy document I saw in skimming through the post again was a reference to Heartland funding from the Koch Foundation... which even the crazies no longer dispute.
It was reasonable to take down the links when the origin of the 'strategy document' was first disputed, but now that the dust has settled I don't see why such action would be needed. The creator of the document is unknown, but most of the information it contains has been proven true. It would thus fall into the category of a 'leak'. Some of it may also have been fabricated, but we don't really know that. If it were provably faked, as you seem to assume, then I'd agree it shouldn't be linked... though more because it would at that point simply be irrelevant. Given that most of its content is corroborated by the other documents there'd be no point in considering the few bits of false information. So long as those bits may or may not be false a warning to that effect seems sufficient.
-
Kevin C at 21:46 PM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
I find the discussion of morality here irrelevent and distracting.
Skeptical Science is about climate science, and about the sociology surrounding climate science and its rejection.
The hack has no bearing on the science. It may have some bearing on the sociology surrounding of climate science and its rejection, or it may be a random act of malice - which of these is the case is at this point unproven.
While as a computer geek I am of course interested in the details of the hack, I think the importance of this series is to place the information in the public domain where future researchers into the history and sociology of climate science rejection can ask how, if at all, it fits in.
-
michael sweet at 20:53 PM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Russ,
You say "I could name many prominent individuals who have done exactly that.", but you do not name a single one. This is political sloganeering and is not allowed at SkS. You frequently assert that you are correct without any data to support your wild claims. By contrast, Tom provided links to peer reviewed data. Provide a list if you have names or do not make your unsupported claims. When you do not provide data to support your claims you are conceeding the point. Since you have provided no names you have conceeded that you cannot find them.
You have the same habit with your claims about the science. Provide data links to support your wild claims.
-
MartinG at 20:12 PM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
How long do we have to read Dana's mantra about 97%. It just gives deniers more ammunition to fuel the fire. Get real. Most scientists who know anything about this agree we have global warming, ditto that CO2 contributes to GW, and ditto that Humans are the main cause for the present rise in CO2. So lets get on with the stuff thats really important - how critical is it - and what do we do about it. If the BBC were to allow only blatant onesided arguments from folks such as dana then we would be just as insensed as if they only listened to Lord Lawson. The very one sided propaganda nature of the debate is in my opinion why the public are losing sight of the real issues.
-
Chris Snow at 18:26 PM on 28 February 2014The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media
As I've mentioned on a couple of other blogs recently, I can’t actually think of any British climate scientist with a record of published research who is a sceptic, so maybe it isn’t surprising that Nigel Lawson always gets the call to provide "balance".
If the BBC is consistent, maybe we'll be hearing the views of John Major on quantum mechanics or Kenneth Clarke on superstring theory.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:06 PM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Andy... Looking at the Monbiot link, I think he's using the event as a means to bring up other sociopolitical issues, which sort of mirrors my comment @8 about exploring the issue.
"I believe we have a right to know who is paying for public advocacy. The groups which call themselves thinktanks but look to me more like lobbying organisations working on behalf of corporations and multi-millionaires, exist to try to change public policy. Yet, with a few exceptions, they operate in a vacuum of accountability."
So, while I don't agree that Gleick's actions are justifiable, I think the event, in-and-of-itself, presented the opportunity to discuss other tangential but equally important issues.
-
Tom Dayton at 13:49 PM on 28 February 2014Humidity is falling
dwm: I strongly suspect that Bob Loblaw is correct about your intention. But I'll try one more time: You are incorrect in expecting scientists to say that they are absolutely certain about anything. One of the criteria for writing a good scientific paper for peer-review and then publication is to always describe what further research should be done; usually that means describing ways in which your own research that you have described in this paper fails to answer all the questions anyone might have. Such admissions of shortcomings are not appropriately interpreted as implying that the currently reported research is inadequate for drawing any conclusions. But that, as Bob pointed out, is what you are doing. The question always is what conclusions are adequately supportable by this research. As scaddenp pointed out, Gentleman and Fu concluded their research was sufficient for the purpose of modeling OLR. Similarly, the Science of Doom blog author concluded:
Still, that’s a different story from acknowledging that climate models attempt to calculate humidity from some kind of physics but believing that these climate models get it wrong. That is of course very possible.
At least from this paper we can see that over this short time period, not subject to strong ENSO fluctuations or significant climate change, the satellite date shows upper tropospheric humidity increasing with surface temperature. And the CAM model produces similar results.
A broader survey of the literature was done by the IPCC. Their conclusion that I quoted to you earlier is that the empirical evidence is more than sufficient. Your opinion to the contrary is meaningless unless you can cite specific, concrete reasons for the empirical evidence being insufficient for the purpose to which the IPCC is using it.
-
Andy Skuce at 13:43 PM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
I think that there are some intreresting comparisons to be made between the Gleick case and the SkS hack. While there were a few who applauded Gleick (eg George Monbiot) many more were critical of his ethics, some harshly so. Peter Gleick himself apologized. The released material comprised budget documents and strategic plans. Released documents that contained personal information about Heartland board members was taken down.
There was no need to hack SkS to find out our budget or strategy, anyone who asked could find out: a few bucks raised by donations to pay for webhosting, no payments to contributors, no secret paymaster. Our strategy is to keep doing what we have been doing.
The SkS hacker must have been disappointed. All he got was confirmation of all of the above and a few intemperate comments of the kind that people make when they are chatting and venting privately among friends. Mostly, the conversation was earnest (and usually rather boring) discussion about getting the science right.
In contrast, many of those sympathetic to the SkS hacker continue to deny that there was even a break-in. We had faulty locks, they say, so even if there was a break-in, SkS deserved it: in other words, blame the victim, plea contributory negligence. The hacker himself does not dare to come forward, even anonymously, to say what happened.
And, among those who have published our private conversations and personal information, we hear very little in the way of doubt or questioning that this might or might not be justifiable.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:41 PM on 28 February 2014A Hack by Any Other Name — Part 2
Russ...
Yes, please do tell. You're going to need to support that statement.
What is absurd is to conflate a moral lapse with an extended, intentional criminal attack.
Think of it this way. It's the difference between having had an affair while married, and forcably beating and raping someone.
Both are wrong but the two are not comparable. I am insulted because I have been personally affected by the hacking and you are showing a callous incapacity to see the relevant severity of the two acts.
Prev 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 Next
