Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 Next
Comments 42151 to 42200:
-
Tom Curtis at 00:34 AM on 27 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Lei apparently sees no contradiction in her facile suggestion that "People will just migrate to northern areas" and her opposition to "illegal immigration". Either people will be allowed to migrate en masse, or else the rate of immigration will be insufficient to ameliorate the problems caused by global warming. There is no evidence that any population on Earth is willing to accept immigration en masse today, so it is hardly a prospective solution for tomorrow. Of course, greatly harmed by global warming due to loss of water or food may well be tempted to emigrate en masse - hence the risk of increased conflict.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I am not offended by anything that scientists say to me. I have a thick skin from working with the poor who will give you a blistering scolding right after you pick up the phone.
One of my goals is peace. I don't think talking amongst yourselves and not allowing other opinions (or snipping them) looks right.
I think illegal immigration is wrong and is harmful to the US, but the party that upholds it is on your side. How do you justify millions of resource users going to the US where the most resources are used?
I took a class on Population and know it is the growth of the human species that is going to harm the planet. In fact, if the growth of our species was smaller, we would have fewer problems with climate change. One problem is the outgrowth of another.
-
How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Out of interest, would it be possible for one of you clever people on this site to cherry pick the La Nina low years either side of the 97 high, and stick it in a chart to show what the trend would look like. Thanks.
-
A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
On both sides of my family, people migrated huge distances - from Europe to the Western US (lack of farm land in Ireland) and from Asia to Hawaii. These migrations took place before 1900. One migration took place in 1820.
Of course, people can adapt.
-
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Ger@rd: "I think it is perfectly ok to look at the temperature data and try to differentiate the different signals in it even without causation."
Sure, it's ok. It's not going to end up meaning much, but you're free to spend your time as you see fit.
Ger@rd: "That gives problems with the present hiatus in warming. The warming of the deeper ocean layers looks like a cover up to me."
Does it look that way to you? The linear trend for GMST (GISS) from 1972 to 2008 is 0.183C per decade. That's a hair under the expected trend (setting aside the diminishing transient response expected as we go back in time). What period is your alleged "hiatus" in GMST?
Do you actually believe that thousands of scientists are engaged in a "cover up"?
-
pikaia at 20:39 PM on 26 September 2013A hotter world is a hungrier world warns Oxfam ahead of IPCC report
Another factor that will hit food production is rising sea levels.Much of our food is grown on land that is less than 5 feet above sea level, paricularly the major river deltas. Bangladesh is little more than one big delta. These are home to hundreds of millions of people, and when they flood we will not only lose a lot of agricultural land, the people will be forced to migrate to higher ground, if they can find anywhere suitable!
-
Ger@rd at 19:19 PM on 26 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
I think it is perfectly ok to look at the temperature data and try to differentiate the different signals in it even without causation. Akasofu ends up with a linear and a cyclic trend and if we look at the beginning of this century and the last and a bit further it fits well. His recovery theory is a vague though and he do is tuning this back in his most recent publication. Also others have eplained the causes of the cyclic signal better and longer though chaotic at specific times (De Jager, Duhau). The finding in itself is worthwile however. On the other side of the scientific spectrum there is another approach. First there is a physical cause (CO2/warming) and then models are made to fit the data. That gives problems with the present hiatus in warming. The warming of the deeper ocean layers looks like a cover up to me. It would have been credible if it was found before the hiatus but it isn’t and if it do is real it should have been there too in 1945-1975 (HadCrut4). The agung volcano eruption in 1963 is a bit late for explaining that stop in temperature rise. If the hiatus in warming was there in that era it will probably be there now too and for another 15 years to come. It will be better to give more credits to natural variability then to hold on arrrogantly to the “we know it all and can compute it” approach.
-
Leto at 15:18 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Esop,
I agree. It seems to me that, for any noisy trend, there will always be a denialist argument available to deny the trend. When extreme values occur, there will usually be short-term factors that have led to the extreme, and these can be emphasized. When the inevitable regression to the mean occurs, this can be portrayed as a recovery. So, if there is a record melt season, blame it on storms or weather, after the record season, point out the recovery, etc. If the surface temp heats up during an el nino, blame that, but then forget about the el nino when using the same data point as the cherry-picked start of a trend. It's tiresome and obvious to most of the readers here, but seems to work every time for those readers predisposed to accept a contrarian viewpoint.
-
John Mason at 14:59 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
@DSL,
Well it doesn't bloody help when scientists themselves (hello Kosaka & Xie) use "global warming" interchangeably with "global mean surface temperature."
If that's what they've done then no, that doesn't help at all. Surface air temperature, while likely to be the component of the climate system that we are most aware of (for the time being, then hello, sea levels!) is still but one component of an interactive system that exchanges energy with other components over time, and energy continues to accumulate within the whole....
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:31 PM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
So many thoughts come to mind.
An important aspect to keep in mind is "the motivation for people to believe nonsense".
This issue is not really about the legitimacy of the climate science. Attempts to discredit the science are not expected to be seriously evaluated by their “target audience”. They are expected to be accepted without question.
The real issue is the profit, pleasure, comfort and convenience that will be more difficult for the most fiortunate to continue to obtain if burning non-renewable resources becomes "officially unacceptable".
In some cases it isn't even the fact that sustainable living will require more personal awareness and effort. Some people have gambled by betting (investing or hoping to get more money from employment), on specific non-renewable resources being profitably extracted and burned. If they are "globally prohibited" from employing a few people in pursuit of that "interest" their bet becomes worthless. The result of that realization would be a "major loss of fantasy wealth that many believe is real".
There is major motivation for many very wealthy people to employ as many smart people as they can find who are willing to do the most disgusting thing a smart person can do - deliberately misinform others rather than most fully inform them to attempt to delay the "development of a sustainable better future for all". They can also “buy media coverage sympathetic to their interest”.
It is easy for them to gather popular support because so many people in the wasteful, harmful, industrial, mass-marketed mass-consumption developed economy are desperate to get more for themselves. Most of them have decent lives but are convinced they will "live in caves" if the burning of non-renewable resources was not allowed. Of course, since burning non-renewable resources for energy will eventually be impractical they are basically declaring hey do not care about the future. That is when they start claiming things like the people of the future will have magic. They are immersed in a grand delusion.
Challenging them if they think it is decent that future humans will not be able to continue living that way the current generation of fortunate people do may wake some of them up. However, the ones that are too deep in the delusion will never change their mind. They will have to be forced to behave decently, and that is claimed to be “taboo” in the “free-world”.
The actions required to change the developed economy to a sustainable economy that could sustain its own growth, as well as all other life on this planet, would be to the short-term deserved disadvantage of the ones among us who only want a better present for themselves. They will use all their influence to get as much for themselves as they can. There are some who are so jaded and callous that they simply will never care about the future. Pointing out the obvious flaws in their claims is important but should be matched with a challenge for them to explain why they don’t care about the future.
The scientists must continue to gather more information to best understand what is going on on this one and only planet we know to have life on it. And that understanding needs to continue to be delivered to the global leaders and the rest of the global population. Increased understanding and awareness is the only chance for all life to have a better future.
-
Esop at 08:53 AM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
The deniers have painted themselves into a corner, but the sad thing is that the can say/predict basically anything they want and the media will not report on it when denier predictions fail miserably, a year or two later. Remember all the hoopla over the sea level back in 2011? So when sea level rise accelerated again, could we read about failed denier predictions in the major papers? No. Same thing will happen when we beat the 2012 minimum, likely within 3 years from now. Deniers won't be questioned about the recovery that they were screaming about in 13'. Rather, they will be able to claim that the new record is due to a natural cycle and that they had predicted the record years ago. The major press won't ask a single difficult question. Sad state of affairs.
-
How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Smith, linear is easier for the general public to understand, even if it doesn't capture the acceleration over the past decade.
Complex coupled models (CMIP3/5) suck at short- and medium-term Arctic sea ice projection. My understanding is that the Arctic laboratory, especially when the ice is primarily thin, is subject to too many significant short-term forces to get a good grip on short-term projections -- weather, outflow rates into the North Atlantic, river outflow temp, ice flow within the Arctic, surface temp, ocean top layer temp, etc. All of that combines to produce each unique melt and freeze season. Someone may eventually figure out an indicator that works a year out, but the more accurate short-term projections will likely come when the fine mechanics of the Arctic are more robustly incorporated into models. Projecting Arctic sea ice is halfway between projecting weather and projecting climate. It's a tough gig, even if the general direction is clear.
-
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Yah, what KR says, Molecular Biologist, and I'd add that you'll probably want to engage the point that seems most fundamental to your understanding at this point. You'll get a response wherever you post, and so if you post in ten places, you're going to be juggling quite a few threads, and those threads will have a good deal of overlap.
-
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Undecided Molecular Biologist - That's quite a collection of arguments/questions, most of which show up in the SkS list of 'skeptic' myths.
Regarding your points and the associated myths:
- Climate has changed before, also It's not us.
- CO2 was higher before.
- No idea what you're trying to say here other than "rocks".
- It's not bad, Plants and animals can adapt.
- CO2 is a trace gas.
- Models are unreliable, also It's not us and CO2 lags temperature.
I believe the moderators would prefer each point be addressed in the appropriate thread(s). Far more importantly in regards to the structure of your comment, you should read about Gish Gallops, as your comment is really just a series of climate myths with out reference to evidence.
-
tcflood at 03:45 AM on 26 September 2013Models are unreliable
I just saw "Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years", by Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers in Nature Climate Change, Vol 3, Sept 2013, page 767. They contend that the divergence of models and observation is statistically significant. In trying to rationalize the discrepancy it seems to me that they don't consider the possibility that atmosphere-ocean heat transfer coupling methodology (particularly below several hundred meters depth) in the models may not yet be up to par.
What is the SkS take on this article?
-
Undecided Molecular Biologist at 03:42 AM on 26 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Hi all.
I am a Molecular Biologist, and hence has a reasonable understanding of various sciences.
I am also passionate about wildlife, both observing for pleasure on visits and also the crucial need to conserve dwindling habitats around the earth.
The topic of this thread, which I stumbled across in reading the Guardian last week, is just what I have been looking for to pose some questions to see if they can be answered to help me with my utter confusion over the massive consensus with regard to the cause of global warming. Given my background, I hope you see that I have a decent level of knowledge of the science, as well as no agenda.
1. Firstly, the earth is heating up right now, so no argument there. The earth has always heated and cooled, the distinction is the focus of most arguments these days is that "is this current heating man-made? And if so, is CO2 the main driver?"
2. The earth has always experienced changing levels of atmospheric gasses. Indeed, when life started about 3bn years ago, almost no oxygen existed as gas, rather a massive amount of CO2 existed along with nitrogen. Billions of years (2.5bn) had to elapse of just pure simple, single-celled organisms changing the atmosphere spectacularly – they generated all the Oxygen we see today in the atmosphere (~21%) and indeed they removed all the CO2 to levels we see today = almost nothing / 0.03% = 390/400ppm by concentration is it right now?
Indeed it is fairly miraculous that all the plants/photosynthetic organisms on earth – land and sea based - actually manage to get enough CO2 to fix in to sugars and other Carbon-based molecules. It is a miracle of efficiency that they do.We should note that many farmers increase CO2 concentrations many times atmospheric concentrations in enclosed environments in which plants thrive. They take up CO2 more quickly and efficiently, event at concentrations 3x, 4x, 5x atmospheric levels, which is still well under 1% of air.
3. During the 2.5 billions of years when life was in simple form and extracted CO2 from the atmosphere, and indeed accelerated for much for the 500 million years since complex life appeared, this was the period during which all carbon-based ‘organic’ layers formed under seas and oceans. Important to stress that the primary “lock-up” of this carbon during this period is Limestone’s and similar rocks formed by millions of years of sediment layering of organic matter, mainly from foraminifera carbon fixated via CaCO3 and locked away. All the Alps, Himalaya, Andes etc contain massive amount of this rock that was once gaseous CO2 millions and billions of years ago during period when life thrived on earth. A far smaller proportion of later organic matter (500myo-1myo) had the right conditions to enable formation of oils, gasses and coals i.e. fossil fuels.
4. The earth has always heated and cooled. Is it a problem that ice caps melt and low lying land disappears? In geological terms, “no” is the answer. In human times, “yes” is the answer for those effected, but the old biblical story has to apply here about the wise man not building his house close to the cliffs. The earth changes, life evolves, it always has and always will. Better to plan for and embrace change surely.
5. CO2 as a concentration of 0.03% of the atmosphere is accused of being the primary driver of man-made global warming. I have to ask – has the climate change movement not perhaps made a huge mistake in blaming CO2 for warming?It is colourless and only reflects a very small fraction of heat-wavelengths. On top of this, its tiny concentration in the atmosphere, to any scientist this has to raise serious questions as to it being a key driver? Even if you add in all the carbon-based gasses, they are combined still under 1% of air!
6. There has been some objection to model accuracy here and indeed there is another thread covering this exact topic. Indeed, I build models. I know their pros and I know their weaknesses. I have never seen a model that is accurate. It is impossible for a model to be accurate. The more complex the subject, the less accurate the model is.
I see people arguing over super complicated formula and how powerful cray supercomputers are and even saying “look, I back-modelled history and it correlates”. None of this is accurate. Simple reason being is that you will AWLAYS miss a variable input. The best example of this is the recent global financial crash. Thousands of the brightest physicists, mathematicians and generally “clever” people in the world chased money, became bankers and build models to say that asset-based securities were almost risk-free, or AAA-rated. Trillions of dollars piled in to them. EVERYONE agreed that they were AAA risk-free as the super bright people said so as their models said so, everyone followed, no one disputed. Then, one variable the models did not include since there was historically a 0.01% chance of it happening, happened. The simple fact it CAN happen, means one day it will. This is just one variable. There are thousands. This proves models have to be treated with extreme caution. They can NEVER be relied upon fully.Indeed, one of the papers I saw on this site that provides the computer model “proof” that a doubling of CO2 from 0.03% to 0.06% would leads to a 2 degree rise in temperature stated an incredible thing. Namely that the results do not include the effect of water in the atmosphere!?! When it is pretty much agreed that water is a FAR greater contributor to the green-house effect than any carbon-gas, it to me is astonishing that everyone seems to ignore this monumental fact.
Could water not be the cause of global warming? We have chopped down trees over the past 5,000 years on a huge scale. This might have changed water cycle and increased cloud cover and hence global warming perhaps? I don’t know, but am just saying this strikes me as being far more powerful and feasible than a colourless gas that has concentration of 0.03% right now and been historically many, many 1,000+ times higher concentrations on earth and life and earth did just fine during those times!?
One further point I’d like clarity over, is that CO2 concentrations have risen in the past when temperatures has risen. Yes. But is CO2 a cause, or an EFFECT of warming? We all know what happens to water bodies when heated….they release gas. The delay in it being a cause driver or an effect of heating is impossible to prove by samples, rather people have relied upon the fact CO2 reflects a tiny fraction of heat wave length and they have then used computer models to say it is a cause-driver. Are you sure this is not wrong? Would you bet your house on it like bankers did with their models?
I’m not being argumentative. I just would appreciate some constructive straight, common-sense answers against any of the above to help me be ‘converted’ as 97% of scientists seem to be. Right now, I’m in the 3% who don’t currently think CO2 is responsible in the slightest.
Moderator Response:[DB] As noted by KR and DSL below, threads at Skeptical Science have a narrow focus by design, as long comments spanning a multitude of subjects (such as yours) do not contribute to a healthy dilogue, but often serve to impede understanding.
Before you follow up on each salient thread indicated to you by KR, please familiarize yourself with this site's Comments Policy.
Any needed reponses and clarifying questions should be done on those more appropriate threads, and not here.
-
Smith at 03:25 AM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Is there a reason why a linear trend is shown for the NH sea ice extent, where a second order polynomial fit trend is shown on the Arctic Sea Ice Escalator graphic?
Is there scientific evidence that either of the trends can be extrapolated for future predictions?
-
How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Well it doesn't bloody help when scientists themselves (hello Kosaka & Xie) use "global warming" interchangeably with "global mean surface temperature." Chris Mooney came to our university last night to give a talk, and while I buy his overall message (account for the personality features of your target audience, and don't target the fact of their irrationality), I also think that a lot of denialist firewood would disappear if scientists weren't so loose with the terminology.
-
Dan Olner at 01:56 AM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
The Tamino post is a great antidote; it's dismaying seeing how strongly the "global warming has stopped" stuff has got hold of even key mainstream news outlets...
-
michael sweet at 01:47 AM on 26 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Tamino has a similar post up right now. He finds from 1992 to 2006 that the surface temperature went up at a rate of 0.28 oC per decade, much faster than the IPCC predicted!! Those IPCC guys must be deliberately underestimating global warming!! In fact, Ramsdorf et al suggested that the rapid increase in temperature was due to natural variation on top of global warming.
-
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
The NREL (US National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has a new study (news release here) out looking at the pollution impact of fossil fuel cycling of conventional generators with increased wind/solar inputs. Those opposed to renewable baseload power for various grounds have, on occasion, raised this as an issue.
The WWSIS-2 study of the western US grid finds that
...the carbon emissions induced by more frequent cycling are negligible (<0.2%) compared with the carbon reductions achieved through the wind and solar power generation evaluated in the study... The study also finds that high levels of wind and solar power would reduce fossil fuel costs by approximately $7 billion per year across the West, while incurring cycling costs of $35 million to $157 million per year. [...]
"Adding wind and solar to the grid greatly reduces the amount of fossil fuel — and associated emissions — that would have been burned to provide power,” ... “Our high wind and solar scenarios, in which one-fourth of the energy in the entire western grid would come from these sources, reduced the carbon footprint of the western grid by about one-third. Cycling induces some inefficiencies, but the carbon emission reduction is impacted by much less than 1%.” (emphasis added)
Also noteworthy in this study are the positive impacts of accurate 24 and 4-hour weather forecasts, allowing quite reasonable ramping times as wind/solar inputs vary. 4 MWh of renewables would displace 1 MWh of coal and 3 MWh of natural gas power.
Renewables will not, contrary to skeptic objections, increase emissions or carbon fuel costs with increased generator cycling - the benefits are overwhelmingly positive.
-
Dan Olner at 19:41 PM on 25 September 2013How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking
Good stuff! I coded a (interactive but not very good controls!) similarish thingyo - in the "cell(2)" tab it shows how you can claim winter is summer / summer is winter etc about 30% of the time if you choose a 29 day OLS. (You can also load climate data from woodfortrees.org).
This sort of thing seems pretty intuitive to me - perhaps it really isn't and I've forgotten that I learned the intuition over a period of time. It's certainly turning out to be an horrifically effective denial weapon despite being one of the easiest things to demonstrate is wrong.
-
foolonthehill at 16:57 PM on 25 September 2013Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course
I'm currently going through the Coursera Climate Change course through Univ. Melbourne. I am signed up to the Climate Literacy course too. I am looking forward to comparing the two courses, both their content and their approach to dealing with the discussion forums.
The chaotic situation that is present forums on the current course is improving my combat skills. I'm not sure if thats a good learning environment for those who are less assertive.
-
David Kirtley at 07:42 AM on 25 September 2013Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course
This is a great course. I went through the first iteration and found it very informative.
-
scaddenp at 07:39 AM on 25 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei, according to the fake skeptics, US has spent $79B on climate since 1979. You have to add in every satellite with a climate related instrument to get that but still, that's a lot of tax payer money. However, credible estimates of US subsides on fossil fuel range from $14B to $52B annually. If you thought taxes were such a big deal then surely killing these subsidies would be your priority?
I have simple no-tax solution to climate change - kill the subsidies and ban building of any more FF-powered powerstations unless all CO2 emissions are captured. This still leaves steel production (comparitively minor) and gives coal and thermal asset owners a much longer twilight than say asbestos asset owners got when science made that industry untenable. If you have other alternative plans that would mitigate CO2 without taxes, please post them here.
As to your personal climate position, then have you looked at what AGW regional predictions for you actually are? (in general, the wet get wetter and the dry get drier). However, I seriously wonder whether your personal circumstance is valid basis for voting for policy (and is absolutely irrelevant to whether a theory is true). You would vote on the basis that something was good for you even if you knew it was bad for the majority?? How do feel about the fact that those likely worst hit by climate change have contributed very little emissions to the problem? Is that right?
By that logic, I should be a denier as I get no climate funding but instead get petroleum funding. Come on people, kill my funding stream.
-
Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Does anyone have a reasonable explanaition for the summer 400mb anomalously dry tropics? ESRL 400 mb map of relative humidity departure from norm
additional info
jeff masters wunderblog stratospheric dryingThis reduction in "cold point" temperature meant that less water vapor could make it into the stratosphere over the Tropical Pacific, since more thunderstorm water was getting "freeze dried" out. Did global warming trigger this increase in Pacific SST, resulting in cooling of the "cold point" and less water vapor in the stratosphere? Or was it random variation due to some decades-long natural cycle? This key question was left unanswered by the Solomon et al. study, and observations of stratospheric water vapor don't go back far enough to offer a reasonable guess. One factor arguing against global warming having triggered a negative feedback of this nature is that prior to 2000, increases in Western Pacific SST caused increases in "cold point" temperatures--behavior opposite of what has been seen since 2000.
-
william5331 at 06:26 AM on 25 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Gaia has many negative feedback mechanism to keep temperatures reverting to the mean. We have seen one of them this summer as more heat from the Arctic Ocean gave rise to low pressure systems which shaded the ocean and decreased ice melt. What is disturbing is the concept of the light switch phenomenon. The thought that when we push the system beyond some point some of the negative feed back mechanisms will no longer be enough to hold the line and we will flip into a new regime. If the slow creep we see now is disturbing, a sudden change would be far more serious. The "up the down escalator" graph suggests we may be close to another lurch upwards. Let's hope it is no more severe than the previous ones.
-
michael sweet at 05:37 AM on 25 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei,
There are many different opinions represented here on SkS. Taxes are not usually discussed so there is no agreement on what is best. I have never heard any scientist suggest that a carbon tax should be diverted to fund scientists, only deniers suggest that such a tax is an option. Where did you come up with this proposal? Please cite references to support your wild claims.
One prominent scientists' proposal to address AGW is tax and dividend, from James Hansen (who is an independent). This would tax carbon emissions and 100% of the tax would be refunded to the people on a per capita basis. There would be no money diverted to any other spending. The government would get nothing from this proposal.
Why do you so strongly object to this proposal when net taxes for most people would be decreased? My impresson is that you are uninformed and are just looking for a fight. You used very strong language to introduce yourself and were then offended when people replied with less offensive terms.
As a beachfront landowner I would think you would be concerned about sea level rise. The ocean is currently about 9 inches higher than it would have been without AGW. How high is your property above sea level? Will another foot or two of sea level rise endanger your property? I have visited Tuvalu which is about to go under due to AGW. Are you willing to pay to relocate the people who live there? This is happening now, it is not a theoretical idea that might not happen.
-
Marco at 05:34 AM on 25 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
MA Rodger, according to the journal's website, TWO members of the editorial board resigned:
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/74
However, compared to March 9 of this year, there are THREE names missing.
Apart from Brierley, Jason Evans and Caroline Ummenhofer no longer appear on the list of editors.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I agree, lei -- and thank you for the reasoned response. The situation is not simple. The economic interest is overwhelmingly the most powerful interest that drives human decision making--at least under the current economic mode. It's not the only interest, and it's not in the driver's seat all the time. To ignore it, though, is to deny reality. Worse is to expect to change that reality overnight.
At this point, the problem becomes one of ethics: right behavior. Do you think it's better to avoid addressing problems that aren't yours personally (you may be dead by the time significant economic impacts occur), or are you willing to address a potentially significant hit to the global economy if the evidence is reasonably good, even though you may never have to face the hit personally?
This is where Michael Fumento's piece from a few years ago comes in handy. Fumento, a former Reagan advisor, argues implicitly that the new Right (read: Tea Party) is no longer concerned with the future. They no longer see conservatism as the natural compliment to liberalism. I would say that this is the natural progress of postmodernism: a cultural logic that encourages the individual to pick and choose evidence in order to construct reality to his/her taste with no system of accountability beyond economic security. Some celebrate this situation; some condemn it.
If you refuse to fund projects that propose to help make life more bearable for future generations, do you do so from instinct, from ideology, or from evidence-based reasoning?
And then how do you answer this problem: what happens to government and taxation policy in a world where what you might call "alarmist claims" actually play out as reality? In other words, can you think of a better way to grow government and taxation than to push the global climate out of kilter (think: three+ billions living in cities, highly dependent on the cheap and consistent delivery of food, water, and energy)?
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei - "Emotion is paramount in these discussions."
Indeed it is. And your emotions, not to mention your stated personal investments and livelyhood, appear to be overriding your ability to view reality.
-
John Hartz at 03:47 AM on 25 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei:
Your obsession with taxes blinds you to the reality of manmade climate climate change. Do you have absolutely no concern for the world that we are bequeathing to our children and future generations?
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Beyond taxes, the implications of impending climate change for landowners in warm climates is huge. Human emotion is directly tied to one's investments and one's livelihood (in scientist's case).
Emotion is paramount in these discussions.
-
Kevin C at 01:32 AM on 25 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
Republishing material is not academic misconduct. While it will usually be against the journal requirements for a research paper (but not an invited or review paper), a journal can choose to print whatever it wants. The only misconduct would be if the author had misrepresented the history of the work to the journal. We have no evidence of such a misrepresentation.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Ah, there are so many aspects to this problem.
But, you must not forget that "deniers" FEEL powerless in regard to their taxes and that they will welcome anyone who tells them there is HOPE that their taxes will not increase. Wouldn't all scientists like it if there was a way to reduce their taxes? Of course they do - they want any taxes spent on the military or smokers to go away. Or welfare.
And, in fact, if you want taxes for welfare to go away, you are in good company with government workers who cannot come out in the press to say it - but they are some of the most adamant about the gross waste and outright fraud. You should aid these people because many citizens would rather gentle scientists (if you are gentle) are funded than ex-cons or women who deliberately have children to push up their housing aid.
If you think taxes are unimportant and unrelated to the discussion of climate change then you are a denier.
I own beachfront in a northern, wet, climate and tourists cancel when there is too much rain. Twice this summer (colder and rainier than normal) the rental managers have stated there was a rash of cancellations due to rain).
I wouldn't mind at all if the climate changes for the hotter ranges, but it doesn't appear to be to many of us.
-
enSKog at 23:29 PM on 24 September 2013Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course
I am signed up for "Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change". Any comment on the differences between the 2 courses? The whole MOOC movement is certainly beginning to make some great resources available.
-
Tristan at 23:05 PM on 24 September 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38B
<redacted> yeah! That's what I'm talking about!
https://www.facebook.com/climatecouncil
-
neilrieck at 21:50 PM on 24 September 2013Invitation to join second offering of free Climate Literacy course
A "climate literacy" program is a great idea. I am currently reading "Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (2013) by Donald R. Prothero" where a chart on page 109 includes a list of the top 34 countries by GDP but ordered by the average level of scientific comprehension by their citizens. The countries from 28 to 34 are: Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Cypress, The United States of America, Turkey. Yep, Americans sit between Cypress and Turkey which partially explains why there is so much climate denial coming from the USA.
-
MA Rodger at 21:12 PM on 24 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
StBarnabas.
And because of it one of the members of the editorial board resigned in protest. We can but hope that the remaining members have got the message.
-
Roger D at 12:51 PM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Moderator - got it -thanks for taking the time to explain. I will familiarize myself with the policy.
-
Roger D at 11:01 AM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Moderator -I had a comment here in response to Lei's first two comments from 9/23 that has been removed. Was that because one of the two comments from Lei was removed and the other largely snipped so my comment was out of context - or because i broached the SkS Comments Policy? I think others have responded to Lei's commnets better than I did but I was just wondering.
Moderator Response:[DB] On behalf of the moderation staff, it is unfortunate that sometimes, in the process of moderating out egregious violations of the comments policy, direct responses to such deleted comments are perforce also moderated out. This policy is designed to engender on-topic dialogue and open discourse based on the science, free from intemperate atmospheres as are found in many other venues. Unfortunately, sometimes innocent responses such as yours get caught up in the action.
One suggestion is to familiarize yourself with the comments policy sufficiently to recognize the violations of others...and to not respond to them, knowing that the moderation staff will deal with them. Typically a wide latitude is given, but repeat offenders get shorter leashes.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:46 AM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei said... "No insulting words should ever be uttered by gentlemen and scholars."
The problem is that "denial" is a clinical term that has been used for about 150 years. Suddenly, when it's being applied to a group of folks who are clearly in denial (thus, "deniers") the term is redefined as offensive.
The outrage over being labeled what is an accurate term is, in itself, a form of deflection. Denial of denial.
-
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
"Denier" is a reasonable term for someone who effectively puts fingers in ear and cries "la la la" when confronted with published science. A fake "skeptic" is someone who challenges every piece of published science (good) but swallows without question any half-cocked blog commentary that happens to coincide with their views.
Scientists are paid fairly modest salaries that arent linked to funding. More funding means you could employ more scientists and could fund more experiments (read satellites) to find the answers.
However, what most scientists want is for people to stop burning fossil fuel, simple as that. Doing that will mean frankly that you will probably pay more for your energy (but you might pay less tax if you killed off all subsidies to fossil fuel industry).
You will improve engagement if you provide supporting statements to your assertions.
-
funglestrumpet at 04:58 AM on 24 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
I would have thought that if a journalist can be shown to have deliberately made erroneous statements on a topic that is very likely to do great harm to their country, it is not the PCC that should be called in to investigate, it is the Crown Prosecution Service, unless treason has ceased to be a criminal offence, of course.
-
StBarnabas at 04:05 AM on 24 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
@MA Rodger
in which case this looks like academic misconduct. Journal papers are supposed to make an original contribution to the field and one normally has to sign a statement saying that the work is original and not just a rehash of previous work. The paper should have been rejected for this reason alone.
-
MA Rodger at 03:19 AM on 24 September 2013Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking
The previous incarnation of this Akasofu paper was actually published in 2010 (not 2009) with a prior 2009 version unpublished but appearing on line. The big difference between these two eariler attempts was length (2009 - 55 pages, 2010 - 14 pages). This latest 2013 version is shorter still. And it has nothing new to say. Not a jot.
I feel it is telling that after 4 years all that has been achieved is a bit of editing. With nothing new to prop up his bankrupt theorising, Akasofu simply demonstrates the vacuous nature of his work.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei, I read your deleted comments. They were not geared toward engaging in conversation. Setting that aside, though, I appreciate your re-engagement.
Also, you provide evidence for some of the stereotypes when you say, "You move them further to the right." Are these people so easily moved by irrelevant information? Is that not one of the points that is being made by people who argue that "conservatives" are not equipped or are unwilling to accept relevant evidence?
Terms like "denier," "liberal," "conservative," and "catastrophic" should be rarely used, because they immediately require explanation. Witness Michael Fumento needing a long essay to define "conservative." Richard Alley identifies as conservative, as do many other prominent scientists working in climate-related areas. Identity and practice, as you know, are often quite different.
And while I agree with you on the name-calling bit, there is a target audience for the term "denier." The term, for me, is meant to be provocative. My use is intended to make the claim that the person with whom I'm interacting is well-aware of the evidence but is intentionally disregarding it and is not willing to discuss that choice.
Here's some of what scientists have to put up with (pjones is Phil Jones of the UK Met Office). I wouldn't call these people "deniers," though. They are, however, the people who are led by the nose by deniers.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed text.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:54 AM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Whoops. I took DSL's hint and checked Lei's original comment, which contained the gem:
"My biggest question is what do you want people (voters) to do about climate change besides hand YOU and YOUR co-workers VAST amounts of tax money?"
So, it is OK in Lei's book to insult us (and climate scientists) by suggesting we are involved in a conspiracy to defraud tax payers, but woe betide us if we should suggest some people are in denial about climate science.
I believe Lei has provided a perfect demonstration of my point @18 - and will prove it further by being unable to concede the point.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:49 AM on 24 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Lei @17, if you read the works of "climate change skeptics", you will find the full of the most virulent insults. It is habitual for some to accuse the IPCC and the UN to be part of a plot to generate world governance. Others cannot help but compare defenders of climate science with Nazis on a regular basis. I personally have been compared to the KKK (although perhaps inadvertently). If people are influenced as you suggest, there should be a tidal wave of support for climate science and the IPCC.
People are not, I think, influenced by such mild terms as "denier", (ie, somebody who denies some well established body of knowledge) unless they are using the term as a pretext. And if they are that desperate for a pretext, they would have found another one no matter what we do.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
When you use terms like "denier" you are insulting someone right off, who may be questioning climate change in the back of their minds. You move them further to the right as you are not using your vast knowledge of social science or human psychology that I know you all have minored in. Your wives should be able to advise you in this area.
No insulting words should ever be uttered by gentlemen and scholars.
It's not a war.
Taxpayers are utterly helpless. I feel sorry for ALL of them.
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints snipped.
Prev 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 Next
