Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 Next
Comments 42201 to 42250:
-
The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
hank_, that's Jim Powell of the Cato Institute. It's possible that the claims have some seed of merit. It's also possible that Powell is representing the brand of libertarianism he's paid to represent.
-
Phronesis at 11:03 AM on 23 September 2013Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
KR, are you saying there are math errors in his rebuttal of LOG12? Or in some other, climate-related work? If the latter, then your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Well, it might be rational to not read his arguments if you thought he was too error-prone, but it wouldn't follow to be unimpressed by his arguments based on math errors from some other work. Bias is a pervasive human challenge, so any anti-skeptic or anti-McIntyre scholar would want to go into this issue with some bias-correction algorithms running, otherwise you won't be able to get a clean take on whether he's right or not.
You seem to know where his posts are already (there are 16?), so I'm not sure what good it would do to link you to them. Maybe I can highlight his key arguments sometime this week. LOG12 should never have been published, and I'm surprised it hasn't been retracted at this point -- either by the authors or by Psych Science. -
Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
David Rose's twitter feed Bob Ward of the LSE is also intending to take the Mail on Sunday to the PCC.
Bob Ward - who gave up his geology phd - says he's taking me to the PCC for reporting views of scientists so much more eminent than him.
— David Rose (@DavidRo21545155) September 8, 2013
-
michael sweet at 09:44 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
Hank,
The story lists less than a dozen companies that are building US facilities, at least two are chemical manufacturers. The story points out that natural gas and oil, the feedstocks for chemical manufacturers, are cheaper in the US than in Europe, which has nothing to do with renewables. Some of the facilities were worth less than 5 million dollars. The article contains a lot of fluff and little data. How many US companies are opening facilities in Europe? The article claims that wind is more expensive than fossil fuels whch is false. Why would they be installing so much wind in Texas if it wasn't cheaper?
It is hard to believe that at any time no more than a dozen European manufacturers are opening plants in the US. I would expect more investment if the US economy was more competative. It sounds to me more like complete hype. A commentor at Real Climate said all the companies involved said that they did not consider electricity costs as part of their moves.
-
hank_ at 08:00 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
@Philip #62
See this Forbes stroy regarding companies migrating to the US. They actually name the companies athough it's mor of an EU article than strictly German. There are issues with the rising costs of energy in Germany especially.
How Europe's economy is being devastated by global warming orthodoxy
Hard to believe this story is just hype.
-
pikaia at 05:56 AM on 23 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
David Rose is not only a climate change denier, he is also a (-snip-)
Moderator Response:[DB] Respectfully, this conversation needs to stay focused on the specifics related to climate science and the denial of it...and not to matters of personal failings.
-
Alexandre at 05:13 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
I'm a regular listener and always glad to see a new edition coming out.
The link theclimateshow.com does not work anymore for a while now (discontinued?). I guess the article should point to the corresponding hot-topic link instead.
-
Hockey stick is broken
Phronesis - I have replied on the appropriate thread.
-
Recursive Fury: Facts and misrepresentations
Phronesis - Given McIntyres propensity for basic math errors, I have been entirely unimpressed by any of his various criticisms of LOG12.
Until, however, you link to something in particular by McIntyre (there are at least 16 different McIntyre blog posts on the subject, but quite notably nothing peer-reviewed), you haven't presented any actual arguments in that regard.
-
Jim Hunt at 04:48 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
Philip - The Telegraph are next in my "little black book"! I have spoken on the telephone to someone purporting to be Hayley Dixon, and she certainly didn't sound like a "he"!
The editorial side of the DT haven't responded to my telephone calls or emails as yet. I guess I shall have to pester them again next week.
BTW the Express also printed similar nonsense, and even the Indy managed to repeat a bit of the disinformation, no doubt inadvertently! -
Philip64 at 04:36 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
@ Jim Hunt
What an excellent idea. It's about time someone tried out the PCC for size on a story like this. They've been criticised as toothless in the past; but in the wake of recent press scandals in the UK, they might just feel emboldened to protest.
As you may know, 'Hayley Dixon' who peddles climate change disinformation at the Daily Telepgraph is very likely David Rose. In this instance the article 'she' ran in the DT was virtually identical to David Rose's in The Mail. Admittedly professional deniers tend to repeat (endlessly) the same arguments and claims, originating from the same web-based pseudo-science blogs; but in this case the similarity was unusually striking.
The DT seems to have stepped up its campaign recently. It's been running piece after piece taken straight from the denialist playbook: pieces hinting at attempted cover-ups (without offering a shred of evidence); and an especially thin and inaccurate piece last week about Germany's energy policy, and how it's allegedly turning into a 'nightmare'. Among other nonsense in that piece, was a (long debunked) claim that Germany industrial companies have begun relocating to the US because of cheaper energy prices. No company was named - because no companies have actually done this. The one company that was once named in this connection explicitly denied that energy prices had anything to do with its thinking.
I suppose I'm saying that the DT should be in the dock too, given its record.
-
John Hartz at 04:08 AM on 23 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
All: The last two comments posted by Lei have been deleted because they were off-topic sloganeering.
-
Jim Hunt at 02:59 AM on 23 September 2013The Climate Show #35: elections, extremes and a big wind
As we couldn't neglect to mention over on YouTube, we've set our hearts on hauling David Rose and the Mail on Sunday in front of the UK's Press Complaints Commission, since they have still failed to retract any of their monstrous "Myth making about Arctic sea ice" from two weeks ago.
For more information please see our own videos, and/or take a good long look around:
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
If you want personal stories, then you must listen to why people voted for Romney.
I worked for our state helping to dispense benefits to the poor. I am a college graduate and also worked on campuses. In my first year of school, I scored "gifted" and my school exam scores went even higher in the next years. I am part Asian.
(-snip-)?
(-snip-)
Moderator Response:[JH] You are skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and going off-topic. Please read the SkS Comment Policy and adhere to it. Posting on SkS is a privilege, not a right.
[DB] Ideology snipped.
-
Daniel Bailey at 00:28 AM on 23 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
As an addition to my earlier comment about scientific bodies referencing SkS, here's an example of NASA referencing SkS at it's Earth Observatory website:
Have a Question about Climate Science? #askclimate
My favorite was their response to this question:
Q: What is the main argument people have when they refute climate change?
A: Two (contradictory) favorites are 1) we don’t know anything and 2) it’s just natural. Neither are true. More at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
-
StBarnabas at 18:07 PM on 22 September 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #38B
Sorry get a broken link on
"Case for climate change is overwhelming"
Can you check please?
Moderator Response:[DB] The link works for me. OS issue?
[JH] I had fixed the link but due to a glitch with my other computer, I wasn't able to post a note until now. All's well that ends well.
-
Phronesis at 16:50 PM on 22 September 2013Hockey stick is broken
Michael and KR, thanks for the correction. I'll read the material you linked. I'm a social scientist so I know PCA – hopefully I'll be able to understand what I'm reading. I didn't find a published refutation of M&M, and the more bloggy stuff I'd seen were ad hominem attacks on McIntyre for not being a climate scientist. I did not take that as a good sign. I will say that if Mann's methods were invalid (I'm not sure if Michael is conceding or disputing this), but the conclusions turned out to be correct, I'd still cross out Mann's paper and only care about the subsequent, valid work (perhaps including Mann's.)
I will say that McIntyre was spot on in his debunking of the recent Psych Science paper on belief in conspiracy theories and AGW skepticism -- there I'm in the comfy surrounds of my own field and expertise. His regression diagnostics were solid. There were hardly any participants in the dataset that fit the advertised effects. The paper should not have been published, and it's the first time I've ever seen a social psychologist (the lead author) say that we shouldn't care about outliers (in response to McIntyre) –- we're all trained contrary to that notion (McIntyre showed that a handful of outliers (5?) drove a huge part of the reported correlations.) Maybe McIntyre's skill with the social psychology paper biased my judgment of what he had done with the Mann paper -- well, it's kind of easy to debunk social psychology papers, which says something about the state of social science.
Moderator Response:[DB] All discussions of conspiracies and AGW skepticism shoud take place on a more appropriate thread, like this one:
-
Phronesis at 16:33 PM on 22 September 2013Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong
Under the heading "Patrick Michaels' Losing Bets", there is only one losing bet. The second bet listed is his new bet about a 25-year pause. This is not a losing bet, as it is currently active, and will not be resolved until 2021/2022. Shouldn't this be removed as a "losing bet"?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 16:26 PM on 22 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
John @ 21, why is there a disconnect between Astralian public opinion about climate change and Tony Abbott's election as Prime Minister? I assume it is due to few people making this a single-issue election. IMHO, Labor was so on the nose that voters abandoned them. Tony Abbot did not win on his own merits: Labor lost on its disunity. I do not hold the opinion that Abbott has a mandate to trash every public global warming agency, as he has already done. Vote Compass clearly showed that most of us want more action, not Abbott's anemic Direct inAction Policy. Come back, Malcolm Turnbull, you are needed!
-
peter7723 at 12:37 PM on 22 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
The basic attack is on the credibility of the scientists and therefore the science. Telling one's own story is a step in the right direction. But I think it misses the point. It should not merely be an attempt to identify oneself with the public to build trust. More is required.
Scientists must defend their credibility. It is no good letting the science "speak for itself" because it is dumb. "Denialgate" worked because credibility was not fought for from the start. Scientists see such attacks as absurd, as you say, but the ordinary public believe that science works by forging links in a chain - break one link and the argument fails.So, finding a weakness is very damaging in the publics eyes. But, statistically based argument is like threads in a rope - the argument still holds up in practice.
The problem with the links in the chain idea is that when one link is tested and replaced or strengthened by scientific methods, there is always another link for the deniers to move on to. But the previous fuss is not forgotten in the public mind. The "new" problem just adds more fuel. And it is endless and relentless.
It is not clear to me how to defend credibility. It is an unfair fight, because the sequence of attacks become threads in that other rope denying credibility. Perhaps the scientists should stop explaining themselves and correcting their critics and demand that the critics justify their own arguments. Put them on the back foot.
-
michael sweet at 04:41 AM on 22 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Gringup Baker,
I agree that the long term prospects for the Arctic is down. This year was higher than last year. If you use the denier standard that any non-record year is a recovery it has recovered. If you feel that sixth lowest in the past 2,000 years is a slight improvement but not a sign of recovery that is has not recovered. I personally expect the arctic sea ice to be lower next year, but it might be cold again for another year or two.
-
grindupBaker at 03:42 AM on 22 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
@michael sweet #18 based on graph with this post, Arctic sea ice late summer extent did not recover this year as you state. It was/is in remission. Consider analogy of person with cancer, Dr. gets latest list of measurements & symptoms, finds this slight improvement, calls patient being treated to office and says "you've recovered". Useless Dr.
-
Paul_Belanger at 02:44 AM on 22 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Thanks for the post; I agree. I have to recommend a recently published book that does just that - by Bill Hay: Hay, W. W., 2013, Experimenting on a Small Planet – A Scholarly Entertainment. Springer, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London. xvii + 983 pp. ISBN 978-3-642-28559-2 (doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-8560-8).
It’s well worth getting a copy; much of it IS essentially auto-biographical in that he includes an “Intermezzo” at the end of each chapter. It’s a history of science - especially, but not exclusively, as it pertains to climate science (see http://www.colorado.edu/geolsci/faculty/hay.html ). I've known Bill since my paleoceaongraphy grad school days – a peer to my advisors W. A Berggren and John Imbrie and peer to Wally Broecker and Bill Ruddiman. I recently heard him talk at a local climate symposium August 15th. His talk can be seen in 2 parts at the following link: http://www.owenperkins.org/Golden_Symposium_8.15.html
Most of the time I see posts that anyone supporting global warming are labeled “alarmists” and any poor choice of words or factual error brought up in ridicule. So be very careful of what you say and how you say it or write about it. It comes down to a statement I recently saw in the NPS Bryce Canyon’s “The Hoodoo”: “Nobody likes bad news and because so much of climate change is (perceived as) bad news, many prefer to ignore, be skeptical, or just plain deny valid data” – parenthetical addition mine.
Likewise – I wish we could recognize the issues and instead of ridiculing and dismissing climate scientists, accept the science and discuss what should be done – it’s complex: it involves economics, future energy directions, population, socio-economics. Climate change is part of nature, except we are causing it at a rate unparalleled in Earth History; its sustainability for our way of life!
-
michael sweet at 02:42 AM on 22 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
William,
The NSIDC data are not a model they are measurements. People argue about whether to use area or extent, but 2013 was pretty close on both of those. The NSIDC data go back to 1979 and are solid. Discussions can take place on how thick the ice is, but the bottom line is the ice recovered this year. Scientists do not expect a straight line down, there is still internal variability.
-
citizenschallenge at 00:18 AM on 22 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Good article, but I'm surprised no mention was made of the 'winter' ice conditions.
Seems that those numbers are also dropping
New satellite data measures Arctic sea ice volume at record low
9/16/2013
~ ~ ~
Esa's Cryosat mission observes continuing Arctic winter ice decline
9/11/2013
~ ~ ~
CryoSat at a glance
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat
-
kmalpede at 00:13 AM on 22 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
This is a great post. It is why, I, a playwright with a deep interest in climate change, wrote "Extreme Whether" in order to tell the story of climate scientists up against climate deniers. Stories are absolutely essential to changing people's minds. We art working, now, to gather the funds to produce this play in NYC and around the country. Three readings have been great successes, with the Festival of Conscience post-show participation Drs. James Hansen and Jennifer Francis. www.theaterthreecollaborative.org We will present the play with a Festival of Conscience every night; scientists will be able to dialogue with ordinary audiences who have just seen a moving play about the lives of climate scientists.
-
william5331 at 18:38 PM on 21 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
I can't help wondering if 6th lowest is accurate. The NSIDC is a model, somewhat constrained by measurements and the measurements of any patch of water with more than 15% ice show up as complete ice cover. This year there has been a preponderance of low pressure counterclockwise rotating weather systems in the Arctic which tend to disperse ice (coriolis). What is needed is the Cryosat measurements from the past three years. It could be that the ice volume this year is only a little above the ice volume for 2012. (or not). When is Cryosat going to finish groundtruthing their data and publish a periodically updated graph of ice volume similar to the ice extent graphs from NSIDC. By comparing the signal strength from ice reflection and water reflection, Cryosat should also give a better estimate of ice extent.
-
Martin Vermeer at 18:12 PM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Aren't plenty of our leading climate scientists grown up versions of the kids at school that never needed to cheat to top the class? Aren't they predominately from the maths, physics, chemistry side of academia rather than law, humanities and political science side?
Yep, nerds the lot of them... arrogant bastards. Let's beat them up ;-/
-
grindupBaker at 13:41 PM on 21 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
I can see that Artctic ice loss is important for (1) its effects on flora & fauna (2) feedback effect of albedo change (3) that it's highly anomalous at least 1,500 yrs so shows something highly anomalous "going on" (lines of evidence) but it's minor at most insofar as an indicator whether "global warming" is currently more, less or same as before. Balmaseda, Trenberth & Källén ORAS4 Ocean Heat Content Reanalysis claims 220 ZettaJoules added to oceans 1975-2010 and I compute 50k km**3 Artctic ice reduction by eyeballing the graph using (from Sinclair's video) 6m to 1m thinning (somewhat less with Dana's 75%) and that's 15 ZettaJoules used, so it's 7% of "global warming" so miniscule, irrelevant, whether it's up or down a tad in terms of an indicator for "global warming" change (if that's what this David Rose was hinting or inferring).
-
tigerade at 11:52 AM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Thank you very much, and we need other scientists to do the same. We've got to somehow weaken the climate change denial movement, and hearing scientists speak out on the personal behalf could certainly be helpful.
-
Ken in Oz at 08:41 AM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Good article and an excellent point. Aren't plenty of our leading climate scientists grown up versions of the kids at school that never needed to cheat to top the class? Aren't they predominately from the maths, physics, chemistry side of academia rather than law, humanities and political science side? That could be worth pointing out too.
One ongoing wish of mine is to see is a new and highly publicised "Audit" of climate science, conducted by the US National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society or equivalent, video documentary style, suited to prime time TV. I am imagining it would look at the institution(s), it's achievements in general and it's achievements in times of greatest national need. What it means to become a Fellow or whatever. The selection process for Panel or Commission or whatever it gets called, finding the right balance of first hand knowhow and independent distance.
And some biography on the people invovled - their personal stories as people and as citizens as well as their achievements as scientists.
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
louploup - Actually, I see this essay as a worthwhile discussion of avoiding depersonalization, simplistic depictions of scientists as "the other"; very common in politics, conspiracy theories, and intense discourse.
If you cast your opponent in the role of the inhuman "other" it's easy to blithely dismiss their arguments. If you regard your opponent as a person, with their own motivations, you may be more likely to take their arguments seriously.
This is something I attempt to keep in mind in any discussion - while I may find someone's honest opinions silly, I try to respect their reasons for holding those opinions, as they likely have strong personal evidence or support for those reasons (evidence I may, mind you, have interpreted differently). And you are unlikely to change someones mind on a topic without addressing that reasoning.
It's all too easy to mentally reduce ones opponents to caricatures, and not consider the evidence. Understanding peoples reasoning makes that less likely.
[ Caveat: I don't expect lobbyists of any persuasion to present 'honest opinions', but rather. the opinions they are paid to project. ]
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I disagree, louploup. The goals of individualists and collectivists are often the same. They just see different ways of achieving those goals. And it's really no good to divide people into camps when they so clearly share so much in their actual behavior. I've met few people who wear their individualism on their sleeves who don't engage in a number of behaviors that require them to engage in collective behavior. I've also met quite a few self-proclaimed collectivists who are the worst sort of hermits.
It always annoys tea party types when I point out that letting the climate situation get out of control will almost assuredly lead to a strengthened federal and world government. This works with an idea they readily accept: large crises result in a strengthened bureaucracy. War is the obvious example. The move from there is typically toward specific solutions, and that's a win for science. We can talk about solutions. There are many, and many are palatable to both collectivist- and individualist-oriented folk.
-
louploup at 06:02 AM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I see a major contradiction in Dr. Dessler's short essay:
On the one hand you write "if you want people to believe you, it helps if they know you share their values — in other words, people listen to those who are like them."
But you also say, "it goes against the culture of science, which emphasizes the collective and de-emphasizes the individual."
That's the problem: Deniers (and reactionaries) tend to individualist oriented, and scientists (and liberals) tend to cummunitarian oriented. Their value systems are very different, and communication between them is very difficult.
The rules above say "Political ... comments will be deleted" but Dr. Dessler's essay speaks to the essentially political underpinnings of the difficulty scientists have communicating their "truth" to the (largely) scientifically illiterate public. How can you remove politics from discussions about the intersection of science and public policy?
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I often start off my conversations by pointing out that I haven't seen or read An Inconvenient Truth, and that I don't plan to. That's often a foot in the door. I avoid name-calling like the plague (toward everyone--not just the interlocutors), and if I'm allowed to persist in explaining things using an even-keeled, rhetoric-free style, I often get an explicit statement of respect and am considered distinct from those socialist "libtards."
-
What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Andrew, you're just another crypto-fascist commie! /sarc
Just a grammar note: "job explaining who they were" > "job explaining who they are".
-
StBarnabas at 01:42 AM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
Andrew
Very wise advice, but I find this culturally very difficult. It is possibly even more difficult in the UK- many my colleagues consider the American's too brash and self promoting. I do not come across many "skeptics" apart from my brother in law who dropped out of high school and is 'invincibly ignorant'. To him facts do not matter - the fact that I have a PhD and professorship in Physics makes no difference and he has no interest in understanding Climate Science - just feels it's wrong. I get very annoyed debating him - he feels that I am contemptuous of his tabloid driven factoids (and he is right).
Sean
P.S. I know the US reasonably well having done my PhD experimental observation work (in High Energy Gamma Ray Astronomy) at the Harvard Smithsonian observatory (now Fred Whipple) Arizona and Sandia Labs New Mexico. -
Chris G at 01:31 AM on 21 September 2013What scientists SHOULD talk about: their personal stories
I could not have said it better. Arguments made by "people who are not like me" tend to fall on deaf ears.
It isn't just ad hominen attacks though; there are also misunderstandings of the science leading up to the main conclusion that we are putting our own future at risk. The main conclusion is both scary in and of itself, and avoiding it requires changing our behavior. Change itself is also scary. The science that leads up to the conclusion, that we are better off stepping into the unknown of at least attempting mitigation rather than continuing down the path of unknown climate dangers, is complicated. So, it is extremely easy to take a misstep off of that path in any number of ways. At a certain level it is easy to say, "Well, I'm OK where I am for now; I'll keep going a little longer."
I think we are best off communicating that the unknown of mitigation is not as scary as some make it out to be, in addition to letting the listener know that we are not so different from them.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:51 PM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Bojan,
The citations, plaudits and accolades from the science community towards Skeptical Science are legion.
This is tracked internally at SkS. At some point this may be made accessible to the public.
Its resources are used in classes all over the world.
I get notifications of activity that detail this (I am an admin here at SkS).
Science institutions link to it from their websites.
Various scienctific organizations have linked to SkS in articles on their websites and some list SkS in their listings of online resources.
Scientists volunteer to write guest posts and rebuttals appearing on the site.
Many guest posts and rebuttals here at SkS have been written by publishing scientists. A number of regular members of SkS are publishing scientists.
"Anyway, I'm pretty sure it will be dismissed as an appeal to authority."
They may. However, it is no more valid than their dismissal of SkS as an authority in the first place. The facts remain, every post at SkS is built from and draws upon the primary literature published in reputable journals, and includes hyperlinks to the source articles.
That some would dismiss the primary literature as a source is very telling as to their agenda of disinformation they prosecute.
-
Phil at 22:21 PM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Last year contrarians were emphasizing the summer storm that helped reduce the arctic sea ice extent.
This year, of course, they have had to forget about it, thus deliberately ignoring one element of the natural variability that makes up this "recovery": one that they were only too happy to acknowledge last year when it suited their purposes.
-
Jim Hunt at 20:11 PM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Jubble @20 - Keep in touch, and we'll do what we can. Please bear in mind however, that Richard Lawson who has recent experience in these matters told me recently that:
The PCC has less teeth than an edentulous blobfish that has been to a obsessional dentist for a total dental clearance, then spent 10 minutes in a food mixer on its highest setting, followed by three days in a bath of concentrated sulphuric acid.
Whilst we wait and see what the PCC can come up with, if anything, we're continuing to take matters into our own hands on video (if this works!):
The Great White Con - Update 1 from Jim L. Hunt on Vimeo.
Moderator Response:[DB] Reduced Video Player width to 450.
-
MA Rodger at 19:00 PM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
leedsjon1 @23.
You actually refer to a second article from the Rail on Sunday that appeared the week following the Sea Ice "story". (It is thus probably off-topic but what the heck.) This second article was also substantially revised (with a new headline) the following Tuesday.
In this second article, the genuine scientists quoted (except I wouldn't place Judy Curry in this category) are as manipulated-beyond-credence as is the scientific analysis. CarbonBrief has contacted a few of those who's words were so corrupted by don't-let-the-truth-spoil-a-good-story journalist* David Ruse.
The Tuesday ammendment shows the measure of the Rail as a news outlet. The original headline on that second story was:-
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said.
This assertion was based on Ruse comparing the future model projections of 0.2ºC/decade rise with the rise 1950-2012 of 0.12ºC/decade, none of which has changed let alone halved. The story promised apples but delivered poisoned potatoes.
Perhaps this was a step too far even for the Rail, or perhaps they felt they had missed a trick, because following Tuesday's revision the headline reads:-
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
The comparison used now is with the temperatures of the last 15 years which apparently rose by 0.05ºC/decade.
Whilst this ungrammatical "...just QUARTER what..."quote should be considered as a jaw-dropping statement, I would point out that it is in reality jaw-droppingly welcome from a serial miscreant like Ruse. Last October he was telling the Rail's readers*:-
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
So within the last eleven months, according to the incisive analysis of invetigitive reporter David Ruse, the world's temperature must have risen at a rate in excess of 0.5ºC/decade.
* These words are used in a sense beyond their normal meaning. A journalist is normally expected to write fact-based copy and the word 'readers' would usually imply more than looking at the headlines and grind their teeth.
-
BojanD at 18:49 PM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
@Daniel Bailey, where is this citation from?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure it will be dismissed as an appeal to authority. Yes, they can have it both ways. ;) -
Philippe Chantreau at 13:48 PM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Leedsjon1, the hurricane was Sandy and it was not a Cat3. Indeed it couldn't be, it had grown in size way too much to remain a high category (which is dependent on the highest wind speed generated), considering it was something like 800 miles in diameter. The barometric pressure and storm surge were still worthy of notice, as New York residents can attest. Cat 3 or not, it flooded the New-York Subway just the same.
-
Daniel Bailey at 11:25 AM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
@ Bojan,
You can share this with them:
The citations, plaudits and accolades from the science community towards Skeptical Science are legion. Its resources are used in classes all over the world. Science institutions link to it from their websites. Scientists volunteer to write guest posts and rebuttals appearing on the site.
-
Bert from Eltham at 10:31 AM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Only someone who is totally au fait with all the complexities of the science of Anthropomorphic Climate Change could fabricate such fallacies as these so called journalists. They know quite well what they state is absolute rubbish that has no basis in evidence or logic. The uninformed mass of disinterested people that is their intended target are too naive to see through the emotive lies and misrepresentation of the facts perpetrated by these criminals.
Fortunately these crimes against humanity are forever written in digital data. When the great reckoning comes, as our species have shown throughout history, the same uninformed masses will come for them with sat nav pitchforks. This being the peak of mechanical technology in our near future! Bert
-
Bert from Eltham at 09:38 AM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
The animated graphic of Arctic sea ice decline reminds me of the inevitable total loss of starting monies an addicted poker machine/slot machine player would experience. They only register the 'wins' and fail to see the full picture of their cumulative losses until it is too late. Bert
-
John Russell at 09:11 AM on 20 September 2013Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia
Do you notice that every year we have a record minimum for Arctic sea ice extent the following year it always 'rebounds'? Just because it has of course doesn't mean it always will. But it does go to show that this year's regression to the mean is totally un-newsworthy.
-
leedsjon1 at 09:02 AM on 20 September 2013Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday on Arctic ice
Not sure if this is same article but i've just seen an astonishing Mail on Sunday article which seems to be making same sorts of wild statements - eg 2007 IPCC report 'exaggerated' extent of warming, no warming for past 16 years etc. Its only when you look in more detail at few 'scientists' it quotes and their affiliations (eg Global Warming Policy Foundation - the UK's biggest climate denial thinktank) that you get an idea of just how abhorrent a piece of blatant political propaganda this feature is. On the lighter side, however, it does contain a few clangers which would make any stand up comic proud. My favourite is this: -
'..This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall'
So about 2 years ago, when a rather large hurricane ripped through the heart of New York (Katrina was it?), this was some kind of illusion was it? Staff on this particular UK paper are clearly recruited on basis of their short, though highly selective, memories.
-
Models are unreliable
kishoreragi - I think what you are overlooking is that there is an approriate level of detail for studying anything. Details below the scale of GCM's are parameterized, treated as blocks that have known (as in, tied to observations) responses to inputs, and that physically based parameterization works just fine for global and regional level modeling.
More detail would be needed if you wanted to look at microclimates and the chances of a particular bush getting wet during a closely timed rain shower. But that's not the level of study for GCM's, and if subscale responses are reproduced well a GCM will give a fine answer at the scale it is actually studying.
These models aren't looking at the level of individual trees and gusts - hence they just don't need to simulate at that level to get a good answer for the regional/global scales studied.
Prev 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 Next
