Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 Next
Comments 43251 to 43300:
-
skymccain at 03:05 AM on 31 July 2013Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
“For example, on Sunday July 14th, 2013, Andrew Neil hosted UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on the BBC show Sunday Politics”.
This interview was disgusting. Andrew Neil refused to “discuss” the issues. He simply pushed his opinions. He reminded me of the saying “America right or wrong.” This was simply propaganda blindly forced and ignorantly proposed: journalism at its worst.
-
Michael Whittemore at 02:41 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I just wanted to ask if Mike Hulme has acknowledge he did post the comments regarding Cooks paper?
-
Composer99 at 00:19 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
With reference to the discussion about rhetorical bludgeons and polarizing discourse as touched on by Dikran in his response to Barry, as one of the regular lay readers of this site (and the parent of a near 2-year old boy) I should like to pipe in to note that, frankly, if self-styled skeptics would like to avoid being beat rhetorically about the head, then they could simply stop advocating policy action - or should I say inaction - which imperil the fortunes of today's global poor and of future generations (*), on the basis of flimsy misrepresentations or misinterpretations of the evidence.
(*) For some inscrutable reason I get upset when others' behaviour threatens my son's future. I certainly can't imagine why that would be.
-
shoyemore at 00:09 AM on 31 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry Woods,
Given Myles Allen's agreement with "7 out of 10" points with Professor LIndzen, Bishop Hill et al, here is an article by Professor Allen in which he indeed says that the "climate of climate change" has changed.
However, Allen takes the science for granted, and wants the discussion to push on the penalizing fossil fuel companies for polluting the atmosphere. That is the change he sees, but I do not think that is the one noted by Mike Hulme.
The only institution in the world that could deal with the cost of climate change without missing a beat is the fossil fuel industry: BP took a $30bn charge for Deepwater Horizon, very possibly more than the total cost of climate change damages last year, and was back in profit within months. Of the $5 trillion per year we currently spend on fossil energy, a small fraction would take care of all the loss and damage attributable to climate change for the foreseeable future several times over.
The fact is that you may well be right about 70%, even 90%, of the science is agreed, leaving out the Killing the Sky Dragon crowd. Unfortunately, you will find that the likes of Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts will only agree sufficient of the science that justifies their preferred policy, which is to do nothing.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/11/climate-change-debate-weather
-
MangoChutney at 21:26 PM on 30 July 2013Global warming games - playing the man not the ball
[moderation complaint snipped]
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] Discussion of moderation is off-topic. Discussion of moderation on other blogs is doubly off-topic. Please, no more discussion of this here.
-
TonyW at 21:01 PM on 30 July 2013CO2 is plant food
The first link in point 3 of the basic explanation is bad. -
michael sweet at 20:18 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD,
Here we agree: you should give up and go somewhere else. You have completely copmpromised your position here by making false statements (like the one above where you claim supporters of renewable energy do not discuss grid upgrades) and refusing to provide data to support your wild claims. You insist that your unsupported opinion is more accurate than others supported opinions. Good luck finding people who agree with you.
-
scaddenp at 18:34 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD - okay, I dont think what I wrote is in conflict at all. Diverting those subsidies could indeed be used for those purposes though I would expect instead that consumption would drop - an even more effective way of helping of dealing with climate change,
I am asking you to justify this assertion: (ie provide evidence for its truth)
"The purpose of this deliberate lie is to mislead people into thinking that intermittent renewables would be more competitive in industrialised countries if only these pesky subsidies for fossil fuels would be removed".
You have also repeatedly refused the answer whether you think removal of price support (eg paying the market rate) will reduce CO2 emissions. Why is that?
Do you also accept that there is a $630B gap between what some people pay for FF and the market rate or is that also a lie?
-
shoyemore at 18:18 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
richard betts, #16,
I took the trouble to re-read much of what Hulme wrote in 2009-2010 that lost him my respect. Admittedly, I may have been hard on him and his comments seem to be more cogent after 3 or 4 years.
However, I did note at the time, and still do, that in pieces like his Wall Street Journal op-ed, at no point did he remind his readers that the "Climategate" charges against his colleagues were baseless, and exaggerated in the media. I think that would have been a useful point to make to make to WSJ readers. Instead, he seemed focussed on his own philosophical and ideological agenda regarding science and the IPCC.
I am glad he wrote a good book, and some day I may even read it.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 18:09 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD wrote "I am passionate about promoting science" - this doesn't come across very well when you refuse to provide justification for your statements. If you think that the discussion of the economics here is flawed, then you really do need to be willing explain your point of view in as much detail as it takes to answer peoples concerns.
-
Willem at 18:07 PM on 30 July 2013The Albedo Effect and Global Warming
Hi. Great explanation, as usual here on SKS. But I must say that the first line, "The long term trend from albedo is of cooling." is somewhat confusing. It could be read as though we're experiencing a cooling effect.
I'd suggest changing it to "A higher albedo has a cooling effect on the earth."
-
JvD at 17:59 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Michael Sweet wrote:
The purpose of SkS is to provide support of climate science. While occasional articles about solutions are published, that is a side issue. No attempt is made to be comprehensive in the coverage of solutions. Your insistance that your beliefs about solutions must be promoted at SkS derails the primary purpose here. Why don't you take your arguments to a more appropriate forum?
We are not even talking about solutions, yet. I am merely taking issue with the fact that SkS is persisting in publishing fundamentally flawed articles about the economics of renewables and subsidies. I want to know why. It saddens me. I am passionate about promoting science and preventing global warming, environmental degradation and poverty. SkS is a wonderful resource that is (still) being fatally undermined by lending itself to the propagation of complete nonsense about energy and economics, which is the very reason we have a problem with the climate in the first place! Why does SkS lower itself to this level?
But you have a point. Why should I even care about this? Why should anyone, right? I can't answer that question. It is for each person to do that for him/herself. Perhaps I should just give up. I should have given up long ago.
-
JvD at 17:45 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Tom Curtis wrote:
If you want to actually argue the case, however, start by explaining why we should accept the assumption of EnergyNautics that demand shifting is limited to 10% of power.
This is not a controversial assumption so you need to provide evidence that it is wrong, I think.
-
JvD at 17:37 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
scaddenp wrote:
What I believe the actual assertion is:
1/ price support (by any means including opportunity cost) is artifically lowering prices to consumer and thus encouraging more consumption (and emissions) than would otherwise happen.
2/ price support artifically increases price gap between non-carbon energy sources (eg nuclear and renewables) and FF. In SOME cases, removal of those subsidies would make other forms of energy generation cheaper to consumers than FF.
What are you talking about? The assertions at issue can simply be read from the article in the headline. Please stick to the topic.
Diverting cash used to subsidise fossil fuel production and consumption could raise up to $600 billion a year to fund cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and help poor countries adapt to the effect of a warmer planet, delegates at U.N. talks were told in the Philippines this week.
Industrialised nations plough $600 billion a year to subside coal, oil and gas activity.
If there is something unclear about what assertions we are talking about, please refer to the above text for reference (or the article behind the ling), otherwise we are going to keep running in circles.
-
mikeh1 at 17:17 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
@25.
Rob - you are spot on. The climate science deniers and their close cousins, the "lukewarmers" are not going to be convinced by the consensus paper. There could be palm trees growing in Antarctica and they would still be claiming that the science is not "settled". Who gives a hoot for the faux outrage. Best focus on the general public - particularly the young who have to live with the consequences of AGW.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 16:49 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry, Kahan's quote
"On the contrary, there’s good reason to believe that the self-righteous and contemptuous tone with which the “scientific consensus” point is typically advanced (“assault on reason,” “the debate is over” etc.) deepens polarization. That's because "scientific consensus," when used as a rhetorical bludgeon, predictably excites reciprocally contemptuous and recriminatory responses by those who are being beaten about the head and neck with it."
seems to me to be mere rhetoric and itself polarizing (which is somewhat ironic) as it is deliberately painting a disparaging (and IMHO unfair and innacurate) picture of one "side" of the discussion.
AFAICS, the TCP report is a response to the common climate blog myth "there is no concensus", nothing more. For example:
[note the hypoerbole, AGW doesn't have to be a catastrophe to be worth mitigating against] This simply isn't true, and a perfectly rational, scientific response is to conduct surveys to find out whether or not there is a broad concensus, and to point this out when the topic arises. It is Kahan that appears to be personalising a discussion of the science.
If you want to see what we can agree on and move forward, then how about starting with an explicit statement of where you stand on the topic of the existence of a concensus?
-
NewYorkJ at 16:00 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Not surprised "skeptics" are still hopping mad over this paper, drama and all. Their outrage is not because they feel marginalized. That is part of their false narrative. Their outrage is because their "no consensus" narrative is debunked. They know how harmful to their cause an informed public is. Their goals are always to confuse the public, and one critical strategy is to foster the notion that there is no consensus on the basics. This paper, and the subsequent coverage among much of the same media that covers their material, refutes their narrative.
Hulme's moral argument is illogical. Is there a general scientific consensus on smoking's link to lung cancer? Evolution? Hulme appears to believe that summarizing the scientific literature is wrong to do because it is somehow "divisive". It should not be done because it offends some people. Silly. It does societies and policymakers no good to be disinformed or mislead about the general consensus of experts on these topics. Such is in fact detrimental to rational frutiful public discourse.
Hulme almost seems to get it with his comment on the "irrelevance" of the paper, but in doing so makes another illogical argument. Understanding among the public and policymakers of a consensus on the basics of anthropogenic climate change may not decide contentious policy debates, such as cap and trade versus carbon tax, but it is a necessary condition. If leaders and the general public believe there's no consensus among scientists on whether or not the climate is warming and humans are causing most of it, no action at all is likely. Similarly, any restrictions on smoking would face stronger resistance if the public and policymakers believed scientists were split on the issue. Creationism might as well be taught in public schools. After all, there's a raging debate among scientists on the topic and daring to correct that misperception is wrong because it offends some people.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:26 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
It's interesting. I think this conversation coming from Kahan, Hulme et al is missing an important element. They completely miss the target audience of Cook13. And this is discussed very clearly in the paper.
The paper is about communicating the level of agreement within the published literature regarding human influences on climate... to the general public.
The concensus has little meaning within circles of scientists involved in climate. It does nothing to advance our scientific understanding of climate change. It does nothing to change anyone's mind who's been involved in the issue.
The paper does communicate something extremely important to the electorate who have little involvement or understanding of this issue. The paper addresses those who have been sold the idea that there is substantial doubt about human influence on climate.
So, what Hulme and Kahan (and Spencer and Watts and Tol, etc) are arguing has pretty much nothing to do with the paper.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:09 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
“So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?”
Hm, are Spencer, Lindzen and Watts ready to accept that >50% of warming is due to human activities? I think likely not.
-
michael sweet at 12:48 PM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD,
Your claim here that proponents of renewables claim that upgrading the grid is not needed to implement renewable energy is completely false. Everyone knows that major grid investments will be required. These upgrades will be different in different locations. For example, in New England (the northeast USA) the paper I cited to you previously, described using primarily wind to power that grid area with only minor grid upgrades. Where I live in Florida, it is not very windy and wind will not be pratical. Solar obviously only supplies power during the day so Florida will require upgraded connections to the grid to obtain its wind energy from somewhere else. Maybe they will use nuclear.
You persist in insisting vehemently that others are being misleading and then you make obviously false statements. This is not a convincing way to argue. If you do not change your tune no-one will listen to you.
The purpose of SkS is to provide support of climate science. While occasional articles about solutions are published, that is a side issue. No attempt is made to be comprehensive in the coverage of solutions. Your insistance that your beliefs about solutions must be promoted at SkS derails the primary purpose here. Why don't you take your arguments to a more appropriate forum?
-
dana1981 at 12:11 PM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
richard.betts @16 - fair point, that wasn't accurate phrasing on my part. Sorry about that. Though it's worth noting that while many 'skeptics' may be part of the 97%, they're not part of the 96%.
-
MichaelK at 11:45 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
After reading all of the above comments I can't help wondering why a 97% consensus paper is causing so much angst in the denial community? If we are to believe the public has moved on, and that publicity of the paper will only harden established positions, I would have thought the denial blogs would simply ignore it.
My own experience of engaging with climate contrarians is that they believe the basic science of global warming is still in dispute. And I don't blame them with headlines in the popular media declaring that CFCs/cosmic rays/solar activitity, in other words, anything other than CO2 is the cause. With so much misinformation in the public sphere, a recent survey of the scientific literature is something which had to be done.
I think what Hulme and Kahan are saying is that such a survey is not an end in itself and they are frustrated when it is used in an attempt to silence debate. Fair enough. Kahan calls for evidence based approaches to come up with carefully nuanced methods of climate change communication, but I was having trouble following exactly what he is advocating. Perhaps this from his blog of last Sunday is an example:
"I just instructed my broker to place an order for $153,252 worth of stocks in firms engaged in arctic shipping. I wonder how many of the people arguing against the validity of the Cook et al. study are shorting those same securities?"
-
Daniel Livingston at 11:29 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
oops - typo in first sentence of last paragraph above in #20: "would it make sense to participate..."
-
Daniel Livingston at 11:18 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry Woods asserts a widespread reframing of climate change discourse, which apparently he believes has relevance to readers here. That may well be true, but his framing of the reframing comes across to me as nitpicky and adversarial – the very thing that ironically it seems he wishes wasn’t part of climate discourse. Political science suggests there may indeed be power in reframing discourse. In fact, I appreciate how this site (SkS) helps to reframe cognitive discourse (at least on this site) away from myth and propaganda toward science.
“Prof Mike Hulme’s... view that the climate communications environment with the politicians, media and the public has changed post Copenhagen Conference (or climategate - 2009)”
“Evidence (if only ancedotal) that the comms climate has changed i the UK at least”
In addition to claiming that this reframing is widespread, Barry implies that this reframing is beneficial, and that communicators who are framing the discourse differently are counterproductive. It is not entirely clear what Barry’s reframing is other than that current ‘contrarians’ (WUWT etc) be categorised as part of a new ‘consensus’ where the consensus envelope is redrawn to be far more inclusive, and then that we resume discussions about things over which there is disagreement (sensitivity and a perceived hiatus). In my opinion this would probably leave us not far from where we are now except that we would have to find other words to describe the current ‘consensus’ that current ‘contrarians’ fall outside of.
“So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?”
I wonder whether Barry would consider a contribution at WUWT in which he encouraged its readers to view themselves as part of a meaningful consensus (not just mockery of the idea of consensus) that includes, presumably, SkS authors/readers? While on the one hand that would be a wonderful development, I unfortunately doubt the discourse has moved to this point from the point of view of WUWT authors/readers.
Barry, in one or two sentences, could you succinctly characterise the change in climate discourse that you are talking about?
Further, in another one or two sentences, what is your objective for facilitating a reframing of climate change discourse, and what should be the objective generally for climate communication?
Finally, if one believes the premise of Dana’s conclusion in the OP, would it make to participate in the reframing you are talking about? If so, why? Or if one must logically dispute Dana’s conclusion in order to participate in such a reframing, perhaps it would be useful to start with evidence-based reasoning to come to a different conclusion than that of the OP.
-
gws at 10:41 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry, it appears to me that your whole rant is based on the premise that pointing out the consensus is polarizing, and analyzing and publishing about it is designed to further polarize instead of "moving on". Maybe you could clarify that.
As pointed out many times over, including in this very post by Dana, the paper was everything but what your long comment seems to make it all about. Thus it clearly appears to me you are beating a strawman. If you want to misunderstand the points the paper is making then it is actually you and those you cite who failed to move on.
-
JasonB at 10:25 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I think it's a very useful book, and makes a great contribution to moving the dialogue forward beyond the current stalemate between entrenched positions.
I would have thought that having people stop misrepresenting facts would be a great contribution. This entire website is dedicated to busting myths that weren't dreamt up by those who accept the evidence, they're actual myths that have actually been promoted by many of the people who you're suggesting we should now accommodate for the sake of "unity".
It's unreasonable to expect those who form opinions based on facts and evidence to find some way they can get along with those who promote lies and misinformation to prevent actions they find unpalatable, especially if that means compromising the former group's efforts to get those facts and that evidence into the public arena so that everyone is aware of the reality.
I suppose "Why can't we all just get along and promote a message we can all agree with" is the next in a long line of tactics to delay action.
-
JasonB at 10:15 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry Woods,
So is it time to work out what we all can agree on and move forward.
You mean, figure out what the consensus is and then announce the results to everyone in some sort of publication?
So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?
This is a bizarre suggestion. "The consensus" is not a club. It's what the overwhelming majority of scientists with the relevant expertise agree on. Anyone will automatically be a part of that consensus if they agree on the same thing.
You seem to be suggesting that "the consensus" should be watered down to the extent that the remaining 3% can also be "included", a sort of lowest-common-denominator approach that excludes nobody so everyone gets to be in "the club".
Well, I've got some bad news for you there. Some of those 3% are real cranks, and they don't all agree on the same thing. Some of them don't even agree with themselves from one blog post to the next!
Besides which, telling everyone what 97% of scientists say on a subject is good enough for me and, I suspect, most people. We don't need to water it down to pick up the stragglers who can't bring themselves to accept the evidence or let go of their pet theories no matter how many times they've been shown wrong.
-
richard.betts at 09:10 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Hi Dana
Bit surprised to read your sentence "Ben Pile repeated claims made by ... Richard Betts ... suggesting that even climate “skeptics” would fall within our 97% consensus ... these claims display a lack of understanding of the nuance in our study."
Ben pointed to my post at Bishop Hill where I asked the sceptics who considered themselves in the 97%, and in which I was careful to quote your exact definition, which was "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".
I think it's a bit strong to say I was making "claims" and imply that I'd not understood your definitions. It would be useful if you could check your reading of your sources a bit more thoroughly!
Incidentally, shoyemore, since Climategate Mike Hulme has published an excellent, insightful book called "Why we disagree about climate change". It's a very well-informed and well-argued examination of the complexities of the climate debate and the different viewpoints people are coming from - I think it's a very useful book, and makes a great contribution to moving the dialogue forward beyond the current stalemate between entrenched positions. Mike is well worth listening to, and I thoroughly recommend his book.
-
empirical_bayes at 08:55 AM on 30 July 2013Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
So, this fascinated me, including the continuing claims of Russ R regarding people buying gasoline in Washington State. So, I decided to get some data. For one thing, I grabbed Excise Tax reports from Washington State, nicely available because of their transparent government, and cross-checked these with other sources. I was able to obtain, for State of Washington, total number of gallons sold in the period of interest.
These data were found at:
and
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=26&t=10
In short, unless one has evidence that the total number of British Columbia people coming into Washington State to buy is totally negligible compared to the population buying in Washington State, with 4.4 million people in B.C. and 6.8 in Washington State, or significantly diminished because of the distance they travel, there is no evidence that the number of gallons of gasoline sold has jumped because of border crossings. Then, again, the idea that the decrease in gasoline use reported by B.C. government is due to cross-border raids is not supported by this data.
The same kind of calculation could be done for Alaska, but I don't know why people's behavior in B.C. would be different if they live against one border than another.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed excessively long URL's. Also created image for data table since that was breaking page formatting too.
-
Barry Woods at 08:18 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
As I'm in the UK and John Cook is in Australia (Dana the USA) - I'll have to wait (hopefully) to a reply to my question (comment 1) from the authors of the paper.
I'm a little surprised that Dana did not focuss on the first part Prof Mike Hulme's (founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) comment, as this has recieved the most attention around the blogs (in particular Prof Judith Curry and Prof Dan Kahan), it talks mainly about his view that the climate communications environment with the politicians, media and the public has changed post Copenhagen Conference (or climategate - 2009):
"Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’." - Prof Mike Hulme
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401
Prof Dan Kahan (Yale) made a similar observation of how succesful this consensus aproach communications would be likely to work, in a post when the paper was published:
"Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out " - Prof Dan Kahan
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/17/annual-new-study-finds-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-m.html
Prof Dan Kahan revisited this paper when Prof Mike Hulme's comment came to his attention, and seems to be agreeing with Hulme that the climate of communications has moved on:
"On the contrary, there’s good reason to believe that the self-righteous and contemptuous tone with which the “scientific consensus” point is typically advanced (“assault on reason,” “the debate is over” etc.) deepens polarization. That's because "scientific consensus," when used as a rhetorical bludgeon, predictably excites reciprocally contemptuous and recriminatory responses by those who are being beaten about the head and neck with it.
Such a mode of discourse doesn't help the public to figure out what scientists believe. But it makes it as clear as day to them that climate change is an "us-vs.-them" cultural conflict, in which those who stray from the position that dominates in their group will be stigmatized as traitors within their communities."
This is not a condition conducive to enlightened self-government." - Prof Dan Kahan
Is it not possible to change focus, and to attempt to discuss what we all agree on, going forward?
Evidence (if only ancedotal) that the comms climate has changed i the UK at least:
At the recent Oxford Union Interview with Prof Lindzen, with Mark Lynas (author Six Degreees, God Species and environmental writer/activist), Prof Lyles Allen - Oxford Uni - opposing, and David Rose - Mail on Sunday supporting, surprising the interviewer I think, they all agreed that current EU climate policies were pointless futile symbolic gestures, Myles Allen stated that he and Lindzen were in agreement about most of the science and Mark Lynas stated aterwards that they all agreed on 7 out of 10 things.
So is it time to work out what we all can agree on and move forward.
Mike Hulme suggests in this comment that the world has changed and despairs at the polarised and quality of the public debate.
Consider that Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) was quoted in a climategate email of trying to keep sceptics like Prof Stott off the BBC airwaves, and Mark Lynas was writing 6 years ago that climates sceptics were the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that surely is an indication of how things have changed?
I had lunch with Mark Lynas last year and he expressed surpise at the contents of the full Doran survey, an earlier 97% consensus paper (especially the appendices,) he is the unatributed environmental writer here in the WUWT article below, he had often quoted it, but had never read - The Consensus on the Consensus - M Zimmerman (the survey cited by Doran)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Both Hulme and Kahan are saying that yet another 97% consensus paper is unlikely to change anything and perhaps a new approach is required, even psychologist Dr Adam Corner is trying to broaden the tent, to include conservatives (UK sort) who whilst many care about the environemnet, Dr Adam Corner (Cardiff Uni, Guardian, COIN, PIRC, formerly Green Party MP candidate, and Friends of the Earth) recognises that the issue has become symbolic and identified with the left, and needs a broader viewpoint to actually ever achieve anything with respect to policy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/13/sceptical-tory-voters-climate-change
If Mark Lynas (who put Lindzen into a who is who of Climate Change Deniers - (with Exxon fossil fuel links innuendo) in the New Statesmen a decade ago and equated sceptics with moral equivalent of Holocause deniers ( 6 years ago) can sit down with me ( a Watts Up With that very occasional Guest Author) civily and have lunch, discuss, agree to disagree or even agree to agree on many things (I even 'know where he lives' - ref Greenpeace, he had a bad back, so I gave him a lift), have things moved on?
Or after the Lindzen debate, when Mark Lynas was asked, do you think Prof Lindzen's scence is in anyway influenced by any fossil fuel infuence, he said highly highly unlikely, Prof Myles Allen was really offended that Lindzen had been asked this sort of question (repeatably, a lot was cut from the video edit) , Myles (frustrated with the interviewer) even saying Exxon paid for my ticket once, can we move on, and that consensus was not getting us anywhere , is that a not a sign that the climate of communications has moved on (in the UK at least)
So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus? As they all agree that the Earth has warmed in the last 200 hundred years, that CO2 is a green house gas, and that man contributes to climate change.
We can then discuss what we all disagree about, which I think is mainly policy and the hot topics of climate science, senitsivity and the reason for the hiatus in temps in the last decade or so.?
And also perhaps it is time to drop Deniers Disinformation Databases (Desmogblog) or Deniers Halls of Shame (Rising Tide, Campaign Agansit Climate Change) as a tool in the communications debate (it is ever so counterproductve)
Thoughts?
(sorry the comment was a bit long)
links:
Prof Myles Alen comments about Prof Lindzen treatement by the interviewer (comment 23):
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/9/lindzen-at-the-oxford-union.html
the Oxford Union Lindzen interview (Allen, Rose, Lynas)
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html
-
scaddenp at 07:53 AM on 30 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
"There is no 'price support' in Saudi Arabia, or other oil producting countries. Since the oil age began, they have been supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production."
Sigh, as pointed out you in 26, this is price support by lost opportunity cost. The Saudi oil company could have made more money by exporting that oil. However, this is still simply arguing about definitions. The substantive point, is whether having Saudi citizens (and all other countries doing consumption subsidies) pay market price would reduce their use of FF. You seem to be saying no - "this will reduce co2 emissions only to the degree that their citizens become unable to obtain energy. "
Huh? Energy demand is basically unlimited. I can only use so many plasma TVs but if you had flights to moon for $100, how popular do you think they would be? Instead what limits our energy use, is our ability to pay for it. Furthermore, the Saudis (and many other oil producers) have abundant solar resources. I assert from basic economics that if everyone in world pays market price for energy, then consumption would drop.
Care to explain where you think the economics is wrong?
As for "The purpose of this deliberate lie is to mislead people into thinking that intermittent renewables would be more competitive in industrialised countries if only these pesky subsidies for fossil fuels would be removed."
For someone screaming that someone else is lying, (meaning they use a convention economic understanding of the word subsidy rather your own special meaning), this is extremely rich. I do not believe that anyone has asserted this. How you about you present some evidence to back that smear? What I believe the actual assertion is:
1/ price support (by any means including opportunity cost) is artifically lowering prices to consumer and thus encouraging more consumption (and emissions) than would otherwise happen.
2/ price support artifically increases price gap between non-carbon energy sources (eg nuclear and renewables) and FF. In SOME cases, removal of those subsidies would make other forms of energy generation cheaper to consumers than FF.
Removal of all forms of subsidy is merely the first step in reducing CO2 emissions. Having carbon tax at same times as subsidies makes no sense at all.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
This is yet another denier tactic coming from Barry. They create impossible barriers of perfection for climate scientists and never expect anything close to the same from their own side.
Barry, this website is brimming with outrageous examples of "skeptics" propagating any number of completely ludicris claims. Where is your incredulity over them?
I'm waiting for a wide range of corrections from Pielke, Spencer, Christy, Watts, Goddard, Bastardi, Carter, Taylor, McKitrick, McIntyre, Easterbrook, Kappenberger, Scafetta, Humlum, and a long list of others.
Please let me know when these guys make their corrections and I'll gladly personally lobby John for a correction on the president's tweet.
-
shoyemore at 07:37 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I had not heard of Hulme since he made some inaccurate interjections into the faux-scandal Climategate back in 2009-2010.
It would be interesting to know if he has done anything at all useful in the meantime.
IMHO, this latest intervention moves him from zero to zero, or even to less than zero.
-
MA Rodger at 04:34 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Prof Hulme's description of his work(from here & quoted below) doesn't throw much light on his reasons for objecting to the 97% consensus.
"My work explores the idea of climate change using historical, cultural and scientific analyses, seeking to illuminate the numerous ways in which climate change is deployed in public and political discourse. I believe it is important to understand and describe the varied ideological, political and ethical work that the idea of climate change is currently performing across different social worlds. My research interests are therefore concerned with representations of climate change in history, culture and the media; with how knowledge of climate change is constructed (especially through the IPCC) and the interactions between climate change knowledge and policy; and with the construction, application and evaluation of climate scenarios for impacts, adaptation and integrated assessments."
This statement is as clear as mud. But a read of this review of Prof Hulme's 2010 book throws some light on where he is coming from. My reading of it is that he sees science as not being the problem solver and so not in a position to dictate to the world what is or is not the implications of the science. Even with a 97% concensus, even if science is unequivocal that mankind is off to hell in a handcart, that is irrelevant. This is because what we do about it, indeed how much we do about it, this is still a socio-political problem whose solution and whose statement of "problem" should not be dictated to us by science.
-
grindupBaker at 03:57 AM on 30 July 2013Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
@Me #6 typo: "global temperature" should be "global surface temperature".
-
grindupBaker at 03:55 AM on 30 July 2013Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
@Earthling #4 Because it wasn't a "global temperature rise", was global temperature. Takes 3.8 ZettaJoules to heat all land by 0.75º C, 4.1 Zj for all air, 110 Zj for all freshwater and 4,400 Zj for the oceans. The oceans are holding back the surface temperature by absorbing 250 Zj to date and taking it down into the deeps by currents. Their average temperature is 3.1 degrees, they'll keep taking heat down until they've added same temperature amount as the surface, this takes thousands of years. Needs 11,000 Zj to melt all ice on Earth. 100 years is the blink of an eye, this thing is an ocean liner with no brakes.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:43 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
No Barry, not a correction to the tweet, but a rewording of the original tweet that you would have found acceptable. The point I am making here is that given so few characters it is rather difficult to state exactly what the TCP showed in a way that is completely accurate and can't be misunderstood. This is especially true if the person writing the tweet is not an expert on the subject.
-
Barry Woods at 03:32 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Well you could try something similar to Richard Betts, example already shown.
Moderator Response:[PW] Cease the back-n-forth on this silly nitpick of a single tweet. Return to the topic and further nonsense about a single tweet will be deleted.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:14 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry, if you want to come across as being a troll with no substantive point to make, then playing silly games is as good a way as any to achive that. Alternatively, you could engage in something more productive, for instance suggesting how the tweet should have been worded in order to avoid any misconception (bearing in mind only 140 characters are available and would need to include the reference to the article).
-
Barry Woods at 03:09 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
@dana1981 Richard Betts managed a tweet. how about you?
-
dana1981 at 02:53 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
"So Dana, will you or any of your co-authors, tell the President..."
Yeah hold on, let me get him on the phone right now...
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:43 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry Woods, just of out of interest, how should the tweet have been worded (keeping to 140 characters or less and including the link to the article)?
As SkS has discussed the various misinterpretations of the 97%, while Obama's tweet may not have been explicitly discussed, I don't think it is fair to say that anybody reading the discussion on SkS (with a reasonably open mind) would say that the error itself had not been addressed.
Life is too short for pedantry and nit-picking, especially if it is only a means to avoid acceptance of what the TCP does actually show, i.e. that there is a broad concensus amongst scientists working on climate-related science that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic.
-
ralbin at 02:39 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Hulme's comments are, well, naive, at least from the point of view of someone living in the USA. The nature of our political system makes it relatively easy for relatively small interest groups to obstruct reform efforts. Building substantial, and not merely majority, support for reform efforts is often necessary to overcome special interest group lobbying. On an issue like this, where the opposition has considerable financial resources and is supported by the leadership of one of our major political parties, public opinion has to shift a lot to have a measureable effect. Unlike Prof. Hulme, the professional politicians and conservative media who constitute the shock troops of denialism in the USA recognize this fact clearly and devote quite a bit of effort to obfuscating the truth to prevent a public opinion shift of this type. He should spend a few days in the USA watching TV ads from fossil fuel companies.
-
DSL at 02:36 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Actually, I'd support Barry's suggestion for a correction, but only for the sake of not giving the intentional misinformers something to use. The President's twitter only misinforms the public where that paper is concerned. The overwhelming majority of those who follow BO's twitter will never read the paper and may not even realize that the consensus is associated with a particular paper. I'd argue that the twitter was read by most as a representation of the science rather than an extremely short summary of a single study. As a takeaway representation of science, the tweet is accurate: rapid global warming is creating conditions which are dangerous to conditions that support human prosperity at its current standard. Yes, the term "dangerous" needs defining, but that's twitter -- it's only a progressive tool when those engaged have the time, energy, training, and/or motivation to follow up and think critically about the issue.
-
Barry Woods at 02:18 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
actually - the authors celebrated the tweet rather than correct the 'misinformation' made in to the public aboutthe papers findings, which was widely further reported to the media. Something I would hope all scientist would be concerned about (Prof Richard Betts was..)
a big 'nit'
-
Bob Lacatena at 02:10 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
Barry,
So your particular nit is that the paper's authors didn't correct the President of the United States (or, rather, those who manage his twitter feed) for the exact wording of a tweet?
And for that you need a page long diatribe?
Sort of sums it up. You don't care about the consensus, or the state of climate science, what we know, and what scientists really think.
You only care about playing word games.
Welcome to the world of denial.
-
Barry Woods at 01:49 AM on 30 July 2013An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
I would like to thank Nottingham University's Making science Public project for running some very interesting articles, the comments there are I think worth a read. But perhaps this is the best place to raise this question?
Lets look at the media coverage that Skeptical Science is so proud of: http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmedia
especially this one:
Barack Obama
@BarackObama Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp
Now whatever the paper did, it made zero reference to impact, or any consensus on impacts and there is no justification at all - based on this paper - for a 97% consensus of ‘dangerous’ to be declared a finding of it, did the authors seek to correct this in anyway, no they celebrated it by listing it on their blog, with a link to President Barack Obama.
Professor Richard Betts (Head of Climate Impacts, Met Office and IPCC lead author AR4 & AR5) sought to correct it, by tweeting back:
Richardabetts
@BarackObama Actually that paper didn’t say ‘dangerous’. NB I *do* think #climate change poses risks – I just care about accurate reporting!
Maybe John Cook was not aware of President Barack Obama misrepresenting and overstating this paper, when he said (or his official account did) 97% of scientists agree climate change is real man made and dangerous?
Sadly no. It appear that John Cook was surprised at all the attention and made no effort (nor the other authors) to correct this Barack Obama tweet (to 30 million people, or how it was widely reported else where in the media
Sydney Morning Herald: Obama gives Aussie researcher 31,541,507 reasons to celebrate
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2aRpr8JPX
“Australian researcher John Cook, an expert in climate change communication, was inundated with requests for interviews by US media outlets after Obama took to Twitter to endorse his project’s final report.
“It was pretty cool news,” said Mr Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com. “It was out of our expectations.”
A survey of scientific papers by a team led by Mr Cook and published by Fairfax Media this week found more than 97 per cent of researchers endorsed the view that humans are to blame for global warming. The peer-reviewed outcome flies in the face of public perception in countries such as the US or Australia that scientists are divided on the issue.
“One of the highest predictors of how important people think climate change is, is cues from political leaders,” Mr Cook said. “So if the leaders don’t seem to care, people don’t care either.
“A cue from Obama is a big step,” he said. “The fact it goes to more than 31 million followers, it just raises the awareness of consensus.”
———————-
Awareness, a false awareness (courtsey of Obama) of a 97% consensus on 'dangerous', misinformation that is now in the public domain about this paper by the President of the United States of America , not corrected by the authors of the paper. An irony is that Prof Lewandowsky and John Cook have a paper published on how hard it is to correct misinformation.. !!! http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi
President Obama is now going after Deniers in Congress…. (thus this ishighly political, v dangerous for the public perception of scientists if 'misinformation' is uncorrected by scientists)
www. BarackObama.com
“Call out a climate denier
Check out our list of known climate deniers in Congress-elected officials who refuse to even acknowledge the science behind climate change—and call them out on Twitter.” http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers
So Dana, will you or any of your co-authors, tell the President, that your paper says nothing about a consensus on ‘dangerous’?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:00 PM on 29 July 2013Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
Earthling, the question asked in your first paragraph is essentially answered in the second paragraph of the article (the use of the word "ultimately" in the title of the post should also be a hint). The oceans have a massive thermal inertia, which means that it takes a long time for the oceans to warm sufficiently to come back into equilibrium with the surface. Thus the full sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans will only been fully evidient after a delay of many decades.
The second of your paragraphs is just pedantry. "business as usual" is just the terminology used for the course of progress where no real attempt is made to curb fossil fuel use and instead exploit fossil fuels in the interests of rapid economic growth. "business as usual" seems as good a name for that as any.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 29 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
JvD @42, no they don't. (See, you're not the only one who can argue by mere assertion.)
If you want to actually argue the case, however, start by explaining why we should accept the assumption of EnergyNautics that demand shifting is limited to 10% of power. Continue on by showing why you are using a study on the infrastructure costs of interconnecting Europe for renewables arising from peak energy demand in the middle latitudes (Germany, France) with peak energy production at the limits of the system (Norway for wind, Spain for solar) when your initial argument was renewables require unrealistic grid costs due to intermittency (a different issue entirely).
-
JvD at 20:15 PM on 29 July 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
Tom Curtis wrote:
If electrical cars become common, use of the same tarrif structure to encourage recharging from intermittent power would almost eliminate the need for substantially increased levels of renewable supply. Altering feed in tarifs so the gave a greater financial reward for using power in site at time of production rather than minimizing daytime usage (as the current feed-in tarif does) would also reduce the costs.
Please study the Poyry and EnergyNautics studies linked to above, which lay waste to your claims.
Prev 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 Next
