Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
Comments 47851 to 47900:
-
keystonexl at 00:17 AM on 10 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@Leto, the article regurgitates observations of the global surface temperature record and proffers an explanation that the apparant pause in it's increase is due to the absorption of energy by the oceans. Looking at that point specifically, we know:-
1. The sun is the ultimate source of heat on this planet.
2. Solar radiation is converted to heat by interaction with molecules in the air, on the earth's surface and penetrating to a relatively shallow depth in the ocean.
3. Heat moves by conduction and convection
4. Heat rises
Looking at the evidence, http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index2.html
If you look at graph 7 here, you'll see that the first 100m of ocean has warmed by 0.2C since NOAA first started measuring ocean temperature in 1959.
Using the pentadal (5 year) average,Graph 8 shows that the first 700m of ocean has warmed by just 0.1C during the same period. You'll notice how wide the error bars are during the early years on this graph, indicating the lack of confidence in the measurements that you can actually have.
Graph 9 shows that the first 2000m of ocean has warmed by just 0.05C during the same period.For comparison, the global land and surface temperature increased by around 0.45C during the same period
woodfortrees-from1998trendSo, the evidence supports our understanding that the earth's temperature is affected by solar radiation and it's effect decreases with ocean depth and that heat rises. So, it's difficult to understand, therefore, what would trap heat in the ocean.
Using graphs which show ocean heat absorption in Joules and comparing it with Hiroshima bomb explosions is troublesome from a scientific perspective. Solar radiation is obviously a much more powerful force than anything that mankind can produce.
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed link that was breaking page formatting. -
Leto at 23:17 PM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Most of Keystone's comments seem to repeat myths that have already been debunked. Shouldn't most of this be moved to the 16 years thread?
-
keystonexl at 22:52 PM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
@KR. Ok, so up until 50 years ago, natural forcing agents had a bigger effect on surface temperature than manmade emissions. Got that bit. But then as CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased since that tipping point, then you would expect the natural forcing agents to have less effect each year. Correct? So, it's hard to comprehend which natural forcing agent (or combination thereof) is sufficiently strong to have suppressed the hypothesised increase in surface temperature since 1997.
There is no concensus on this. We've had varied explanations:-
1. The ocean has absorbed the heat - No detailed explanation of the physics that shows how the ocean absorbs and emits the heat over prolonged periods has been provided.
2. Minor volcanic eruptions have cooled the planet - We have these all of the time. There's no evidence that they've increased and they'd have had to continue to increase year on year to suppress the increasing CO2 levels.
3. Solar energy has been reducing - The solar cycle goes from peak to peak in a period of 11 to 13 years. We've had this temperature plateau for 15 years now.
4. ENSO events - There is no direct correlation between La Nina and El Nino events and a subsequent impact on global temperature. The effect of these events and the time lag as to the impact of them seems to vary from scientist to scientist.
The major problem is that when global warming was first raised with the general public in 1988, temperature increases had only been happening since the mid-70s, so for a similar period of time as the apparant plateau has happened recently. There was no mention of 15 years being statistically insignificant back then. The evidence for global warming was confined to surface temperature records alone and there was limited talk as to the effect of the sun, ENSO, volcanoes and ocean absorption. It feels like whenever the hypothesis is looking dodgy, a new raft of evidence is brought in to shore it up. What was originally a simple formula has now become a highly complex one.
-
PluviAL at 18:29 PM on 9 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Resent fidings indicate that climate change precedes plate tectonics. ie prior to Indian plate careening into Asia, climate changed perhaps related to large geologic upwelling East of Africa. It seems Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) could be much more powerful (and only?) outside force motivating plate tectoctonics (mantal cell rotation drag not withstanding) . Does anyone have any leads on this concept?
-
Bernard J. at 18:26 PM on 9 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
"What doesn’t change with climate?"
The laws of physics...
Moderator Response: [RH] Fixed image width. -
Brandon Shollenberger at 18:06 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tristan @60, I'd say no.
Albatross @61, are you acknowledging Watts wasn't "trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS"? It seems like it, but I'm not sure. Whatever he may have been saying about Gore and SKS, I hope we can all agree he wasn't saying Al Jazeera was involved.
As for your suggestion, I've submitted a post to WUWT due to Tom Curtis's comments about me. If it gets published, I will ask Anthony that question as my first comment. I suspect his answer will be something like, "No, I don't think there is any conspiring between the two. I think they worked together to some extent." I hope that will satisfy you.
By the way, Watts is certainly welcome to make a fool of himself. I think he's managed to do that a number of times without ever discussing conspiracies!
-
Albatross at 17:13 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
The very fact that Watts felt compelled to ask the question that he did demonstrates that he was entertaining thoughts of conspiracy between the parties he mentioned.
Like I said before Watts is welcome to make a fool of himself, and so are those who try to defend his ridiculous actions.
How about those who are trying to defend Watts go and ask him publicly if he honestly thinks that there is no conspiring going on between SkS and Gore? If no, then ask him to tell that to his readership.
-
Tristan at 16:57 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Attributing something to deception rather than accident is not itself evidence of conspiratorial thinking, even when two parties are involved.
For instance, When Watts posts a contrarian climate change post by another author, are members of the climate science community engaging in conspiracist ideation by attributing the post to two cases of wilful disinformation, rather than two cases of poor scientific understanding?
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 16:07 PM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis attempts to draw an interesting distinction between conspiracist hypotheses and consparicist ideation. Curtis seems to argue meeting any of the six criteria listed in this paper shows conspiracist ideation. However, Stephan Lewandosky and co-authors have defined conspiracist ideation as conspiratorial thinking. Does assuming nefarious intent in people you disagree with mean you're engaging in conspiratorial thinking? Of course not. Does assuming maliceful deception rather than accidental mistakes in people mean you're engaging in conspiratorial thinking? Of course not.
Conspiracist ideation is conspiratorial thinking. It requires you think there is a conspiracy. If you don't think there is a conspiracy, you aren't engaging in conspiratorial thinking. You aren't showing a conspiracist ideation.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:42 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger points out that I missed his claim that:
"In that case, I'll stress the work this post is about says its criteria are for classifying hypotheses "as potentially conspiracist." Potentially. As in, it may or may not be conspiratorial. Curtis portrays the fact something meets one (or more) of the six criteria as making it conspiratorial, but that relies on misrepresenting the paper. Meeting one or more criteria is necessary but not sufficient."
Indeed, it deserves a response, and the obvious response. He has merely shifted the subject to avoid refuation.
My original claim, which he disputes was:
"As noted by Rob Honeycutt, Lewandowski's theory is about the presence of conspiracy theory ideation, ie, the types of thought patterns typically found in conspiracy theories, rather than the presence of conspiracy theories themselves. McIntyre's post on Mann's AGU adress certainly contains conspiracy theory ideation, regardless of whether it contains an actual conspiracy theory. In this case the conspiracy theory ideation consists of attributing to malice what should properly be attributed to laziness, or carelessness."
(Emphasis added).
When he responded that, "Malice is only one part of such ideation." and that,
"I said malice is only one part of conspitorial ideation. That means you need more than just attributions of malice to exhibit such ideation."
he appeared to be talking about the same topic. But now, all of a sudden, he is talking about conspiracist hypotheses. Just to make this plain, all conspiracist hypotheses exhibit conspiracist ideation; but not all conspiracist ideation is part of a conspiracist hypothesis (just as not all suicidal ideation constitutes an actual suicide).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:43 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon... You're just not getting it.
You obviously can not comprehend what is being discussed in terms of conspiracy ideation.
McIntyre went off on a completely irrational tanget on his site. He did exactly what I've repeatedly described as "conspiracy ideation." He looked for what he believed we inconsistencies, connected his own dots, and claimed something was going on. All based only on his imagination, having asked no one involved if they could explain.
Anthony Watts did exactly the same thing. He made a post on his site and also made comments on Lucia's site claiming that SkS must be getting paid by Al Gore, even giving dollar figures, for the work. All before ever asking John Cook. And even when John answered honestly, made only the thinnest reference on his site. No mea culpa.
These are acts of conspiracy ideation. I'm sorry if you don't get it.
-
willard at 09:34 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Please note how many indefinite descriptions Chewbacca's 54 contain.
Not that Chewbacca makes no sense, mind us.
Auditors may think of spit balls, quod vide:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/922148074
-
willard at 09:30 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Thank you for the kind words, Tom.
You say:
> [I]t is difficult to imagine how [Chewbacca] arrives at is bizzare, and irrelevant, misinterpretation.
Most exercises in "parsomatic" (a term borrowed from Eli Rabett, see [1]) seem to make sure what your opponent says makes no sense.
I call this the Chewbacca conjecture [2].
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 09:26 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In my comment @47, I showed Rob Honeycutt was completely wrong about what Anthony Watts did. @48 Honeycutt responded by saying if things were the exact opposite of what he said... he was still exactly right. I can't help but see some similarity to what this paper described where "contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy." I know it isn't actually the same, but there's something to be said for finding out you got everything exactly backwards and responding by saying it doesn't change your conclusion.
As for what Tom Curtis says @51, the simple truth is I don't remember seeing a topic on any site I visit regularly that had a discussion of the contents of this paper. That's why I haven't discussed it publicly. The only times such a discussion seemed relevant (prior to seeing Michael Mann's Facebook post) to me has been in personal communication. I don't think that fact merits an entire comment devoted solely to personal attacks and accusations of dishonesty.
As for what he says @52, he claims my discussion of his wording was a non-substantive response, but he ignores the fact I followed that discussion by saying, "I'll assume that was a mistake" and explaining why the interpretation he intended is wrong. In other words, I disagreed with his wording then clarified what I thought he meant. I then responded based upon that clarification.
Tom Curtis ignored that response. He portrays my clarification as the entirety of my response. Based upon that misrepresentation, he says my "response was entirely non-responsive." He completely ignored the primary point of my response then claimed the response was non-responsive.
I don't agree with the defense of the wording Tom Curtis offered @52, but we both seem to agree it is irrelevant. As such, I won't discuss it. I'll merely point out it what I said was not offered as a rebuttal, but a clarification. It is ridiculous to say my post was non-responsive by focusing on a clarification and ignoring the actual rebuttal.
Moderator Response: [JH] Given the repetitive and meandering nature of your posts, you are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering. You are hereby advised to change course, or get off of the ice. -
Tom Curtis at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
willard @40, well named.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:06 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger now presents us with the novel argument that "An element is a part of something." As an example of logic chopping evasion, that response certainly takes the cake. At best it means he has pointed out that my mentioning "six independent elements" was an oxymoron, and that I should have chosen a different word (perhaps, following Lewandowski, "criteria"). As a response to the thrust of what I said, however, his response was entirely non-responsive. (Surprise, surprise.)
He is, however, also wrong in his logic chopping. An element is always a part of a set; but that does not mean that it cannot be independent of the other elements of the set. Toraunce (my daughters Labrador), is an element of the set {Toraunce, William, Lollipop} (ie, the set of the familly pets). That in no way implies that's toraunce's survival is dependent of the two cats.
What is more, the term "independent element" is common usage, as for example in Zimmerman et al, so it is difficult to imagine how Shollenberger arrives at is bizzare, and irrelevant, misinterpretation.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:51 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Shollenberger now claims to have discussed Lewandowski 2013 "with several different people" and to have "spent a fair amount of time examining it". The later may well be true. On Feb 7th he asked for and recieved a link for the paper. That request, however, is the only comment by him on the paper that turns up an a google search for "Lewandowski" and "Shollenberger", or on a search for "Recursive", "Fury", and "Shollenberger". The second search, however, turns up three examples of his first chewbacca defence on this topic - here, at The Blackboard, and of course at WUWT.
So, it appears that while Shollenberger may have discussed the paper in private among those who will not be too critical of his views, there is no evidence of his being willing to discuss it with those who will show the intellectual bankruptcy of his ideas. Instead he bring up off topic points one after the other to fill the comment threads with criticizing irrelevancies so as to distract from the fact that the main post is substantive and shows the bizzarre nature of the response by so-called "skeptics" to Lewandowski 2012.
In other words, his sole tactic here is to spread Uncertainty and Doubt.
-
dana1981 at 08:13 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu @67 - two simple reasons. 1) As Composer99 @68 noted, the Escalator is simply a tool to show that you can cherrypick short periods of data to get flat trends at any point over the past 40+ years. Cherrypicking is the whole point. 2) Because the bulk of the human-caused global warming has occurred since 1970.
-
sauerj at 07:44 AM on 9 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
truthisbest (#4): ... Two suggested Links that might further help: 1) The following SkS article (LINKED HERE) does a good job explaining the physics of global warming and how changing GHG concentrations impact total outgoing radiation until when thermal equilibrium is re-established at which time total outgoing energy then returns to = total incoming energy (albeit at different intensities at the various emitted wavelengths). 2) Also, the two lecture videos (LINKED HERE) from the "German Advisory Council on Climate Change" are also very good in explaining the physics of global warming (watch both episodes #1 & #2).
-
willard at 07:42 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
It might be time to ask Chewbacca if he recognizes that this claim is untrue:
> Put simply, Steve McIntyre blamed everything in this post on Michael Mann.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/04/a-conspiracy-of-one/
If we remove that untrue claim, his post at Tony's rests on snickers alone.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:10 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon... If I posted a comment on WUWT asking the readers how many people believe John Cook when he said SkS was not paid for the material, how many would say they believe it? Think about it. What about you? Do you believe it?
That is the essence of what I'm talking about.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:08 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brendon... If Watts didn't know the facts before making his post, then he's engaging in conspiratorial ideation. You find out the facts before you make a post. Not after.
And, in fact, Watts has not recanted any of the errors he's put forth. Not unlike how you have continually done here.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:59 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Rob Honeycutt @41 and @42 says:
Third, Anthony was told this and has still chosen to reject the facts and create a post to the contrary.
...
This is exactly what Tony's doing. He's been told, upfront and honestly, what the facts are but is choosing to assume those facts are not the truth, but are a cover up for the "real truth."When I looked at Anthony's site for posts about the issue, I found this site. On it, Watts shows the exact opposite of what Honeycutt portrays. He says he sent an e-mail to John Cook asking how much Cook was paid. There is then an update that says Cook responded, saying he wasn't paid anything. That is the opposite of what Honeycutt says.
Watts didn't know "the facts" before he made his post, and he accepted them once he found them out. As far as I can see, Rob Honeycutt's description is completely false.
As for him saying (@43) my "true colors come out" on a different site, I haven't said anything different on any other site. The only thing I've done differently here is use a more moderate tone in respect for this site and its rules. My views are well-documented. There would be no point in me trying to hide them. I couldn't if I wanted to.
-
rockytom at 05:57 AM on 9 March 2013The educational opportunities in addressing misinformation in the classroom
This is a really good post John. Denialism (misinformation and disinformation) must be attacked on all fronts, and as you mentioned, a textbook should touch on negative as well as the positive, especially in a science textbook about what some people consider a "controversial" subject. To the informed, climate change and global warming are not controversial. It is most likely the uninformed (like most entering college freshmen) who see both sides of the "controversy." An introductory science textbook that's intended as a survey of the science should introduce students to all aspects of the science, even the negative ones. That's why, in my experience, students gain a much better understnding of scientific concepts when they see the errors presented by the negative deniers of the facts. This is basically why we included the two chapters in our new textbook, "Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis."
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:48 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis @39 again accuses me of dishonesty in his 1, but he fails to address the fact he misrepresented my remarks while making this same claim just before. That point has apparently been dropped. I can only assume he has no explanation for his misrepresentation.
He instead focuses on a different point: That I (supposedly) haven't discussed this paper. The reality is I have discussed this paper with several different people, and I have spent a fair amount of time examining it. The fact I haven't discussed it in this particular spot doesn't mean anything more than I want to focus on one issue at a time.
Curtis even makes an issue of the fact I "waited 9 days without commenting on the OP." This is a peculiar claim as until the day I posted on this page, I didn't even know it existed. I did a search of this site to find a recent post discussing an issue that would make my concerns topical. That was when I first saw this page.
Put simply, Curtis's accusations of dishonesty, made in blatant violation of this site's Comments Policy, are baseless.
For his 2, Curtis claims unnecessary attribution of malice is "one of six independent elements of such ideation." An element is a part of something. It is a component, exactly in line with me saying it is "only one part." That means his remark actually agreed with what I've said. I'll assume that was a mistake, and he meant to say each of the six elements are different types of conspiratorial ideation.
In that case, I'll stress the work this post is about says its criteria are for classifying hypotheses "as potentially conspiracist." Potentially. As in, it may or may not be conspiratorial. Curtis portrays the fact something meets one (or more) of the six criteria as making it conspiratorial, but that relies on misrepresenting the paper. Meeting one or more criteria is necessary but not sufficient.
For his 3, Curtis effectively says we've gone as far as we can on that issue. I agree. I will merely state I have posted in complete honesty, despite what Curtis may say. We may be at a stalemate on this point, but it is not because I'm being dishonest.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 05:47 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Albatross, I had guessed Watts was wrong the first time I read his comment. I figured Skeptical Science helped in some way, but I figured they did it for free. But being wrong doesn't make one conspiratorial. That is true, for example, when you are wrong and say:
Watts is clearly trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS.
Watts did not try to insinuate there was anything going on between "Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS." Al Gore was recently part of a business deal in which he got a large amount of money from Al Jazeera. Watts was referring to this, suggesting Gore paid SKS with money gotten from that deal. There is no reason to interpret Watts as suggesting Al Jazeera was involved. It was just a jab at Al Gore for taking money from Al Jazeera.
Just think. You based your description of Watts (on part) on such an simple misinterpretation. If you can do that, surely you should at least consider cutting him some slack.
-
John Hartz at 04:50 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Rob Honeycutt:
I do believe that you are being a tad harsh in your criticism of Watts and his followers. Afterall, they live in a parallel universe where "up" is "down" and "right" is "left", etc. A little kindness and understanding goes a long way, or so they say.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:37 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
And how fascinating how on Lucia's site your true colors come out...
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #111119)
March 7th, 2013 at 11:42 pm
John Cook continues the insanity by saying this quote from Anthony Watts is the:
Latest conspiracy theory from @wattsupwiththat – @skepticscience getting paid by Al Gore with Al Jazeera oil money http://bit.ly/XWp5vj
What about hiring people to do a legal job in an open manner is a conspiracy?
I think this link should take you to the “tweet.”
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:34 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In addition, how conspiracy ideation works is, when you get an answer that is contrary to your concocted story line, that is further evidence of the "conspiracy." This is exactly what Tony's doing. He's been told, upfront and honestly, what the facts are but is choosing to assume those facts are not the truth, but are a cover up for the "real truth." And his "real truth" is the story that he's concocted.
It's a form of circular reasoning.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:23 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon @ 37.... OMG. You have got to be joking. That has to be one of the worst conspiratorial twitter posts to ever come out of Watts and you're asking what's the conspiracy?
First of all, no one hired SkS to do any work. Second, no one paid SkS any money. Third, Anthony was told this and has still chosen to reject the facts and create a post to the contrary.
Again, this is exactly what "conspiracy ideation" is. It's following what one perceives to be inconsistencies and then connecting those dots to create a story line, regardless of any actual facts.
-
Composer99 at 03:29 AM on 9 March 201316 ^ more years of global warming
Saw a story about this paper over at ScienceBlogs and I suspect it's on topic for this post.
From the abstract:
[1] Observations suggest that the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol layer between 20 and 30 km has increased 4–10% per year since 2000, which is significant for Earth's climate. Contributions to this increase both from moderate volcanic eruptions and from enhanced coal burning in Asia have been suggested. Current observations are insufficient to attribute the contribution of the different sources. Here we use a global climate model coupled to an aerosol microphysical model to partition the contribution of each. We employ model runs that include the increases in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO2) over Asia and the moderate volcanic explosive injections of SO2 observed from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of the model results to observations reveals that moderate volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic influences, are the primary source of the observed increases in stratospheric aerosol.
-
desertphile at 02:48 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
I have been looking on the Internet for evidence that "The Australian" has explained their oddly deceptive behavior, or has in any way tried to justify their behaior, or if they have apologized. Either my Internet search skills are not up to the task, or "The Australian" has not bothered to do any of these things.
-
desertphile at 02:45 AM on 9 March 2013Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?
"Was Pachauri misrepresented by The Australian?"
Surely the evidence shows that he was--- the interviews in question are available on the Internet. Note that even if the interviews were not available, the belief that Dr. Pachauri would make the claim is an irrational belief. It is like asserting that Dr. Pachauri said Earth is hollow.
-
John Hartz at 01:43 AM on 9 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Doug:
I just flipped a switch and Curry's profile now appears in the gallery of Climate Misinformers. If you have any personal interest in helping us keep this database current, please let John Cook know.
-
willard at 01:41 AM on 9 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Tom Curtis,
Let's not forget that the Auditor has associated another name than "Wingman Naomi":
Update: As reader DGH observed in a comment below, Mann’s presentation at Rutgers also employed Mann’s AGU Trick to hide the divergence between Hansen Scenario B and observed temperature, not showing data after 2005. As noted above, not using up-to-date data in virtually identical circumstances was characterized by Pierrehumbert as “ugly” and “illegitimate”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/02/mikes-agu-trick
Our emphasis. Now, why would the Auditor mention Pierrehumbert if Mann alone was his sole target?
The notion of virtual identity deserves due diligence.
***
For memory’s sake, here was the Auditor’s line:
All in all, it’s a French farce with the Chevalier often acting more like Inspector Clouseau than Hercule Poirot.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/7731143731
***
Finally, please note that your interlocutor, which I call Chewbacca because of his fondness for the Chewbaccattack (think South Park), mentioned his pet theory over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/03/open-thread-weekend-10/#comment-299910
One can find an exchange I had with Chewbacca on the same page.
An exchange that ended with crickets.
Due diligence,
w
-
KR at 00:47 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu - In reverse order: With regards to variations up and down over the last 160 years, see CO2 is not the only driver of climate; also the IPCC AR4 section 9 on attributions:
AR4, Fig. 9-5, simulations run with/without anthropogenic contributions to forcings.
Up until the last 50 years or so it might be plausibly argued that what we were seeing was simply natural forcing variations. That's no longer the case - the physics shows that recent changes are dominated by anthropogenic influences.
As to why start at 1970? Isn't that a sufficent extent of time to show (a) a real trend, and (b) the 'skeptic' cherry-pick of short-term negative trends due entirely to noise? Besides - I don't recall any of the 'skeptic' crowd claiming negative trends in the 1930-1940 time frame using the same tactics, do you?
-
Composer99 at 00:29 AM on 9 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
snafu:
I believe there is statistical & physics-based reasoning behind it, but I am not up to speed on that aspect so I will not comment on it (except for one point).
I can note that the Escalator graph isn't really meant to illustrate what is going on with global warming. It's a debunking tool, meant to show how easy it is to construct "pauses" or "cooling periods" in the data which are not statistically or physically significant.
If one were to extend the graph to, say, 1850, it would rather belabour the point. Plus, the period 1940-1970 (approximately) had (surface temperature) cooling that was both statistically and physically significant, so it would be inappropriate to use the Escalator graph to suggest that period was a cherry-pick.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:28 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon Shollenberger @34:
1) Shollenberger now claims,
"The reality is I'd happily discuss the paper ..." .
As it happens, however, he waited 9 days without commenting on the OP, but found he had to comment once he found a suitable distraction. Further, he has now made 7 posts (excluding the posts dealing solely with administrative matters) without getting around to discussing the OP. Indeed, his most recent post introduces, apropos of nothing, and entirely new topic without getting around to the original post.
In this case, actions clearly speak louder than words. He does not want to discuss the original post. He is not simly clarrifying easier points before embarking on the topic of the OP, because his simple issues are not logically required for discussion of the OP. He is simply throwing in red herrings to distract from the OP. In short, he is spreading FUD.
And Shollenberger, you may find that description of your acts offensive. I find, however, of necessity, the act itself must always be more offensive than the description. If you dislike it when your actions are described truly, the remedy is in your power - stop spreading FUD.
2) Shollenberger is distressed that I have mistaken him as saying something true. I apologize. I certainly did not want to misrepresent him, and am happy to acknowledge that he said something false when he wrote:
"Malice is only one part of such ideation"
I am not sure what he intends to claim, except that, apparently, malice is not an independent attribute of conspiratorial ideation. On the contrary, however, it is one of six independent elements of such ideation identified in the Lewandowski 2013:
"We derived six criteria from the existing literature to permit classi cation of hypotheses pertaining to LOG12 as potentially conspiracist (see Table 3). Our criteria were exclusively psychological and hence did not hinge on the validity of the various hypotheses. ...
First, the presumed intentions behind any conspiracy are invariably nefarious ...
A corollary of the fi rst criterion is the pervasive self-perception and self- presentation among conspiracy theorists as the victims of organized persecution. ...
Third, during its questioning of an official account, conspiracist ideation is characterized by an almost nihilistic degree of skepticism" (Keeley, 1999, p. 125); and the conspiracy theorist refuses to believe anything that does not fi t into the conspiracy theory. ...
Fourth, to the conspiracy theorist, nothing happens by accident (e.g., Barkun, 2003). ...
Fifth, the underlying lack of trust and exaggerated suspicion contribute to a cognitive pattern whereby speci c hypotheses may be abandoned when they become unsustainable, but those corrections do not impinge on the overall abstraction that `something must be wrong' and the `official' account must be based on deception (Wood et al., 2012). ...
Finally, contrary evidence is often interpreted as evidence for a conspiracy. This ideation relies on the notion that, the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy, the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (Bale, 2007; Keeley, 1999; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). ..."
It should be noted that McIntyre's theory exhibits not just the attribution of malice, but also the refusal to allow for accidental developments. In this case, Mann's continued use of data from 2006 cannot be attributed to laziness (for example), but must be attributed to malice in McIntyre's account.
3) I do not see any need to add to my prior points about "Wingman Naomi". Shollenberger's interpretation is patently contrived, and only pursued (I suspect) to evade the embarassment of his claiming that only Mann was discussed when in fact McIntyre discussed two scientists in terms that strongly suggested collusion between them.
-
truthisbest at 23:01 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
KR - thank you for your responses @ #5 & #9.
-
snafu at 22:35 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Speaking of cherry picking, why does your Escalator graph start at 1970?
HADCRUT4 from 1850 to present; 0.046°C/decade with 2 distict warming and 2 (possibly 3) distinct cooling trends....each around 35-40 years. Please explain?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:51 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Here are some of Anthony's comments and a comment from one use:
"REPLY: It is a highlighter marker, used to call attention to the area, like I routinely do with text. If I wanted to make a plot trend line, I would have used a plot trend line. – Anthony"
"REPLY: and again, it isn’t statistically significant in the scheme of things, much like that 0.7C in the atmosphere isn’t statistically significant against daily diurnal variation or seasons. – Anthony" He sure doesn't seem to have his head around what Statistical Significance actually means does he?
"REPLY: and again as answered previously and made clear in the story, it isn’t a trend line (though you want it to be) it is simply a yellow highlight to draw attention to the section of interest, just like I use the same highlight tool on sections of text or tables I post. – Anthony"
But...
"Mark Buehner says:
“Anthony, what’s your evidence the warming has paused? The data you present show the warming continuing.”
It does? Whats the slope look like over the past 10 years (tip- look at the yellow line)."
Sure looks like he misled at least on person!
So, Anthony's use of the 'highlighter' was, in a communications sense, very, very ... sloppy. If your readers can misinterpret what you have written, you didn't do a very good job communicating with them.
An open question that each reader can decide for themselves. Is such sloppiness unintentional, in which case we simply say that that person shouldn't be writing anything because they aren't good enough at it?
Or is it intentional, carefully crafted sloppiness that has a desired effect and can then be immediately denied if you are called out on it?
Whats the term used in politics - plausible deniability?
-
Albatross at 17:29 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
Brandon @37,
The following assertion is simply false:
"Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. "
SkS's support was acknowledged; SkS were not hired to do anything, period. It is really that simple. Watts is embarking on a futile fishing expedition and smear campaign.
Watts is clearly trying to insinuate that there is something nefarious and secret going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. Goodness' knows what compelled Watts to dream up that ridiculous fantasy. You see Watts is engaging in conspiracy ideation because his question reveals that he thinks/believes that something is going on behind the scenes between Gore, Al Jazeera and SkS. One has to be incredibly naive (or biased) to think that Watts is not engaging in conspiracy ideation.
Watts and his ilk seem unaware of the irony here given that it was in fact Watts who approached an AGW denier group (the Heartland Institute) for $88K to develop a web site. I don't think that was public knowledge until the Gleick affair, but I could be wrong about that.
If Watts wants to continue to make a fool of himself then that is his decision. Likewise, people are free to make fools of themselves by trying to defend his inane and paranoid behaviour.
-
Brandon Shollenberger at 15:41 PM on 8 March 2013Conspiracy Theorists Respond to Evidence They're Conspiracy Theorists With More Conspiracy Theories
In a related note, John Cook just posted this on Twitter:
Latest conspiracy theory from
@wattsupwiththat -@skepticscience getting paid by Al Gore with Al Jazeera oil money http://bit.ly/XWp5vjWhat is the supposed conspiracy here? Anthony Watts said "the SkS kidz are behind" a website, pondering how much Skeptical Science got paid for making the site. Right or wrong, nothing about that idea is a conspiracy. There is nothing untoward about hiring people to make a website for you. Besides, the point of a conspiracy is to be secretive. The entire basis for what Watts said was that the site was developed "through a collaboration with the website Skeptical Science."
Watts said Skeptical Science was hired to do a job, and their involvement was openly acknowledged. What about that idea involves a conspiracy?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 15:41 PM on 8 March 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #9
Thanks, John. I found what I wanted at www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm. I was just curious why that page was not referenced along with the other usual suspects.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 15:32 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
That's a good one, jyyh. :)
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 13:35 PM on 8 March 2013Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years
Kevin @79
From the abstract for the paper: "On 103- to 106-year timescales, global sea level is determined largely by the volume of ice stored on land, ....Here we use observations from five well-studied time slices covering the last 40 My"
They are looking at a much longer time scale that the ice age cycles. Milankovitch orbital changes are concerned with what happens within a single glacial cycle over time scales of 50,000 to 100,000 years. They are looking at a 40 million year span. At that timescale Milankovitch cycles just cancel each other out.
-
jyyh at 13:17 PM on 8 March 2013What doesn’t change with climate?
Genetics of a long-living individual specimens of various species, such as bristlecone pine.
-
Leto at 12:42 PM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Kevin wrote: "Cherrypicking? Generally speaking, cherrypicking is used to show info in the best possible light, it also implies intentional misleading. To present a claim that a trend has stopped, or even alterred, you must use the data at the end of the series. Since they are making the claim that warming has stopped since X, how else should the data be presented other then showing a trend from X to the present?"
Moving the cherrypick into the claim does not stop it from being a cherrypick.
The main question is, has the value of X, in this case 1997, emerged from any theory? Or has it been chosen post hoc because starting from that point yields a preferred result? Is it actually noise-driven rather than theory-driven?
If I made a bet that I could hit a 1cm target on a tree with a high-powered rifle from 1km away, would you be at all bothered if I first fired into a forest and then drew the target - after I took the shot?
-
Roger D at 10:52 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Watts post is titled "Fact check for Andrew Glickson - Ocean heat has paused too".
The title idicates that facts will be presented. Some data was shown, but the only real fact turns out to be that when Watts looks at part of the available data, (while never alluding to the fact that it is only part) it looks to him like ocean heat has paused. What use is that to understanding the issue? None.
-
Smith at 10:04 AM on 8 March 2013Cherrypicking to Deny Continued Ocean and Global Warming
Tom Curtis@60 - Thank you for your response.
For that he is rightly criticized.
Fair enough. The label "Denial Fake Trend" just seems like odd language IMO.
Prev 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 Next
