Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 Next
Comments 48801 to 48850:
-
calyptorhynchus at 10:47 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
Dr Yew
I assume your response is a joke.
It's not a very good one.
-
Terranova at 10:44 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
DrYew, I agree.
-
dana1981 at 10:40 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Bob @31 - true, right after I submitted that post I thought to myself "surface air temperature, technically". I generally stick to "surface temperature" just to keep it simple, and distinguish from overall global temperautre.
-
IanC at 10:30 AM on 8 February 2013Temp record is unreliable
I plotted the difference between the current GISTEMP, and the archived 2008 data (via WUWT); while the graph is not exactly the same as the one posted by Kevin, they are close enough that I think I have the right data set ( the difference is possibly due to me using Jan-Dec as the year rather than Dec-Nov, but I haven't bothered to check)
Blue is the current GISTEMP up to 2007, with green being the difference between current GISTEMP and GISTEMP in April 2008. Point is overall adjustment is still small.
The green curve can largely be explain through two "big" adjustments made since the RC post linked to in post 249. First is the change from GHCN v3.1.0 to GHCN v3.2.0 for the surface stations in Sep 2012 (documented here), and the switch form HADISST+Reynolds OI ocean data to ERSST (just last month. Confirmation from GISS).
Green is the difference between current GISTEMP and GISTEMP in April 2008. Blue is the shift due to change in Ocean data. Red is shift due to land data change.
Note that the overall trend changes are
Overall change in trend: 0.057 oC/century GHCN v3.1 to v3.2 0.040 oC/century Change in ocean data 0.0089 oC/century Now Kevin,
(1) Most of the adjustment is due to switching from GHCN from v3.1 to v3.2. This is done by NOAA and is due to better algorithm for detecting inhomogeneities in temperature record(see here). Note that this an automated program, so unless you have a valid criticism on the algorithm, you can't simply attribute this adjustment as a reseracher's bias.
If the better algorithm says the temperature needs to be adjusted downwards and it is ignored, you can be sure folks over at WUWT will be all over it.
(2) The change that Dr. Hansen can actually decide on, is the switch of ocean dataset. First off, prior to 2013 the ocean data actually consists of two chucks, HADISST prior to 1980, and Reynold OI dataset from 1980, so it is possible that there are inconsistencies; on the other hand ERSST is a complete dataset.
If the decision to change dataset is to simply inflate the warming, they could've done it back in 2010. Hansen et al (2010) wrote:
Until there is a demonstrably superior ocean data set, we will retain HadISST1 plus OISST (concatenated as in our analyses for the past several years) in our standard analysis
Thus they have been evaluating the relative merits of the two datasets for at least two years. Furthermore, in the same paper it was revealed that if they went with a third dataset (HADSSTv2) the warming is even stronger. So the question is, if Hansen's science is based on his personal opinion rather than careful analysis, why did he wait two years? Why didn't he choose the dataset that results in the most warming?
(3) Your claim that "ALL changes in the direction that support his belief?" is demonstrably false. In Jan 2010, an adjustment resulted in a decrease in global trend of 0.005oC/century
-
Bert from Eltham at 10:11 AM on 8 February 2013For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
I consider myself both educated and well informed. On more than two occasions have the moderaters here explained to me the errors in my posts in both content and logic. I listened to what they said and worked out I was indeed either partially and or totally wrong. Now I know where I was wrong I have tried to understand why I was lacking in the knowledge that led to uninformed comments. Climate Science is inherently very complicated. This has changed my mind from where I was before. Changing your mind when real new evidence is presented and then digested and understood is called science. Rejecting any real new evidence and holding steadfast to preconceived beleifs is called denialism. Bert
-
Riduna at 09:51 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
The problem for those with vested interests in fossil fuel production and use is that arguments supportive of low climate sensitivity, usually put forward by contrarian scientists, often on their behalf, are unsustainable and dangerous. There are three reasons for this:
1. The most widely accepted value for climate sensitivity is 3°C, a value proposed by the IPCC. Yet, as the author notes, there is evidence that climate scientists in general and the IPCC in particular tend to be conservative in their estimates. One suspects that this could be true of climate sensitivity.
2. Increase of CO2 concentration and their effects this century are an underestimation because they can not – and do not – accurately reflect the effects of feedbacks initiated by anthropogenic emissions. It is quite possible that CO2 concentration will rise more rapidly and be higher than anticipated because of carbon emissions from thawing Arctic permafrost.
3. Likewise, the effects on average global temperature and climate of rapidly diminishing albedo evidenced by loss of Arctic sea ice and retreating glaciers, is not accurately known. However, it is more likely than not that it will contribute to accelerated global warming and Arctic amplification, increasing carbon emissions further and producing undesirable climate change.
-
DrYew at 09:19 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
Guys -
I'm a great supporter, reader and follower of Skeptical Science - the website that uses peer-reviewed science to counter, again and again, the misinformation of climate denialists the world around.
So what is this piece dong here? It's patently not about science. But it does have a rather sly political message of the sort that denialists will seize on to discredit SS: "there you go, we told you they were just pushing a leftie/hippy/tree-hugger agenda".
I'll say this just once. The biggest threat we face in the war against ignorance and denialism is slipping away from a mono-focus on hard science. As soon as there's any hint of politics, we're lost. That's why, for instance, The Guardian - for all its great work in the environmental space - carries no weight with anybody who isn't a paid-up lefite... denialists dismiss any rational arguments as a work of political cant.
Please, John, I urge you to re-think and not to publish this type of article again.
(Aside from that, this post is not original: the sustainability people have expressed these thoughts - in better prose - elsewhere. My favourite: http://economicsofenough.blogspot.co.uk/)
Dr Jonathan M
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:59 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG:
The phrase "pal review" was an insulting term proffered by the fake skeptics, accusing mainstream scientsists of bad behaviour. The strongest evidence of such bad behaviour is in the fake skeptics' papers and reviews. Forget the label, and focus on the behaviour.
Even the phrase "peer review" doesn't mean exactly what it says. In the case of the fake skeptics, their "peers" are other fake skeptics, and "peer review" doesn't help much - they are more pals than reviewers. "Peer review" is supposed to mean "expert review". In many disciplines with small global communities, it can be hard to find an expert you don't know at least a bit. Review by pals is fine if the pals do a thorough review - it's when reviewers are more interesting in a group hug that it is a problem. And again, when you look for the evidence, bad reviewing habits show up in the fake skeptics' camp far more strongly than in the mainstream.
I have personally reviewed papers of people that I know well - that is, as a journal reviewer, not a pre-submission review. One had worked as an undergrad with the group I was a grad student in. He later did grad work elsewhere, and I reviewed a paper from his M.Sc. work when I was a prof. I signed the review. When we talked a year or so later, he said he was initially surprised at the rough review (I saw major problems) coming from someone he knew, but then when he went over it all in detail, he realized that the review was the most constructive appraisal of his research that he had seen so far.
I put the "pal" aside, and became a reviewer. Sometimes, the best "pal" you can have is the one that points out where you are going wrong. That is how the review process should work.
I also remember that the department where I did my grad work saved their toughest questioning of "Friday afternoon seminar" speakers for their own grad students. These weren't "boost their ego" sessions - these were "slash and burn" sessions. The profs wanted to produce good scientists, and letting a grad student out into the big wide world with bad results was not in the interest of the department's reputation.
-
mdenison at 08:48 AM on 8 February 2013Icy contenders weigh in
Sorry - I forgot to point out that the abstract from Foster and Rohling draw the conclusion of a 9 m rise for current CO2 levels. I haven't worked out yet how that squares with the graph.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:23 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
dana @ 25:
There is even a slightly finer distinction that is almost always skipped: when it comes to the land record, we're talking about global surface air temperature. The air temperature close to the surface is not the same as the temperature of the actual ground surface. Ocean temperatures are measured differently, so it is a real surface temperature representation. This is one of the reasons why the analysis methods continue to distinguish between ocean and land data sets.
-
mdenison at 07:55 AM on 8 February 2013Icy contenders weigh in
At climate desk live another Jason Box report Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise he shows there is a relationship between sea level rise and CO2 levels see graph at 189sec . I first came across this in a different guise in David Archers book the Long Thaw and paper, Fig3.
That relationship is also shown in much more detail for the last 500,000 years by Foster & Rohling in the "Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales" , graph here.
Having seen that graph 21m (69ft) looks optimistic. There appears good reason to think a lot of ice could melt. With the amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere the situation now is a very different regime to that in that in the Eemian. Dahl & Jensen's better news of stability may no longer apply. -
perwis at 07:44 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Grypo #19
I agree that it is a strange comparison. The nuclear winter was hardly as well researched in the 1980s as the climate sensitivity issue is today.
BTW: The late Stephen H Schneider has a really interesting story to tell about this in his book "Science as a contact sport" (National Geographic Society, 2009) He did some modelling on the climatic effects of a thermonuclear war, and found that it would probably not lead to as much cooling as Carl Sagan thought. Sagan chose to ignore Schneider’s results, instead promoting the "nuclear winter" hypothesis, causing a schism between these two great scientists and science communicators of our time. Schneider's book is recommended reading for anyone who is interested in the history of climate science. It is really well written and provides an exiting first hand account from someone who was in the centre of both the science and the debate over climate change for more than four decades.
-
perwis at 07:18 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Yvan #22:
Hansen et al (2011) have a nice comparison with different heat uptake sinks in addition to the ocean: atmosphere, land, ice-on land, floating ice (see Fig 8 and the discussion in section 10.1). They calculate that the ground uptake today is about 0.03 W/m^2 averaged over the Earth's surface. Look there and you'll also find references to other works, which perhaps can be of some use for you.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., and von Schuckmann, K.: Earth's energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011, 2011 Full paper here.
-
StBarnabas at 07:06 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
Hi John
thanks for this. I am currently reading through "Future" by Al Gore, which looks at similar themes.
I live also in the UK at present. You will find many similar minded people at Navitron.
I decided a while ago at least if I could not influence people I would change my owm lifestyle...
-
Jonas at 07:04 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
Gardening (one of the main themes the Transition Movement) helps to reconnect. I am a software developer and I would like the world to keep communications technologies, medicine, and other hightech things, but I also would like to learn not to be too dependent on these things as fas as basic needs are concerned. Transition calls this "resilience" (stability to say global financial, global weather, etc. hasards)
Gardening personally helps me to balance my office job and body movement and social activities. The garden I participate in, is a mixture of "Schrebergarten" (private garden on public ground) and community garden (on private or public ground): it's public ground and the city (Munich) provides basic services like preparation of the soil, organic fertilizers, water pump, big tools and organic seedlings, ond off you go, caring and harvesting. I am so fond of this concept, that I created a an internet forum for all the 1000 gardeners of the concept, hoping this helps to ease cooperation among people who might not meet, because some are in the garden during the morning, some during lunch break, some in the evening.
Also, this kind of gardening helps to reduce CO2: you eat more vegetables (less animal products) simply because they abound, if you go there by bicycle, there is no CO2 for transportation; the water is pumped manually, so there is no CO2 for irrigation; since it's organic, there is no CO2 for huge effort on dangerous genetic crops and no CO2 for fertilizers and fertilizers and also no nitrous oxides from chemical fertilizers; also there is no packaging, no supermarkets, no intermediate cooling, little waste, ultimate freshness and it's movement (no need for workout on machines) and it's social (other gardeners).
Picture: Krautgarten (location Riem near Munich; there are several locations, LINK ):
Moderator Response: [RH] Hot linked URL that was breaking page format. -
hadfield at 06:53 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
And I should add to the last post that by global warming I mean increases in the global surface temperature, which is certainly not the only climate metric, or necessary the best one, but is the one for which we have the best data.
-
hadfield at 06:51 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
I think James' point about the last decade is not that global warming has stopped (implying low or zero climate sensitivity) but that it has not accelerated to the extent that it would have if climate sensitivity were very high (above, say, 4).
-
tlitb1 at 06:41 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
"The corporate world, of course, finds it easier to function with a disconnected populace, which is why it has promoted and continues to promote such disconnection."
That strikes me as a sweeping generalisation. Could you be more specific about the entity here described as the "corporate world"? Could you provide any evidence for this alleged desire by this "corporate world" to promote a 'disconnect' amongst the populace?
It seems easier to point to the resulting *effect* large corporations have upon the populace i.e. easing the drudgery of every day life to the point that knowledge of the realities of farming or fishing has diminished to the point of non-existence, but that effect is surely a by-product of their existence not a coherent designed goal by any single entity.
For example I guess one could easily argue that the abolition of human slavery is a by-product of the "corporate world", but would one credit that entity as having that as an intial motivation?
-
vrooomie at 06:37 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
In keeping with the musical theme, one of mine, wrt to all that is done 'in our name.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0dy56N5_d8
-
Doug Bostrom at 06:30 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
I should stop because this is going off-topic but if the total energy accumulation of the planetary surface (aka "global warming" which of course includes the oceans) is not continuous then... what? What would be the full implications?
So either conveying the impression to the listening public that energy accumulation is not a steady, continuous, uninterrupted process is astoundingly wrong or... what?
When an organization armed with the single loudest (even if ineffective and self-defeating) press arm performing climate communication makes this error they're wasting -everybody's- time, most especially that of relative pipsqueaks such as SkS. We can talk ourselves blue in the face here for a year but a single thoughtless press release from NOAA will nullify that work. Everybody listens to NOAA, everybody repeats what they say. A search on press results from NOAA's most recent bullet-to-the-foot is as depressing as it is pretty damned annoying.
-
JanB at 06:14 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
A great article on an important subject. Thanks.
-
dana1981 at 06:09 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
I agree, a lot of people (including climate scientists and climate science organizations) use 'global temperature' when they should say 'global surface temperature'. It's a very important distinction, and careless to ignore it.
-
Climate science peer review is pal review
Rob Painting - That is a good point; the "MWP" does not appear to have been a global phenomena, but rather a regional one, and more global reconstructions with additional proxies differ in some regards.
The point I was making was with respect to the overall "hockey-stick" of recent temperatures that is seen in so many other reconstructions, using different statistical techniques and proxies. Not to mention Wahl Ammann 2007 which refuted M&M, and demonstrated that the various complaints about Mann's techniques made no significant difference to his primary conclusions.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:21 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Yeah, Dana, but here's NOAA's headline statement to the public, as found by the first Google hit on "NOAA state of the climate":
" 2012 global temperatures 10th highest on record "Thereby entirely ignoring the overwhelming majority of the energy added to the Earth system during 2012.
What does yelling out "10th warmest year" say to John Q. Citizen? Superficially (which, given our busy lives is the consideration most of us can afford) it says that global warming is an intermittent phenomenon, that in some years we find the world cooler than it was the year before. This is of course not only wrong but plays perfectly into the hands of "global warming has stopped."
It's not as though this communcation effort started yesterday, that we don't already know the surface temperature expresses only a tiny fraction of accumulated energy in the Earth system. In any case, including "oceans" in "surface" isn't such a huge conceptual leap; the oceans are an integral part of the functioning of the atmosphere and compared to the rest of our sphere are a surface feature.
-
william5331 at 05:04 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
If the long expected tipping points await us in the future then the temperature vs CO2 graph is unlikely to be a smooth continuous function. The most obvious tipping point is when the Arctic ocean is ice free in, say, the beginning of August. With the huge increase in Arctic ocean sea temperature, the Arctic becomes a zone of rising air, sucking climate zones northward in the fall. Temperature readings from met stations all over the northern hemisphere lurch upward and this appears as a discontinuous or at least a sharp increase in temperature in the global record. The ice free condition then comes earlier and earlier each subsequent year until a new regime is established. Temperature then continues to increase gradually according to climate sensitivity and our output of Carbon dioxide (which may be considerably reduced due to the resulting collapse in our ecology and hence our economy) Gaia wins.
-
Rob Painting at 05:02 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
KR - global ice volume is a pretty good proxy for global temperature. Based on the sea level trend over the last 10,000 years, itself determined by the global ice volume, it is very likely that Dr Mann's reconstructions underestimate how much warmer it is now, when compared the the Medieval Period.
-
Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG - "When the correct answer has been established then all reputable scientists working in that field will agree because they will not find any real data or logic to disprove the point - and then they will have nothing to publish - even in 3rd rate journals."
That statement is demonstrably false - see the Tobacco Control Archives regarding the publishing activities of the tobacco industry: including several thousand references to Dr. Fred Singer, linked, as mentioned in the opening post, to many of the authors of these climate papers.
Or can I interpret your statement to mean you feel that the authors of such papers are not reputable scientists? Because I would agree on that. And when such papers are published in what should be a critically peer reviewed venue, because they were not actually given critical review, those papers have a false imprimatur of respectability and minimal quality.
Opinions are one thing, observations and theories (not hypotheses, I'll note) tied to reality are more harshly evaluated. Opinions contradicted by the facts are simply wrong.
---
Regarding your various statements re: Dr. Mann, I would suggest you take those to this thread - which notes the many confirmations of his results. Results that are notably not refuted.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:50 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
Martin G wrote "So I remain sceptical about the claims that the papers were not subject to a peer review, or that they did not deserve to be published."
If you were skeptical, you would be willing to specify what sort of evidence you would require to be able to conclude that the paper did not deserve to be published. Your most recent comments suggests that there is no evidence that would convince you, which is not skepticism.Bringing up M&M is probably a bad idea since that paper was itself badly flawed and discredited by subsequent studies. Note also that paper was published in 2003/4, which does not neccesarily imply that the reviewers of the paper in 1997 were in a position to know about the flaws at the time. So M&M is not proof that Mann's paper should not have been published.
"Given that many papers are never cited (and one suspects seldom read), it probably does not matter much to anyone except the author whether a weak paper is published in an obscure journal."
Not in the climate debate, where skeptic papers, whether in obscure journals or not, whether cited or not bu the research community, often get significant exposure in the media, blogsphere and politics. For example, Soon and Bauliunas, hence the need for very thorough and effective peer review.
-
John Hartz at 04:49 AM on 8 February 2013Was 2012 the Hottest La Niña Year on Record?
Dana @23:
I was aware of the embedded link to the NOAA retraction. My recommendation is to post the text of it at the end of the OP as well. Not everyone follows links.
-
Yvan Dutil at 04:47 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Hi, I have a related question to the climate sensibility.
I am searching a reference on the thermal inertia of the Earth. If possible, I would like to have "pure version" not the convolution with the CO2 growth curve.
I guess I could use the heat transfer rate to the ocean as a proxy and the mass of the ocean itself as a heat capacity, but I would like to know if something more formal exist in the scientific literature. -
stonepig at 04:42 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
If we do continue on this path to destruction, future scientists, eons from now, will locate our suicide gene in the rubble. Man will have proved to be hedonistic to the detriment of civilization.
-
DSL at 04:32 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
Martin, in an ideal world where everyone is trying to advance the science, I agree with Jennings on his first and last statements. This is not an ideal world. There are people trying to get published simply so the publications can be used as an opinion-shaping tool. Jennings probably doesn't have a lot of experience with the Tim Curtins of the world. Publications of misleading and badly done studies can have serious consequences, because there is no accountability where the media is concerned. None. The scientific community ignored the allegations of climategate, and rightly so. Those allegations were, however, extraordinarily damaging to the credibility of climate science as far as a significant portion of the public was/is concerned.
-
MartinG at 04:13 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
To Bob and you others. Thanks for the feedback. I dont mind falling into class 3 on this one. I repeat that peer review should be real - to help the authors. If by pal-review you all mean no-review - then we agree. But you can also get a paper reviewed by your "pals" and get some real help in getting it into a fit state to publish, so Pal review is a poor term to use. Since the identity of reviewers is normally unknown we dont know if they were just "pals" who nodded it through - on these or any other papers. So I remain sceptical about the claims that the papers were not subject to a peer review, or that they did not deserve to be published. (Sceptical science is not believing until you are convinced by the evidence).
But I hear you all proclaiming that the de Freitas papers should never have been published because they were bad, and secondly that there was no real peer review, and they have since been refuted. I would remind you that Mann et.al's original "hockey stick" paper was refuted on numerous well documented technical counts (M&M). These were not picked up in the peer review process. Now I would not suggest that that paper should not have been published. I believe that all voices should be heard, and that the suggestion that some papers should never have been published is superfluous. In climate science there are few hard facts, and most conclusions will (or should) have to have a probability attached to them. Often a different set of assumptions may give a different answer. So none of us should be so naive as to think we know the correct answer. At present we are working with hypotheses. When the correct answer has been established then all reputable scientists working in that field will agree because they will not find any real data or logic to disprove the point - and then they will have nothing to publish - even in 3rd rate journals.
My point is with the purpose of peer review and how it is used in modern literature. And for this I dont need to judge if the numerous papers edited by de Freitas were bad or not - others will have done that in the normal course of the scientific debate in the literature I am sure. Others may uncritically assume that they are junk because sombody said so - thats not really my concern.
Charles Jennings wrote in NATURE (a journal which is definately not 3rd rate):
Whether there is any such thing as a paper so bad that it cannot be published in any peer reviewed journal is debatable. Nevertheless, scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.
Given that many papers are never cited (and one suspects seldom read), it probably does not matter much to anyone except the author whether a weak paper is published in an obscure journal.
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html
-
dana1981 at 04:10 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
doug @20 - fair criticism, but as surface dwellers, people do tend to focus on surface temps, and there are different groups in NOAA looking at surface temps and ocean heat content. And surface temps are updated monthly, while OHC data are updated quarterly.
-
dana1981 at 04:08 AM on 8 February 2013Was 2012 the Hottest La Niña Year on Record?
John Hartz @22 - it has been. See the first line.
-
John Mason at 03:54 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
annienimad #1 - I like No One's Slave, No One's Master -
-
annienomad at 03:43 AM on 8 February 2013The Great Disconnect: the human disease of which climate change is but one symptom
The environment wins when people rise to confront injustice. "The Tide" (protest song).
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:40 AM on 8 February 2013For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
Oops, I forgot to make my main point w/regard to magical thinking. Considering Terranova's question about labels, it seems reasonable to say that if one does not have to resort to magic (a conspiracy) to explain climage change then one isn't suffering from conspiracist ideation. Presumably that's true for the term "denier" as well; an alternative explanation grounded in and fully consistent with the world of facts isn't "denial."
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:25 AM on 8 February 2013For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
"Conspiracist ideation" seems not so different from resorting to "magic" as a cognitive substitute for factual information. Here in the case of climate change, if we can't or more often appears the case won't confront facts, we invent a form of magic as an alternative explanation.
Considering that physical evidence overwhelmingly contradicts "scientists and politicians are working in cahoots," perhaps instead this wishful thinking is magical interpretation of facts, a way of deriving comfort or absolution in a situation where we're reluctant to take on full responsibility. Is a magic conspiracy so different from saying it was "God's will" that a dozen people were killed when a bridge collapsed even when we know it was defective gussets that caused the collapse, that closer supervision of the bridge's constuction would have saved those lives?
The magical explanation (or "conspiracist ideation") seems the final refuge against personal responsibility, ineluctable in the case of climate change.
As the paper in question comprehensively explains, the great thing about magic for people seeking to duck ownership of their problems is that magic is a product of our imaginations and hence is entirely elastic and inexhaustible; magic can be adapted and grown to wave away any accountability whatsoever.
Great stuff, magic.
-
John Mason at 03:07 AM on 8 February 2013For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
Leedsjon - an interesting post and description of your experience.
I too wish I had a dollar - no, a dime, that'd still make me rich - for every time I have read that climate scientists are all in it together for the money, or as some lower tier of a planned future world government. However, the question I ask, and have done over years, to people advancing such ideas, is how do you organise such a thing? There are very many countries, with a great diversity of cultures, belief systems, political systems and so on. To coordinate the thousands of climate scientists distributed around these diverse places, even if one wanted to, in such a fashion would be.... let's just put it this way. It would be easier to line up a thousand sheep and get them to do a Mexican Wave!
-
Doug Bostrom at 02:56 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Dana: ...quote from Trenberth in the OP is in response to Annan saying that warming has slowed over the past decade. That's just not true if you include ocean heat content data to 2000 meters.
Annan inadvertently taking his cue from NOAA, who do insist on making surface temperature their main message when communicating w/the public. "12th warmest year" etc., without proper clarification or prioritizing, or at least emphatically reminding us that one year's surface temperature is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
Is it any wonder the public at large is confused, when NOAA on the one hand tells us that energy is relentlessly accumulating in the Earth system while the other hand NOAA loudly and repeatedly implies it isn't?
-
John Hartz at 02:51 AM on 8 February 2013Was 2012 the Hottest La Niña Year on Record?
Recommend that the text of NOAA's retraction be appended to the OP.
-
Composer99 at 02:39 AM on 8 February 2013For Psychology Research, Climate Denial is the Gift that Keeps on Giving
Terranova:
Labels are a shorthand for observed behaviour, whether virtuous or vicious. IMO if the label accurately describes the behaviour, it can be applied. One would not shy away from labelling, say, a purveyor of Ponzi schemes as a fraud, nor from labelling, say, the person who - at risk to own life or health - rescues another person from drowning as a hero.
Someone earning the label "pseudoskeptic" (my personal favourite label) earns it on account of engaging in what this new Lewandowsky et al paper defines as 'nihilistic skepticism' (*) on the one hand, and unskeptical credulity on the other.
Someone earning the label "conspiracy theorist" earns it on account of engaging in conspiratorial ideation. Typically such ideation is also unwarranted on the basis of the available evidence.
Someone earning the label "denialist" earns it on account of engaging in the techniques of denialism - appeal to fake experts, conspiratorial ideation, cherry-picking, logical fallacies, and impossible expectations/shifting goalposts.
Hard as it may be to believe, the motives of the person so labelled do not need to nefarious for the label to be applied accurately. I for one am convinced the vast majority of people who would earn the above labels are entirely sincere. But, at the end of the day, the labels stick because of their actions, not their motives.
If you're looking to be assigned a label, I for one would go with "made incorrect inferences from available data" based on your comment.
(*) The specific passage from this paper is:
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 fit into the conspiracy theory. Thus, nothing is at it seems, and all evidence points to hidden agendas or some other meaning that only the conspiracy theorist is aware of. Accordingly, low trust (Goertzel, 1994) and paranoid ideation (Darwin, Neave, & Holmes, 2011) feature prominently among personality and attitudinal variables known to be associated with conspiracist ideation. The short label for this criterion is NS (for nihilistic skepticism).
I would characterize nihilstic skepticism, outside the context of conspiracist ideation, as doubt or skepticism of a claim that (a) is unwarranted based on the evidence available to support the claim, and (b) can be clearly or easily shown to be unwarranted.
-
Kevin C at 02:34 AM on 8 February 2013Temp record is unreliable
To reiterate what others have said, without details of the source data we can only speculate. However the graph above does look rather different from this one:
Source: here. Links to the source datasets are provided in that post.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:17 AM on 8 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG:
You can go on and on about wanting evidence, and not wanting to accept others opinions on the matter. To me, your statement "For good measure I must state that I haven’t read the papers involved so I can’t comment on their quality." says that the next step you should take is to read the papers. At that point, I can see three possibilities:
1) You have the background and knowledge to understand the papers and their methodologies, and feel that de Freitas' paper should have been published.
2) You have the background and knowledge to understand the papers and their methodologies, and feel that de Freitas' paper should not have been published.
3) You do not have the background and knowledge to understand the papers and their methodologies, and cannot pass judgement on your own. You will either have to accept a judgement from a source that you trust, or you will have to accept that you just don't know.
Until you have read the papers, I will consider the default to be that you fall into class 3. You don't trust others judgement, and you just don't know.It is expected in a good journal that reviewers will fall into classes 1 or 2. A good reviewer will realize that (s)he falls into class 3, and will tell the editor "I don't know the subject well enough - you'll have to find another reviewer". Good editors like reviewers that tear papers apart - bad stuff will either get rejected or get revised. Mistakes still happen, but there are a lot fewer of them.
Fake skeptics seem to manage to find poorer journals where reviewers end up in class 3. In "Pal Review", the major problem is that the editors and reviewers don't realize that they fall into class 3, and because they only trust their like-minded pals they continue with their confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Bad editors like reviewers that say "Hey! Great paper from Fred! I only had time to do a quick glance, but the conclusions are just what I like to hear! Publish it ASAP! Are we still on to do lunch next week?"
-
grypo at 02:11 AM on 8 February 2013A Climate Sensitivity Tail
Tom asks,If Revkin cannot spend that half hour before writting on the topic, what is he being paid for?
I'm saying my read is that analyses finding a sensitivity lower than 3oC are more likely to end up right, not based solely on the quality of the work, but the history of ideas. See my 1985 article on nuclear winterfor an example of how things can play out. (Things trend toward "nuclear autumn," although there are stillsome researchers seeing big climatic impactsfrom even a "small" nuclear war.)
Apparently comparisons to an irrelevant selection of biased history is more important.
-
Kevin C at 01:56 AM on 8 February 20132012 Shatters the US Temperature Record. Fox, Watts, and Spencer Respond by Denying Reality
For reference, NCDC debunked this myth before it was even born. Here's their comparison of the global mean temperature from the unadjusted and adjusted data:
From this paper
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:50 AM on 8 February 2013There is no consensus
A useful example of the silliness of some of these polls/petitions is Project Steve, which is limited to people named Steve. It's about evolution, but it has over 1200 signatures now. Is it evidence? Evidence of what? Is there anything special about people named Steve that gives them increased credibility as "experts" in this subject matter?
-
The Y-Axis of Evil
There's a new Y-Axis of Evil graph up - over at WUWT Willis Eschenbach has just graphed Greenland ice loss over the next century (without, notably, considering acceleration from present rates) on a zero based scale. Which is just about as useful and deceptive as temperature anomalies graphed in Kelvin, not to mention completely neglecting the effect of that ice loss on sea level - which will eventually hit ~70 feet if the Eemian Period data on cryosphere response is accurate.
Just more of the same... sigh.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:54 AM on 8 February 2013There is no consensus
Kevin, to reiterate; the article above points out that several studies have found 97% of climate scientists accept the evidence that the Earth has warmed, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases is the primary cause of that warming.
Now, you wish to present as counter evidence that less than 0.2% of people in the US with a scientific qualification of any sort disagree. In essence your argument boils down to the claim that:
Less than 0.2% of people with a scientific qualification have expressed an opinion contrary to the consensus on climate change;
Therefore,
It is false that 97% of the scientists best qualified to assess the subject accept the concensus.
Your argument needs only to be stated for it to be seen that it is false.
Prev 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 Next
