Last Build Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:02:18 +0000
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:02:18 +0000Mal protesteth undermuch.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:52:12 +0000[edit - please just stop. Any further non substantive comments will just be deleted.]
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:03:34 +0000Brian Blagden:
This got me thinking (a dangerous thing at the best of times) about whether a case can be brought against those that are selling alarmism and/or failing to correct alarmism.Or, whether former deniers can sue scientists for not being alarming enough.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:04:52 +0000KIA:” For every question which might cast doubt on AGW, there is always an explanation. This is what we see in religion, right?” Maybe we seem to have an answer so quickly because we've heard these same arguments over and over again. You may think the arguments you're throwing around here are original and fresh but they're long-fermented leftovers we thought we'd thrown away a long time ago.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:57:26 +0000I cannot express how happy I am to find this blog (and also reading the comments). I am not a scientist, but I am due to start a PhD in climate change education and communication. The purpose is to find a framework/ new way to communicate and engage people in climate change through formal education throughout the university faculties (and possibly further) . This produces a lot of challenges and needs to address a lot of issues regarding engagement. Regardless this blog has enlightened and educated me. Thanks to you all.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:41:06 +0000Hi folks, Not sure if this is old news now, but I just picked this up from the NSIDC site: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ "Arctic sea ice maximum at record low for third straight year Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 7. This is the lowest maximum in the 38-year satellite record. ... " Presumably those who think climate models are no better than trying to feel bits of sea weed (to forecast the weather) will say that such a decline in the coverage of Arctic sea ice is just natural variation, or maybe the result of bias in the satellites and recording instruments, or even bias on the part of the scientists reporting it, or some sort of galactic dust or cosmic ray artefact, or their aunt's favourite newt just turned bright orange, etc. etc.; anything in fact other than it being something to do with climate change caused by Human activities. Perhaps we should start a book (betting book) at Real Climate offering odds on the outlandish excuses - 'outrageous hypotheses' indeed - likely to be offered up as the latest explanations for Arctic and other changes? Could be quite good fun, something to amuse us all while Rome (the planet) burns ...
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:04:41 +0000https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/844357344385548290 https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/844360065876447232 Thanks John Mashey for retweets. What's this got to do with climate science? The attack on climate science is not only formally analogous to an all-platforms dezinformatsiya campaign, but recent events raise the odds that it is has been part of one--and from foreign soil. Foreign interests (against climate science) align themselves by convenience with parties of common interest here. What is happening and has happened in the attack on climate science goes beyond the domestically known "Merchants of Doubt" lineage, I say. The "Media Lies Again" meme turned out by foreign bot mills (among others) supports conspiricist trolling of the notion that any 97% consensus has to be a fraud, for instance. For starters. BTW Cook et al 2016 (in addition to Cook et al 2013) is important, on the consensus. This chart is the key: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=244 The key is that it's about "practicing climate scientists" (or peer-reviewed climate scientists) as Cook says. This chart is re: Muller [also: Lindzen]--which MA Rodger took up @81. BTW Muller did not answer the "Quora" question. The first thing he did was change it into a customized straw-man. In other words, he hijacked it. Particularly lame, especially in light of what the "Quora" explainer on the question says about "cause and effect." The cause of the consensus would be (degree of) expertise in climate science--an expertise, in turn, that requires understanding cause and effect in the drivers of climate change.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:22:42 +0000When they compare climate science to religion it is a tacit admission that they have no cogent scientific argument to make. It is an admission of defeat.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:47:24 +0000t marvell, Actually, the position during Bush II was unsettled. Bush, himself eventually came around to the position that we were warming the planet but that we couldn't do anything about it--same as his brother, Rubio, McCain... Cheney, however, was much closer to Trump, and he worked to actively suppress any tools that would reveal how badly we are f***ing up the planet--even to the point of cutting back on weather satellites. He was the reason Goresat/Triana/DSCOVR didn't launch til it did (he actually tried to have the satellite dismantled after Obama defeated McCain). What we are seeing now is just the Cheney/fossil-fuel/burn-baby-burn wing of teh party on steroids, acid, coke and PCP.
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:49:32 +0000Arun @122, An apples-with-apples comparison from Berkeley Earth between measurement and model output has just been updated, a comparison that does not rely on the calibration of satellite temperature measurements.