Scroll To Top

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The "feeble intellect" of Anthony Watts and Eric Worrall at WUWT

Sou | 3:59 AM Go to the first of 46 comments. Add a comment


WUWT gets it woefully wrong again. Back to front. Deniers deal in black and white, they do not "get" subtle. They are extremists and only understand extreme language. Overstatement might register. The understatement for which the UK (and Australia) is known, doesn't register at WUWT. If you want to make a point with a science denier, do not expect them to understand you if you speak normally. As we've seen here on many occasions, deniers will ignore what is actually said and substitute their own weird narrative.

Today Anthony Watts gets several things back to front (archived here). He post another silly article by ignorant Eric "eugenics" Worrall. (Anthony Watts has been really struggling to find anyone half decent to write for his blog these past few weeks.) Anthony wrote:

Eric Worrall writes about “The Conversation” Austalia’s favorite hangout of climate doomers:

Except this article was in the UK edition of the Conversation. It was about one of Owen Paterson's recent gaffes. Owen Paterson is the Conservative MP for North Shropshire who's been in the headlines in the UK lately. He was sacked as Environment Secretary back in July this year. The article was about how Owen Paterson was exaggerating. The headline of the article reads:
Climate change: it’s only human to exaggerate, but science itself does not

Notice the last part - science itself does not exaggerate.


Feeble intellects


Anthony Watts and Eric Worrall twisted that to claim:
So you see, its not the fault of advocate scientist that anyone took their claims of imminent arctic melting, approaching climatic catastrophe, and irreversible tipping points literally. Its our fault, because our feeble intellects were simply incapable of comprehending that they were just talking about worst case scenarios, which they didn’t expect would actually occur.

Yes, Anthony Watts and Eric Worrall, you suffer feebleness of intellect. The Arctic sea ice melting isn't "imminent" it's been happening for a few decades now. Irreversible tipping points have been reached already. The melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet is now considered to be unstoppable. It is your fault you do not understand it. You cannot blame it on your feeble intellect, though you use that as your excuse. It's not a reason. If you exercised your intellects more they would probably become less feeble.


Owen Paterson (and other science deniers) are the ones who "widely exaggerate"


It isn't science that "widely exaggerates". It is deniers like Owen Paterson. The other day he spoke at some denier fest put on by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (archived here). Among his exaggerations were the following:

In the context of meeting the 2050 carbon reduction target of cutting emissions by 80 percent, he widely exaggerated, claiming:
In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise dramatically, and the lights would eventually go out. Not because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and expensive to recover.

How's that for alarmism and "wide exaggeration"! The actual target is to cut emissions by 80% from those of 1990. To get an appreciation of what this means, there was an article in The Guardian a couple of years ago, showing that the UK's emissions fell by 25.2% between 1990 and 2010. (However when imports were factored in, the emissions actually increased. Imported goods don't count in the UK's emissions.)

A bit later on, Owen indulged in more wide exaggeration, saying:
I also note that the forecast effects of climate change have been consistently and widely exaggerated thus far.
The stopping of the Gulf Stream, the worsening of hurricanes, the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, the increase of malaria, the claim by UNEP that we would see 50m climate refugees before now – these were all predictions that proved wrong.
For example the Aldabra Banded Snail which one of the Royal Society’s journals pronounced extinct in 2007 has recently reappeared, yet the editors are still refusing to retract the original paper.

Seriously? He is citing mostly newspaper speculation, if not straw men built by the denialati, as "wide exaggeration".

He has a weird view of scientific papers, too. He wants to retract a paper because some researchers recently found that a snail that was thought to be extinct has been discovered alive, and is now only almost extinct. Seriously!

As for malaria, it is one of the diseases that has been the subject of quite a lot of research in  regard to climate change. The World Health Organisation is concerned about future trends of malaria and other diseases. A recent paper in PNAS looked at different modeling exercises and stated:
The results of this multimalaria model, multi-GCM, multiscenario intercomparison exercice are consistent with previous studies in indicating that the most significant climate change effects are confined to specific regions (highlands in Africa and parts of South America and southeastern Asia); in other regions climate change is likely to have no or a lesser effect on malaria owing to other important socioeconomic factors. Large uncertainties are present in the multimodel ensemble, especially over the epidemic fringes of the current malaria distribution. The impact of climate change on future malaria must be seen in the current context of a decline in malaria at global scale (13); however, there are concerns about future support for national-level malaria control efforts (4).
As you'd expect, with the increase in weather-related disasters, climate refugees are on the increase. From the UN:
...climate change is already undermining the livelihoods and security of many people around the world. The Norwegian Refugee Council and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) have estimated that in 2008 alone, at least 36 million people were newly displaced by sudden natural disasters, including over 20 million displaced by disasters related to the climate.
This is the chart from a recent report from Munich Re: TOPICS GEO: Natural catastrophes 2013 (click to enlarge it).

Source: Munich Re


Climate change may one day turn dangerous


Owen Paterson is not an out and out denier like the people who flock to WUWT. He did say to the GWPF:
Despite all this, I remain open-minded to the possibility that climate change may one day turn dangerous. So, it would be good to cut emissions, as long as we do not cause great suffering now for those on low incomes, or damage today’s environment. 

Conservatives in the UK would be viewed as radical left-wingers in the USA


Most of Owen Paterson's speech was about his vision of how the UK can shift away from carbon-emitting energy generation, rather than climate science. Some of his ideas may have had merit, a lot may not. I don't agree with his plea to drop the 2050 target though. Without a target there is nothing to aim for.

Despite his digs at climate science and his alarmism over the UK emissions targets, after reading his speech, it struck me that if Owen Paterson were speaking to the GOP, he'd probably be booed off the stage as a radical left-winger. The Overton Window is positioned quite differently in Europe.

People exaggerate, science doesn't


Here are the first few paragraphs of The Conversation article by Rob MacKenzie, University of Birmingham

To exaggerate is human, and scientists are human. Exaggeration and the complementary art of simplification are the basic rhetorical tools of human intercourse. So yes, scientists do exaggerate.
So do politicians, perhaps even when, as the UK’s former environment secretary Owen Paterson did, they claim that climate change forecasts are “widely exaggerated”.
A more pertinent question is: does the way in which scientists and politicians speak publicly lead to wild exaggeration? When both are engaged in advocacy, there is little difference; both politicians and scientists will use whatever rhetorical devices they have to win an argument.
But this is not the case when scientists speak publicly through their own very special form of mass media, the peer-reviewed literature. In peer-review, statements that do not follow deductively from the data are subject to forensic examination and often expunged, or at least subjected to the “death by caveat” that makes so much academic writing almost indigestible.
Scientists, wandering unwarily into the realm of advocacy, may be guilty of taking the results out of context, as may be activists and politicians, but it is not the science itself that is “widely exaggerated”.

Science is exaggeration-phobic


Unlike Owen Paterson and denier blogs like WUWT, science is not "widely exaggerated". As Rob MacKenzie writes, science is exaggeration-phobic. If it errs at all, most published science errs on the conservative side. Findings in scientific papers are qualified by probability estimates, caveats and, the best of them, list new questions that arise as a result of these findings. Rob MacKenzie writes:
Is UK energy policy informed solely by the exaggerations of advocacy – political or scientific – or, at least in part, by the exaggeration-phobic scientific literature? As a taxpayer I would like to believe that physical and computer models provide evidence to politicians who use it to assess the strength of the arguments of the various advocacy groups. I am not so politically naïve as to believe that all policy is, or even should be, based solely on objective evidence.
I do hope, though, that claims of scientific exaggeration are seen for what they are: advocacy targeted not just at winning the rhetorical argument but also aimed, rather cynically, at undermining the evidence.
The Conversation
Rob MacKenzie receives funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, the European Research Council, and the JABBS Foundation.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article in full.


From the WUWT comments


Ian H says nothing at all, just mouths meaningless platitudes:
October 18, 2014 at 6:32 am
If you read the actual papers they did try to pepper them with “woulds” and “coulds” and uncertainties to try to leave themselves some kind of escape. But it was a pretty prefunctory effort; the mainstream media completely ignored that stuff and reported only worst case scenarios; and nobody made any effort to correct the resulting misleading impression. Now that the storm is upon them and it is time to take to the lifeboats I think they are going to find they don’t have nearly enough of them and those that they do have are far too small and not nearly strong enough enough to weather the coming storm.


Pamela Gray's intellect seems to be getting more feeble with each passing day. She is trying to emulate Christopher Monckton's gobbledegook (at his worst). (Do I detect she is an anti-vaxxer, too?)
October 18, 2014 at 6:50 am
In reality, there will be no consequences for these chicken littles. These scientists, with their new fangled way of analyzing data and presenting graphs will be unscathed all due to buck passing. Even better, because this was an international effort, each country gets to pass the buck across the boarder. This will not end up with license to practice revocations, as it was over the vaccine scare, originating in one individual with a charismatic style (and he does indeed have one). He also over simplified plus over reacted, and called out an alarm that the media picked up on and that bled all over front page news reports. Turns out his findings were in need of replication but he let the horse out of the barn too soon (thinking he was doing what was best to possibly have a positive impact on a potentially devastating disorder).
Safety is in numbers and the number of climate warnings out in left field from a cadre of international scientists will unfortunately actually serve to protect them. It is the swarming group of arm chair amateurs like us who will feel the brunt of this, as we go to our graves forever jaded in our now broken beyond repair idealized vision of what science is, or should be. As for me, my only recourse is the vote. Which I will use with fury for sure.

Monroe sums up WUWT
October 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
Religon = Alarmism = Money



Caminade, Cyril, Sari Kovats, Joacim Rocklov, Adrian M. Tompkins, Andrew P. Morse, Felipe J. Colón-González, Hans Stenlund, Pim Martens, and Simon J. Lloyd. "Impact of climate change on global malaria distribution." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 9 (2014): 3286-3291. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1302089111

46 comments :

  1. If Owen Paterson has been pushed aside, its only to find another Environment secretary who is happy to trash the environment she is supposed to protect.

    http://politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/07/15/liz-truss-a-not-very-green-environment-secretary

    "Liz Truss, the woman now charged with watching out for Britain's environment, used to spend her days working for Shell"

    To know her attitudes towards renewable energy, fracking etc etc, I believe you only have to determine what the fossil fuel companies would want them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reading the corresponding post at ATTP and its comments, I get the impression that every single statement of Owen Paterson on climate was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More on Paterson's lecture here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/7437.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  4. An amusing footnote to Owen Paterson's speech to the GWPF is that it has been claimed that it was written by Matt Ridley, who happens to be his brother-in-law.

    The claim may or may not be true, but it's a small world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has to be a small world when you all have to fit into a few select schools. Nigel Lawson is married to Monckton's sister, as it happens.

      Delete
    2. You can choose your friends, not your relatives. (Though I s'pose Nigel didn't have to marry Christopher's sister.)

      Delete
  5. AU edition Sou, have been having fun there this morning

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how many people around the world have heard of Owen Paterson. It's only his "skeptical" views on climate science that brought him to the attention of the denialati. It's one way to get noticed, I suppose. Although not being a full-on science denier means he is of limited value to the science disinformers.

      Most people outside the UK wouldn't pay him any mind, especially now that he's lost his job as Environment Minister. He's just another politician.

      Delete
    2. Good effort john. I would have joined in but I have been busy over at an related article on Paterson by Lewandowsky.

      The Rob McKenzie article was up for a while without any comments. Once it was mentioned at WUWT, the fired up Orc army descended. Most of them signed up on the spot to take their once in a life time opportunity to abuse climate science in front of a real live climate scientist.

      My favourite has to be the "dentist" who actually writes in a strange dialect which can only be described as WUWT- speak. Here is a sample from Jim Sternhell, the "dentist" who is desperately trying to fit every anti-science meme he has read at WUWT into a single comment.

      "We have not seen any global warming for 18 years. This is quite contrary to the "settled science" of the models. The CO2 rise and temperatures appear to have little correlation. In historical times, temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 rise. This is basic high school science of solubility of gases in water . Makes rather obvious sense that if ocean temperatures rise, CO2 comes out of suspension in the oceans. The doomsday scenario of uncontrolled warming is based on exaggerations and modelling. ... The doomsday hockey stick prediction simply is not happening. The calls for action are based on this debunked theory. "

      The only regular was Geoff Chambers, the loon who stalks Stephan Lewandowsky.

      Delete
    3. Politicians are a Renewable Resource, as they say.

      Delete
  6. Are you denying eugenics was a serious mainstream theory amongst the Fabians and others of that ilk?

    Nigel S (only slightly anonymous)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? How did you get to that from what I wrote, Nigel S? Were you reading Eric "eugenics" Worrall's stream of misplaced allegations that climate science is like Nazi eugenics?

      Of course, it wasn't just the Fabian Society. Earlier last century, people who wandered around the edge of that sort of thinking reportedly included Winston Churchill and John Maynard Keynes. Compulsory sterilisation until relatively recently was carried out in the USA (see here too), and elsewhere. But Eric wasn't so much talking about the more general political eugenics movements worldwide. He was more specific, likening climate science to the eugenics as applied by the Nazis leading up to and including WWII. He behaved like a rather nasty nutcase.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of "feeble intellects", maybe NigelS can't tell the difference between 21st century climate science and the UK Fabian Society of the early 20th century :(

      Delete
  7. @BBD
    Apparently Matt Ridley (one of the top dogs at the GWPF) admitted he did have input into Paterson's speech, though on Twitter he tried to play it down.

    It doesn't take much to see what happened: the GWPF concocted a speech and to ensure it became an event which received maximum coverage, they asked the former Environment Minister to present it back to them. So you can see the whole thing as a set up by the GWPF's propaganda machine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's it in a nutshell.

      Ridley is what passes for a scientist in the GWPF world because he's written popular science books on evolution. Evolution is popular with the UK Right because it explains and justifies their undeniable privileges; they have inherited superior genes, doncha know.

      Delete
    2. "Evolution is popular ... because it explains and justifies their undeniable privileges"

      I think I know what you meant. But no it doesn't.

      Delete
  8. Sou.... when you say we have past the tipping point. ... different people can take that to mean different things. For instance I would associate it to parallel a Gore claim in An Inconvenient Truth that the earth will reach a tipping point where the cooling phase of the natural climate cycle can no longer be realized. Do you think we are there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know what Al Gore was referring to (I haven't seen the film).

      There can be any number of tipping points in the climate system:

      http://theconversation.com/what-climate-tipping-points-should-we-be-looking-out-for-27108

      As I said, scientists now see that WAIS has "tipped" and the ice melt is now unstoppable. It won't all melt this century, but it's considered now that there's no way we can stop it from melting. Greenland? That's probably still up for grabs.

      Delete
    2. The concept of a "tipping point" is not well defined. I visualise it as something in the climate system that is like an avalanche - once past the avalanche point the system is going to change radically until it find a new equilibrium.

      Delete
  9. Sou..... you have a blog that is focused on climate change. .... and you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth? ????? Watch it and you may gain perspective on people's differing opinions.
    I think many of those people with tiny intellects may be taking the whole "planet has reached a tipping point " to a greater scale than you are. So that I am clear on what you believe .... we will never have any glaciers again. ... (since we have reached the tipping point). .... except for maybe Greenland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "and you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth? ????? "

      I doubt I'm exceptional in that.

      "Watch it and you may gain perspective on people's differing opinions. I think many of those people with tiny intellects may be taking the whole "planet has reached a tipping point " to a greater scale than you are. "

      Oh? Of what interest is where people with tiny intellects take anything?

      "So that I am clear on what you believe .... we will never have any glaciers again. ... (since we have reached the tipping point). .... except for maybe Greenland?"

      That's not the example of a tipping point that I gave. Do you know where WAIS is?

      Do you do this sort of thing often?

      Delete
    2. You're not exceptional. I've never watched it. Rather hard to explain for those who insist Al Gore is our Glorious Leader...

      My conception of 'tipping point' is much like Harry T's, and I'd suggest that's the general 'informal' definition. I sort of think of it as 'crossing the Rubicon' with a delay. (And this is the insidious aspect of it - you may only find out there's no way back in retrospect!)

      And there are, indeed, a variety of tipping points. Several of which have already been reached, many of which are pending.

      Delete
    3. Never seen it either.

      Delete
    4. Grrr. if you enter a post. And then select your option of "Reply as" then the system throws your post away.

      So, to repeat. I have not seen it either.

      Delete
  10. Sou... it will be very difficult to have a discussion with you if you only ask questions in response to mine. It makes me curious when I hear you belittle others because they question your "tipping point " assertions. The first thing I ask is. .... well what tipping point or points does she think have tipped....??? I thought you had said that we can't stop any of the glaciers from melting away (except Greenland as you thought that glacier may still be up for grabs).
    Are there other tipping points that you feel have tipped?
    To answer your questions. ... I don't understand the English of the first question. ... but it sounds rhetorical. I believe WAIS is in the western antarctic. I'm not sure what sort of thing you are talking about. ...but if you mean read different blogs to try and figure out why there is such a big disconnect between people who are probably all very bright. ... then I probably spend a couple hours a week. I studied environmental biology and for whatever reason climate change has been an interest of mine since I watched An Inconvenient Truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DD - Blogs might give you a reasonable idea of the topics currently being discussed (or bandied about, depending on the blog), but you should perhaps also read some papers on the subjects. Those can tell you whether what's being discussed is realistic, hyperbole, or (as is generally the case with blogs like WUWT) pure distortion.

      On the subject of tipping points: Major Antarctic melt of WAIS appears to be tipping now, rate of species extinction is high enough to rank among any in the paleo record is ongoing, minor ones such as the near complete loss of northern US and southern Canadian pine forests to pine borers well under way... plenty of tipping points, plenty of evidence.

      Delete
  11. KR... I read as many climate related papers as I can. I have also read every one of the IPCC reports.
    My biggest pet peeve is when people from either side of the Isle are so close minded that they can't see through their own bias. Tipping points for instance. .... the phrase eludes that once we go past a certain point. .... there is no going back. It is well known that the earth has gone through many periods where there were no glaciers at all. Yet something happens and they come back. This has happened again and again over time. So please understand my hesitancy when I hear the tipping point argument with respect to glaciers. Do you see why I am conflicted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, when you get past a certain point, like is said to be the case with WAIS, there is no going back. That's what is meant by "tipped". It's gone into a melt state.

      In human time frames, if it has tipped, there will be nothing we can do that will make it freeze again short of extreme measures. (There's no saying that extreme geoengineering would stop the melt either. That's because it's being driven by ocean warming as much as anything.) We may be able to slow the melt to give us more time to adapt. It's up to you and me and other people. What do you want? To hasten change or slow it down so we and our children and theirs have time to adapt more readily.

      Yes, I see why you are conflicted. You are making the mistake of mixing up human and geological time scales when you talk of earth going through completely ice free periods before. Yes, millions of years before humans evolved - not since. And certainly not since the dawn of civilisation.

      In 50,000 years or so, insolation may cause WAIS to freeze again, depending probably on how hot we make earth now. Who knows what species will be on the planet in 50,000 years time, or what form they will take. Homo sapiens only emerged around 200,000 years ago. Will we survive another 50,000 years? Probably some will, short of a cataclysmic event - but maybe not. It's probably in a large part up to us and future generations to see how many humans survive and what sort of future they will have.

      Delete
    2. Donald.

      An explanation of what is happening with WAIS
      https://theconversation.com/we-can-now-only-watch-as-west-antarcticas-ice-sheets-collapse-26957

      The earth will survive climate change. It has swung between snowball earth and periods like the Cretaceous where temperate conditions extended to the poles - but over geologic time periods.

      The real question is will 7+ billion humans? The climate has been amazingly stable in the 10,000 years since we established the first communities based on agriculture.


      Delete
    3. "Tipping point" in these discussions doesn't _necessarily_ mean irreversible (although it certainly does in regards to extinctions, as those species aren't going to come back). What it certainly does mean is practically reversible on a human timescale.

      Melt of the WAIS is in motion, and regardless of what we do to our emissions is likely to proceed to the extent of several meters of sea level rise - that train is now rolling. The Arctic summer ice will be essentially gone within a couple of decades, decreasing albedo and increasing absorbed solar energy, representing a phenomena with hysteresis (please read that) - returning our atmospheric GHG concentrations to pre-industrial levels probably reverse Arctic decline, as low ice levels are likely to be self-sustaining then. Other forcings would have to go rather lower to ensure return of multi-year Arctic ice.

      Those aren't opinions from bias, Donald. Those are best estimates from the science, which doesn't have a political opinion, but rather data.

      Delete
  12. Sou....
    I want to tell you that I appreciate you having a discussion. Many sites including WUWT and Skeptical Science simply censor any differing opinions.
    For me.... your credibility and impartiality would be stronger if you toned down the insults and just stuck to the facts when combating misinformation. Hurling insults probably sells better. .... I just am not a fan of doing things that way.
    I have heard many arguments eluding that things changed much slower in the past.... like Mikes comment using the geological time scales phrase. ... however if you actually look at the ice core data especially as it relates to co2 things change very rapidly. Look at the data yourself and you might be surprised at how quickly co2 levels have changed in the past. .... way before man was a factor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make no mistake, Donald. I am not impartial. I am firmly on the side of science. HotWhopper exists to demolish disinformation, often by comparing the inanities of denialists with actual science, and ridiculing the ridiculous.

      People who don't like the tone or think that my calling out denialism for what it is, can like it or lump it. If the cap fits and all that.

      I am as intolerant of tone trolling as I am of the anti-science tripe that pervades denialist blogs. There are plenty of other blogs to choose from. (Deniers often come here and end up complaining about the snark, for want of anything else to argue about. It's a common denier tactic.)

      Where is your link to support what ever it is you're on about? Another denier tactic is to make some claim and not back it up.

      Are you talking about the Permian Triassic extinction event? That was probably aided by vulcanism and was fast enough geologically speaking, but by today's standards was inexorably slow. Changes from orbital forcing (insolation changes) are slower still.

      In the space of only a few decades, we've managed to shift CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and show no sign of letting it rest there. We're heading for ten times faster change than any in the last 65 million years at least. That's since eons before Homo sapiens evolved.

      You really need to work on getting some concept of time, Donald.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event

      http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/2-5-2-4.php

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

      Delete
    2. Keep up the snark Sou. The deniers do not like their anti-science drivel reflected back at them

      Donald. "The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming."
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

      Why should it allow climate trolls make claims about science that they cannot support with evidence or at least a supporting reference in the scientific literature? These blogs do not exist to allow random nutters to vent their hatred of climate science and scientists or take their latest conspiracy theory out for a walk. That is the mission of WUWT and the hundreds of other climate crank blogs.

      You asked earlier about WAIS. I gave you a link to an excellent and very readable article. You just jumped right over it.

      If you have a genuine question, there is no end of people with extensive knowledge of climate science who will help you out. On the other hand if you are here to waste people's time with some concern trolling, do not be surprised if the responses become a wee bit snarky.

      Delete
    3. " Look at the data yourself and you might be surprised at how quickly co2 levels have changed in the past. .... way before man was a factor. "

      Do you really think someone like Sou who has been looking at climate science for many years has not looked at CO2 levels through the past? That she would be surprised at how fast they have risen? Obviously you have just discovered some details and come here to trumpet your new found knowledge. Well, that is quite insulting to suggest someone so experienced would not know a bit about that subject. Yet you complain about insults ...

      The way you approach discussing the subject is a bit Dunning Kruger. You think because you have read something that makes you an expert. Now, you may have a good point to make. Just because you are not expert does not mean you cannot raise questions. But do it with some humility that perhaps you can find out something new or get a better insight. Then you will not collect so much snark.

      If you really appreciate a discussion then have one. A discussion that is. If you just want to provoke ...

      Delete
  13. Mike. .... where did I ask about WAIS? Nowhere. That was mentioned by Sou as a tipping point. As far as making unsupported claims go..... alarmists do it every time I watch the weather they blame bad weather on climate change and good weather. .... that's not connected at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My bad. I assumed that the following meant that you were interested in the science of the WAIS.
      "I believe WAIS is in the western antarctic. I'm not sure what sort of thing you are talking about."

      And Donald - you do not do a very good concern troll. :-)

      Delete
    2. Keep it up, Donald. You're heading in the same direction that deniers who visit here often choose.

      Do you really and truly believe that a changing climate will not affect weather?

      (I'm wondering if Donald is a young earther, given his comments about "rapid change" to describe change that takes thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.)

      Delete
    3. @Donald Dean
      I watch the weather they blame bad weather on climate change and good weather. .... that's not connected at all.

      The simplest reflection on this or the tiniest bit of research would show you how ignorant that statement is. Of course weather forecaster focus on extreme events which are pretty much by definition bad. The idea that there is not a wealth of science literature out there that does not document any "good" weather effects is just a denial.

      Delete
  14. Having said that. ... I do believe we are warming the planet slightly by our co2 emissions. What I don't believe is that we are in grave danger if the earth warms slightly over the next 100 years. I don't buy the sea level rise scare tactics either. I do believe we should be using green energy. 100% if possible if for no other reason than fossil fuels are going to run out eventually. I think you will find that warming the earth will become harder and harder to do as time goes on.... unlike the predictions of exponential heating. All living things affect the climate. Plankton absorbs a huge portion of co2.... maybe even more than was thought. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that a declaration of faith, Donald? You might be interested in signing the Cornwall Alliance declaration.

      Meanwhile, in the real world, facts trump beliefs.

      Delete
    2. @Donald Dean
      Ah yes. That sprinkling of believes is always a bit of a giveaway that the "opinions" are faith based.

      Delete
    3. I do believe we are warming the planet slightly by our co2 emissions.

      Slightly? Where do you get that from? Why do you not "believe" a medium amount? Or believe we are warming the planet "a lot". What do you base that "belief" on? Faith is not quite enough on this website.

      A more measured statement might be "I do believe we are warming the planet by our co2 emissions." based on the physics, the IPCC reports and the scientific consensus. However I tend to think it is at the lower end of the projections because --- fill in your citation or thoughts here ---.

      And of course, before citing evidence, you need to have some scientific judgement it has some merit. Unfortunately for you this tends to exclude denier websites.


      Delete
  15. Sou.... don't put words in my mouth. I have no problems saying what I feel. Where did you get the idea that a changing climate won't affect the weather? ??? I never said that. Of course climate affects weather. What I said was that it's funny how the alarmists connect the bad weather with climate change but not the good weather. I spent my college career in the science lab .... not sure what your science background is but most of the alarmists scare tactics / claims are a sorry excuse for science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All weather is affected by the global warming that we are causing. The fact that you don't read about the "good weather" is the same reason you don't read much "good news" on the news. In some cases it's probably because you don't read the right material.

      http://www.livescience.com/18868-mild-winter-climate-change.html

      http://www.startribune.com/blogs/279779372.html

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/summary.shtml

      As for you going on about "alarmist scare tactics" - again an unsubstantiated claim - that fits in neatly with Robert Altemeyer's book on right wing authoritarians.

      There is a difference between being alarmed and being alarmist. Now if you were to complain about the lies and deception that denier blogs are full of, you may regain a smidgen of credibility. Though given the nonsense you've spouted so far it would take a lot more than that to be viewed as credible.

      Delete
    2. "I have no problems saying what I feel.". Indeed you don't Donald but the point that Sou was making is that we are not interested in "feelpinions". In science evidence reigns.

      "What I don't believe is that we are in grave danger if the earth warms slightly over the next 100 years"

      And I don't believe anyone else does either. But on our current emission path, the risk is the that warming will be more than slight, it will be substantial.

      Any danger that you could mount a scientific argument anytime soon? It is just that your whiny tone is getting slightly irritating. And I am afraid that your "alarmist" schtick is actually not particularly novel.

      Sou has covered the attribution studies done by climate scientists recently. Here for example
      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/10/human-influence-on-californian-drought.html


      Delete
    3. I spent my college career in the science lab ....

      Wow, how impressive. But, you don't show much evidence you learnt much. I spent the last 40 years working in science. I have not specialised in Climate Science but I have followed the developments for many years. I would still hesitate to come out with opinions as strong and certain as yours. In other words I am very Dunning Kruger aware compared with you with your whole year in the lab. (What was it, an afternoon a week?). So I would listen carefully to someone like Sou who takes such a deep interest in the subject and is far closer to it than me. I do not know what her qualifications are but that is irrelevant.

      And before you say it, because people like you are so predictable, that does not mean I am not capable of disagreeing with her. But I can tell you that the level you are at Sou has examined and heard everything you know. You can learn something if you are a bit more open. (But not so open your brains fall out).

      Delete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.