tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7880702798769604705..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Stung? Gotcha? The games deniers play.Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22992708328962358432016-10-06T02:23:48.862+11:002016-10-06T02:23:48.862+11:00I was agreeing with your comment, including that I...I was agreeing with your comment, including that I think it would be good if Naomi Oreskes were to withdraw her labelling of James Hansen, until I got to the end, where you effectively did the same to Naomi Oreskes as she has done to James Hansen. Was that intentionally ironic, or not?...and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17218801115213730482016-10-05T21:19:40.007+11:002016-10-05T21:19:40.007+11:00The Noami Oreskes "Denier" episode was w...The Noami Oreskes "Denier" episode was when she called Dr. James Hansen and other scientists "deniers" simply because they point out that renewable energy alone is probably not going to be enough to protect the climate.<br /><br />I happen to agree that Naomi Oreskes was completely out of line in her attack on James Hansen (which she still has not retracted, despite a whole lot of people asking her to please retract.)<br /><br />Even the IPCC now says that a quadrupling of global nuclear power is consistent with any credible plan of limiting co2 to 450 ppm.<br /><br />I've always had respect for Naomi Oreskes and have read most of her books. But on that fateful day when she launched her misguided assault on Dr. James Hansen, and then refused to retract her statements after her error was pointed out to her in exhaustive detail, she lost my respect, FWIW. I hold her and all other prominent antinukes personally responsible for global warming impacts. They are just as dangerous as the climate science deniers. Perhaps more dangerous, because the climate deniers are a minority while the antinuclear propaganda movement is a $M500/yr international effort.Joris van Dorphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716028854724168266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60821859642782230652016-10-05T16:56:45.753+11:002016-10-05T16:56:45.753+11:00I had a look at Blairs blog, and saw that he proud...I had a look at Blairs blog, and saw that he proudly touts himself as a lukewarmer. He, and other she'll-be-right fantasists, might like to listen to this broadcast:<br /><br /><a href="http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2016/10/bbg_20161002_0805.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2016/10/bbg_20161002_0805.mp3</a><br /><br />Something to consider is that many of the effects that are being recorded were predicted to not occur for decades yet... many of my scientific colleagues were conservative in their estimates. The thing that people should have their eyes on is the effect of warming at plateaux of 3, 4 or more °C: for each degree of warming the impacts increase in severity by more than an order of magnitude, and in some cases even by order<i><b>s</b></i> of magnitude. Lukewarmers are in some ways worse than the outright science deniers, because they lull people, businesses and politicians into a sense of complacency. In my opinion such willfully ignorant lobbying constitutes a crime against life.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36705028772012788082016-10-05T02:38:41.608+11:002016-10-05T02:38:41.608+11:00...obfuscation...
It is late here......obfuscation...<br /><br />It <i>is</i> late here...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20003336547299480432016-10-05T02:36:51.376+11:002016-10-05T02:36:51.376+11:00"Blog comments are hard sometimes."
The..."<i>Blog comments are hard sometimes.</i>"<br /><br />The more so for the fact that many scientifically-objective people posting about the science of climate change are somewhere on the spectrum, and have a greater-than-average tendency to use logic and (apparently) obvious meaning, with the purpose of communicating said meaning, and with probably less care for mollifying recalcitrant ignorants. Perhaps doing so steps heavily on the toes of the science deniers, especially as straight-forward language is a challenge to their propensity for obuscation and misrepresentation. But then, the laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology care not a whit for bruised feelings or for the fantasies of ideologues, and there comes a time when there's no further benefit to walk on egg shells.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42353655197553970462016-10-05T02:21:31.702+11:002016-10-05T02:21:31.702+11:00"My point is, Sou, that we already appear to ..."<i>My point is, Sou, that we already appear to be at ~1.2C above pre-industrial, yet we are only at 400ppm out of the ~560ppm needed to double CO2 from pre-industrial. Therefore, 1.2C for ECS isn't feasible, and paleoclimate data already tells us this.</i>"<br /><br />When CO₂ first hit 400 ppm I did a quick back of the envelope calculation using a logarithmic model and assumed a preindustrial increase of 1.2 °C from a baseline of 280 ppm. That calculation gave a sensitivity of 2.33 °C <i><b>on the realised warming to date from the CO₂ that we've currently emitted</b></i>. With feedbacks and thermal equilibrium lags the <b>equilibrium climate sensitivity is going to be very close to 3 °C, and has a good chance of exceeding it</b>.<br /><br />The only way that climate science <b>deniers</b> and physics <b>deniers</b> can possibly argue that ECS is less than a minimum of 2.3 °C is to postulate a new radiative physics kicking in at the current level of CO₂, and/or for a set of as-yet unidentified, very powerful, and collectively-negative feedings-back to suddenly appear.<br /><br />I've lost count of how many times I've made posts similar to this one, but always the <b>deniers</b> ignore the simple mathematics and physics, and go back to the beginning of their loop.<br /><br />As for Blair, I've not seen any of his exchanges with Sou but I seem to recall him from a year or two ago - wasn't he an exemplar of the Salem hypothesis?Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20133451086899904912016-10-04T17:35:12.966+11:002016-10-04T17:35:12.966+11:00I notice that Blair is trying to ingratiate himsel...I notice that Blair is trying to ingratiate himself with Curry and Watts by tagging the in his tweets. "now I know how you feel ...". (Pause to wipe away a tear). I think this rush of unexpected fame has gone to his head and he is hoping to get some more click bait at a denier site. And become a lukewarm martyr on the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17431308481146989702016-10-04T11:24:55.182+11:002016-10-04T11:24:55.182+11:00****************************************
Blair, I ...****************************************<br />Blair, I read part of your blog. You say -<br />"I’ve been a Lukewarmer for over two decades (even before Lukewarmers had a name) and in that time my Lukewarmer viewpoint has been consistently demonstrated to be a better representation of climate sensitivity than the alarmists’ views. More specifically, in the last two decades the consensus climate sensitivity estimate has gradually decreased to approximately the point I guessed it would be when I last looked closely at the topic over a decade ago."<br /><br />"If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled and remains so long enough for the atmosphere and the intermediate layers of the ocean to attain approximate thermal equilibrium, our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3°C will occur and that these will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns."<br />https://www.nap.edu/download/12181 Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 23–27, 1979; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES<br />Washington, D.C. (AKA The Charney Report)<br /><br />" Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."<br />http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf IPCC IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.<br />Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. <br /><br />The middle of the range of the latest IPCC estimate is 3.0°C. The "alarmist" best central estimate remains exactly what it was 37 years ago, contrary to your claim of gradually decreasing consensus estimates of sensitivity. <br />I'll bet you believe you , like Trump, also know more about ISIS than all the generals - but I'm not going to waste my time reading your blog to find out.Brian Dodgehttps://www.aip.org/history/climate/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75178281463863417362016-10-01T01:47:48.026+10:002016-10-01T01:47:48.026+10:00Of course you're correct on that particular us...Of course you're correct on that particular use to which the denial of denialism is put. No doubt they'd be happy to deny they are denying their denialism, and even to deny they denied denying it. In any case, we must proceed to reveal the denialism for the sham it is.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12094159569413974272016-10-01T01:39:54.178+10:002016-10-01T01:39:54.178+10:00This link works more better.
http://neven1.typepad...This link works more better.<br /><a href="http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/asi-2016-update-7-minimum-time.html" rel="nofollow">http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/asi-2016-update-7-minimum-time.html</a>D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9860586243869214662016-09-30T14:59:54.178+10:002016-09-30T14:59:54.178+10:00Sorry about no html. That monster link was a comme...Sorry about no html. That monster link was a comment here:<br />http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/asi-2016-update-7-minimum-time/<br />Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5188885351186202842016-09-30T14:56:25.282+10:002016-09-30T14:56:25.282+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27800496212699457752016-09-30T14:54:32.238+10:002016-09-30T14:54:32.238+10:00Slightly ot, but in the matter of "catching u...Slightly ot, but in the matter of "catching up" is the appearance all over the internets of the spectacular ice recovery denialist meme. (Jim Hunt has been doing valiant battle on this one (GreatWhiteCon and elsewhere) and Wayne of EH2R has an odd but fascinating theory that what we are seeing is a "big bang". I'm skeptical, but it's an interesting thought exercise:<br />http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/09/asi-2016-update-7-minimum-time.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb093ca51d970d#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb093ca51d970d<br /><br />By the way, on denial, I tend to stick to climate science denial just to be clear. I also like to use unskeptical "skeptic" which pulls the rug out from under the argument. But I am also a fast typist.<br /><br />The demand for perfect communication by people with real expertise while anyone and everyone on the political, amateur, carping world can say anything and everything is typical.<br /><br />Of course, in the US, we have a horrible problem of similar dimensions in trying to remove the false equivalence imposed on Clinton as we try to overcome the festering infection on our body politic. Sadly, we get it from the left as well. It seems pragmatism is out of fashion, and nothing but purity will do.Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27009502309860981622016-09-30T14:45:18.857+10:002016-09-30T14:45:18.857+10:00There's more to it. It's convenient to dis...There's more to it. It's convenient to distract, and to take up time and energy. Demanding that the terms of the discussion conform to arcane requirements and implying that nonconformance to same is a personal attack is part of the (dead serious) game of distraction.<br /><br />Remember, distraction and delay are effective on behalf of those who want to prevent action. It is always easier to persuade people to do nothing.Susan Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16935228911713362040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67861317819556524352016-09-30T09:32:45.546+10:002016-09-30T09:32:45.546+10:00The reason denier object to the term "denier&...The reason denier object to the term "denier" - the ONLY reason - is because it is accurate. Deniers don't like having their game blatantly displayed.<br /><br />And that's all there is to it.D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36103998054458448782016-09-29T07:06:11.160+10:002016-09-29T07:06:11.160+10:00The irony of passionately and repeatedly denying b...The irony of passionately and repeatedly denying being a denier. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30411571894562175482016-09-29T03:13:32.991+10:002016-09-29T03:13:32.991+10:00Blair,
That may be true, but does not mean that th...Blair,<br />That may be true, but does not mean that the comment you refer to was being used as a literary device (one commenter - in an argument - asked another "have you become a science denier"). You continuing to repeat that it was, does not make it true. If you really think that "denier" is a term that should not be used because of the association, then you should - IMO - apply that to all, not just to those with whom you disagree. <br /><br />On the other hand, you can continue as you currently are; insulting those with whom you disagree, and excusing those with whom you agree. <br /><br />Oh, and I don't care that you haven't shown anger over that comment. It simply illustrates your lack of consistency, which is neither a surprise, nor something that bothers me particularly. You're free to be as inconsistent as you wish to be. It's entirely your choice....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62141142889322733162016-09-29T03:03:45.056+10:002016-09-29T03:03:45.056+10:00The use of inappropriate and banned terms in an ir...The use of inappropriate and banned terms in an ironic sense is a time honoured tradition in classical writing because only by confronting those terms can you demonstrate them to be foul. Sadly some schools fail to train their students in scholarly traditions of discourse. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79969485085738579962016-09-29T01:27:37.581+10:002016-09-29T01:27:37.581+10:00@ jammy dodger
Yes, it is certainly not a black a...@ jammy dodger <br />Yes, it is certainly not a black and white issue and I suspect it has quite nuanced in meaning<br /><br />I take it to mean that simply saying you are offended IS meaningless, especially if you can give no reasoned argument as to why that is the case<br /><br />I have no control over your (the royal your) emotions – you could have simply got out of bed the wrong way and decide to be offended <br /><br />I nor Fry (I hope) would argue that nothing said can be offensive<br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72951212623438212022016-09-29T00:14:10.850+10:002016-09-29T00:14:10.850+10:00@Tadaaa
Much as I like Stephen Fry I disagree wit...@Tadaaa<br /><br />Much as I like Stephen Fry I disagree with him here. I think people have a perfect right to say they have been offended. They are not saying that as <i>"if that gives them certain rights"</i>. Neither is it meaningless or purposeless. It is not necessarily a whine and it is worthy of respect as a statement of fact, if honestly and proportionately felt. They then have the option to explain why it is offensive to them. But that is as far as it goes. <br /><br />I will make a exception here for Blair though. Whiney, meaningless, disrespected, purposeless ...Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27914078277758260662016-09-28T23:58:03.673+10:002016-09-28T23:58:03.673+10:00at this point it is worth noting Stephen Fry's...at this point it is worth noting Stephen Fry's* view on "offence"<br /><br /><i>“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."</i><br /><br />*Stephen Fry is a well known UK humourist Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74657739033556348422016-09-28T23:23:58.413+10:002016-09-28T23:23:58.413+10:00"... some climate science deniers object beca...<i>"<b>... some climate science deniers object because they claim it is a slur (which it is) ..."</b></i><br /><br />I do not think it is a slur. If the description fits. If the alleged denier objects (s)he can make a case for why it is not denying. There is no need to take offence if you think you have been misunderstood.<br /><br />Which brings us back to discussing Blair taking offence ...Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66193273213351601892016-09-28T21:25:59.223+10:002016-09-28T21:25:59.223+10:00@ Bert
Yes, that's a good uncluttered plot. Of...@ Bert<br />Yes, that's a good uncluttered plot. Of interest is an aside in the description: "We suggest in an upcoming paper that the temperature in 1940-45 is exaggerated because of data inhomogeneity in WW II."<br /><br />I don't think they are the only ones to be looking at the inconsistencies of the ocean temperature records taken by the rapidly expanded naval and merchant marine fleets during the war with data before and after, but it will be welcome.<br /><br />That has long appeared to be a measurement artefact rather than a true physical phenomenon, and it would be good to clear it up.I've wondered whether one way would be to examine the direct or lagged correlation between ocean temperature measurements and land temperatures in stations within ~100 km of coasts.Magmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33444959755181210242016-09-28T19:33:00.697+10:002016-09-28T19:33:00.697+10:00and increasingly, as they realise just how absurd ...and increasingly, as they realise just how absurd their position is you will get the <br /><br /><i>"people are being mean to me on the internet</i>" memeTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69195682444445172392016-09-28T19:21:12.112+10:002016-09-28T19:21:12.112+10:00Rational wiki again.
It is a great resource and ha...Rational wiki again.<br />It is a great resource and has goats.<br />http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument<br /><br /><br />The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.<br /><br />The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.<br /><br />Example<br />Objection to a particular word in the argument to dismiss the argument and speaker henceforth. Griffnoreply@blogger.com