tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8125777866616041411..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts' bombshell goes pear-shaped. 82% of WUWT-ers aren't interested!Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4771807993773675862014-05-14T11:20:27.027+10:002014-05-14T11:20:27.027+10:00"Ain't going to waste my time with people..."Ain't going to waste my time with people who like to twist and distort what's said to fit their viewpoints."<br /><br />GASP...if this be his bold stance on ethics, how will Jim B. *ever* be able to associate with the "experts" at, or post comments on, WTFiUWT?? :)HarryWiggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55623940394310052992014-05-13T03:06:34.614+10:002014-05-13T03:06:34.614+10:00Not an idiot, but a clown.Not an idiot, but a clown.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64390272784265466432014-05-13T02:34:46.441+10:002014-05-13T02:34:46.441+10:00"As for Cook's study it has a number of p...<i><b>"As for Cook's study it has a number of problems and is being over-sold."</b></i><br /><br />The Cook's study has not been over-sold - it has been overbought by the pseudoskeptics. It is only their hot-air that has wafted it aloft and generated so much publicity. And, no, it does not have a "number" of problems. Again that is pseudoskeptics desperately trying to undermine it and hope a bit of mud would stick. It was actually a straightforward exercise which did exactly what it said it did. More rational people accept the results for what they are and do not make such a big deal of it.<br /> Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42137462745554388562014-05-13T02:01:30.932+10:002014-05-13T02:01:30.932+10:00Far from being ridiculed and vilified, Alfred Wege...Far from being ridiculed and vilified, Alfred Wegener went on to have a distinguished academic career. The idea that he was vilified is a self-serving invention of clowns who find themselves being deservedly ridiculed for their whackjob theories.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21061195296840353692014-05-13T00:48:27.843+10:002014-05-13T00:48:27.843+10:00Right, Marco ...
"When this map was then com...Right, Marco ...<br /><br />"When this map was then combined with seismic data of earthquakes, it became clear that sea floor spreading was occurring, and thus provided the mechanism for continental drift and plate tectonics."<br /><br />No, this is not a mechanism for continental drift. The continents don't drift in the plate tectonics model. They hitchhike upon the tectonic plates as the plates move. No ploughing through the the floor of the sea like ships through the ocean in the plate tectonics model.<br /><br />This is why I so love it when Wegener is brought up by denialists. Because explaining the obvious (continents look like a jigsaw puzzle/earth is warming) with a physically impossible mechanism (continents drift through the sea floor like ships drifting through the sea/"anything but CO2 - take your pick"), is a denialist speciality.<br /><br />Wegener gets credit for focusing attention on the possibility that continents change positions over time, that's about it. He was far more wrong than, say, the hypothesis of the "ether" to explain the fact that electromagnetic waves can pass through vacuum...<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-8704016690821331882014-05-12T22:13:55.599+10:002014-05-12T22:13:55.599+10:00Don't forget that the mechanism Wegener sugges...Don't forget that the mechanism Wegener suggested was wrong. He had the continents ploughing through the sea.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43734879934835235642014-05-12T22:10:16.031+10:002014-05-12T22:10:16.031+10:00Their concerns are all about the PR campaign, and ...Their concerns are all about the PR campaign, and their tactics are all PR techniques. The science never did concern them : image is all. So much so that, having created the image, they come to believe in it.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30465216247307969032014-05-12T20:07:05.365+10:002014-05-12T20:07:05.365+10:00Arguments against scientific consensus is not uniq...Arguments against scientific consensus is not unique to climate science. <br /><br />For instance check out this site.<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/how_the_scienti059011.html<br /><br />Notice the name of the site? It's 'evolution news', but it's a ID astroturfer. (Funny isn't it, that those who are against the consensus, be it climate science or evolution, always seem to choose highly misleading names for their organisations/websites.<br /><br />Or here is another,<br />https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4518<br /><br />Did anyone manage to catch the latest episode of the new 'Cosmos'? They started talking about how Alfred Wegener, went against the consensus at the time, and as such was vilified and ridiculed, and that anyone after him who also espoused continental drift would follow the same fate. But as increasing amounts of evidence was collected, he was eventually vindicated, and his 'crackpot' theory, that continents drifted, is NOW the scientific consensus. Science is replete with these sorts of stories. Every scientific theory from evolution to germ theory, has gone through this process, with those who espouse a new theory, often castigated and derided, and climate science is no different. (It's just that there is the same very powerful vested interests, like with lead and tobacco, who seek to muddy the situation) During the 19th century, the consensus was that atmospheric gases had no effect on the climate, but over almost 200 years, extensive evidence has now been gathered to the point where the consensus is now that greenhouse gases DO have an influence. The evidence now, is so overwhelming, that it's now beyond any doubt. The same is true that tiny organisms cause disease, or that evolution has led to the progression of said organisms or that continental drift has moved the continents.<br /><br />It's interesting that continental drift (or displacement theory as it was known) was first proposed in 1596 by Abraham Ortelius, refined in 1858 by Antonio Snider-Pellegrini and also later in 1910 by Frank Bursley Taylor. It was almost by chance, as Wegener was convalescing from his war wounds, while he was reading books detailing the similarities of fossils found in South America and Africa, that he concluded that all the land masses formed a super-continent that he called 'Pangaea', but the 'proof' was lacking. In 1934, a worldwide scientific investigation was undertaken, and in 1936 Robert Meldrum Stewart, director of the Dominion Observatory in Ottawa announced that no drift had been detected. (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/127360340)<br /><br />It wasn't until the 1950's when Marie Tharp, a drafter at Lamont Geological Laboratory, in collaboration with Bruce Charles Heezen, created the first map of the sea floor using sonar data. When this map was then combined with seismic data of earthquakes, it became clear that sea floor spreading was occurring, and thus provided the mechanism for continental drift and plate tectonics. This was then later refined with magnetometers adapted from World War II submarines detectors, which discovered that the sea floor was magnetically striped, reflecting the regular magnetic polar shifts. <br /><br />So with this overwhelming evidence, it has now become clear that continental drift is now a fact, and so has become the current scientific consensus. Anyone who now suggests that continental drift doesn't exist, and still refers to the old 'land bridge' hypothesis would seem like a denier. The same is also now true with climate science. There is now an abundance of evidence, from satellites to sediment cores, that show that greenhouse gases have had an influence on the climate for millions of years, and to suggest otherwise, you look like a denier.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77048748354701263892014-05-12T16:08:01.923+10:002014-05-12T16:08:01.923+10:00Jim says
As for the relative "maturities"...Jim says<br /><em>As for the relative "maturities" of climate change and evolution there is no comparison and there never has been</em><br /><br />Jim, climate science is able to make relatively accurate predictions of future temperature trends. How well is evolution able to predict how species will change due to these temperature trends? Climate scientists are making predictions for when the arctic will be sea ice free. Can evolution science predict when it will be polar bear free? What about krill numbers - do you have good figures on that?Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25540058879923318492014-05-12T15:58:05.746+10:002014-05-12T15:58:05.746+10:00Knowledge can only be effectively used in science ...Knowledge can only be effectively used in science when it is based in a consensus. Once there is a consensus about a point, it is easy to reference that point for the purpose of further research and policy development - this is what you (implicitly) did when you discussed the lead poisoning case. <br /><br />What is relevant is not whether an argument is based on consensus, but whether that consensus is solid or fickle. When denialists waffle on about consensus-based arguments what they really have a problem with is the content of the consensus, not the use of consensus-based arguments - which is why Shollenberg is happy to use a statistical test he has never actually studied in order to cast doubt on the consensus. He used consensus-based knowledge to attack the paper.<br /><br />These people are really ignorant of how science works.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1185224904254678362014-05-12T15:30:48.547+10:002014-05-12T15:30:48.547+10:00"Millicent, your argument about lead pollutio..."Millicent, your argument about lead pollution is tautological: to be successful it depends on an appeal to consensus."<br /><br />My argument about lead pollution shows that the consensus was, in that case, remarkably fickle. But yes you do have a point.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49141877376101513542014-05-12T14:53:44.760+10:002014-05-12T14:53:44.760+10:00You're eyes are significantly sharper than min...You're eyes are significantly sharper than mine, Bernard :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49468781933135852442014-05-12T14:18:52.360+10:002014-05-12T14:18:52.360+10:00Fair enough, Jim. Le'ts try it another way: in...Fair enough, Jim. Le'ts try it another way: in your own words, why would you "steer well clear of using Cook et al's paper as any kind of defense of climate science?"<br /><br />Your remark is so vague as not even to rise to the level of innuendo. Most readers would nonetheless infer that you find some problem with the paper.<br /><br />What's the problem with Cook et al, that we should "steer away from it?"<br /><br />In your own words?dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36077765041456073472014-05-12T13:05:38.190+10:002014-05-12T13:05:38.190+10:00Unbelievable...
;-)Unbelievable...<br /><br />;-)Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65044023278536621992014-05-12T13:04:06.204+10:002014-05-12T13:04:06.204+10:00"Just that you're a good "after the ..."<i>Just that you're a good "after the event" proof reader :)</i>"<br /><br />Lamentably, yes. :-)<br /><br />I'm a pretty good "before the event" proof reader too, but I have a signficant tendency to avoid it - especially when it means refreshing pages in order to do so<br /><br />My inherent laziness is manifested in my typos!Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88901151921313225822014-05-12T11:28:44.293+10:002014-05-12T11:28:44.293+10:00Ha ha Bernard. I just meant that I had to make cor...Ha ha Bernard. I just meant that I had to make corrections to my comment (I also missed a "to/too").<br /><br />I wasn't suggesting you can't spell - quite the opposite. Just that you're a good "after the event" proof reader :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7900819185422330342014-05-12T11:16:18.264+10:002014-05-12T11:16:18.264+10:00"There, their - I'm doing a Bernard J. :(..."<i>There, their - I'm doing a Bernard J. :(</i>"<br /><br />I do know the difference - honest! Sometimes my fingers forget!Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33835563857861579812014-05-12T11:02:43.818+10:002014-05-12T11:02:43.818+10:00When all is said and done the targets of this type...When all is said and done the targets of this type of venom actually reveal the fundamental fears of the Denialati.<br /><br />Why are they afraid of Mann's hockey stick? It demonstrates that anomalous warming <i>is</i> occurring.<br /><br />Why are they afraid of the 97% figure? It demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of informed professionals understand that this warming <i>is</i> caused by humans.<br /><br />Why are they afraid of Oreskes? She demonstrates that there <i>is</i> an oragnised response by vested industrial and ideological interests to resist solutions to the most fundamental biological crisis in human history.<br /><br />Whenever one looks behind the curtain one sees a coward whose knees are knocking together, and who is desperately pulling the knobs and levers in order to maintain a facade behind which he can hide his (and/or his pay-masters') sociopathic motivations.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37309887091185645252014-05-12T10:42:51.789+10:002014-05-12T10:42:51.789+10:00Millicent, your argument about lead pollution is t...Millicent, your argument about lead pollution is tautological: to be successful it depends on an appeal to consensus.<br /><br />"Consensus arguments are bad. In the 1970s the consensus was that lead is not poisonous, but <em>everyone</em> knows lead is poisonous."<br /><br />Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning?Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16339880191261476912014-05-12T10:32:35.537+10:002014-05-12T10:32:35.537+10:00Correction: I've since checked, and found that...Correction: I've since checked, and found that Anthony didn't <a href="https://twitter.com/wattsupwiththat/status/465509598086955008" rel="nofollow">tweet Jim's comment</a> to the public at large after all (though he might have intended it, don't know). It would have only appeared in my timeline and those of Michael Mann and Anthony Watts, because it was just sent as a reply to <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/465486427325992960" rel="nofollow">this one</a> from Michael Mann.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1974182752476675462014-05-12T09:59:14.136+10:002014-05-12T09:59:14.136+10:00Sou
Pace Jim, but despite his critiques, it's...Sou<br /><br /><i>Pace</i> Jim, but despite his critiques, it's not clear that dendro proxies *have* effed-up the millennial temperature reconstructions and it's irrelevant to the modern problem anyway.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30791630910620488922014-05-12T09:11:25.651+10:002014-05-12T09:11:25.651+10:00Sorry, I wasn't aware of that, BBD (and Jim). ...Sorry, I wasn't aware of that, BBD (and Jim). I still make the point that on HW one doesn't dispute science without giving reasons. <br /><br />Dendro and other paleo papers themselves are full of caveats so unless there are additional caveats not covered in the literature already - and moreso if there are - then it's more like WUWT behaviour than HW behaviour to drop these throwaway lines.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90423909501958182432014-05-12T08:54:35.389+10:002014-05-12T08:54:35.389+10:00Jim's written a lot about dendroclimatology an...Jim's written a lot about dendroclimatology and for all I know he may have a point. Exactly how this bears on the physics of radiative transfer within the Earth's atmosphere is less clear.<br /><br /><i>Even if</i> there are fundamental issues with dendro proxies, it makes sod-all difference to the bigger picture, which looks like 400ppm CO2 and climbing. <br /><br />So why all the fuss? BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43877136552554470002014-05-12T07:53:02.736+10:002014-05-12T07:53:02.736+10:00"As for Cook's study it has a number of p...<i>"As for Cook's study it has a number of problems and is being over-sold" </i><br /><br />Oversold? You mean it hit the spot with the media and the general public? That it was such an excellent illustration of how little dispute there is that humans are causing climate change, that many more people finally woke up to the fact that science does overwhelmingly show that GHGs are causing global warming?<br /><br />You went that route with the agriculture paper in Nature, too, Jim. Once again, that's the sort of throwaway line that I object to, but it's usually from science deniers.<br /><br />I have no problem with anyone disputing research findings or methods, but I have a problem with people disputing findings or methods as throwaway comments without explaining why. It's more a feature of blogs like WUWT than HW.<br /><br />Similarly, throwaway lines about dendrochronology. <br /><br />JIm, agriculture, human nutrition, dendrochronology and scientific communication are not your areas of expertise AFAIK, but you seem to be quite willing to reject or otherwise express disagreement with the findings or methods, without any supporting evidence or explanation. Not a good look.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89782800708082230572014-05-12T07:42:45.586+10:002014-05-12T07:42:45.586+10:00What we're talking about, in terms of consensu...What we're talking about, in terms of consensus, is best summarized by the <a href="http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=21" rel="nofollow">NAS</a>: <br /><em>"Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations. In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."</em><br /><br />The consensus argument is in my opinion the only way to convey to non-scientists the fact that there is no question whatsoever in the scientific community that global warming is happening and caused by our activities. <br /><br />By using the consensus argument, nobody is arguing that climate science can explain every detail now, nor that it will one day. But rather that the enhanced greenhouse effect is as sure today as, say, evolution or gravity.Raoulnoreply@blogger.com