Glaschu

You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right

171 posts in this topic

Good read

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100725-10qev.html

RODNEY TIFFEN

July 26, 2010

Chances are, you have not heard much about Climategate lately, but last November it dominated the media. Three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were published on a Russian website.

The research institute was a leading contributor to the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and some of the leaked emails showed the scientists in a poor light.

The scandal was one of the pivotal moments in changing the politics of climate change. What seemed close to a bipartisan agreement on an environmental trading scheme collapsed with Tony Abbott's defeat of Malcolm Turnbull. Within months the Rudd government lost its nerve on what the former prime minister called ''the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time''.

delayedAds.push(function(){ FD.addExternalReferralsAd($merge(FD.baseAd, { id: "adspot-300x250-pos-3", iframeId: "adspot-300x250-pos-3-iframe", params: $merge($merge(FD.baseAd.params, { pos: 3, aamsz : "300x250" }),getAdParams("300x250")) ,addSmall: true ,smallText: "Advertisement: Story continues below" }) ); });By casting doubt on the integrity of the scientists, Climategate helped puncture public faith in the science, and probably contributed to Labor's political panic. The echo chamber of columnists reverberated with angry and accusatory claims. In Australia, Piers Akerman said: ''The tsunami of leaked emails . . . reveal a culture of fraud, manipulation, deceit and personal vindictiveness to rival anything in a John le Carre or John Grisham thriller.'' Later he wrote: ''The crowd that gathered in Copenhagen were there pushing a fraud.''

Andrew Bolt thought that ''what they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal'' of our time. ''Emails leaked on the weekend show there is indeed a conspiracy to deceive the world - and Mr Rudd has fallen for it.''

Miranda Devine wrote: ''We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity.''

The ramifications of Climategate were immediate. The climate unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, was forced to stand down. Three inquiries were set up to examine the scientists' conduct.

The first, a British House of Commons select committee, reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact. The second, a science assessment panel, set up with the Royal Society and consisting of eminent British researchers, reported in April.

Its chairman, Lord Oxburgh, said his team found ''absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever'' and that ''whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly''.

The third, set up by the university itself, published its 160-page report two weeks ago. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of the CRU scientists, ''we find that the rigour and honesty [of the scientists] as scientists are not in doubt''. Importantly, it concluded: ''We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.''

In other words, nothing in the emails undermined the research of the climate scientists. Like the other two, the inquiry found aspects of the scientists' behaviour that fell short of professional standards - ''failing to display the proper degree of openness''.

What might seem the most damning was the way Jones dealt with freedom of information requests, but context makes his behaviour more understandable. In July last year alone, the CRU received 60 FoI requests. Answering them would have been too much for even all the unit's staff time. In a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests, each wanting data from five different countries - 200 requests in all. Jones concluded the unit was subject to a vexatious campaign.

While not fully excusing their behaviour, one has to appreciate the embattled position of scientists who received a steady stream of obscene and abusive emails and constant public attacks on their integrity.

After the leaks, Jones, now reinstated, received death threats and said he had contemplated suicide.

You might imagine the media would be keen to report on authoritative conclusions about allegations it had found so newsworthy in December. But coverage of each of the reports has been non-existent in many news organisations and in others brief or without prominence.

At best, the coverage of the inquiries' conclusions added up to a 20th of the coverage the original allegations received, which leaves us to ponder the curiosities of a news media that gets so over-excited by dramatic allegations and then remains so incurably uninterested in their resolution.

The newspapers that gave greatest play to the allegations tended to give less attention to the findings. The columnists who gave greatest vent to their indignation have not made any revisions or corrections, let alone apologised to the scientists whose integrity they so sweepingly impugned.

Even at the time, it was clear much of the coverage was more attuned to maximising sensation rather than to reporting with precision. The sheer number of leaked emails, for instance, was sometimes taken as proof of the scale of the scandal, as if they were all disreputable.

In fact, only from a handful could anything sinister be conjured.

It is a common criticism of the media that it prominently publishes allegations, but gives less coverage to the prosaic facts that later refute them. But rarely is the disproportion so stark. Rarely has such an edifice of sweeping accusation and extravagant invective been constructed on such a slender factual basis.

Rarely does it do such damage.

Rodney Tiffen is emeritus professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/you-wouldnt-read-about-it-climate-scientists-right-20100725-10qev.html

RODNEY TIFFEN

July 26, 2010

Chances are, you have not heard much about Climategate lately, but last November it dominated the media. Three weeks before the Copenhagen summit, thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were published on a Russian website.

The research institute was a leading contributor to the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and some of the leaked emails showed the scientists in a poor light.

The scandal was one of the pivotal moments in changing the politics of climate change. What seemed close to a bipartisan agreement on an environmental trading scheme collapsed with Tony Abbott's defeat of Malcolm Turnbull. Within months the Rudd government lost its nerve on what the former prime minister called ''the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time''.

delayedAds.push(function(){ FD.addExternalReferralsAd($merge(FD.baseAd, { id: "adspot-300x250-pos-3", iframeId: "adspot-300x250-pos-3-iframe", params: $merge($merge(FD.baseAd.params, { pos: 3, aamsz : "300x250" }),getAdParams("300x250")) ,addSmall: true ,smallText: "Advertisement: Story continues below" }) ); });By casting doubt on the integrity of the scientists, Climategate helped puncture public faith in the science, and probably contributed to Labor's political panic. The echo chamber of columnists reverberated with angry and accusatory claims. In Australia, Piers Akerman said: ''The tsunami of leaked emails . . . reveal a culture of fraud, manipulation, deceit and personal vindictiveness to rival anything in a John le Carre or John Grisham thriller.'' Later he wrote: ''The crowd that gathered in Copenhagen were there pushing a fraud.''

Andrew Bolt thought that ''what they reveal is perhaps the greatest scientific scandal'' of our time. ''Emails leaked on the weekend show there is indeed a conspiracy to deceive the world - and Mr Rudd has fallen for it.''

Miranda Devine wrote: ''We see clearly the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity.''

The ramifications of Climategate were immediate. The climate unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, was forced to stand down. Three inquiries were set up to examine the scientists' conduct.

The first, a British House of Commons select committee, reported in March that the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remained intact. The second, a science assessment panel, set up with the Royal Society and consisting of eminent British researchers, reported in April.

Its chairman, Lord Oxburgh, said his team found ''absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever'' and that ''whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly''.

The third, set up by the university itself, published its 160-page report two weeks ago. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of the CRU scientists, ''we find that the rigour and honesty [of the scientists] as scientists are not in doubt''. Importantly, it concluded: ''We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.''

In other words, nothing in the emails undermined the research of the climate scientists. Like the other two, the inquiry found aspects of the scientists' behaviour that fell short of professional standards - ''failing to display the proper degree of openness''.

What might seem the most damning was the way Jones dealt with freedom of information requests, but context makes his behaviour more understandable. In July last year alone, the CRU received 60 FoI requests. Answering them would have been too much for even all the unit's staff time. In a matter of days, it received 40 similar FoI requests, each wanting data from five different countries - 200 requests in all. Jones concluded the unit was subject to a vexatious campaign.

While not fully excusing their behaviour, one has to appreciate the embattled position of scientists who received a steady stream of obscene and abusive emails and constant public attacks on their integrity.

After the leaks, Jones, now reinstated, received death threats and said he had contemplated suicide.

You might imagine the media would be keen to report on authoritative conclusions about allegations it had found so newsworthy in December. But coverage of each of the reports has been non-existent in many news organisations and in others brief or without prominence.

At best, the coverage of the inquiries' conclusions added up to a 20th of the coverage the original allegations received, which leaves us to ponder the curiosities of a news media that gets so over-excited by dramatic allegations and then remains so incurably uninterested in their resolution.

The newspapers that gave greatest play to the allegations tended to give less attention to the findings. The columnists who gave greatest vent to their indignation have not made any revisions or corrections, let alone apologised to the scientists whose integrity they so sweepingly impugned.

Even at the time, it was clear much of the coverage was more attuned to maximising sensation rather than to reporting with precision. The sheer number of leaked emails, for instance, was sometimes taken as proof of the scale of the scandal, as if they were all disreputable.

In fact, only from a handful could anything sinister be conjured.

It is a common criticism of the media that it prominently publishes allegations, but gives less coverage to the prosaic facts that later refute them. But rarely is the disproportion so stark. Rarely has such an edifice of sweeping accusation and extravagant invective been constructed on such a slender factual basis.

Rarely does it do such damage.

Rodney Tiffen is emeritus professor of government and international relations at the University of Sydney.

It had done it's job (which was to introduce FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) into the debate and hit the reset button. It had the awesome effect of transporting us back in time to about 1990. I personally have my baseball bat ready and keenly await election day. ALthough this election is so boring that I'll probably sleep right through. Does anyone know WTF either side is gonna do post election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for linking this article. Unfortunately for the scientists and science, this kind of post-script article is too little and too late to repair the damage done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had something to do with climate scientists, I have seen how the info is put together, even been invited to add my 2 cents on a couple of occasions (very trivial input, I am in a distantly relevant field).

I haven't been that impressed with the degree of rigour being exercised.

I'm not a CC denier, but I am not sure I am a CC believer exactly, anymore, either. Obviously something is going on (I am not a total idiot!) but the science being used is dubious in at least some cases; I know, I was there and I was aghast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you write "I'm not a CC denier, but I am not sure I am a CC believer exactly, anymore, either" what do you mean? Do you mean to express doubt that the world has warmed (ie. climate is changing)?

Or did you put CC in place of AGW? In which case, which bit do you doubt? Do you doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you doubt that CO2 levels have increased? Do you doubt that this increase is largely due to man?

Assuming you have answered YES to one of the above, did the "dubious science" you witnessed cause this doubt and how?

Lots of questions, but no malice meant, I'm quite interested in the process by which people come to doubt the whole of climate science. :nerd:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you write "I'm not a CC denier, but I am not sure I am a CC believer exactly, anymore, either" what do you mean? Do you mean to express doubt that the world has warmed (ie. climate is changing)?

Or did you put CC in place of AGW? In which case, which bit do you doubt? Do you doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you doubt that CO2 levels have increased? Do you doubt that this increase is largely due to man?

Assuming you have answered YES to one of the above, did the "dubious science" you witnessed cause this doubt and how?

Lots of questions, but no malice meant, I'm quite interested in the process by which people come to doubt the whole of climate science. :nerd:

Many questions...

No doubt that in my experience the weather patterns have changed - more and longer hot spells, less rain, different actual weather patterns. I have spent my whole life watching the weather, plants, animals, and of this I have no doubt at all.

Why this should be so I could not say. CO2 is a contender, but so are sun spots or natural planetary rhythms (perhaps analogous to the mini-ice age of the 17th century). I am not an expert in any of these areas.

It appears to me that there are more papers being written than there is original research being done, people are chasing funding more than facts, and there are an unwholesome number of bureaucrats getting on board, each with agendas which may or may not be climate related.

BTW MC, - what is your interest? CC issues, or decision making processes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they already factor the milankovich cycles in the equation TP. The Vostok chart varies between 200-280ppm over about a 100000 year cycle. The current level of CO2 ppm is 391ppm. (and climbing fast)

post-106-12806457749078_thumb.png

The Vostok cores actually showed that CO2 lags temperature (as shown in the chart). More heat (suns heat)/higher temperature produces more CO2 which produces more heat (greenhouse) until a new equilibrium occurs after the sun's influence starts to recede due to the earths orbital cycle. This is cited as evidence for the positive feedback on temperature that CO2 produces. Here's a good link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many questions...

No doubt that in my experience the weather patterns have changed - more and longer hot spells, less rain, different actual weather patterns. I have spent my whole life watching the weather, plants, animals, and of this I have no doubt at all.

Fair enough. Weather.
Why this should be so I could not say. CO2 is a contender, but so are sun spots or natural planetary rhythms (perhaps analogous to the mini-ice age of the 17th century). I am not an expert in any of these areas.

I took your original post to mean that you had valid reason to doubt the whole shebang of climate science based on personal experiences. What you've written above doesn't seem to support that position, so perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part.

This post seems to be more... well, equivocal?

For what it's worth neither sun-spots nor natural planetary rhythms can have caused the recent increase in global temperature. For those and any other alternative forcing that sounds plausible, check here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

It appears to me that there are more papers being written than there is original research being done, people are chasing funding more than facts, and there are an unwholesome number of bureaucrats getting on board, each with agendas which may or may not be climate related.
That's getting kinda close to the kind of conspiracy that deniers claim. Thousands of scientists actively or complacently involved in producing fraudulent work for the purpose of securing funding... :shocking:

I'm interested in specific complaints.

BTW MC, - what is your interest? CC issues, or decision making processes?

I'm a Skeptic. As such, I'm dismayed by the rise and rise of pseudoscience and anti-science in modern society. Enemies of Reason, if you will. I'm fascinated by the processes that lead otherwise apparently rational people to adopt then hold fast to irrational and false beliefs no matter how much evidence, reason and reality is handed to them. The climate change denial movement is among the very worst offenders lately. And without a doubt they have had great success in changing the opinions of people who don't actually understand climate science fundamentals.

I really need to put together a fully referenced post to explain in less than 200 words that: the world is warming; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; CO2 levels have increased; this CO2 increase is largely due to human activity. These are a required common ground for any meaningful discussion on the issue IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that worries me is that from what I can tell from the reports posted here, that only 50% of the global warming effects are currently being endured by our planet.

If we could turn the taps off on Carbon pollution tomorrow, within a few weeks the cooling effects of sulphur dioxide and particulates in the air and other pollutants which work to cool the planet are absorbed by the environment again, these by products of coal powered power stations are no longer in the atmosphere only 3 weeks after turning off the taps. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases however depending on the gas take between 100 and 1000s of years to be absorbed again.

So if we think we are already feeling the effects then double them to get an idea of what happens when we turn the taps off tomorrow. This is not an argument for waiting of course as the longer you leave it the worse the problem is going to be when we eventually turn the taps off, but bear this in mind if you think thus far the affects of climate change are minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's interesting - thanks Bernie.

No wuks Ruff.

Although I can verify that the Barrier Reef is dieing* and buddies that have recently had hols in South America verify the deforestation#. It can't be good for the climate and global ecology.

*in a recent inner dive a few weeks ago the coral variety is crap, the fish variety that need the various softs are gone.

# http://photos.mongabay.com/06/braz_defor_88-05-lrg.jpg

(Thats a standard Soccer pitch being flattened every 30seconds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Weather.

I took your original post to mean that you had valid reason to doubt the whole shebang of climate science based on personal experiences. What you've written above doesn't seem to support that position, so perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part.

This post seems to be more... well, equivocal?

For what it's worth neither sun-spots nor natural planetary rhythms can have caused the recent increase in global temperature. For those and any other alternative forcing that sounds plausible, check here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

That's getting kinda close to the kind of conspiracy that deniers claim. Thousands of scientists actively or complacently involved in producing fraudulent work for the purpose of securing funding... :shocking:

I'm interested in specific complaints.

I'm a Skeptic. As such, I'm dismayed by the rise and rise of pseudoscience and anti-science in modern society. Enemies of Reason, if you will. I'm fascinated by the processes that lead otherwise apparently rational people to adopt then hold fast to irrational and false beliefs no matter how much evidence, reason and reality is handed to them. The climate change denial movement is among the very worst offenders lately. And without a doubt they have had great success in changing the opinions of people who don't actually understand climate science fundamentals.

I really need to put together a fully referenced post to explain in less than 200 words that: the world is warming; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; CO2 levels have increased; this CO2 increase is largely due to human activity. These are a required common ground for any meaningful discussion on the issue IMHO.

'...your original post to mean that you had valid reason to doubt the whole shebang of climate science based on personal experiences.'- this was not my intention with that post, nor is it my position on climate change.

I have simply seen some scientists complacently involved in producing dubious work for the purpose of securing funding. Enough that I am reticent about taking all of the work I see at face value.

This is a problem that has been observed in other areas of research, which suddenly become sexy for whatever reason, and have unthinking money hurled at them - however well intentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this picture as I think it has a lot to do with the argument. :starwars:

post-106-12807519219791_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeebus. The similarity between what the media tells people and what people believe is striking! The question is which drives which? :mellow:

Ruffian said:

This is a problem that has been observed in other areas of research, which suddenly become sexy for whatever reason, and have unthinking money hurled at them - however well intentioned.
I've seen different arms of the same organisation apply for funding to answer pretty much the same ('sexy') question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you write "I'm not a CC denier, but I am not sure I am a CC believer exactly, anymore, either" what do you mean? Do you mean to express doubt that the world has warmed (ie. climate is changing)?

Or did you put CC in place of AGW? In which case, which bit do you doubt? Do you doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you doubt that CO2 levels have increased? Do you doubt that this increase is largely due to man?

Assuming you have answered YES to one of the above, did the "dubious science" you witnessed cause this doubt and how?

Lots of questions, but no malice meant, I'm quite interested in the process by which people come to doubt the whole of climate science. nerd.gif

Then you have people denying that CO2 is any kind of greenhouse gas -- that in fact there is thermodynamically no such thing -- http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-violates-fundamentals-of-physics

No wonder ordinary people don't know what to think about the 'science' on either side. It's all like a big Sokal hoax in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, the PM system just broke our conversation (at least from my end). Are you able to copy & paste my most recent reply to here? Then we might be able to continue the discussion. I didn't get to the end of yours and it's gone now, but the gist of it "how do we know it's not x, and not y and not z and not g and not k" was clear. My answer is simple: because science tells us so.

This is the problem with so much so-called skepticism. It typically involves a scattergun approach: keep firing claims and questions, many of them contradictory, and eventually one will cause doubt. That is irrational. Unless the point is merely to cause doubt.

At least the 'scientific consensus' approach is consistent, if movable.

Here's the thing. It's drastically different for a person to:

Hold a strongly oppositional perspective because they believe that they have a critical piece of evidence or argument that falsifies a core piece of AGW theory. But to be willing to accept that if their argument or piece of evidence can be shown to be flawed or otherwise refuted, that the overwhelming evidence from climate science is probably actually pointing in the right direction.

Hunt multiple opposing theories and insist that each one must be debunked, even though they have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere - not that the denial community will ever let that prevent them from repeating them - and even though many of them if true would falsify each other. Then following the debunking, return to the denialist web to search for even more, hold these up for debunking before they beli.... No wait, before they again return to the denialist community to find more....

The second person, there is no point entering discussion with. They are beginning from a belief position that is irrational, and I find it incredibly rare that a person can be dissuaded from holding a wrong belief if the belief is irrationally formed. On the other hand, open discussions with such people can have an impact on unconvinced bystanders. Hence my preference to hold this discussion openly.

So, is there a particular part of the AGW story that you believe is wrong?

[i'll post a couple of interesting graphics shortly to support my previous PM to you if you can get a copy of that PM pasted here!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never mind, the PMs came back. Here's mine

------------------------:------

Then you have people denying that CO2 is any kind of greenhouse gas -- that in fact there is thermodynamically no such thing -- http://climatology.s...tals-of-physics

No wonder ordinary people don't know what to think about the 'science' on either side.

Right, and there are also several papers concerning a place called 'Middle Earth'. No wonder ordinary people don't know what to think about 'Middle Earth'!

The simple answer to the article is that the paper it claims falsifies greenhouse gas is rubbish. I'm off to the farm today, but will make a post in the forum (keeping your identity out of it) later. Here is the problem:

"in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility."

We can and do measure the amount of thermal radiation that 'bounces' back to space and the amount that is absorbed. But even more importantly, we can and have measured the amount and spectrum of radiation from either side, which allows us to isolate the components that are blocking and causing back-radiation.

So for all Heinz Thieme's claims of "impossibility", observations of reality show that he is wrong. And for this reason, I submit that: his 'paper' will never be published in a reputable scientific journal; his 'refutation' of GHG will never gain traction among climate scientists (not due to conspiracy, but because it is rubbish).

The far more interesting bit in all this is the psychology, and that is what I will deal with in my later forum post. Meantime, I wonder whether if I provide references and data to support the paragraph 2 back... would that be enough to change your view in any way? And if not, then what?

I doubt anyone can conclusively 'prove' AGW given that there are so many possible confounding variables that influence temperature and climate.
Energy in vs energy out would be the important variables, wouldn't they?
But I could be convinced I suppose if there was particularly compelling evidence...

My evidence shows that: the world has warmed/is warming; CO2 is a GHG; atmospheric CO2 has increased; this increase is largely due to human activity. All these can be directly measured or demonstrated by simple experiments (no models and little theory required). Would you need any further evidence than that to accept that AGW is real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the graphic I mentioned earlier:

infraredspectrum.jpg

"Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere at (a) 20km looking downward over the Arctic ice sheet and (b ) at the surface looking upwards. (Data courtesy of David Tobin, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagram courtesy of Grant Petty, from Petty 2006)" - From skepticalscience.com.

Atmospheric gases can be observed to behave in the way that physics tells us they should.

Anybody who confidently states that "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility" should be treated with the utmost suspicion, and their claims subject to intense scrutiny. That is the truly skeptical thing to do. Demand that extraordinary claims are backed by extraordinary evidence, and if they are not, dismiss them. Don't accept that they have falsified all of climate science, nor give their views equal footing with the position supported by vast amounts of evidence.

That's basically the difference between denialism and skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the graphic I mentioned earlier:

infraredspectrum.jpg

"Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere at (a) 20km looking downward over the Arctic ice sheet and (b ) at the surface looking upwards. (Data courtesy of David Tobin, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagram courtesy of Grant Petty, from Petty 2006)" - From skepticalscience.com.

Atmospheric gases can be observed to behave in the way that physics tells us they should.

Anybody who confidently states that "there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility" should be treated with the utmost suspicion, and their claims subject to intense scrutiny. That is the truly skeptical thing to do. Demand that extraordinary claims are backed by extraordinary evidence, and if they are not, dismiss them. Don't accept that they have falsified all of climate science, nor give their views equal footing with the position supported by vast amounts of evidence.

That's basically the difference between denialism and skepticism.

+1 Max

Science will refute science not public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reading:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

In fact, I'd recommend that any time somebody says "how do we know it's not x, and not y and not z and not g and not k" or worse, claims that "for all we know it could be x, or y or z or g or k", that a trip is made to here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Look up x or y or z or g or k. If it's not there, send them an email. CC RealClimate. Don't accept that the person bringing up "x, or y or z or g or k" - or all five, have a valid point. If the person is part of the denialist movement, you can bet your arse they have already been thoroughly debunked. And you can also bet your arse that no amount of debunking will stop said denialists from repeating said debunked claim. <_<

Monckton and Nova spring to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 Max

Science will refute science not public opinion.

Hence my frustration. I believe the denialist camp are looking set for the 'win'. :(

Gillard's stupid plan to let 'ordinary people' decide the issue just validates this kind of unthinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now