tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post7431120767035576349..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Who are the climate change skeptics?Lippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-31943534245015533642011-06-18T16:19:49.184-07:002011-06-18T16:19:49.184-07:00Raymond: Global warming doesn't correlate wit...Raymond: Global warming doesn't correlate with solar activity. See <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm</a>.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-86751056651188369422011-06-16T17:59:58.056-07:002011-06-16T17:59:58.056-07:00Great dialogue! I have been looking over "Env...Great dialogue! I have been looking over "Environmental effects of increased Atmospheric carbon dioxide" from the OISM folks. I have heard fair criticism of their aged degrees, the inappropriateness of their degrees and even their motivation, but is there evidence that the data they used was skewed in any way? (I am a little surprised we would have some of that older data).<br /> AGW seems a perfectly sound concept, but is it irresponsible to suggest other factors, like solar activity, contributed to a .8% increase in global temperature in the twentieth century?Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09112137217976882354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-88383090589270013042010-01-10T20:57:44.451-07:002010-01-10T20:57:44.451-07:00Another important new book is _Not A Conspiracy Th...Another important new book is _Not A Conspiracy Theory_ by Donald Gutstein.<br />This Tyee article provides an extract on climate denial astroturfing by big oil:<br /><br /><a href="http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/12/10/ClimateDeniers/index.html" rel="nofollow">Tyee article</a>Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-13197531914662019772010-01-10T11:55:45.008-07:002010-01-10T11:55:45.008-07:00Hi Jim,
Just found your page; Ggeat post and glad...Hi Jim,<br /><br />Just found your page; Ggeat post and glad to see my climate activists/skeptics stats pages were helpful.<br /><br />For the question of word searches in collecting publication stats, I think searches on "evolution" are not that comparable. I'll argue that while some articles relevant to climate science might fail to contain the word "climate," it's hard to see how someone could be actively publishing on climate change or climate science without using this word fairly regularly. Furthermore, the disparity in the stats between IPCC authors and skeptic signers on this metric is just so glaring that complaints about the imperfections of the metric seem moot. <br />So what using the word "climate" captures only part of the climate science literature? Surely what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and any shortfall in coverage with this term is not going to favor one group or the other?<br /><br />The median number of papers mentions climate for the 619 IPCC AR4 wg1 authors is 93. The median among the 472 signers of any of the ten climate skeptic declarations that I've tabulated is ... two (2). It's astronomically implausible for that difference to be a mere artefact of the choice of search term.<br /><br />Jim Prall,<br />Toronto, CanadaJim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-65105044082274719472010-01-06T23:40:36.654-07:002010-01-06T23:40:36.654-07:00Excellent work! Very useful. You might want to add...Excellent work! Very useful. You might want to add Jeff Masters Skeptics vs the Ozone Hole piece at WU<br /><br />http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp<br /><br />Steve just above, I posted a similar but longer Creationism/Denialism table at DKOS the other day.<br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/21/806905/-Climate-Denial-Sociopathology,-Creationism:-Hacked-Emails,-Piltdow<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-3442737050742352302010-01-06T16:34:43.478-07:002010-01-06T16:34:43.478-07:00Nice work on the analysis.
Regarding the paralle...Nice work on the analysis. <br /><br />Regarding the parallels between creationist tactics and AGW denier tactics, I refer you to one of my recent posts at my blog:<br />http://demon-hauntedworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/top-ten-ways-climate-deniers-are-like.htmlStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06763511375953757332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-8614446189064679572010-01-05T04:51:29.864-07:002010-01-05T04:51:29.864-07:00This is an excellent research project, which I hop...This is an excellent research project, which I hope that you continue to expand and publish upon. I have linked to your post and your blog.Don Thiemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12230623150123606969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-69508199869638570632010-01-03T19:19:48.164-07:002010-01-03T19:19:48.164-07:00Forgot to mention a really important new book, by ...Forgot to mention a really important new book, by James Hoggan. It's called Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, and it's a book about the topic of this blog post. Reads like a mystery novel.<br />JulieGreenHeartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10920831217530325071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-18564831915419698752010-01-03T19:17:58.134-07:002010-01-03T19:17:58.134-07:00Gentlemen, gentlemen, sheesh. Listen to yourselves...Gentlemen, gentlemen, sheesh. Listen to yourselves!<br /><br />All I hear is pontificating, head butting, arguing while the Earth burns, and not giving a crap for the children of any species.<br /><br />For heaven's sake, get a grip and look at what's happening. Forget the scientists, the deniers, the skeptics -- look around the world!<br /><br />An alarmist is not an alarmist if she sounds the alarm because something is alarming. And if you don't believe in the precautionary principle (I'd have thought that's like motherhood and apple pie), then please let's bring some compassion -- for anyone younger than yourself -- into the discussion.<br /><br />Julie JohnstonGreenHeartedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10920831217530325071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-63141063722579150162010-01-02T19:04:16.285-07:002010-01-02T19:04:16.285-07:00Jim, I perfectly understand your reluctance to hav...Jim, I perfectly understand your reluctance to have this debate continue much longer here. (And, by the way, I have solved the New Riddle of Induction, so I bring it up any chance I get.)<br /><br />James, would you mind continuing over at <a href="http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>? I will look for your answer there.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-32363077079911877782010-01-02T18:26:27.770-07:002010-01-02T18:26:27.770-07:00"Compelling argument" does not involve c..."Compelling argument" does not involve consensus and peer review, as subjecting a theory to peer review review (or requiring consensus) has no impact on the capability of a theory to predict phenomena.<br /><br />My position on theory A is that if you want to say that the theory of gravitation won't hold on a particular day, you have to be able to defend this belief based on logic. Even if you happened to be correct, you don't get credit for predicting phenomena unless you can explain why. <br /><br />Theory B is logically equivalent to the theory of gravitation. Fundamental forces fall into the class of things which I am willing accept as empirical facts (as long as contradictions can not be identified). <br /><br />As per Jim's request, this will be my last post on the topic.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520430106028296667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-20247917871708411942010-01-02T16:58:31.341-07:002010-01-02T16:58:31.341-07:00Kevan, James: I'll allow a few more comments o...Kevan, James: I'll allow a few more comments on this side philosophy of science conversation (which is starting to look a bit reminiscent of Nelson Goodman's "new riddle of induction"), but I suggest that it would be better to continue it at another location since it doesn't directly relate to the original post.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-69627815055891935692010-01-02T10:23:45.347-07:002010-01-02T10:23:45.347-07:00My theory, call it Theory A, is "Gravity will...My theory, call it Theory <i>A</i>, is "Gravity will work every day except the last day of 2010." Theory <i>A</i> makes predictions. It can be falsified. Indeed, <i>A</i> is consistent with a large number of experiments, any one of which could have falsified it. <br /><br />And yet you reject theory <i>A</i>. You say that I have to make a "compelling argument" in favor of <i>A</i> before <i>A</i> can qualify as a scientific theory. What is your definition of a "compelling argument"? Does it involve consensus and peer review?<br /><br />As a motivation for your answer, let me propose Theory <i>B</i>, which is that Theory <i>A</i> will work every day except the last day of 2010. Is that theory scientific?Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-66218316550895088342010-01-01T18:03:46.530-07:002010-01-01T18:03:46.530-07:00"Gravity will work every day except for the l..."Gravity will work every day except for the last day in 2010," isn't a scientific theory unless you have a plausible rational basis for making the claim. You would be expected to make a compelling argument why this should be so based on understanding of gravitation and/or other generally understood principles. Presumably this would be difficult to do for such a claim. Pure speculation clearly cannot form the basis of a scientific theory.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520430106028296667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-41401980290337821502010-01-01T14:16:22.916-07:002010-01-01T14:16:22.916-07:00James says, "I'm criticizing you because ...James says, "I'm criticizing you because you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is." Perhaps you can help enlighten me. Is the theory, "Gravity will work every day except for the last day in 2010," a scientific theory?Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-69379002573682411232010-01-01T09:14:20.341-07:002010-01-01T09:14:20.341-07:00Jim,
You went to a lot of effort to gather the i...Jim, <br /><br />You went to a lot of effort to gather the information you presented in your post, and I commend you for that.<br /><br />To me, however, there is a sanctity about a person's funding and personal beliefs that must not be violated in a discussion of science. If a climatologist is receiving millions of dollars to look into AGW, I will do my best never to suggest that they are twisting the data to perpetuate their funding. If I disagree with their conclusions, I must present an argument that is based only upon data and logic. Once I allow myself to cross over into a discussion of people's personal motives, it's a sure sign that there's something wrong with my position, or I'm yielding to my frustration, which is unbecoming.<br /><br />Furthermore, I consider it my duty to ignore anyone else's efforts to discuss the character and personal motives of other climatologists and skeptics alike.<br /><br />Having said that, I have enjoyed my visit at your site, and I thank you for engaging me in debate. If you'd like to see me demonstrate that evolutionary biology has an empirical basis, come visit me at <a href="http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">my site</a>. I don't moderate comments, so you have no fear of me cutting you off when you have me cornered.<br /><br />Happy New Year, KevanKevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-47322157209107545662009-12-31T21:39:25.857-07:002009-12-31T21:39:25.857-07:00Kevan,
Who said I had faith in climate models? T...Kevan,<br /><br />Who said I had faith in climate models? To say that I believe the climate can be accurately predicted based on current understanding would be false. My comments have consistently indicated as much. However, empirical evidence is different from empirical fact, which you don't seem to appreciate. I don't accept many things as empirical fact; this is reserved for things like conservation of energy, the speed of light is a constant, etc. Science does not solely consist of empirical facts. Logical deductions from those facts are what usually form the basis of scientific theories.<br /><br />Also, I'm sure that someone will inevitably call to your attention that a AGW is absolutely a scientific theory. I'm not sure how you intend to argue otherwise. Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't a scientific theory. <br /><br />For example, creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not testable by experiment as it presupposes the existence of a supernatural power. All we have to do to test AGW is wait and see what happens to the climate. It is a completely testable scientific theory! <br /><br />My opinion is not that you have high standards. My opinion is that you are sloppy with terminology and that you are making an extremely lazy argument. It seems clear that you do not understand the role of modeling in the development of scientific theories. Do you wish to state that construction of climate models does not advance our scientific understanding of these very complex global processes? Do you suggest that we avoid studying such a complex process because you don't believe it can be understood? I'm not criticizing you because I think AGW is a proven scientific theory, because it IS NOT a proven scientific theory. I'm criticizing you because you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is.jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01520430106028296667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-49605605787999065272009-12-31T18:09:02.178-07:002009-12-31T18:09:02.178-07:00Kevan: Not particularly, not in this comment threa...Kevan: Not particularly, not in this comment thread, and certainly not on New Year's Eve, since we've got people coming over shortly.<br /><br />For an on-topic comment, how about saying whether you think the original post raises any legitimate concerns about the reliability of the organizations or individuals described? So far, the anti-AGW commenters here have declined to offer an opinion about that for some reason, even though that's the point of the post.<br /><br />I won't be approving any more comments until 2010. Happy new year, everybody!Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-87418920102330018392009-12-31T17:57:23.494-07:002009-12-31T17:57:23.494-07:00Jim: Yes, evolutionary biology does meet my criter...Jim: Yes, evolutionary biology does meet my criteria for a scientific theory. Absolutely. But not AGW. Do you want to debate that?Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-51090726634243680222009-12-31T17:46:54.283-07:002009-12-31T17:46:54.283-07:00Peter: I'm not an advocate of any of the many ...Peter: I'm not an advocate of any of the many versions of the precautionary principle, and don't think it's necessary to motivate mitigation and adaptation activity.<br /><br />Kevan: Does evolutionary biology meet your criteria for what counts as science? Apparently your colleagues are not representative of any major national science academy or scientific organization.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-51696720047020673142009-12-31T14:26:21.668-07:002009-12-31T14:26:21.668-07:00Just for grins, check out the discovery institute&...Just for grins, check out the discovery institute's take on AGW, and how how similar their persecution is to that of AGW dissenters:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15453937&postID=7431120767035576349" rel="nofollow">Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters</a>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11797880274557882387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-67697906797553257132009-12-31T14:16:29.744-07:002009-12-31T14:16:29.744-07:00Jim says, "While it's true that a hypothe...Jim says, "While it's true that a hypothesis that is compatible with any possible outcome can't be scientific..." Good point, but I was referring to the fact that Intelligent Design makes use of a Divine Being. This Divine Being is super-natural. The judge said that science is the study of Natural Phenomena, not Super-Natural Phenomena, so Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory right out of the gate, before it makes any predictions and before it can be falsified in any way. Well, I thought that was interesting. I hope you do too.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-72322167338868742552009-12-31T14:10:45.992-07:002009-12-31T14:10:45.992-07:00James says, "Just because you can't run a...James says, "Just because you can't run a controlled experiment using the entire planet doesn't mean there isn't empirical evidence." You are welcome to that opinion, as you are to any other belief about how science should proceed. In the light of your opinion, I perfectly understand and respect your faith in climate models.<br /><br />I myself, however, do not believe any theory unless it has been proved with a great many experiments. In the case of climate theories, that means experiments upon an entire climate system. If we freeze the models now and let them run for two hundred years, and find they work, then great. Until then, I'm not going to trust the models.<br /><br />My criteria for accepting a theory are stricter than yours. The principles of physics and engineering pass my stricter criteria, but those of climatology do not.<br /><br />Lippard asks, "Who are the climate change skeptics?" After polling my colleagues, I can say, "Most experimental scientists."Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-47767834626054821082009-12-31T13:48:26.647-07:002009-12-31T13:48:26.647-07:00Three times I asked Tamino, "Has there been a...Three times I asked Tamino, "Has there been any statistically significant warming in the last decade." Three times he blocked my comment. The third time he told me to, "Go away."<br /><br />Tamino's own calculations <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743" rel="nofollow">show</a> that the answer to my question is "No." The models touted by the IPCC in <a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf" rel="nofollow">1995</a> predicted significant warming in the upcoming decade. They were wrong.<br /><br />You can use climate models to make predictions if you like. You can use the bible too. I don't want to belittle your beliefs nor anyone else's. But if you want me to trust your predictions, your use of models will have to be <a href="http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/#Climate%20Models" rel="nofollow">severely restricted</a>.Kevan Hashemihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014582378376549743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-22625232865628820292009-12-31T13:36:37.016-07:002009-12-31T13:36:37.016-07:00Jim says, "Kevan: You have an impoverished vi...Jim says, "Kevan: You have an impoverished view of science that excludes all historical sciences. There's more to science than experimental science; but in any case, climate science arguably started with the experiments of John Tyndall on greenhouse gases. Climate science does make testable predictions, that's what the modeling is for. And climate modeling is philosophically analogous to the use of measurement instrument."<br /><br />Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, especially when the claims may result in huge economic and social dislocations. I claim it is not possible to obtain the exceptional evidence from "philosophically analogous" measurements. Only hard science, not climate science, can provide the level of evidence required. And please don't resort to the precautionary principle -- that is another canard.Peter Staatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931622070977361173noreply@blogger.com