So Michael and Joshua don’t think that silencing dissent is lethal to science.
What’s important is that it is subservient to the political machine eh lads?
Comment on Adjudicating the future: silencing climate dissent via the courts by Punksta
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf
Summer time, trah lah, and the livin’ is eeasy,
… except when yer have a year without Summer
like 1816 with its major food shortages across the
northern hemisphere, failed harvests in Britain and
Ireland, demos and lootin’ in European cities.
Except another bad Summer like the Summer of 1788
a significant historical date, and the storm that swept
across Northern France on July 13th, when hailstones
killed men and animals and devastated hundreds of miles
of crops on the eve of harvest, half-way through a veritable
catastrophic year followed by the longest coldest winter in
living history.
The serfs weren’t happy.
↧
Comment on Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II by Peter Lang
+!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mosomoso
Surprising that there is still this automated belief that warmer=drier for Africa, ME and Asia. Still, if nobody checks…
By the way, I have no idea if a global temp is a useful fact or useless factoid, but marked coolings over big areas too often coincide with dynastic strains and migration periods. When it comes to making populations shift, the droughts which come with cooling can out-do even Merkel and whoever had the bright idea of toppling Gaddafi.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
JIMD
You said;
‘It is not just another fluctuation we are witnessing and people need to realize that. It’s a continuation and projected further continuation of a trend to a perturbation maybe four times the size of today’s by 2100.’
It is a trend we can trace back to 1700. The last high water stand was around 1580. Land temperatures started rising around 1700. Glaciers started melting ar8und 1750. So the best evidence we have is that this is another fluctuation in a longish term trend and one of many such fluctuations and trends that we can trace back over the last 2000 years.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Tony B,
Perspective? You are providing perspective? I was under the impression (from Jim, I believe) that everything man caused began about 1950: http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Hi Danny
Interesting article and some nice photos.
I think it would be useful if, instead of continually promoting the notion of unprecedented ‘climate chaos’ we instead majored on climate context. I don’t know if you ever saw the graphics I had done that illustrated the advances and retreats of the glaciers over the last few thousand years? Will you see if you can view either of these links? If so I will tell you how they were developed
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Wow! Sorry everyone for the giant glacier graphic!!
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Tony,
That’s a pretty large graphic!
I could not access the dropbox, but I have that from an earlier offering from you.
Visited Exit glacier a few years back and Jim’s comments made me recall the signage which the National Park Service has dating back to the 1800’s when that particular glacier showed retreat (at least as far as the NPS records go).
Perspective is something which often is ‘arm waved’ away yet at least as far as I’m aware the prior to anthro retreat has not yet been explained. Until that prior retreat can be explained, I’m not quite comfortable that we should attribute it solely to AGW. Especially since under other glaciers in Alaska (Mendenhall: http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html) evidence of ancient forests exists.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Hi Danny
Yes, interesting about the glacier you visited and the ancient forests.
We can trace Glaciers back some 3000 years from observational records. My graphic was derived from the hundreds of observations Le Roy Ladurie gathered, together with those by Pfister and other modern glaciologists and my own work in examining glaciers personally in Austria and Switzerland and gathering together the information known about them.
It is nothing more than a very broad brush approach but illustrates that the modern notion of a virtually constant historic temperature can not be sustained. We currently appear to be in one of many warm periods in between glacial advances.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172
Tony,
That’s cheating – making glacier graphics appear larger than they actually are ;-)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
He who can’t be named. Of course I realize that. Your posting of the link seemed to suggest you saw it as a one sided caution to climate skeptics. This is not a group where most reject the climate orthodoxy for tribal reasons as your posting seemed to suggest. I’ll ask you later who are the nontribal defenders of the climate orthodoxy here.
I’m not biting n the charge of polemics. What’s the word I should have used, as they all can be. so tainted? Anecdotal may be much better than some surveys we see. There is a body of people I see posting and reposting climate doom on Facebook, commenting on web forums hat this is the number one problem. Recent stuff like Seth Mcafarlane pressing Bernie Sanders calling Climate Change the number one national security problem, Bill Nyes five reasons about climate, pictures supposedly of lakes drying up due to climate ). I was just invited to a showing of the Oreskes film and saw a lot of general comments there. Climate is grouped by many as an indivisible part of a stance on inequality, social justice, sexism and racism. These people are in the public debate but from my perspective for the most part many have have no idea of the climate issues.
I suspect that in the US those who don’t avoid those they disagree with see something similar and that it may resonate. I’m not comparing blogs to blogs or extremists to extremists but general libs to cons. I see many general libs beating the climate drum and no conservatives acting similarly on Facebook and I see a lot of wacky conservative crap (as well as wacky lib crap too).
If someone steps away from their tribe on an issue that motivates me to look at their reasoning. I think many posters here probably more closely identified with liberal rather than conservative camps. There are no doubt many conservative posters here as well. I think there are many here who feel estrangd from liberal friends for their climate views, I haven’t seen many here who started out with a conservative inclination or remain conservative but who are alarmed about climate. I doubt many here feel a loss from exclusion from conservative friends because of their climate views, Man of us skeptics voted for Obama (at least once). Did any significant number of alarmists vote for Romney orBush? Maybe they will speak up here and I’ll learn something, in any case those who go against their initial identification and face scorn from their communities are probably the least tribal.
Share your anecdotal perspective and let’s see if it resonates or rings true with me or others. You do less than that-when you merely assert. It is. My perspective – great statement of the obvious.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by wert
Sheer speculation (AFAIK).
You are much too kind.
Using Mars and Venus as an example of climate change is convenient fud’ding. Mars is cold because it is small and can’t hold enough gases, and Venus is hot because it has a dense sea of gas. The bigger ball of gas you have, the hotter it gets downunder.
The key question is why Earth has the amount of atmosphere it has. And there are plenty of details that affect, like magnetic field, seas and plate tectonics.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Peter
yes, I just need to learn how to shrink JCH’s alarmist warming graphics by around 90% and we can all go relax.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aplanningengineer
This would be a good test of tribal identification among the denizens. I suspect we’d find more diversity in views across columns from the skeptics here versus the orthodox on climate. What say you? Who are the tribalists?
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by wert
I’m sure travelling south, like Congo, puts my health in danger, and getting into Afghanistan could be too hot, but I really, really wonder if it is the temperature and not the anthropogenic local culture.
There is no man as blind as a young man with an ideology.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by opluso
Curious George:
…or whether the distribution is Gaussian in the first place.
They essentially changed the standard deviation of presumed risk to further exaggerate the high-end (right tail) risks. They claim they are applying “reasonable” assumptions to IPCC’s lowering of likely climate sensitivity but it is utterly unreasonable to interpret new science producing a lower bound as an “increase in uncertainty”.
A decrease in the mean climate sensitivity, other things equal, is undoubtedly good news for the planet. We could expect eventual global average temperatures to rise less than previously feared. However, when that decrease in mean is due to a widening of the uncertainty range—for example, if it is due to a lowering of the lower bound—this news may not overall be good. In fact, that is what we find may be the case here.
The lowered bottom value also implies higher uncertainty about the temperature increase, definitely bad news. Under reasonable assumptions, both the lowering of the lower bound and the removal of the ‘best estimate’ may well be bad news.
They also utilize a “willingness to pay” (to avoid global warming) metric and simply argue that the inability of researchers over recent decades to establish the precise climate sensitivity = scary uncertainty = pay more.
Now THAT was an easily predictable result.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by peter3172
If temperature does have any effect on life expectancy, it pales into insignificance against myriad other factors.
Besides which, until relatively recently in human history, life expectancy in today’s civilised countries wasn’t that great either.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
It’s great fun in socialist/communist countries.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
Dimowits believe whatever Obumbles tells them.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
