Willis, an apt summary. Good catch. Regards.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Rud Istvan
↧
Comment on Cold logic on climate change policy by philjourdan
And nothing shows a significant impact with any degree of statistical significance. Why worry about a failed supposition?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Barry Woods
Hi David – I would say the climate change science niche – is very small (concerned and less concerned) – rough indicator – twitter followers of those that blog and tweet (are relatively tiny)
also, even the biggest websites like WUWT only have unique readers in the tens of thousands, SkS, Realclimate have a little less. ;-) – both sides have tiny numbers of the public, knowing that they even exist.
It would be interesting, how many views (and unque readers,) that Guardan Environment get (and say the 97% consensus blog, and monbiot get) less than we might think?
I don’t know many people (in normal life) that even know who Monbiot is (or Delingpole, for that matter) and they certainly have not heard of any of the blogs above in that diagram-
Thus we are all in the ‘climate bubble’ ?
The public I believe are largely oblivious.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Steven Mosher
“I chose the phrasing I chose because the “consensus” Cook et al found doesn’t actually have a coherent meaning.”
your comment has no coherent meaning
even a simple word like cup doesnt have a coherent meaning.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Barry Woods
ie say WUWT or Climate Audit or Guardian environment has 20 thousand unique readers one day – and a similar number the next day…
they will largely (if not virtually all?) be the same ‘small’ group people – and not new readers – same elsewhere.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ceresco kid
I think it would be interesting to see how climate scientist attributed the signal of CO2 by percentiles. Put them into categories of humans affecting less than 20%, 20% to 40%, 40% to 60% etc. or any other scheme. Two individuals who attribute 5% vs 45% have a much different perspective and may have different policy proscriptions than two individuals having attribution of 48% vs 52% and yet now one is called by some a
denier and the other a warmist. The same goes for those above 50%. Saying 55% vs 95% can end up with drastically different policy implications.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Joshua
If we are here, we are outliers.
One of the most frequently found types of unskeptical arguments made by “skeptics” in the blogosphere is when they try to generalize from this outlier group to the general public.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Lucifer
Yes, and since the missing heat is supposedly hiding in the deep ocean, it’s difficult to explain why the heat is mixing downward without also mixing the CO2.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by John Smith (it's my real name)
visited some of the warm side sites on the chart
of course ATTP quickly called Richard Tol a “nutter”
proving his point
the other warm sites are either behind pay walls are appear to me to have very low activity
Climate Lab Book looked good and I plan to give it a closer read
many of the warm sites comes across to me as defensive (a word I hate and use reluctantly)
most of the energy is on the skeptic side
CE is the most current at being in the place where the argument is right now
looks like skepticism is getting way more converts
funny that politics and MSM give the opposite impression
then again, I’m probably completely blinded by “denialism”
wonder if John Cook has therapy recommendations
thanks Judith
happy New Year
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
Brandon is correct. The other major problem with the POS paper is that their conclusions are based on a small non-random sample of publications by alleged climate scientists. They based their conclusion on a miniscule portion of the 12,000 papers allegedly reviewed by independent “citizen scientists”, who just happened to be the authors of the freaking paper. This would be like an ad agency working for Proctor and Gamble doing a survey of 12,000 dentists and finding that most dentists recommend Colgate. You know how that works.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by rls
Don
“Joshie fell for the weiner. This is a ridiculous discussion. Davey and joshie are in denial that any human can be objective about anything. This is what goes on in the minds of big headed ”
Do you suppose it is related to the philosophy of Relativism; a philosophy common to progressives?
Richard
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Steven Mosher
Here Brandon start with this.
It gives you a reference to a very famous 1973 paper on classification that you should read. Labov on word boundaries and their meaning.
http://www.skilja.de/2012/classification-and-context/
In short, you continue to misconstrue how language works and what experiments tell us about “meaning”
You’d do much better if you avoid the arguments like
“that’s meaningless” or “that has no coherent meaning” Precisely because you don’t have a theory of meaning to back up these types of claims. The same with your repeated tactic of calling people “silly” if they disagree with you or misunderstand you. That tactic simply doesnt work to convince them or others of the correctness of your views. That should be apparent to you by now.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
ceresco,
If I remember correctly, the number of abstracts in the that were deemed to be explicitly endorsing AGW with humans causing >50% of recent warming was 64.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Lucifer
Confirmation bias is a pretty strong bias ( that we all must be wary of ).
I like to frequent sites of all types to ensure that all data is included.
Sketpical Science banned me, not for being uncivil but some formality of content, so I’ve given up on them.
‘Real Climate’ and ‘Open Mind’ are amusing in selectivley accepting comments. They’ll file13 comments which raise questions but if I use an alias and post as a syncophant ( “Great post – we need to stop CO2 immediately!”) they’ll put the comment up in a hearbeat.
Rabbet Run doesn’t do anonymous anymore ( which is kinda ironic, since Halpern continues to use a psudonym ) so I’ve ceased there.
That leaves just ATTP for contributing sanity.
It’s unfortunate, because banning and running just leaves a bunch of echo chambers, which has happened ar WUWT.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Don Monfort
“Such a weak consensus position is practically meaningless…”
What’s wrong with that, Steven? Is your objection substantive, or semantic?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by Shub Niggurath
So, “Joshua”, forgot to consider the possibility that it’s actually a small fraction of the largely apathetic public that are skeptics?
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by thisisnotgoodtogo
Dave is not likely to say what the error is, because then he would be explicitly explaining what Sou and he are trying to do.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
Max,
I’m not going to do your homework for you. Read the newspapers and not just the NYT”S. Think more. Question more. You’re not a stupid fellow…although you’ve give no indications of being particularly intelligent. either. Where do you stand on the MAnn lawsuit? If you’re rooting for him to prevail, I can only conclude that you’re genuinely oblivious to the free speech implications of such a victory…or that you simply don’t care. Either way, it doesn’t reflect well on you.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
JOsh,
I’ve never seen anyone work so hard at being funny… and failing so abysmally Serious question, do you ever begin to bore yourself? It’s ok, sometimes I can bore myself, but then my standards are higher than yours.
↧
Comment on Climate blogosphere discussion II by ChrisM
A critical part of the original study was the science bloggers who were active on twitter. It would be interesting to compare that list to Tamsin’s on https://twitter.com/flimsin/lists/climatescientists/members
↧