I think a graphic comment is in order .
Tweet
Is it really worth reading yet another climate blogpost ?
I think a graphic comment is in order .
Tweet
Climate *Skeptics* Shift Their Ground
The term climate skeptic leaves a hell of a lot of room for manouver. It could mean you're skeptical of the policies or the science, or that global warming is bad or of the anthropogenic bit.
Or it could mean that you're just skeptical of one little bit of the conventional wisdom that is climate change science. In which case I can claim to be a climate skeptic too.
Last week I blogged about these words by Geoff Chambers "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow." Skeptics are moving the goalposts here. How is global cooling or Svensmark's cosmic ray theories, say, reflected in that statement ?
But it's a statement that makes the goalposts much much narrower, in fact it's basically unfalsifiable.
Perhaps that's why it's a meme being explored more and more by the skeptical blog-o-sphere. Witness Jo Nova's bad tempered blogpost in which she states "the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant."
So who's right, the majority of the world's top scientists or Jo Nova and co? Hell I don't know. But I'd venture the majority of the the world's top scientists trumps it because the question of the net importance of the greenhouse effect means weighing up a whole bunch of pluses and minuses to form a collective opinion. Climate skeptics cant and aren't matching that, they are merely picking holes - perhaps it should really be called Climate Pedantry.
Jo Nova is author of The Skeptics Handbook which states (amongst other things): "Proof of Global Warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming" I'm looking forward to reading how Jo Nova has disowned that work.
Tweet
Or it could mean that you're just skeptical of one little bit of the conventional wisdom that is climate change science. In which case I can claim to be a climate skeptic too.
Last week I blogged about these words by Geoff Chambers "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow." Skeptics are moving the goalposts here. How is global cooling or Svensmark's cosmic ray theories, say, reflected in that statement ?
But it's a statement that makes the goalposts much much narrower, in fact it's basically unfalsifiable.
Perhaps that's why it's a meme being explored more and more by the skeptical blog-o-sphere. Witness Jo Nova's bad tempered blogpost in which she states "the debate (which you evidently aren’t aware of) is not about whether CO2 absorbs infra red, but whether that warming effect is significant."
So who's right, the majority of the world's top scientists or Jo Nova and co? Hell I don't know. But I'd venture the majority of the the world's top scientists trumps it because the question of the net importance of the greenhouse effect means weighing up a whole bunch of pluses and minuses to form a collective opinion. Climate skeptics cant and aren't matching that, they are merely picking holes - perhaps it should really be called Climate Pedantry.
Jo Nova is author of The Skeptics Handbook which states (amongst other things): "Proof of Global Warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming" I'm looking forward to reading how Jo Nova has disowned that work.
Tweet
Donna's Magnificent Contradiction
Touring the Lucky Country giving speeches about how wrong climate scientists are must be nice work if you can get it, but Donna Laframboise has been getting her knickers in a twist about a consensus statement on coral reefs and climate change.
Donna's beef is that not only do the scientists agree, but they display no doubt about their findings. "The statement doesn’t sound scientific, however. For one thing, the language isn’t circumspect" moans Donna.
She's written an entire blog post entitled Delusions Down Under which argues that the statement from the Center for Ocean Solutions is invalid because it is worded with certainty. Leading to a conclusion of her own that a "magnificent self-delusion" has taken hold of the coral reef scientists.
This is the same Donna Laframboise who wrote a book dissing the IPCC consensus. In which , musing on a favourite climate *skeptic* meme Donna wrote "it isn't terribly plausible that scientists [...] can know for certain that current temperature fluctuations aren't part of a [...] natural cycle."
So for Donna only certainty from scientists is good enough, except when scientists are certain and then it's not good at all.
Tweet
Donna's beef is that not only do the scientists agree, but they display no doubt about their findings. "The statement doesn’t sound scientific, however. For one thing, the language isn’t circumspect" moans Donna.
She's written an entire blog post entitled Delusions Down Under which argues that the statement from the Center for Ocean Solutions is invalid because it is worded with certainty. Leading to a conclusion of her own that a "magnificent self-delusion" has taken hold of the coral reef scientists.
This is the same Donna Laframboise who wrote a book dissing the IPCC consensus. In which , musing on a favourite climate *skeptic* meme Donna wrote "it isn't terribly plausible that scientists [...] can know for certain that current temperature fluctuations aren't part of a [...] natural cycle."
So for Donna only certainty from scientists is good enough, except when scientists are certain and then it's not good at all.
Tweet
Whoops Climate Denier Blog Caught Out Rewriting the Record Books
Another clanger from the unfortunately titled No Tricks Zone blog which claims "...not a hurricane seen in years". Cue Wikipedia for rebuttal of that one : 'When Tropical Storm Debby formed on June 23, it was the first time ever that four storms formed before July, since reliable record keeping began in 1851.'
Perhaps not a hurricane seen in over a week would be more accurate.
Particularly egregious though is the No Tricks Zone headline which claims Warmists are 'Rewriting History'.
Facts, who needs 'em in the climate deny-o-sphere ?
Tweet
Perhaps not a hurricane seen in over a week would be more accurate.
Particularly egregious though is the No Tricks Zone headline which claims Warmists are 'Rewriting History'.
Facts, who needs 'em in the climate deny-o-sphere ?
Tweet
Why climate skepticism works
I think the reasons why climate *skepticism* is doing well are much more varied than reported elsewhere.
It's objectives are (whilst not easy to define from without) much lower than proponents objectives.
To the disinterested the mere existence of climate skepticism is reason enough to ally oneself with it.
It's a constantly changing narrative, a cat of many colours. That keeps the interest of adherents. Science is carrying a millstone by comparison, science's narrative is the unchanging laws of physics, so not only are climate scientists wrong they are boring. The scientific debate is highly nuanced, this can easily be misinterpreted to mean scientists are divided on facts.
Contrarians are always looking for a sign of "bias" in AGW but don't apply that standard to themselves. The language is loaded, and indeed has been hijacked by contrarians insisting on being called "skeptics" and not deniers.
That's just the more active climate contrarians, those you come across on the net. For every climate contrarian/skeptic that's posted something on the net there must surely be a thousand more that have never bothered to learn anything about the climate. You know who I mean, your relative whom you only meet at weddings and funerals but is adept at parroting Fox News. How does science reach them? They are safely cocooned in the knowledge that climate change is nonsense because Someone Else Says So.
Above all, climate skepticism is more commentary than case. Contrarian Geoff Chambers defines skepticism thus "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow."
That may come as a surprise to many of the more casual climate contrarians/skeptics who think global warming is all a hoax or that it's all been disproved 'cos University of East Anglia scientists were caught sending and receiving emails , or that the world is in fact cooling.
Someone Else Says So may be a rational way of forming an opinion on what shoes to wear this autumn, but not on an issue as important as climate. It seems to me that the Someone Else Says So meme should really be populating the don't know camp but is in fact supporting an ill-informed brand of climate skepticism.
Tweet
It's objectives are (whilst not easy to define from without) much lower than proponents objectives.
To the disinterested the mere existence of climate skepticism is reason enough to ally oneself with it.
It's a constantly changing narrative, a cat of many colours. That keeps the interest of adherents. Science is carrying a millstone by comparison, science's narrative is the unchanging laws of physics, so not only are climate scientists wrong they are boring. The scientific debate is highly nuanced, this can easily be misinterpreted to mean scientists are divided on facts.
Contrarians are always looking for a sign of "bias" in AGW but don't apply that standard to themselves. The language is loaded, and indeed has been hijacked by contrarians insisting on being called "skeptics" and not deniers.
That's just the more active climate contrarians, those you come across on the net. For every climate contrarian/skeptic that's posted something on the net there must surely be a thousand more that have never bothered to learn anything about the climate. You know who I mean, your relative whom you only meet at weddings and funerals but is adept at parroting Fox News. How does science reach them? They are safely cocooned in the knowledge that climate change is nonsense because Someone Else Says So.
Above all, climate skepticism is more commentary than case. Contrarian Geoff Chambers defines skepticism thus "We don’t deny that global temperatures have been rising irregularly for centuries, and that anthropogenic CO2 may be responsible for some of the recent rise. Where we disagree with the consensus is on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity endorsed by the IPCC and the catastrophic effects which are supposed inevitably to follow."
That may come as a surprise to many of the more casual climate contrarians/skeptics who think global warming is all a hoax or that it's all been disproved 'cos University of East Anglia scientists were caught sending and receiving emails , or that the world is in fact cooling.
Someone Else Says So may be a rational way of forming an opinion on what shoes to wear this autumn, but not on an issue as important as climate. It seems to me that the Someone Else Says So meme should really be populating the don't know camp but is in fact supporting an ill-informed brand of climate skepticism.
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)