Slashdot Mirror
Engaging With Climate Skeptics
In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"
Testimony of Richard C. Levin President, Yale University Committee on the Environment and Public Works April 3, 2008 "The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees." Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75); The human contribution to global warming: valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) densall=densall+yearlyadj
Why should climate skeptics be asked to make a good faith effort when the climate scientists have been so clearly and obviously shown to be acting in bad faith?
And it's in itself pseudo-scientific behavior in action: Decide there's a big conspiracy of fraud behind climate change, and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
Decide there's global warming and go look for evidence to support your theory, and ignore all other explanations.
It's a big pseudo-scientific world out there.
Close.
Lief Erikson called it Greenland because he know global warming was coming...
Funny and on topic. definitely going to get modded flamebait.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, in what way is Anthropomorphic Climate Change testable Not to pick nits(a lie), but I believe the word you were looking for was anthropogenic.
I assumed he was talking about the theory that it's getting hotter because the climate's all mad at us for being such assholes with the air pollution. I'll grant that it's a more or less untestable theory unless someone knows the climate's address so we can send flowers or chocolates or something.
data from 10 trees is extrpolated into a 'trend' and finds its way into a number of papers
AGW deniers: data from their own thermometer is extrapolated into the trend "that it isn't getting any warmer".
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck