Why? On what grounds? Again, in all probability this is an employment contract where either party can terminate at will, except for certain protected reasons; race, gender, age, religion, etc. If you run a company and your biggest client comes in and says he doesn't like the salesman, fire him or he's moving his business, no court is going to tell you no. And it doesn't have to be a customer.
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
How do you know polar bears aren't drowning?
Who says " and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."?
"Storm frequency decreases in the Southern Hemisphere and north Indian Ocean, increases in the western North Pacific, and is indeterminate elsewhere." http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
for instance.
Exactly.
Models without an AGW term are pretty much useless over the past 50 years or so, despite being not too bad before that. Adding the AGW term makes the fit a lot better for the past 50 years. It's hard to argue that this means there is no AGW.
Ahh yes, we've just established that the oceans have been warmer than we expected. And just around the same time we've had a recent minimum of severe hurricanes. Climate change or not, you cannot predict severe weather patterns. Anti-deniers like to attribute every negative event to climate change and none of the positive events. Maybe a warmer planet will have less severe weather if the air temperature is closer to the water temperature as it is the differential that causes severe weather.
You can't put energy into the system and expect it to quiet down. Haven't you actually watched a pot of water on a stove? When you turn up the heat, the water starts to really swirl around. The atmosphere is similar.
Individual locations and/or times might benefit, but storms are a function of atmospheric energy, and more energy is going to mean more or more violent storms, or both.
Of course, the same people who don't trust the scientists who believe in AGW are the same people who believe that anyway, if it is a problem, science will just fix it.
(just one example) I wonder if Southern Baptist - of the Fire Brimstone leaning - are seen as "trustworthy" more/less than scientists. I'd wager they are, and I'd double down that it has little to do with how "warm/fuzzy" they come off as.
I'd wager this has much less to do with scientists coming off as "warm/fuzzy" and more to do with most people’s innate distrust of those that deliver either information they don't agree with (or more specifically that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions) or information that makes them feel stupid - when the majority hears about something they are too ignorant to understand, they don't like/trust the person with that idea - but that's just human nature.
While "scientists" do have their problems (journals / peer review circle-jerks / et al) I fear the only way they'll come across as "warm/fuzzy" would be if they "dumb it down" even more and that's not a direction we should be going, as we're already down to -11.
Nope. Either you decide what you believe and who you believe and nothing changes that, or you spend time and energy looking over all the data and evidence and don't care who says it. Of course, most people are something of a mix, but either way, it's not going to hinge on whether scientists are warm/fuzzy.
Maybe scientists would be friendlier......the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes
'Climategate' involved people being happy at the death of scientists they disagreed with. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'friendlier.'
Climategate was basically a bunch of assholes being revealed as assholes.
Right; one guy says in a private email "In an odd way this is cheering news." re the death of a skeptic, and that is proof that scientists who believe in AGW are all assholes, which proves that AGW is a hoax.
This is what we're talking about re lack of cognitive skills in the rightwing.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
Isn't that what they do? That's why I trust them, even when I can't do the experiment myself. At least I can read about what they did and what their logic was and see if I agree. Which is why I do believe in AGW and don't believe in all the denialist "science". "It's cosmic rays, look, I have a pretty bad correlation based on 3 points" etc.
And of course, when the split on some question is 90/10, you see the same spokespeople on the 10% side more often, so they automatically become a "well known expert", and Joe Blow goes "I don't know who this guy is saying perpetual motion is impossible, but I've certainly heard of this other person, they're famous, must be expert"
The media is so buffaloed by the right's continual charges of bias that they will talk about the two sides of the question, even where the second side is insane. They're not going to report on a stage full of Republican presidential candidates proudly volunteering that they don't believe in evolution, then point out that that is usually considered a position held by lunatic fringes.
It's also money. Smaller newspapers these days can't afford to do anything but parrot press releases. It requires the resources of one of the big newspapers to investigate anything, whether climate change or pet shampoo. And they have to think about their budget as well; it's easier and cheaper to expose pet shampoo (I'm just making that up, I don't know of any pet shampoo corruption) than get suitably knowledgeable people to investigate the workings of the science of climate change.
Ah, an example of what I was just saying one post up; when the rightwing makes an error or gets caught in a lie, never admit it, just keep pushing it harder and harder. Thanks!
The right's basic mechanism is, when caught lying (or even just wrong), never ever admit it, just double down on the error and increase the PR. Have you ever heard the rightwing echo chamber admit they were ever wrong?
That's the System 1/System 2 Thinking divide in America. One side is led to consider the data, make logical assessments, etc. The other side makes a gut level decision instantly, often on the basis of what the leaders they accept tell them; any disagreement is Evil.
The right has driven all the System 1 people out over the last few decades.
The vastly wealthy and all-powerful climatology cartel, acting to preserve their gigantic salaries which permit them to rent a 2 bedroom apartment and drive a 10 year old Toyota, for instance.
Metadenialism; the denial of the existence of denialists.
You are claiming "no one denies it's not warming", in the middle of a thread begun by somebody claiming that the data is not available for review. If he's not claiming that it's not warming, then what is he talking about? If he believes it's warming, why does he think they're hiding the data? Or do you think he thinks they're hiding the data that shows that CO2 isn't rising? There isn't any other data for them to hide
That's just the selection over time. Everybody started out skeptical about AGW, most were convinced decades ago. The few who were still skeptics recently and eventually announced their change of mind were more stubborn.
Yes, everyone publishing in the climate study biz who says they are basing it on the data is lying! They're only getting away with it because the scale of the deception is so huge as to be unbelievable. That's certainly a more logical explanation than some nonsense about CO2 absorbing infrared.
Which brings up another point; any serious statistician, and anybody with a little brainpower, should understand the error of applying statistical methods developed for a set of simultaneous samples, to a time series set of the same sample, over time. Cyclic phenomena, for instance, present over time, but not defined for a set of different samples st the same time. So, with the denialists' reliance on solar cycles, Milankovich cycles, cosmic ray cycles, etc to provide fodder for their hypothetical "it might be..." handwaving, you'd think they'd be less likely to apply simple linear regression to some dozen or so time points without any effort at adjusting for periodicity, then take the result as definitive.
The answer, of course, is that adjusting for the periodicity in this case reinforces the validity of AGW, while otherwise just waving the idea of periodicity around vaguely gives them cover to deny any results they don't like.
The most you can say about this"hiatus" is that it gives us a few years of breathing room to get our act together before the warming rises again, possibly making up for lost time. Over the past few decades, similar pauses have shown up a dozen times, yet the background overall process was still inexorable warming; there isn't the slightest reason to believe "this time, it's over for sure". Other than wishful thinking, of course. When the temperature has been flat for 30 years, that'll be good evidence things have changed.
Meanwhile, of course, most of the denialists believe that not only has the warming stopped, but there never was any in the first place. After all, they were telling us there was no warming, until they decided it had stopped.
Why are you telling us? If that site claims the days is available and it isn't, you should be raising holy hell on their comment pages, and if you get no satisfaction, bring the attention of all the skeptic sites to the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? On what grounds? Again, in all probability this is an employment contract where either party can terminate at will, except for certain protected reasons; race, gender, age, religion, etc. If you run a company and your biggest client comes in and says he doesn't like the salesman, fire him or he's moving his business, no court is going to tell you no. And it doesn't have to be a customer.
" and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."
They have been saying this for YEARS now, and there hasn't been a major hurricane in how many years?
It is predictions and statements like this that have people like me scratching our heads. None of the predictions of doom have happened. Polar Bears are not drowning either. When people are caught lying, repeatedly, people stop believing them. This is what happens when people stop reading fairy tales and start creating them using "Science" as a backdrop.
How do you know polar bears aren't drowning? Who says " and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes."? "Storm frequency decreases in the Southern Hemisphere and north Indian Ocean, increases in the western North Pacific, and is indeterminate elsewhere." http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... for instance.
Exactly. Models without an AGW term are pretty much useless over the past 50 years or so, despite being not too bad before that. Adding the AGW term makes the fit a lot better for the past 50 years. It's hard to argue that this means there is no AGW.
Ahh yes, we've just established that the oceans have been warmer than we expected. And just around the same time we've had a recent minimum of severe hurricanes. Climate change or not, you cannot predict severe weather patterns. Anti-deniers like to attribute every negative event to climate change and none of the positive events. Maybe a warmer planet will have less severe weather if the air temperature is closer to the water temperature as it is the differential that causes severe weather.
You can't put energy into the system and expect it to quiet down. Haven't you actually watched a pot of water on a stove? When you turn up the heat, the water starts to really swirl around. The atmosphere is similar. Individual locations and/or times might benefit, but storms are a function of atmospheric energy, and more energy is going to mean more or more violent storms, or both.
Of course, the same people who don't trust the scientists who believe in AGW are the same people who believe that anyway, if it is a problem, science will just fix it.
(just one example) I wonder if Southern Baptist - of the Fire Brimstone leaning - are seen as "trustworthy" more/less than scientists. I'd wager they are, and I'd double down that it has little to do with how "warm/fuzzy" they come off as.
I'd wager this has much less to do with scientists coming off as "warm/fuzzy" and more to do with most people’s innate distrust of those that deliver either information they don't agree with (or more specifically that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions) or information that makes them feel stupid - when the majority hears about something they are too ignorant to understand, they don't like/trust the person with that idea - but that's just human nature.
While "scientists" do have their problems (journals / peer review circle-jerks / et al) I fear the only way they'll come across as "warm/fuzzy" would be if they "dumb it down" even more and that's not a direction we should be going, as we're already down to -11.
Nope. Either you decide what you believe and who you believe and nothing changes that, or you spend time and energy looking over all the data and evidence and don't care who says it. Of course, most people are something of a mix, but either way, it's not going to hinge on whether scientists are warm/fuzzy.
Maybe scientists would be friendlier......the "climategate" scandal has demonstrated very clearly that if a scientist dares try to engage the public to any meaningful extent, then they'd be inundated with either trolls, or assholes
'Climategate' involved people being happy at the death of scientists they disagreed with. I don't think you understand the meaning of 'friendlier.' Climategate was basically a bunch of assholes being revealed as assholes.
Right; one guy says in a private email "In an odd way this is cheering news." re the death of a skeptic, and that is proof that scientists who believe in AGW are all assholes, which proves that AGW is a hoax. This is what we're talking about re lack of cognitive skills in the rightwing.
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
Isn't that what they do? That's why I trust them, even when I can't do the experiment myself. At least I can read about what they did and what their logic was and see if I agree. Which is why I do believe in AGW and don't believe in all the denialist "science". "It's cosmic rays, look, I have a pretty bad correlation based on 3 points" etc.
And of course, when the split on some question is 90/10, you see the same spokespeople on the 10% side more often, so they automatically become a "well known expert", and Joe Blow goes "I don't know who this guy is saying perpetual motion is impossible, but I've certainly heard of this other person, they're famous, must be expert"
The media is so buffaloed by the right's continual charges of bias that they will talk about the two sides of the question, even where the second side is insane. They're not going to report on a stage full of Republican presidential candidates proudly volunteering that they don't believe in evolution, then point out that that is usually considered a position held by lunatic fringes.
It's also money. Smaller newspapers these days can't afford to do anything but parrot press releases. It requires the resources of one of the big newspapers to investigate anything, whether climate change or pet shampoo. And they have to think about their budget as well; it's easier and cheaper to expose pet shampoo (I'm just making that up, I don't know of any pet shampoo corruption) than get suitably knowledgeable people to investigate the workings of the science of climate change.
You must have missed the whole Climategate thing.
Ah, an example of what I was just saying one post up; when the rightwing makes an error or gets caught in a lie, never admit it, just keep pushing it harder and harder. Thanks!
The right's basic mechanism is, when caught lying (or even just wrong), never ever admit it, just double down on the error and increase the PR. Have you ever heard the rightwing echo chamber admit they were ever wrong?
That's the System 1/System 2 Thinking divide in America. One side is led to consider the data, make logical assessments, etc. The other side makes a gut level decision instantly, often on the basis of what the leaders they accept tell them; any disagreement is Evil. The right has driven all the System 1 people out over the last few decades.
The vastly wealthy and all-powerful climatology cartel, acting to preserve their gigantic salaries which permit them to rent a 2 bedroom apartment and drive a 10 year old Toyota, for instance.
Your feet too small to play footsie with God.
Kirk gets laid more than Spock. The species must be propagated.
Or run at 40 mph, or leap short buildings. Realistically, this should be a boon to people with neuromuscular problems in the legs.
Stop following the herd and having black skin. Be an individual and bleach it. No cops ever shot Michael Jackson.
Metadenialism; the denial of the existence of denialists. You are claiming "no one denies it's not warming", in the middle of a thread begun by somebody claiming that the data is not available for review. If he's not claiming that it's not warming, then what is he talking about? If he believes it's warming, why does he think they're hiding the data? Or do you think he thinks they're hiding the data that shows that CO2 isn't rising? There isn't any other data for them to hide
That's just the selection over time. Everybody started out skeptical about AGW, most were convinced decades ago. The few who were still skeptics recently and eventually announced their change of mind were more stubborn.
Yes, everyone publishing in the climate study biz who says they are basing it on the data is lying! They're only getting away with it because the scale of the deception is so huge as to be unbelievable. That's certainly a more logical explanation than some nonsense about CO2 absorbing infrared.
Which brings up another point; any serious statistician, and anybody with a little brainpower, should understand the error of applying statistical methods developed for a set of simultaneous samples, to a time series set of the same sample, over time. Cyclic phenomena, for instance, present over time, but not defined for a set of different samples st the same time. So, with the denialists' reliance on solar cycles, Milankovich cycles, cosmic ray cycles, etc to provide fodder for their hypothetical "it might be ..." handwaving, you'd think they'd be less likely to apply simple linear regression to some dozen or so time points without any effort at adjusting for periodicity, then take the result as definitive.
The answer, of course, is that adjusting for the periodicity in this case reinforces the validity of AGW, while otherwise just waving the idea of periodicity around vaguely gives them cover to deny any results they don't like.
The most you can say about this"hiatus" is that it gives us a few years of breathing room to get our act together before the warming rises again, possibly making up for lost time. Over the past few decades, similar pauses have shown up a dozen times, yet the background overall process was still inexorable warming; there isn't the slightest reason to believe "this time, it's over for sure". Other than wishful thinking, of course. When the temperature has been flat for 30 years, that'll be good evidence things have changed.
Meanwhile, of course, most of the denialists believe that not only has the warming stopped, but there never was any in the first place. After all, they were telling us there was no warming, until they decided it had stopped.
So you are saying that the climate isn't warming? The data is cooked?
Why are you telling us? If that site claims the days is available and it isn't, you should be raising holy hell on their comment pages, and if you get no satisfaction, bring the attention of all the skeptic sites to the matter.