To understand better what is considered the best science, skepticism and denialism in climate research you need to listen to this entertaining lecture:
It is one hour long, but it shows the current state of the discussion among scientists, for them there is very little controversy, the analogy here is that one should see climate science like a tree, with all scientists and skeptics in agreement of what the trunk and roots are (Man-made CO2 increasing, CO2 and methane preventing heath from leaving earth, etc), skeptics (the ones that are really skeptics) criticize the current science that tries to answer questions like how bad and when and where the effects of that warming will hit us? And that is represented by the branches of the tree, as one can notice, cutting the small branches that are bad (glaciers in the Himalayas will not melt by 2030 that was supposed to say 2300 in the IPCC second part of the report that had less review) does not mean that the whole tree should be ignored or cut down… like deniers want to do.
[link jumps directly to the metaphor that starts at minute 10, you just need to watch 8 minutes more to see also Rick Perry looking like an idiot]
And Dr. Milne once again shows that one has to call the people that avoids, willfully ignores, cherry picks, and misrepresent the science what they are: deniers. They are not skeptics at all, they are only pushing bad science.
As long as there is no obviously direct effects (say New York City flooding), the general populace is gong to be loath to spend much. That is why there is so much effort to tie observable weather events to climate change. To give the problem a “face” so to speak.
I completely support cleaning up energy production, shifting to renewables, and becoming more energy efficient. Every step of the way the results are obvious and quantifiable. Asking the general populace to contribute without any obvious benefit to them (remember these are the people that can’t fathom the long range implications), is like asking for donations for the starving children in Africa. You’ll get a few to get on board, but if you have pictures you’ll get a lot more willing contributors.
Well, in that “skeptics (the ones that are really skeptics) criticize the current science that tries to answer questions like how bad and when and where the effects of that warming will hit us? And that is represented by the branches of the tree”. I naturally asked a question about “how bad and when”; Fear Itself gave a satisfactory answer, without hemming and hawing for the better part of a month; you could learn a lot from FI’s example.
Nope, the question does remains: have you learned anything?
One huge item that was avoided by you (and that was one of the big reasons why I was not playing along,) was that you never admitted where you got your peculiar ideas, really, it was very insulting to claim that you got them them on your own when it was really stretch to claim you actually looked on your own for obscure UN reports.
I’m still asking the same questions as before, and I’m still getting answers I like; I’ve learned that other folks lack your reticence and so get to the same place a lot sooner. Why, what have you learned?
Not sure why you think that report is obscure; I’ve routinely checked it every year since I first saw it mentioned on the front page of Google News.
And I noticed that the other reports from the same UN site clarified that the quote you made was hopelessly taken out of contest, the lead secretary of the group reported that the earth was warming and disparaged the “skeptics” that said otherwise, period.
The peculiar spin you reported about that quote was found by me on denialists sites, so who do you think are you kidding?
What spin? You originally set a goalpost, and I mundanely noted the data for each year thereafter; you later moved the goalpost, though it took you the better part of a month to name a new one. I copy-and-pasted a number of word-for-word quotes from that report about various years being in a statistical tie within the margin of error, but remember that I already had a perfectly good reason to go looking for that quote; you gave it to me.
Your original goalpost said nothing about context. I invited you to supply a better goalpost that would take context into account – but until you’d done so, why would I bother with the stuff? I’m neither the guy who supplies goalposts, nor the one who moves 'em; that’s your job.
That the UN guy had reported that there was no warming just because he compared the three warmest years on record, as anyone that had bothered to read the other preliminary press reports (with a warning that they not to be used until the official reports were out), the UN was still telling anyone that did read the other reports the earth continues to warm.
Of curse that also shows that maybe you did look at them, but you did not read them.
The best explanation still remains, someone pointed at that quote and that peculiar spin.
The official report unsurprisingly wound up including the exact same language as the press report, and, again, your original goalpost was scrupulously devoid of contextual requirements. Surely you haven’t seen me cite that statistical tie as out-of-context evidence against your position since you set the new goalpost?
The point still remains, there was no good reason for your original questioning, it was an idiotic reason as per the UN secretary, and that was one reason why we did go long on the previous threads, the bulk of the science and the evidence was not going to fall just because there were **unfounded **doubts on the health of one of the twigs of the tree of science.
Translation: you supplied a goalpost you later came to see as a goof; I responded accordingly until you corrected yourself.
It was your goalpost of choice! To the precise extent you now see that goalpost as idiotic, I’m happy to agree.
The sole reason we went long on the previous threads was that it took you a remarkably long time to set a new goalpost; you backed away from the original one without naming a replacement, and then kept on keeping on for the better part of a month. You could’ve ended it in the better part of a minute.
Alert readers would notice that it would be silly to have the UN secretary telling everyone that “skeptics” were silly for claiming the earth was not warming, and then have people like Waldo tell others that the secretary actually mean to say that there has been no warming, consistency is not the forte of the deniers, but then I saw that coming miles away; as I said before, I do post not for him but for others.
As I notice also, he is still not accepting that the option of claiming that there has been no warming since 1998 was also idiotic.
One has to also notice in the end that he is also ignoring that the big official report from the UN **is **the IPCC, good luck on him finding that they reported that the earth is not warming.
I would not be so hard on him if he had the fortitude of admitting that his peculiar ideas are not original, and also that they have been dealt with before to death.
Alert readers will note that I merely responded to your chosen goalpost. It was an idiotic goalpost – you were silly to choose it in the first place and you’ve sensibly backed away from it since – but I can’t be faulted for answering accordingly so long as your original goalpost remained in effect.
I’m entirely accepting of that option; the instant you moved the goalpost to a new location, I dropped the previously-relevant point accordingly.
Reinstate the original goalpost and I will; don’t, and I won’t.
Well, (a) you’re not hard on me at all; I asked for a new goalpost when you dropped the original one, and you eventually supplied one; that’s the definition of obliging. And (b) that’s why they’re not my peculiar ideas; it was my response so long as that was your idiotic goalpost, and ceased being my response once you swapped in a different goalpost.
Meh, I guess that was supposed to show something, but is not much relevant to what we are discussing, another point does remain, no matter how much you complain about it, your points are not original, and they already have been replied to. And it is still really silly to claim you looked at all the UN reports just for shits and googles, if you had read them, you would not had arrived to your original line of questioning, meaning that it is still more likely that others gave you the idea of grabbing the words of the UN secretary in such peculiar manner.
What is important, is that all get aware that many of our leaders have been taken by the denialist information out there and it is very important to be aware of that.
if you had read them, you would not had arrived to your original line of questioning, meaning that it is still more likely that others gave you the idea of grabbing the words of the UN secretary in such peculiar manner.