Debunking
I get tons of drive by attacks on the HTTTACS articles and most are pretty thoughtless repetitions of everything we've heard a hundred times before, and often posted directly underneath their own refutations.
But occasionally there are seemingly very sincere and well posed questions or arguments that I have not addressed very thoroughly or very well before. These deserve equally thoughtful answers but I don't always have the time to provide them.
I recently received one such via email from a fellow named Jonathon, which I will present below:
Dear Mr. Beck:
My name is Jonathan [redacted]. I…
A recent comment, here, questions the AGW prediction of polar amplification. He cites a paper by Polyakov et al that he claims shows temperatures in the arctic were warmer than they are now earlier in the 20th century.
[Update: paper is here[PDF]]
I don't have access to the paper or time to research it well, does anyone else have any comments? My initial impression is that it is about ocean temperatures in one region of the north Atlantic, and I do not trust the numbers he quotes which came from CO2 Science, a site that habitually misrepresents the papers it highlights. But that is hardly…
Universe has a firm "No Skepticism" policy.
Don't get me wrong, I dig empirical knowledge. And I like the ancient, Pyrrhonian school of Skepticism founded by Pyrrho of Elis (365-275 B.C.); Pyrrhonian skeptics believed that nothing could be known, not even "this" (i.e the very statement that nothing could be known) and strived for a constant state of inquiry as a source of pleasure. Since absolute knowledge is unattainable, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics felt that their end was: "In opinionatives, indisturbance; in impulsives, moderation; and in disquietives, suspension," which is essentially…
Michael Tobis finds an illustrative example of misleading with a scientific accent.
On a related topic, Robert Grumbine examines how to actually answer the question "Does CO2 correlate with temperature?" (More Grumbine Science recently added to the blogroll here, btw).
I have a couple of Sceptic Guide postings on that here and here.
While on the subject of being talked about, a columnist writing for Pajamas Media recently took a pot-shot at me and my How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic series.
No publicity is bad publicity, right? Plus, a close second to imitation, mockery is another of the most sincere forms of flattery, at least in the blog world, so I'm not complaining.
On to some substance in a moment, but one thing I found rather remarkable was that even though they get some 450,000 hits per day, my traffic barely registered a blip, despite a prominent link in the first paragraph! The main thrust of the article was…
Things Break does a thorough take-down of George Will's continued dishonesty in the Washington Post. For the background, if somehow you have missed this kerfuffle, check his earlier post.
The story in a nutshell is not remarkable: mainstream columnist prints op-ed full of outright falsehoods, complaints are rejected, paper stands by its right to fill the information age with disinformation. ie Facts don't matter.
The only remarkable thing really is the attention it is receiving and who knows, perhaps there will be some real consequences... like maybe people will remember this for a change.…
A fellow named Jim Prall left a comment here a few days ago mentioning some work he has recently done compiling information on the contributing authors of the most recent IPCC WG1 report.
I went to have a look and I must say what a terrific resource!
It is a common septic fallacy that the IPCC report is actually written by politicians and very few real scientists are involved. Like 95% of their talking points it is 100% bunk as a cursory investigation will reveal.
Well, cursory this listing is not! All 619 IPCC WG1 AR4 authors are listed here and for each there is a link to their personal…
A frequent commenter on many of my "How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic" articles has just taken me to task for what he sees as revealing inconsistencies.
'paul', who is generally respectful but still very antagonistic to the whole AGW concept, quotes me from various places saying at one time "The translation of what the science is
saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is
definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and
it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere." and in other places saying or agreeing with the…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
In October, 2008, Al Gore's science advisor, James Hansen announced yet another "hottest" month on record. After all the alarmist banner headlines sank in, yet another "correction" quietly contradicted this, and October was not particularily warm after all. This is yet another example of why the temperature record can not be trusted.
Answer:
Wow. Where to begin with this one? There are many versions of this myth around already at the time…
Anthony Watts has a post up purporting to show a very large UHI effect in Reno, Nevada.
I will just take his numbers and methods at face value, even though many questions come to mind. After all, 10oF is a big jump from outskirts to downtown, but maybe that is correct and not contaminated from engine heat. Also note this, which is specifically about Reno and shows how the UHI effect is removed from the data.
(pretty convincing, no?)
The problem is the conclusion that is at the very least strongly implied: if Urban Heat Islands are that pronounced, maybe global warming is just an artifact…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
Sea ice at the north pole recovered a whopping 9.4% from 2007 to 2008 despite the doom and gloom predictions of the alarmists. Yet another wheel falls off the global warming bandwagon.
Answer:
It is true that the minimum summer ice extent in the arctic ocean in 2008 was 9.4% higher than the minimun in 2007. But calling this a recovery is simply not justifiable, not even by a long shot. Firstly, at 4.52 million square kilometers, this…
I poke into Jennifer Marohasy's blog from time to time, though I am no longer a regular commenter. I gave that up a couple of years ago but still take any special cases as opportunities to chime in again. She's one of those standard types of sceptics, the "scientist" from another discipline just "honestly" investigating an important issue about which she has no preconceptions.
Well, a recent post prompted Deltoid's Tim Lambert to shake his head in consternation as Jennifer gives a soapbox to yet another crackpot pseudo-science post where we are told that the concept of radiative equilibrium…