Talk:Global warming denialism
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <9>
Contents |
[edit] Is it okay to cite John Cook and Skeptical Science?
Is it okay to use this guy as a source? According to http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html John Cook is a cartoonist and not a climatologist nor does he have any specialist training in that area.
I understand that Skeptical Science contains many articles written by professional climatologists who are qualified, but given the alleged exclusion of climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Roger A. Pielke Sr., I would like some confirmation that the site is moderated by a competent team that does not censure qualified opinions.
From science and public policy: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf — Unsigned, by: Forces / talk / contribs 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Both Michaels and Pielke Senior are not exactly respectable climatologists...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- We accept the scientific consensus in our articles. In terms of Global Warming that consensus is described by the IPCC. Asuming that your posts are in accordance with the scientific consensus on any issue then you shouldn't have any problems.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you're going to try and challenge Skeptical Science, don't do it by linking to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
- The University of Queensland wouldn't have made him a postdoctoral fellow if he wasn't just a cartoonist. And read up on SS's list of contributors. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The contributors, in order they are listed on that page: Software Engineering, Environmental Biology, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Physics, Geology, Entrepreneur, Environmental Sciene, Journalism, Physics (with experience on NASA's satellites), "Climate Communication Fellow," Computer Engineering, Computational Scientist, Computing Science, Geology, Geology, Math and Statistics, wants to get a degree in Climate Science, Geosciences (from online school), Physical Geography, Electrical engineering?, Environmental Chemistry, Geology, Computer Science, Zoo Volunteer, Earth Science/Cartography/Remote Sensing, Environmentalist/Police Officer, "Began phd," Technical Illustrator, Editor/Translator, Geology, Organic Chemistry. It seems like if people are going to lob the general complaint of "x isn't a climate scientist" at critics, they should also reserve it for Skpetical Science also. — Unsigned, by: 69.254.176.105 / talk / contribs
- A number of them are specialists in relevant fields though. Like, environmental chemistry is a very applicable specialization, as is geophysics, and environmental biology, and climate communication(like it or not). I'm not saying they're all great, but I am saying you're coming from an unreasonable place. Ikanreed (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- The contributors, in order they are listed on that page: Software Engineering, Environmental Biology, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, Physics, Geology, Entrepreneur, Environmental Sciene, Journalism, Physics (with experience on NASA's satellites), "Climate Communication Fellow," Computer Engineering, Computational Scientist, Computing Science, Geology, Geology, Math and Statistics, wants to get a degree in Climate Science, Geosciences (from online school), Physical Geography, Electrical engineering?, Environmental Chemistry, Geology, Computer Science, Zoo Volunteer, Earth Science/Cartography/Remote Sensing, Environmentalist/Police Officer, "Began phd," Technical Illustrator, Editor/Translator, Geology, Organic Chemistry. It seems like if people are going to lob the general complaint of "x isn't a climate scientist" at critics, they should also reserve it for Skpetical Science also. — Unsigned, by: 69.254.176.105 / talk / contribs
[edit] New rank to Hierarchy of global warming denial proposal
"Gobal warming is a good thing so we should encourage it". It is true that global warming does have some benefits, like the opening of the north west passage, which would help over seas trading. Of course the reality is that these benefits are far outweighed by the bad things global warming does. Should we add it? If so I think it should go on the top of the list. If you agree we should add it, where do you think it belongs on the Hierarchy? If we add it, we might need to expand the what we define as global warming denialism at the top of the page. Corpse in the bed (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Claim of not significant?
If you have to include the claim of "not significant" into the denialism definition/claims, perhaps it would be necessary to establish, through links to other articles or text, what is being significant. Or would such a question ("What does the article mean by significant?") constitute denialism already? Thieh[Talk needed] 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Could somebody smarter than me please...
respond to the "global warming relies on computer models" argument? TheSocktor (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Could you specify what the argument claims?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Past temps are based on the instrumental record and paleoclimate data, not computer simulations. The models used to predict future warming do fit past climate, and the past predictions have generally been conservative when compared to current trends. See here for more info. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I meant for the article.TheSocktor (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Wow, the mods are fast!
I edited in a link to wattsupwiththat about five hours ago, and it has already been deleted! I am amazed at how fast censorship moves nowadays!— Unsigned, by: 142.161.61.68 / talk / contribs
- Censorship? Nonsense, as we already have an entire article dedicated to the hilarious loser behind wattsupwiththat. Go read it, BoN. Typhoon (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Updates to this article
Longtime reader/lurker here. This article is good but is increasingly out of date with the latest in AGW denialism. Much hay is currently being made of the lack of statistically significant warming since roughly 2005 and model failure to account for it (though most denialists have both failed to note that the current temperature record is still within the error bars). RealClimate I believe noted that this was due to poor temperature records, lower-than-expected solar output, and something else that I do not remember. It's worth a note on this site as it is now a staple of denialist rhetoric.
It would also be good to add two strong arguments to the wiki that I've seen insufficiently treated elsewhere. The first is to address denialists' fetishistic focus on global average temperatures and other aggregated data rather than regional data, for which delta T_avg annual temps over fixed timescales can be shown in heat maps. However, this is a minor point in comparison to the other suggestion I want to make.
The second suggestion I have is to put something on the AGW denialism page that notes that no climate model that does not include climate feedbacks from anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide and other GHGs can adequately explain the historical climate record. I like this point as it both makes a positive demand of AGW denialists (rather than rebutting them and letting them fall back on another absurd defense) and vividly illustrates why it isn't a valid scientific theory with any explanatory power. Criticizing a theory, evidence, or conclusion is one thing, but completely overturning the scientific theory that GHGs, which are defined as those persistent atmospheric chemicals that strongly absorb radiation in the IR spectrum, produce positive climate feedbacks requires a countervailing theory that both explains prior observation and makes verifiable predictions. The lack of a countercase that passes the hindcasting test but does not predict AGW and/or temperature feedbacks from atmospheric GHGs is a strong point against AGW denial.
Keep fighting the good fight. - 47.22.152.130 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- If only there were some way for a person who was interested in the subject and had useful knowledge to add it to the article themselves. Too bad everything on a wiki is basically cast in stone because of how hard it is to make changes. I guess we're stuck with what we've got. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, I figured since I don't have the time to contribute maybe someone else could. The evidentiary standards on this wiki would mean it would take time I don't really have. -47.22.152.130 (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)