Trenberth takes it on further on RealClimate.
Trenberth takes it on further on RealClimate.
Fair enough. Here you go.
taking the words of people whose careers depend on it
Phil is an astronomer. And methinks you are a troll.
Here's more: Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast
The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."
Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.
"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.
Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer."
Slashdot editors, please try to remember that a single paper normally doesn't overturn scientific understanding, and try to avoid habitual hype sources. Thanks.
Lindzen is not a numbskull; his misdirections are much subtler than OP suggests.
Yes. Clippy lives!
I found Facebook absolutely and infuriatingly unusable until somebody pointed out that you can route around its filtering with the "Most Recent" link which simply queues up anything you might be interested in sequentially.
Somehow Google is not so obviously enervating, but I agree that we should be able to turn off its helpfulness and force it to a user-neutral search sometimes.
I completely agree: the best way to learn programming is to be born to a parent who has programming experience. Given that the world supply of programming experience was probably thirty or forty person-years on the day I was born, I understandably failed at this.
Your odds are better nowadays, of course, but still you only get one shot at it. What I am trying to say is that your experience is probably still not that helpful for most people.
So a few years ago you wouldn't believe it because there wasn't enough observational evidence, and now you won't believe it because of the sheer quantity of the observational evidence? Tricky business. Exactly how much evidence is neither insufficient nor excessive? Do you have the exact date and time we should have stopped providing evidence?
Actually, I have never heard of an excess of evidence before.
Can I use this method to destroy all science? Bwa-ha-ha!
All I have to do to create a perpetual motion machine is to fail enough times. Then the second law of thermodynamics will be destroyed, utterly obliterated, by an excess of evidence! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-hahhh!
if one's research findings tend to support human-caused climate change - means to live and work in an environment of constant accusations of fraud, calls for investigations (or for criminal prosecutions), demands for access to every draft, every intermediate calculation, and every email exchanged with colleagues, daily hate mail and threats, and attempts to pressure the institutions that employ us and fund our research. Through experience, we have learned that there is no review of climate scientists' work that isn't deemed a "whitewash" by climate change contrarians; there is no casual remark that can't be seized upon, blown out of proportion and distorted; and there is no person whose character can't be assassinated, no matter how careful and honest their research.
Internal communications of the IPCC to authors of the scientific review now say the following:
My advice to the authors on responding to the media is only in respect of queries regarding the I.P.C.C. Some of them are new to the I.P.C.C., and we would not want them to provide uninformed responses or opinions. We now have in place a structure and a system in the I.P.C.C. for outreach and communications with the outside world.The I.P.C.C. authors are not employed by the I.P.C.C., and hence they are free to deal with the media on their own avocations and the organizations they are employed by. But they should desist at this stage on speaking on behalf of the I.P.C.C.
As a climate scientist and a computer scientist and an advocate for openness and replicability my position is greatly weakened by people using "openness" as an excuse for harrassment and witch-hunting.
The inevitable short result of this approach to openness is going to be that scientists will do as much work as possible on their laptops and their yahoo email accounts. Using their funded platforms will be only for production runs and final drafts of publications; this will minimize the amount of exposure of their actual work to hostile parties. We will also see far fewer really good people getting into work with any controversy, lest they be subjected to public abuse; eventually only work of little consequence will attract the intellectually adventurous.
I really want the open science movement to be about making science more accessible and more appealing and more part of the culture. This subversion of the open science movement in the name of derailing climate science, which in turn hides the real intent of delaying climate policy until all the fossil reserves are cashed in, is a disaster on more fronts than one. One unfortunate aspect is that it drives important segments of the scientific community to treat the open science movement as a threat to science. Advocates of open science would do well to think twice about the motivations and actions of this gang.
Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.