tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post6148518874167512774..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Climate Change Skeptics: Strictly Scienceeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47033921675860615882010-11-06T14:34:27.738+01:002010-11-06T14:34:27.738+01:00Marco,
I used it as an analogy and I guess you und...Marco,<br />I used it as an analogy and I guess you understood me well enough.<br />I can follow your logic, but unfortunately your line of reasoning is according to my opinion very often abused as a lame excuse for obfuscating science in a messy political discussion.<br />Therefore, I think the only avenue for science is to take the risk of being misunderstood and stay with scientific rigor.<br />Best regards<br />GuenterGünter Heßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756797784428357652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80287459601060171332010-11-05T19:38:55.100+01:002010-11-05T19:38:55.100+01:00Günther: not if that explanation requires several ...Günther: not if that explanation requires several pages that do not change the larger story, and when that story is only allowed to be very few pages. Note that the accompanying article for the WMO report does point to the divergence problem.<br /><br />Case-in-point: anti-vaxxers used the NON-left-censored autism data to claim autism was caused by thimerosal. Scientists had to use several scientific terms to explain why this was a false assertion (short version, autism cannot be diagnosed conclusively in young children without several years of observation): the average person in the public did not understand a darn thing those scientists said. End of story: obfuscators won.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-70047261008885580342010-11-05T18:29:13.737+01:002010-11-05T18:29:13.737+01:00@Marco
But then as an analogy the scientist can e...@Marco<br /><br />But then as an analogy the scientist can explain the decline and not hide the declineGünter Heßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756797784428357652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80230873331868507682010-11-04T18:47:14.446+01:002010-11-04T18:47:14.446+01:00Alex, sorry for posting twice, but I think the sur...Alex, sorry for posting twice, but I think the survey issue requires a separate note:<br />Surveys are tricky things, I'm sure Dennis will agree, where you get an expert opinion that does not necessarily agree with a layman's opinion. As scientists we usually want more and more accurate data. But that does depend on the area one is interested in. When I work on the international economy, I probably won't care too much about local details. If, however, my area of interest is how small-scale farming (e.g.) affects the regional economy, I'd need much more detailed information. In situation 1 I'd likely claim the information is good enough (5-6), while in situation 2 I'd likely call the data insufficient (2-3). To compare to the climate arena: the models are apparently pretty good in getting an average idea of rainfall (more or less), but are much less accurate in their regional descriptions. Which makes the climate scientist unhappy with the model, but is then easily overinterpreted by the layman that the climate scientist is also uncertain about the global average.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73358254196179295842010-11-04T18:30:27.049+01:002010-11-04T18:30:27.049+01:00Alex, Tycho Brahe's model was quite good at mo...Alex, Tycho Brahe's model was quite good at modeling the position of the planets as a function of time. Thus, even though his model was wrong on other accounts, it was very useful for this particular element. If your research focuses on the position of the planets, this is the only important parameter.<br /><br />The same applies to the climate models: they are apparently quite good at modeling water vapour. Even if all other things are wrong, this element is apparently right. How would Dessler have to challenge the climate models if they do something properly?<br /><br />It remains that the entry point is the same: you have a model that makes predictions, you test those predictions. They are either right or wrong (Let's for the sake of the argument forget there's a grey area in-between). There is thus no difference in the null hypothesis being "the models are right" or "the models are wrong". You can repeat the experiments when you have more and/or more accurate information (as was done with Brahe's model), which may actually change the outcome. THAT's the challenge science can put out for its models.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87015294262259595502010-11-04T14:39:52.693+01:002010-11-04T14:39:52.693+01:00@Alex
Perhaps I can offer some insights here. Ag...@Alex<br /><br />Perhaps I can offer some insights here. Again, reference is to the survey conducted in 2008. Climate scientists were asked:<br />Concerning what science is in general, what would you say is its main activity?<br />23.98% answered ‘to falsify existing hypothesis’<br />27.25% answered:: ‘to verify existing conditions’<br />48.77% answered ‘other’<br />a second question read<br />Concerning science in general, the role of science tends towards:<br />12.64% answered ‘deligitimization of existing ‘facts’’<br />37.08% answered ‘legitimization of existing ‘facts’’<br />50.28% answered ‘other’Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36319093195463407452010-11-04T14:25:22.945+01:002010-11-04T14:25:22.945+01:00Marco,
Is that actually right?
I read Kuhn's...Marco,<br /><br />Is that actually right?<br /><br />I read Kuhn's 'The Copernican Revolution' (awhile ago) and was impressed that using ancient astronomical data one could set out with the null hypothesis of Tycho Brahe's geoheliocentric cosmology and quite honestly fit the data to this hypothesis.<br /><br />Surely, it is necessary for scientists to be actually try to contradict their theories in order for our knowledge to be refined?<br /><br />What I'm not sure about is how many scientists are actually trying to do that. Maybe Dessler is? I recall, on the recent survey posted here, scientists had a mean confidence of 3.62 on a scale of 1 to 7 on their confidence in models' ability to simulate the water vapour effect. That would suggest that Dessler is one of the most confident of scientists on this issue.<br /><br />Best, AlexAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82347401959828974842010-11-04T13:16:05.738+01:002010-11-04T13:16:05.738+01:00Alex,
The null hypothesis that the models are ri...Alex, <br /><br />The null hypothesis that the models are right or the null hypothesis that the models are wrong are equally valid starting points to test that null hypothesis. Even *if* Andrew Dessler starts out with the null hypothesis that the models can reproduce water vapour effects, it is ultimately the data that decides whether the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected. That Dessler finds 'his' null hypothesis to be accepted may be inconvenient for you, but it is scientifically and morally an equally valid starting point as the other null hypothesis (which Dessler would reject, since the models DO describe water vapour effects quite well).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-66797070110381884092010-11-04T02:03:11.667+01:002010-11-04T02:03:11.667+01:00Dennis #6,
Perhaps my reasoning was not valid, be...Dennis #6,<br /><br />Perhaps my reasoning was not valid, because if 65% of scientists were doing research aimed at disproving/falsifying anthropogenic attribution and they were all failing, then indeed that would be consistent with Oreskes 2004 and your own findings.<br /><br />That said, I think if 65% of scientists were doing research aimed at disproving/falsifying anthropogenic attribution, I would bet the level of certainty for anthropogenic attribution would be much higher than it actually is.<br /><br />(It is a shame there is no baseline in these studies. For instance, I would like to know how certain these scientists are about less controversial things, e.g. the correctness of the equations of radiative transfer. Without questions like this, it is difficult to interpret the results.)<br /><br />Let me change my question.<br /><br />The only scientists I am aware of who are actually trying to 'break' the models used to establish anthropogenic attribution are Lindzen & Spencer.<br /><br />Is it just that I am unaware of other scientists who are also trying to falsify the hypothesis of anthropogenic attribution, i.e. trying to show that models are broken?<br /><br />All the research I hear about seems to be aimed at showing instead that the models are pretty good, e.g. Andy Dessler's work, which seems to be aimed at showing that models <i>can</i> reproduce the water vapour effect.<br /><br />Best, AlexAlex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81259821197742550892010-11-03T12:23:04.798+01:002010-11-03T12:23:04.798+01:00@Hans #11
Hans, I am skeptical when reading your ...@Hans #11<br /><br />Hans, I am skeptical when reading your definition. Maybe one should be more precise: "The climate of (mathematical) climate science is the statistics of weather".<br /><br />I am a skeptic because I am not sure if mathematical climate really covers all of the phenomenon. Instead, it think it covers the mathematical climate only. <br /><br />Concerning the 30 years: Strauss / Orlove have a nice time scale for differentiating weather / seasons / climate:<br />Weather is a daily event; seasons are, well, seasonal, and climate is generational. (in: Weather, Climate, Culture).Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43914316030398557492010-11-02T17:23:28.956+01:002010-11-02T17:23:28.956+01:00Dennis: "After all, outside of our area of ex...Dennis: "After all, outside of our area of expertise we are limited to expressing opinion [...] The question is: ‘How skeptical must I be before I am given the label of skeptic?’"<br /><br />Climate science encompasses a lot of different specialities and most researchers I understand claim expertise only in a subset. Presumably a climate scientist is entitled to be a scientific skeptic (that is, to doubt the consensus) only in her areas of expertise. But to my mind, the problem with this is that it is too narrow - a 'skeptical climate scientist' is usually taken to be skeptical of a broader position.<br /><br />A scientifically trained outsider looking critically at climate science is likely to see a core of very sure basic physics surrounded by a wide range of opinion on how that sure physics will play out in the real world. At one end of this range he could find experts talking about effects that are barely measurable, whilst at the other end experts concluding that climate system collapse is likely to occur. Since I think this is the pertinent issue, a more useful definition of 'skeptical climate scientist' might simply be one who doubts that climate system collapse will occur.Philipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-79086676612435831602010-11-02T14:34:05.551+01:002010-11-02T14:34:05.551+01:00@ Hans
‘The climate is the statistic of 30 (or an...@ Hans<br /><br />‘The climate is the statistic of 30 (or any other interval) ...’ If the interval is not specified how is change determined? Would not the indication of change be arbitrary without specification as to change from when? For some reason I seem to remember reading once that the reference climate from which we are supposedly changing was determined by the period 1950 to 1980 - but please don’t quote me on this.<br /><br />@ Rob<br /><br />The survey is indeed 2008. The survey was also only limited to climate scientists. However, I do believe that so called skeptics existed in significant numbers even in 2008. They are not a new phenomenon.<br />Quoting my posting you say ‘”We need to make distinctions between those who work in climate science” ...: is that true?’ I would say it is true - if we are going to include the entire general population it would also have to include alarmists that ‘are loud and influenced the public’ They too are skeptical of ‘under estimates. here the distinction might be made between ‘skeptics’ and so-called ‘deniers’. <br />I don’t believe I said the survey simply asked if they are skeptic. But I do believe the survey was directed at self proclaimed skeptics, in which case the question is implicit - but I might be wrong. However, I don’t think I made any strong criticisms against your survey. <br />Healthy/Unhealthy vs. Rational/Irrational: A simple question - Isn’t it possible to have irrational claims from the alarmist group; that perhaps irrational would point to any extreme position? What I was trying to address was skepticism that is found in healthy science as compared to skepticism founded in other than a scientific perspective. Unhealthy/healthy might not have been the best use of terms but I think they conveyed the meaning.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34092015438904387082010-11-02T10:06:13.231+01:002010-11-02T10:06:13.231+01:00Dennis, the survey you are referencing to was held...Dennis, the survey you are referencing to was held around 2008 (when I'm correct). This explains for a part the fact that only 1 total skeptic is among the respondents, while my survey shows that skepticism has increased substantially over the past two years.<br />And: that was a (more or less) representative survey, also limited to scientists.<br /><br />Regarding some of your remarks:<br />- When I have used more than one definition of skeptic, that may be true, and it is probably confusing, but the other way round: also a <i>result</i> of present confusion, better: lack of good definition.<br />- "We need to make a distinction between those who work in climate science...": Is this true? For the sake of survey results analysis and scientific community yes, but skeptics are loud and influence the public opinion.<br />- Indeed it is simple to ask "if they are a skeptic". First, this question is not part of the survey. Second: to proclamate the survey as a survey for skeptics can be considered marketing ("hey, a survey especially for me?"). Third: a couple "luke-warmers" indeed seem to have attended the survey, hence documenting the relativity of the invitation question ("are you ..."). Fourth: the survey has a highly experimental nature.<br /><br />Healty/unhealthy vs. rational/irrational (C.J. Burton): I tried to re-read parts of your posting while replacing your terms. It is not satisfying. The latter sounds better, but amplifies the distinction, which would result in a call for an intermediate term: semi-rational (which makes sense, by the way).<br /><br />But let us concentrate on the skeptic issue. When anything is undertaken that has the goal of clarifying what skeptics are, be it my survey, be it the general discussion, it has the underlying goal of trying to help disarm the polarisation between the two "camps".<br />I think that it may be concluded that a substantial amount of skeptics are skeptic because of the attidude and work of some (or more than some) climate scientists. And: that the majority of skeptics seem to be "rational" skeptics.<br />To my opinion, this should be picked up by climate scientists as a motivation to improve their consciousness in the sense of being sure that all they present be strictly science, secure (as far as possible) and well-funded (or explicitly mentioning uncertaincies and what others would interprete so). At least, the rational and semi-rational skeptics should be able to coexist and hence contribute to the truly scientific discussion (without the burden of politics). Further goal: reduction of ungood feeling among the people (in the broad meaning) and politicians: who's right: (exaggerated) the alarmists or the deniers?<br /><br />Finally: even when climate science would "operate" more conscious, much of what is going on in the skeptics community would continue a long time further. A german saying states: trust goes by horse, but comes back by feet.Robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-13329737228993508352010-11-02T09:01:15.465+01:002010-11-02T09:01:15.465+01:00@ Hans von Storch (November 1, 2010 10:18 PM) said...@ Hans von Storch (November 1, 2010 10:18 PM) said... “we have a very good definition of climate - it is the statistics of weather, and weather is the short term state of the atmosphere, ocean, hydrosphere etc. Would you agree that this is a reasonable definition, aber?” <br /><br />No, defiantly not! What you offer as ‘weather’ is actually a copy of the UNFCCC definition (Art.1 (3)): “….the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.” Even glossaries (i.a. AMS) are not offering such an empty phrase. And sorry, statistics of weather remain “statistics of weather”. Unfortunately your book with Francis Zwiers. Cambridge U press, 1999, neither provides a reasonable meaning, which is not a mere use of a layman’s expression. <br /><br />Allow me to close with a sentence I wrote almost 20 years ago : “For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 (Law of the Sea) Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.“ in: Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292. <br />It was also the subject of a talk at GKSS (4th Dec. 1992), and paper (Heft 4, VdFFdGKSS-Forschungszentrum, pages 53, in English at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ <br />Arnd Bernaertsaberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335625330300487887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48153157764430055782010-11-02T08:32:03.920+01:002010-11-02T08:32:03.920+01:00This term "30 year mean" is not really h...This term "30 year mean" is not really helpful, as it my be misunderstood as the <i>mean value</i> across 30 years (or an estimate thereof). <br /><br />It is meant as - a statistical parameter estimated form 30 years of data (why 30 years is a nother story) - and most estimates are formed by (weighted) sums, such as variance. Obviously, variance (or standard deviation) is a climate component as well; in this catgeory are also correlations (in time, in space) - even spectra if you resort to power spectra; if you refer to maxima, percentiles, extreme values, L-moments or EOFs, CCAs etc however, this link to "(weighted) sums over 30 years of data" breaks down.<br /><br />No, the "definition" "30 year statistical mean" is not reasonable. The climate is the statistics of 30 (or any other interval) years of meteorological (oceanographic etc) data, which includes co-variability across time, space and variables.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11891836140828810222010-11-02T08:21:09.386+01:002010-11-02T08:21:09.386+01:00@ all those who seem to have trouble with the defi...@ all those who seem to have trouble with the definition of climate. Isn't it a 30 year statistical mean? I really didn't think it was necessary to elaborate as it is the word 'skeptic' that was being scrutinized.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11298309175464617082010-11-02T01:40:32.144+01:002010-11-02T01:40:32.144+01:00@ Hans von Storch: “we have a very good definition...@ Hans von Storch: “we have a very good definition of climate - it is the statistics of weather, and weather is the short term state of the atmosphere, ocean, hydrosphere etc. Would you agree that this is a reasonable definition, aber?” <br /><br />No, defiantly not! What you offer as ‘weather’ is actually a copy of the UNFCCC definition (Art.1 (3)): “….the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.” Even glossaries (i.a. AMS) are not offering such an empty phrase. And sorry, statistics of weather remain “statistics of weather”. Unfortunately your book with Francis Zwiers. Cambridge U press, 1999, neither provides a reasonable meaning, which is not a mere use of a layman’s expression. <br /><br />Allow me to close with a sentence I wrote almost 20 years ago : “For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 (Law of the Sea) Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.“ in: Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292. <br />It was also the subject of a talk at GKSS (4th Dec. 1992), and paper (Heft 4, VdFFdGKSS-Forschungszentrum, pages 53, in English at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ <br />Arnd Bernaertsaberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335625330300487887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-4024705813680323592010-11-02T01:28:02.740+01:002010-11-02T01:28:02.740+01:00@ Hans von Storch: “we have a very good definition...@ Hans von Storch: “we have a very good definition of climate - it is the statistics of weather, and weather is the short term state of the atmosphere, ocean, hydrosphere etc. Would you agree that this is a reasonable definition, aber?” <br /><br />No, defiantly not! What you offer as ‘weather’ is actually a copy of the UNFCCC definition (Art.1 (3)): “….the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.” Even glossaries (i.a. AMS) are not offering such an empty phrase. And sorry, statistics of weather remain “statistics of weather”. Unfortunately your book with Francis Zwiers. Cambridge U press, 1999, neither provides a reasonable meaning, and which is not a mere use of a layman’s expression. <br /><br />Allow me to close with a sentence I wrote almost 20 years ago : “For decades, the real question has been who is responsible for the climate. Climate should have been defined as ‘the continuation of the oceans by other means’. Thus, the 1982 (Law of the Sea) Convention could long since have been used to protect the climate. After all, it is the most powerful tool with which to force politicians and the community of states into actions.“ in: Letter to the Editor, NATURE 1992, “Climate Change”, Vol. 360, p. 292. <br />It was also the subject of a talk at GKSS (4th Dec. 1992), and paper (Heft 4, VdFFdGKSS-Forschungszentrum, pages 53, in English at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/ <br />ARnd Bernaertsaberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335625330300487887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61859603026790952682010-11-01T22:18:59.576+01:002010-11-01T22:18:59.576+01:00I think we have a very good definition of climate ...I think we have a very good definition of climate - it is the <i>statistics of weather</i>, and weather is the <i>short term state of the atmosphere, ocean, hydrosphere</i> etc. Would you agree that this is a reasonable definition, aber? I could do it a bit more formal, but that may not be necessary.<br /><br />A bit of mathematics sometimes helps.<br /><br />Your comment was not really helpful, if I may say so. In fact, it was just - a piece of stupid rambling.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86695006949026715522010-11-01T20:26:18.972+01:002010-11-01T20:26:18.972+01:00@ Dennis Bray: “Comment I have no problem with tha...@ Dennis Bray: “Comment I have no problem with that. Climate is a bit like a summary of weather I think.”<br /><br />I am aware that the atmospheric science is living happily without a scientifically reasonable definition of CLIMATE and WEATHER, although they use this layman expressions not only among them, but also in communication with the public and politics. Instead of ensuring minimum academic requirements, namely a clear language and definitions, it is so inviting to keep the matter discussed vague to the point of nonsense. At least it was extreme successful over the last three decades. Why caring what does it mean: “climate change scepticism”.aberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13335625330300487887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-67962589740420491362010-11-01T17:23:52.442+01:002010-11-01T17:23:52.442+01:00@Dennis Bray
I just wanted to point out that the ...@Dennis Bray<br /><br />I just wanted to point out that the definition of the word "climate" is often used as a weapon against "skeptics":<br /><br />"You don't even understand the difference between climate and weather". ;-)<br /><br />But lets have a look at the reason why some have become skeptic/s ...<br /><br />http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-greenberg-meets-climate.html<br /><br />***Daniel Greenberg: "Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch."<br />- - - <br />"Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf,<br /><br />Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke's book "Climate Fix" has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion."*** <br /><br />LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61389022693563923592010-11-01T17:05:48.983+01:002010-11-01T17:05:48.983+01:00I tend to agree that it is in the realm of climate...I tend to agree that it is in the realm of climate change policy that most people are skeptical. Much of the debate revolves around the efficacy of wealth transfer programs and the pureness of motive of those who advocate them.<br />I disagree with your use of entirely subjective terms such as healthy or un-healthy when rational or irrational would be much more accurate and testable. <br />The scientific method requires one to be eternally vigilant for evidence that could undermine one’s theory – this should make us all rationally skeptical. Perhaps an irrational skeptic would be someone who purports to believe in an event that can be conclusively proven wrong with consistent and repeatable empirical evidence. Following a political maxim such as the “precautionary principle” takes one out of the scientific arena and becomes a much broader value judgement.C. J. Burtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13214218733362211656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22383549899172235502010-11-01T16:56:25.971+01:002010-11-01T16:56:25.971+01:00@ Guenter Hess
On my opinion of calling people ske...@ Guenter Hess<br />On my opinion of calling people skeptics and/or deniers: To call someone a skeptic is what we are trying to sort out - what constitutes a ‘skeptic’. As I tried to demonstrate, many scientists are skeptical of some aspects of the climate change issue . To call someone a denier I guess would mean that such a person would deny the existence of climate change. As I also tried to demonstrate, this is not many people from among the sample that I use in the analysis. I agree with you that the poor distinction between ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ is problematic, perhaps assigning a negative connotation where none is justified.<br />@aber<br />You say ‘A definition is a (mutual) mean to know what one is talking about.’ In that sense I think ‘climate change’ is quite clear. From a simple dictionary: ‘Climate - The prevailing atmospheric phenomena and conditions of temperature, humidity, wind, etc.’ Not exactly a scientific definition but suffice here. ‘Change - becoming different.’ Hence the prevailing atmospheric phenomena and conditions of temperature, humidity, wind, etc. are becoming different - I have no problem with that. Climate is a bit like a summary of weather I think. Under what conditions would we have wind change, humidity change, temperature change ... well, perhaps climate change? <br />@ Alex Harvey<br />On Oreskes’ paper see: <br />Bray, Dennis‘The scientific consensus of climate change revisited’ Environmental Science & PolicyVolume 13, Issue 5, August 2010, Pages 340-350 or for a slightly different version, downloadable as a pdf filehttp://dvsun3.gkss.de/journals/2010/Bray-envscipol.pdf<br />I don’t know if the 65% you mention are not publishing papers. But they might not argue against anthropogenic attribution but provide comment/criticism on other aspects of the science. As for AWG theory - isn’t the theory sound? It is the projections and policy suggestions that seem to be the most contested. At least I think that is so.<br />@Anonymous<br />What does climate mean? - see above. Other than that, I am not sure how you refer to ‘skeptics’. I did not intend a debate on the meaning of ‘climate’ but on the definition of ‘climate change skeptic’ with the emphasis on skeptic.<br />@Stan<br />Who are the ‘we’? What I wrote about was skepticism AMONG climate scientists. I can’t speak for observers of the science. You might find some answers in Rob Maris’ survey on this account.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76119955521518978852010-11-01T14:27:41.651+01:002010-11-01T14:27:41.651+01:00What if we are skeptical about the basic competenc...What if we are skeptical about the basic competence of climate scientists? The evidence is strong that scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular, regularly screw up their stats. They don't replicate or even audit the work of other scientists. The rare times when work is checked, it is often wrong.<br /><br />The basic priniciples of forecasting are ignored. Quality control for the databases is a disaster. The scientific method is honored mostly in the breach.<br /><br />Competence is low. Hubris (arrogant pride) and logical fallacies abound. I'd likely be less skeptical, if the present ratio of competence to hubris were reversed.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01575178552426939685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86503934146442662062010-11-01T12:41:51.456+01:002010-11-01T12:41:51.456+01:00Oohps, forgot my name. It was me folks.
YephOohps, forgot my name. It was me folks.<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com