Skeptics Are Not Deniers part 2

John Nielsen-Gammon has his second part up. I introduced part 1 here

Skeptics Are Not Deniers: A Conversation (part 2)

This is Part 2 of his six-part discussion with Robert G. Brown.

Part 2 has Dr. Brown on paleoclimate, climate dynamics, and global warming ina  runnign conversation with Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon.

Start with Part 1.

Part 2 is here.

Well worth your time to read these – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Skeptics Are Not Deniers part 2

  1. Nerd says:

    In the meanwhile, another blogger from Chron.com – http://blog.chron.com/partisangridlock/2012/07/brace-yourself-al-gore/

    Sigh…

  2. Anything is possible says:

    Robert G. Brown 2, John Nielsen-Gammon 0…

  3. jaschrumpf says:

    It’s only been hot in the US. England had their coldest May in 100 years, Australia had their coldest June day in 30 years, and Tasmania is running 10C below normal.

    As we’ve been told so often, the US is only 3% of the earth’s surface. What happens here — and especially in only a small part of here — is hardly “global.”

  4. Mat L says:

    The logo “No Denial Here”… WUWT is a pretty broad church, and I’ve seen plenty of comments in these pages that would fit what you defined to be denial. Denial of denial? How meta.

  5. Most of us skeptics are also scientists. Skepticism comes with the territory. I call my self and have done for some time, a climate Atheist. Theism implies religion, a priori thinking and inductive reasoning. Science functions on deductive reasoning and is therefore anti theism or anti theistic. Many of my blog essays address this reasoning difference topic.

  6. more soylent green! says:

    I’m not a denier, I’m a non-believer. There aren’t any facts to deny; you can’t deny the output of simulations or computer models because those aren’t facts. You can’t deny opinion, either, for the same reason that opinion isn’t fact.

  7. Clark Thornton says:

    I’d like to know what you think of Mann’s 5-part interview on ABC. He basically says that there is a vast conspiracy among fossil fuel interests to demonize good people like him. The interview never discusses why his science is “right,” it just takes it as obvious. And from what I see and hear, every time I turn on NPR, every story even tangentially related to nature has to mention “climate change.” I am not seeing any success in this “campaign.” I don’t know what the hell Mann is talking about, frankly. He’s a true believer, however. Why is everyone who even questions what to him is obvious considered almost mentally ill, corrupt, etc?

  8. P Wilson says:

    as temperature extremes between the poles even out, and become less far from one another during periods of global warming, it is obvious that extremes of cold and drought/heat are indications of the beginning of cooling period where the change takes place. Eventually we shall have a relatively “normal” climate within the next 10 years, as if it were a return to the 1970’s. (summer of 76, but very cold winters)

  9. pieman says:

    No Dental Here ?.

  10. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Mat L

    Anything you deny, I deny meta?

  11. Martin C says:

    Ah, in the second paragraph from the bottom (the ‘stay tuned for part three’) is this statement.

    “Likewise, a model could overestimate the importance of CO2 and underestimate the importance of solar variations and still come close to the right answer.”

    From the 15 or so years of basically flat global temperatures with the CO2 increase, along with the solar cycles in the latter half of the 20th century, plus the more ‘quiet sun’ we are seeing now, that sure would make more sense.

  12. davidmhoffer says:

    I’m finding the discussion fascinating. Nice does of reality. I’ve got it scored 2-0 also.

  13. davidmhoffer says:

    Clark Thornton;
    I don’t know what the hell Mann is talking about, frankly. He’s a true believer, however. Why is everyone who even questions what to him is obvious considered almost mentally ill, corrupt, etc?
    >>>>>>

    I’ve come to the belief that he is NOT a true believer. He refuses to disclose all his data and methods on the the flimsiest of excuses. A true believer would be eager to show everyone why they are right. He’s sought intervener status to keep his emails regarding climate from becoming public. Again, a true believer shouts from the roof tops his beliefs, he doesn’t try and keep them from seeing the light of day. Challenged on his science, he goes into immediate attack mode, he doesn’t even TRY to answer the criticisms against him, he just starts shouting about big oil and conspiracies and other people’s integrity. People who are confident in their beliefs defend them. Criticism doesn’t trigger their fight or flight reflex.

  14. H.R. says:

    When it comes to CAGW, I am no longer skeptical; I’m cynical.

  15. Georgegr says:

    For us not living in the small red dot on the US east coast, it is difficult to understand what the big deal is. This is a highly local event. I can subscribe to the other comments that spring and summer has been miserable, cold and very wet this year as it has been the preceding three years. Where is my global warming!? Where are my hot, sunny and dry summers? It is absolutely miserable.
    I feel seriously let down by the AGW establishment. They make promises they cannot keep. Time for them to deliver on their promises I say…

  16. Owen says:

    Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes ‘truth’. That’s all that Mann is doing. It’s propaganda 101. Mann isn’t a scientist, he’s a marketing agent selling Global Warming/Climate change.

  17. Chuck Nolan says:

    H.R. says:

    July 11, 2012 at 2:34 am

    When it comes to CAGW, I am no longer skeptical; I’m cynical.
    ————————————-
    Concur.
    There could be some agw (although I am cynical about ‘c’agw) but I don’t trust them when they lie, cheat and steal for their cause. When you have people like Henry Waxman, Pachauri, Gore, Romm, Hansen, Mann, Jones, Gleick etc.on your side you give away the moral high ground. At this point I don’t see much difference between tobacco company scientists with their PR people and the TEAM. In the end it’s about transparency and what we know is the truth. Now, one more time TEAM, what is the null hypothesis for agw and cagw, how many trees are we using and where’s everything located for replication?

  18. You are using Math rules to mark English. AGW is politics writ large. The IPCC is an arm of the UN and charged with selling a global tax on energy. http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/18115/

  19. I know it’s practically a cliché, but I enjoy the “climate deniers” label. It’s a truly delightful illiteratism from our scienc[e]y betters.

  20. anticlimactic says:

    The question is what to call the adherents of CAGW. I am tempted to cite a term used by Lord Monckton in his Rio report : Drone.

    DRONE : To talk endlessly about mankind’s influence/guilt/effect on the planet; usually guided by others; apt to kill innocent people without meaning to; sterile.

  21. Neil Jordan says:

    California Water Plan eNews at:
    http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/enews/2012/cwp_e-news071112.pdf
    announces a workshop on preparing for extreme weather events:
    http://www.westgov.org/wswc/agenda-extreme%20events%20workshop%20san%20diego%202012.pdf

    John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) will be presenting on Texas drought and wildfires.

  22. Allen says:

    Galileo was undoubtedly a Catholic yet he used a new method for rationally discovering truth. It is sad to see his method being lost within the irrationality of the CAGW belief.

  23. Caragea says:

    I studied climate from a University course. I am no scientist though, yet I am trying to understand what happens to the best of my abilities. In very easy to understand terms, the theory I studied goes…if you put more carbon into the atmosphere, you have a greenhouse effect, therefore the Earth is warming. There could be some solar cycle, or other natural cycle in addition, yet the carbon emitted from human activity is contributing to the warming. Is there some alternative theory which in simple terms would sugest that the noted correlation is actually false, and if so what is that theory predict? As far as I know, the royal society, which has some prestige, agrees with this theory too. I think that if someone has a different explanation which makes sense and predicts some different outcome, and which has been missed by science organizations such as the royal society, it should be really good, and also very popular. I dare say, it would be a sensation for most newspapers. Think about the headline…’The royal society of England proven wrong by the science society x’. Can anyone please explain to me in simple terms what the green house emissions might do or not do as supposed to warming the planet, and what are the other theory’s predictions as supposed to the ‘alarmist’ predictions? Or is there no alternative theory, but only doubts and suspicion. I am looking for a rational explanation of the subject, nothing more.

Comments are closed.