New paper finds climate skeptical blogosphere is important source of expertise, reinterpretation, & scientific knowledge production
From The Hockey Schtick:
A paper published on April 5th in Global Environmental Change finds the climate skeptical blogosphere serves as an alternative network of scientific knowledge production, and “are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
According to the authors, “A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system.
This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs.”
The abstract appears to be complimentary to the climate skeptic blogosphere as science-based sources of “expertise”, “scientific knowledge production”, and “reinterpretation”, as opposed to prior papers characterization of climate skeptic blogs as “deniers” of climate change and climate science.
 |
| WUWT is somewhere in the center there |
- •
-
The climate sceptical blogosphere is identified as a network of 171 blogs.
- •
-
An overt science framing appears to contribute to the most central blogs’ positions.
- •
-
The most central blogs may be seen as key nodes in an alternative knowledge network.
- •
-
They are alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Abstract
While mainstream scientific knowledge production has been extensively examined in the academic literature, comparatively little is known about alternative networks of scientific knowledge production. Online sources such as blogs are an especially under-investigated site of knowledge contestation. Using degree centrality and node betweenness tests from social network analysis, and thematic content analysis of individual posts, this research identifies and critically examines the climate sceptical blogosphere and investigates whether a focus on particular themes contributes to the positioning of the most central blogs. A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central:Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system. This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs. It is suggested that these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.
Jo Nova had a writeup about it last November while the paper was being submitted for publication, which is worth reading again.
From the paper:
Two tests for degree centrality (Freeman’s and Bonacich’s approach) were chosen as ‘very simple, but often very effective measure[s] of an actor’s centrality’ (Hanneman and Riddle 2005: 148). Freeman’s approach shows the centrality of a node based on its degree, that is, the number of connections a node has. In this case, the rating score represents the number of other blogs linking to that blog on their respective blog rolls.
The blog with the highest in-degree rating according to Freeman’s approach is Watts Up With That (WUWT), authored by California-based Anthony Watts, with 54% of the climate sceptical blogosphere linking to WUWT. WUWT itself claims it is the ‘world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’ and the results of this test appear to support this assertion.
Freeman’s approach may also be used to analyse out-degree linkages, that is, examining which blogs’ blog-rolls are the most extensive. While out-degree score is usually seen as a measure of how influential an actor is in a network, in this case, a blog has no control over whether or not it is included in another blogs’ blog-roll. It is thus possible that out-degree score in the context of a blogosphere may instead be regarded as an indicator of desire to enhance the network, for example, by ensuring readers are aware that there are multiple other blogs that support the position of the original blog. Interestingly, only two blogs
show both high in- and out-degree linkages (WUWT and Bishop Hill). Tables 3 and 4 show the top 10 Freeman’s approach scores for in- and out-degree linkage.
An open access version of the paper is available here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf
Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?
On a side note, there’s no “network” of 171 blogs. We don’t have a group, guild, or any sort of organization. Her network claim is little more than an identification of like minded people that operate climate related blogs. And, I don’t think about the blogroll that much and I doubt it has the significance she assigns to it.
Even so, thanks for the props.
Although I don’t understand some of the scientific gobbledygook quoted here, it can be summarized as truthfully as this: Anthony, you are doing a great job presenting the other point of view on climate change, and a job of the highest integrity and scientific rigor in explaining the science of climate to ignoramuses like me in ways that we can honestly understand it and draw our own conclusions – even disagree sometimes in an honest way. As always, you deserve the highest praise for restoring some sanity to the public debate.
Keep up the great work!!!
It must be lovely to study and categorize these blogs from the outside. But I doubt these experts on other things will learn much about these blogs and their world until they personally engage with them, ala Judith Curry.
I like the conclusion that a focus on science keeps WUWT at the center !
Thanks Anthony for keeping up the good work & great science-focused content !
“This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs.”
Wow – Science. Who’d a thunk it?
Thanks, guys. Now try telling all of us who read this blog something we don’t already know.
(although I suppose this will make Joe Romm swallow his tongue)
Congrats to the WUWT team! Peer reviewed no less…Mann and Lew will have to be restrained and placed in the rubber room.
@wws – I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/
Describing 171 unrelated blogs as a ‘network’ says much about the authors of the paper. It implies that they cannot concieve of those blogs arising independently and spontaneously.
Yeah, good, but let’s add the visits by all the main proponents of CAGW. WUWT is indeed a central source. Many of these proponents have been invited to put articles on WUWT to argue their positions. It hasn’t happened much but I foresee this becoming a new development of this blog. There can be little doubt that the new “discoveries” of CAGW proponents of natural variability, the ocean oscillations, solar, etc. where purloined from such as WUWT. Willis E’s stuff I’m sure is going to generate new “discoveries” to replace the patched up failures that abound.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
“@wws – I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?”
Run for the hills! Even worse:
The song of the whistling cave frog has changed in the past decades, becoming more high-pitched due to Climate Change, US biologists say.
German article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-froesche-quaken-in-hoeheren-toenen-a-963336.html
We’re doomed.
Ooo… How come there’s no RealClimate in the top group?
“The abstract appears to be complementary to the climate skeptic blogosphere[…].”
Complementary? Or Complimentary? (Could be either I suppose.)
@Snow White says: April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
I think you are totally un-aware that this web site is the global go to web site for sea-ice reference and there isn’t a lot of guessing goes on here, just the facts.
Wow ! It almost reads like a targeting exercise. As in “…here’s the list of the main skeptical sites we go after. ”
I’ve noticed a trend where if the AGW crowd can’t make an argument against the data , they attack the reseachers themselves. Claiming said researchers and reporters are, to quote : paid shills, trolls, Koch Bros. funded, Heartland advocates, or Big Energy mouthpieces.
It’s never a view that the data is debatable, but rather that theirs is the only viewpoint acceptable and how dare you question it.
Is there some supplemental information somewhere? I’d like to see where Jeff Id’s blog and Lucia’s placed.
So glad I found you guys and gals. Keep up the good work!
This paper misses the point.
Someone has to try and keep climate scientists honest, as they certainly are not going to police themselves. Heaven only knows how many times that has been demonstrated.
The likes of WUWT, Jo Nova and Climate Audit are loathed and despised by the Global Warming Industry, which does [not] like being called to account, audited or exposed for what it really is.
I haven’t seen anything anywhere that can hold a candle to WUWT reference pages for a quick climate overview. Turns Greens Red with envy.
Amelia Sharman wrote:
“. . . for a climate sceptical audience.”
There is a bit of lazy writing here. The skeptical audience is skeptical of the “we are doomed” (catastrophic or little c in cAGW) claims and likewise of the “CO2 is the cause” settled pseudo- “science.”
However, like gravity, climate is something we try to deal with even though there are Rumsfeld Unknowns about both.
————-
wws says at 6:43 — “Now try telling all of us who read this blog something we don’t already know.”
I agree.
TG:
Why would you expect RealClimate to feature?
The paper considers that what it calls the Central Blogs are “key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation”. I think RealClimate do not contest the IPCC position. The paper goes on to state:
“acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
Which shows what a good job they must be doing, as you did not bother to even read the abstract of the paper that was being discussed before you posted your comment.
Chris B wrote: “Turns Greens Red with envy.”
Actually, the Greens were Red first and it isn’t “envy” — there are facts in the reference pages they don’t want anyone to know.
Perhaps, the facts turn them black with fury.
Regardless of all the talk about “big oil (money)” supporting skeptics, the opposite case is far more true.
There is a small coterie of paid spokesmen, “Media Consultants” and “Public Relations” types, who have created much of the familiar and most repeated rhetoric supporting the warmist cause. There aren’t too many of them, but their presence is seen in blogs and comment sections across the internet and in the rationalizations which seem to spread like wildfire throughout a supportive international media.. Their words are polished, but usually logically unsupportable, or just plain untrue. In other words, they are paid to lie about climate science and paid to mount defamatory campaigns against alternative points of view.
Here’s a sample thread from another site, where at least two paid propagandists appear and one of them freely admits his role- hint: readers may remember his name from the Chris Turney/Akademik Shokalskiy affair, as this person was trying to provide considerable cover to Turney:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89447
“Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?”
Given the differences between the two abstracts, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bob Ward was one of the reviewers.
I guess network would be a technical word for an network of Internet interactions. The paper is not implying that skeptics form a cabal or anything.
This seems to be a correction of the 2013 paper by the same title.
These folks who refuse to accept a majority biased view. What exactly is up with that? It must be the “centrality,” we guess.
De-legitimisation”?
Interesting abstract: “these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation”
How about “applying the scientific method” and upholding scientific integrity?
Why? Because the media and politicians tell the public that the ‘science is settled’, we must act now and a decade long general censorship by the media of their views. More sceptical voices are now being heard and the alleged ‘consensus’ is breaking down despite the spin and fairy tales.
Note: For many years sceptic blogs featured well in the blog awards. Why? Thank goodness for the internet.
Target analysis completed
Operation ‘Silence Skeptics’ approved
Execute
Anthony writes: “On a side note, there’s no “network” of 171 blogs. We don’t have a group, guild, or any sort of organization.”
I’m going the disagree, although in the age of Lewandowsky, it’s natural that Anthony would be sensitive about such things. I think it is a “network.” What it’s not, is a “conspiracy.”
@Sun Spot says: April 9, 2014 at 7:01 am
Whereas I think you are totally un-aware that this web site cherry picks “the facts” it chooses to present to its readers:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/
oldspanky says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:00 am
Easy way to figure out the difference, spanky: If you want to be personal, think about the ‘I’ in compliment as being personal; if you want to equate things, think about the ‘E’ in complement.
As for the blog cloud: I assume Cook’s little hobby blog is the one, all on its own, out on the extreme left of the cloud.
Thanks, A. An interesting post.
The Web is made of links. Google, Bing, Yahoo et al. count them. The popularity rank of a Web page is directly proportional to this count. Link to your favorite sites from your Web pages!
Larry in Texas: Hear, hear.
I am an eighty three year old avid follower of WUWT. I start every day reading this blog.
My sixty year old MS in Chemistry doesn’t really qualify me as a scientist, but I understand a bit of the posts. Thank you for shedding light on the murky subject of ACGW or so-called “Climate Change.”
The study means “network” only in the sense of a social network: the people who link to people. It does not necessarily imply any overt organization.
Congratulations. I hope this means that the recent guest posts on issues not remotely scientific will not become a pattern for the future.
The study uses “network” in the sense of a social network: people who link to people. It doesn’t imply any overt organization.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
You might help your case if you concentrated on not appearing illiterate:
… /2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/ …
How can something ‘vanish even more’?
@Billy Liar says: April 9, 2014 at 8:05 am
“How can something ‘vanish even more’?”
It can’t of course. It’s a parody on the typical “Shock News!!!” headline from “Real Science”!
I guess some people have no sense of humour?
Oh yeah, this is that paper that attempts to claim that skeptical blogs are anti-science, etc. What a nasty little game these academics play: no respect for debate, no tolerance,and no questioning of their apocalyptic claptrap.
What nasty little minded bigots they are.
First, I see WUWT as a jewel. An example of that the best the internet has to offer.
This paper, while it reaches a conclusion that is flattering, I question it’s methods and assumptions.
1. Did it really base it’s analysis on the “blogroll” of the studied sites. ?!? That is more a measure of a blogs aspirations and maybe social networking rather than an objective measure of years of content.
2. framing: “are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation,
“protagonists” … hmm. An interesting choice of word. It least it wasn’t “antagonists,” which I’m sure is the way “97%” of all climate scientists view them.
“contestation” might not be a word I’d pick, but I don’t object to is appropriateness.
“de-legitimization” is a loaded word that I feel is inappropriate.
——————————————————————————–
delegitimize (ˌdiːlɪˈdʒɪtɪˌmaɪz) or delegitimise
vb (tr)
a. to make invalid, illegal, or unacceptable (thefreedictionary)
b. is the sociopsychological[1] process which undermines or marginalises an entity by presenting value judgments as facts which are construed to devalue legitimacy.[2] It is a self-justifying mechanism,[3] with the ultimate goal of justifying harm of an outgroup. (Wikipedia)
c. to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority of (Merriam-Webster)
d. Withdraw legitimate status or authority from (someone or something): (oxford)
—————————————–
These definitions, with the marginal exception of (c) are in the social-political, not scientific, debate of ideas and theories. So I think this word colors the authors frame of mind in an unflattering way.
3. Scope and methodology: was the domain of analysis pre-constrained to a list of skeptical/anti-alarmist sites and then the network of connections was traversed? Or was a site chosen as a seed and the links followed a certain number of steps leading to skeptic, warmist, news, poltical, governmental, sites as they might? Where is “Real Climate”, “Skeptical Science” and “Climate Progress” on the list, or why aren’t they on the list?
Most regulars here understand & accept the theoretical GHG effect of roughly 1.2C for a CO2 doubling. What we don’t accept is the assumed IPCC positive feedbacks that magnify it. And we don’t completely ignore (like the IPCC) the positive, well-documented effects of CO2 enrichment for plants.
I think he’s taking it well since the LSE based Grantham Institute is funded from moneys derived from investments in various types of companies including oil, coal and tobacco companies.
The OIL FUNDED Grantham Foundation also funds or has funded the Imperial College based Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups.
There is also a useful discussion of this paper over at CA (about halfway down the comments).
http://climateaudit.org/2014/04/07/the-ethics-application-for-lewandowskys-fury/
Mike S at that site points out the change (toward the CAGW POV) between the working draft and the final paper, particularly clear in the abstract. However, Ms. Sharma did resist the pressure to some extent. I commented at CA as follows:
Yes, clearly pressure was brought to bear on the author, no doubt through the Grantham Institute, which partially funded the work. However, even the paywalled version retains some reasonable observations. For example, the first conclusion is the following:
“The most noteworthy finding of this research however is that
the blogs identified as the most central predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate. Regardless of the motivation behind the existence of the climate sceptical opinion, what appears to be the most valued and legitimate way of expressing that opinion within the blogosphere is through the use of scientific themes and language.”
And a bit later:
“Finally, it also suggests that by not focusing on, or explicitly identifying, debates regarding the ideological foundation for climate change disagreement, which more explicitly highlights ‘attitudes and worldviews. . .[and] political ideology and personal values’ (Poortinga et al., 2011, p. 1022), the blogosphere may be playing a central role in perpetuating doubt regarding the scientific basis for subsequent climate change policy-making.”
Right on, Ms. Sharman!
These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate and that is why I keep coming back.
Please don’t interpret the word “network” to mean “collusion” or “organization.” These authors are applying network analysis, where a “network” is understood to be a collection of linked entities. Thus if some blogs contain each others URLs, they can be analysed as a network. Terms like “out-degree linkages” and “actors” are clues that a certain network jargon is in play.
If the UK’s Bishop Hill were to discuss this paper, and mention Bob Ward, that would perhaps have the best chance of goading the beast to reaction.
Well done Anthony and all mods. Your hard work is being recognised. Great job.
I wonder if the idea of ‘Network’ is part of group think that assumes there is some organization and central funding to views counter to government desired thought.
In her paper ‘Mapping the climate skeptical blogosphere’ author Amelia Sharman wrote,
{bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – – – –
Amelia Sharman,
Have you considered that what you describe as “ideologically or values-motivated” behavior was studied by the 3 central skeptic blogs you identified? Have you considered that the 3 central skeptic blogs found significant “ideologically or values-motivated” behavior by climate scientists central to the IPCC assessment process? Don’t you consider that is why you observed that the 3 central skeptic blogs were significantly focused on “critiques of the conduct of the climate science system, such as individual climate scientists’ actions (including issues of transparency) or institutional decision-making”?
I think you should pursue a follow-up paper. The 3 central skeptic blogs can help you on it.
John
@John F. Hultquist says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:19 am
Chris B wrote: “Turns Greens Red with envy.”
Actually, the Greens were Red first and it isn’t “envy” — there are facts in the reference pages they don’t want anyone to know.
Perhaps, the facts turn them black with fury.
Well, that they come from the red side nobody will deny:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/communist-newspaper-features-the-ipcc-and-michael-mann/
I smell hearburn already from some alarmists! Kudos to Anthony and crew on an outstanding site!
I heard/read two things this week that really break down the AGW debate.
The term “regression to the mean”
and someone somewhere saying: “the main thing missing from most climate science is curiosity”
Anthony, thank you for refusing to be part of the former while also being one of the best suppliers of the latter.
Harkin
The center will know nothing of the front line conflict unless it sends out recon units for more facts.
The center can fool itself into a limited incorrect knowing.
Push the fringe, go where none of the warming cult expect, report back.
I believe that’s a typo early in your article, Anthony.
“The abstract appears to be complementary…” should read “complimentary”. [Thanks, fixed. ~mod.]
Certainly the article does not complement sceptic blogs. By my standards, they are indeed complimenting you, and deservedly so, too. But I wonder if they realise they are complimenting you?
What leads me to wonder this is the jargon they use. Expressions such as “knowledge production” are warning signs of pseudo-scholarship of the post-modernist style, a scholastic aberration as deluded, unproductive and regrettable as the current detour into climate alarmism is.
Congrats Anthony!
A few months ago, I suggested they take away Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize and give it to you and you made a funny response related to flying monkeys.
Of course the ones making such decisions probably consider Watts up with that? as an inconvenient truth but maybe since that comment, the odds have increased, now at:
.000000002.
Seriously, I used to spend a great deal of time searching for legit science related to climate change until finding this place.
As an operational meteorologist for 32 years, I like to think my definition of legit includes objectively and authenticity based on it making sense and having empirical data/observations to support it.
Thanks Much
Mike
There is an interesting difference between the draft version, that has been around for some time, and has been widely discussed at sceptic blogs (including Bishop Hil and Jo Nova) and the final version just published.
In the draft, the first sentence was
“Evidence supporting the reality of climate change and its anthropogenic cause is overwhelming in the peer-reviewed literature (J. Cook et al. 2013; Doran and Zimmerman 2009).”
This statement was much ridiculed at BH and elsewhere, with some people saying they couldn’t read any further.
But in the published version, the first sentence is
“Outside the paradigm of mainstream climate science, and particularly in online environments, the validity of an accepted body of research underlying the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change (defined here as agreement with Section 2 (Causes of change) of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007) is actively disputed”.
The Cook and Doran papers don’t get mentioned at all. This is quite interesting because it’s most unlikely that the reviewers of the paper (who will have been warmist sociologists) asked her to take them out, so it was probably removed because of the negative comments on the sceptic blogs.
Snow,
I visited your greatwhitecon pages. I saw nothing any skeptic would dispute. So what’s your beef?
Is it that WUWT does not limit it’s sea ice coverage to that which greatwhitecon does?
Because your claiming WUWT cherry picks the facts it presents signals you have never visited the WUWT sea ice page.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Only a purposefully mendacious alarmist would assert that collection of essentially every conceivable sea ice source is a cherry picking.
Can you just cut to the chase and spit out what your point is instead of the usual foggy implying or vague suggesting.
If you are suggesting people should only consider the single long term graph of arctic sea ice extent then you are a pot calling the kettle black cherry picker.
Worse yet is your cherry picking hypocrisy in asserting a graph starting at 1979 is a long term
presentation.
If you put your alarmist’s criticism in historical perspective you’ll look like fool as well as a hypocrite.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
@Steve Oregon says: April 9, 2014 at 9:10 am
As your starter for 10, the word volume seems to be conspicuous only by its absence on the WUWT sea ice page (page last updated 2-26-14).
[There was a front page report on the sea ice volume in Feb. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/ but you probably won’t like that either, since you are just another detractor with a fake name – mod]
One of the simplest reasons for many visitors to this site to return is the simple fact that most scientific journal articles are behind paywalls inaccessible to those not working in academia or other research organisations. I am more than capable of understanding primary research papers, having worked in biomedical research for over a decade and written both original research papers, review articles and book chapters for technical monographs. But as I no longer work in research, I no longer have access to libraries, either traditional or virtual in nature.
WUWT is infinitely superior to the ‘national newspapers’ which are now little more than propaganda tools for unaccountable publishers. Those organs limit themselves by length of article issues, meaning that nothing is ever examined properly. Little value is added as a result and the value often comes in reading blog contributions rather than the primary article.
The TV media is equally as bad, with the BBC being in metaphorical bed with the IPCC and several of its journalists flagrantly abusing its neutrality charter.
So that leaves books, which is an expensive way of covering the ground (in that to be reasonably sure of not becoming biased simply by only selecting two or three titles) which for many folks doesn’t make financial sense.
At that point, you look for folks who provide understandable, accessible, discursive portals of information which are open to discuss issues based on evidence, not propaganda.
There is still a bit of a ‘cabal’ like nature to the team of folks who actually contribute articles at this site. I’m not criticising that, but a danger will emerge that WUWT becomes the views of a small number of people (such as Christopher, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, Willis Eschenbach and a few others). It’s like any media organisation: sooner or later you need to ask if you need to freshen up through having fresh authors. I’m not suggesting that that is currently necessary, merely pointing out potential for ossification in future.
The other danger is the subversion of the site to ‘national security’ nonsense and very powerful media moguls who want to monitor/track the visitors to this site without obtaining their explicit consent so to do. It’s 21st century reality, I’m afraid and whether WUWT is above all that, who knows. To date, I’ve not bothered finding out……
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:37 am
@Sun Spot says: April 9, 2014 at 7:01 am
Whereas I think you are totally un-aware that this web site cherry picks “the facts” it chooses to present to its readers:
… GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/
You did it again! You have referenced your own website as an example of cherry-picking.
Is English your native tongue?
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:37 am
“Whereas I think you are totally un-aware that this web site cherry picks “the facts” it chooses to present to its readers:”
I know of no warmist website that has the kind of reference pages WUWT offers. Make that, no website at all except WUWT that has this array of data.
So stick your idiotic accusation where the sun don’t shine.
Hi Snow!
(Too bad there is just so much of the white stuff hanging around this late in spring causing delayed planting now, flooding later, and much loss of money and effort …)
By the way. Today, with an Antarctic sea ice area anomaly of 1.28 Mkm^2, that little bit of “excess” Antarctic sea ice everybody in the CAGW community is busily ignoring down south at -60 latitude is now larger than the entire Hudson’s Bay up at latitude 60 north.
And, if that comparison seems “too complex” or “too much of a “cherry picked fact” we could approximate it a little bit:
That “excess” Antarctic sea ice area is now slightly larger than half of Greenland!
Anthony: A well-deserved congratulations!!!
A statement like this one “These blogs [WUWT among others] predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system, and appear to be less preoccupied with other types of scepticism that are prevalent in the wider public debate such as ideologically or values-motivated scepticism.” is surely a very nice and big feather in Anthony’s WUWT cap!!
WUWT is, in other terms, objective, factual, and constructively critical. Like ALL scientists should be!! Many AGWers can learn a thing or two from you!
Anthony, this “scientific” paper marks you as a prime target for eco-terrorists. At least this is how “central position” is interpreted by loonies.
WUWT is somewhere in the center there
Not sure I’d really like to be in the middle of that pincushion, but it’s nice to be acknowledged as making a difference. 🙂
Now please excuse me while I check my mailbox for that check from Big Oil (TM). It seems to have been lost in the mail for years and years, but I’m sure it will show up some day. After all, 97% agree that it’s on the way. /snark
In total, 171 blogs were identified6, 155 of which are allocated to category 1 (openly
sceptical) with the remaining 15 identified as category 2 (self-proclaimed “openminded”).
Skepticism, or climate realism and open-mindedness pretty much go hand-in-hand, so I’m puzzled as to why they felt a need to have the sub-category. Perhaps what they meant by “open-minded” was “clueless”, as in “we don’t know who to believe”.
In fact, most skeptics/climate realists only came to that stance due to their open-mindedness, or willingness to accept new information.
@mod says: April 9, 2014 at 9:46 am
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/04/the-arctic-sea-ice-recovery-vanishes-even-more/#PIOMAS
“According to the PIOMAS model at least, Arctic sea ice volume has now reached the second lowest level for the date since the satellite record began.”
You probably won’t like that either! Is that why it’s not front page news at WUWT this week?
Catastrophic Climate Change skepticity, is a bit like gravity; it sucks !
So it is perfectly natural for those who don’t naturally flock to a cliff to jump off, are drawn to the center of skepticity; which it seems is WUWT.
CCCMMGW, is like electromagnetism; it is repulsive, and as a result tends to explode in all directions from a lack of any underlying coherence.
So keep it up skeptics; education is a slow process; it can consume all of one’s life.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:15 am
I see you continue to obsess over the Arctic sea ice area/volume/extents.
Would you be upset if I asked, “Why?”
See, for seven months of the years, the (ever-expanding/freezing/ever-increasing) edge of the Antarctic sea ice extents receives MORE solar radiation than does the (receding/melting) edge of the Arctic sea ice extents. In fact, it is only the last week of March-first week in April that the two ice packs receive near-equal solar radiation. By the equinox in mid-September – when the Arctic is at its minimum (All cry and shriek: “AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH We will see an ice-free Arctic!”) and the Antarctic sea ice extents nears its maximum – the edge of the Antarctic sea ice extents receives FIVE TIMES more solar radiation than does the Arctic sea ice edge.
Further, during those five lonely months when the Arctic Ocean is receiving more radiation than the edge of the Antarctic sea ice, the measured Arctic sea ice albedo is remarkably low: dropping to as low as 0.42 in mid-July when solar TOA radiation is also at its lowest of only 1310 watts/m^2. (And this very low arctic sea ice albedo is actually, at low solar elevation angles, very close to the actual open ocean albedo of 0.38 to 0.40 for direct sunlight on a clear day at SEA angles under 8 degrees.) So, there really is almost no difference in heat absorbed in the open arctic ocean compared to the “dirty” melting sea ice of today’s arctic.
On the other hand, ALL solar energy reflected back into space due to ANY “excess” antarctic sea ice DOES immediately cool the planet.
re: Steve Oregon says April 9, 2014 at 9:10 am
… Because your claiming WUWT …
MY EYES! MY EYES! I can’t take it! The language is slipping away!!!
(The above cited text does not ‘parse’ correctly either.)
.
Sorry to have ‘choked’ on the above, but, I’m not buying such mistakes are simple ‘typos’ anymore. I’m thinking ppl just don’t know/no/Noe any more the differences between “you are” which (in English) can become the contraction “you’re” versus the completely different possessive pronoun “your” (indicating the other person ‘owns’ something or some trait or some characteristic).
Kudos to Anthony and site (NOT cite) members/mods too.
[The mods read that phrasing also, and – after a good bit of difficulty, were able to interpret it as we assumed the writer intended. Thus, no edits were made nor assumed “typo’s” corrected. Mod]
.
Taking a WAG at Amelia Sharman’s age, I would have to say that her ‘network of 171 blogs’ is simply a figment of her natural valley girl speech mode.
These days, if you aren’t “networking”, you are just not with it. Well you see it’s an extension of the Gaia hypothesis, or Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” mantra.
The idea that one can have independent thoughts, not driven by a crowd mentality, is just anathema to today’s youth.
Snow White says: “@wws – I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?”
God bless the good people of Tiksi. They have a chance to see temps above freezing in the next few days. Perhaps achieving +2 C on Friday before returning to sub zero temps for the next 7 days.
SO…..What is your Cherry Picking Point? An obscure point in the remote north is going to experience a single day of of above zero weather in the month of April. This teeny tiny weensie cherry of a data point is significant to you?
to quote Jim Rome “Have a Take and Don’t Suck.”
“””””…..RACookPE1978 says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:35 am
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:15 am
I see you continue to obsess over the Arctic sea ice area/volume/extents.
Would you be upset if I asked, “Why?” …..”””””
I often wonder, in the midst of all the “why is the sky blue ?” or “why is the night sky black instead of white (from an infinity of stars)?” ; does anybody EVER ask :
Why is there so much ice at the earth’s polar regions ??
They don’t have a whole lot of ice in Honolulu, outside of the bars; so why all that ice in the polar regions.
It is conjectured (without proof) that the earth’s polar regions have so much ice, because there is next to no solar energy arriving there. In particular, the polar regions DO NOT receive solar energy at a rate of 342 or even 240 W/m^2 density, as Dr. Kevin Trenberth claims they do.
Ergo, it matters little what the polar ice albedo contribution is; there isn’t much solar energy there to reflect back into space anyway !!
So nyet on polar ice having much to do with cooling planet earth.
Rhys Jaggar,
“There is still a bit of a ‘cabal’ like nature to the team of folks who actually contribute articles at this site. I’m not criticising that, but a danger will emerge that WUWT becomes the views of a small number of people (such as Christopher, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, Willis Eschenbach and a few others). It’s like any media organisation: sooner or later you need to ask if you need to freshen up through having fresh authors. I’m not suggesting that that is currently necessary, merely pointing out potential for ossification in future.
The other danger is the subversion of the site to ‘national security’ nonsense and very powerful media moguls who want to monitor/track the visitors to this site without obtaining their explicit consent so to do. It’s 21st century reality, I’m afraid and whether WUWT is above all that, who knows. To date, I’ve not bothered finding out……”
This poster provided many sincere compliments(not included), then also made suggestions in a very constructive way(included). They hit several nails on the head.
I have pondered over this a great deal, including attempts at self evaluation of that human.weakness/emotion………… cognitive bias.
Once one knows that a person or entity is not telling the truth or they/it is misleading, and we know the truth, it compels us to spend most of our time on the subject:
1. Showing the truth and
2. Providing evidence that shows they are not telling the truth
Often, #2 gets more and more weight as somebody deceiving, especially if we suspect it’s intentionally to manipulate others is blatant fraud and should get top priority. At that point, we lose some objectivity to “fight fire with fire” and our message includes less and less of truths that the other side may have right, since out objective becomes destroying their credibility and exposing them.
Like RJ above, I am not saying WUWT has an issue related to this that needs immediate attention, just that we are all human and can’t help but succumb to our innate cognitive bias’s, even as scientists.
Read through the list from the link below and honestly evaluate yourself. Everyone here has at least a few bias’s, especially me. It’s human to have bias’s. The key to minimizing their effect on your judgement and behavior in negative ways is being aware of them.
Funny thing is that it’s easy to recognize somebody else’s bias when we disagree with them. Most often, one side has got it more right than the other. It’s the bias by each side that keeps one or both sides from converging(in fact, will often cause them to diverge) even when the truth/answer is becoming increasingly obvious in the real world.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Let’s take the case of Obama’s spending tens of billions of dollars to fight climate change and vilify CO2=pollution, when humans increasing CO2 has been the best thing that they have ever done for the earths’s vegetative health and the creatures that eat those plants. Are we viewing these political actions with bias from the other side, making it impossible to see anything except that his agenda and policies are completely counterproductive and really eff’d up?
Maybe my bias is causing me to overlook some positive elements?……………………..NO, it’s completely eff’d up………. but then, that’s what happens when politics get involved with science!!!
To a degree I am feeling like this research paper on the 171 blogs on climate that use science to re-interpret mainstream climate science does read like a hit list, Anthony you must really be holding the tiger by the tail! When we CAGW skeptics are required to wear identifying tags and our legs manacled in carbon steel bracelets……
Well done, Anthony! I’ve always been impressed with the generally high-level scientific analysis that we respondents engage in. I mean, we have Dr. Lief Svalgaard as regular contributor/teacher! It’s always an honor to have him respond directly to my questions.
Keep up the good work, everyone. The basic science of “carbon dioxide, methane, etc. absorb infrared radiation” is not in doubt, but their cumulative effects upon climate remain to be resolved.
ref:
“The Cook and Doran papers don’t get mentioned at all. This is quite interesting because it’s most unlikely that the reviewers of the paper (who will have been warmist sociologists) asked her to take them out, so it was probably removed because of the negative comments on the sceptic blogs.”
I sent Amelia a copy of this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
and this a while back 😉
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
I also bought Amelia lunch, and spent about 3 hours with Amelia at home being interviewed for her research and ‘probably’ mentioned it again…. ( I signed loads of consent forms, etc)
Amelia has interviewed an awful lot of sceptics in the UK, and I’m sure very very many of them brought up Cook et al 97% consensus paper…(and no doubt Doran and Anderegg)
For those who find the pseudo-scientific style of the paper not easy to understand, here are the main points:
1. WattsUpWithThat is the most influential of all the skeptical blogs;
2. These blogs provide a high level of scientific information;
3. They are effective, or it wouldn’t be worth writing a paper about them;
4. They are winning the debate, or they wouldn’t be worthy of discussion.
5. This is one small step towards the scientific repositioning of academe away from partisan politics on scientific issues and towards a more balanced approach.
6. But don’t hold your breath, though. There is a long way to go and a whole lot to do.
Bottom line: Well done, Anthony and the team! Bob Ward will be furious. But all your supporters and friends are delighted.
_Jim says: April 9, 2014 at 10:36 am
re: Steve Oregon says April 9, 2014 at 9:10 am
… Because your claiming WUWT …
MY EYES! MY EYES! I can’t take it! The language is slipping away!!!
I too find the misuse of you’re & your a pet peeve annoyance.
However, in this case I meant past tense and should have said “your claim that”
or “Because your claiming that WUWT”
Both those uses of “your” are correct, are they not?
And in that read my original use was also correct?
If not, I surrender for prosecution or persecution. 🙂
It must piss the MSM Presstitutes off that their propaganda pales in comparison to real science and truth.
The term “climate change” applies to scientific skeptics — and only to skeptics.
Michael Mann and his relatively small clique of followers do not believe that global temperatures changed prior to the industrial revolution. That is plainly demonstrated in his Hockey Stick chart, which is essentially flat until CO2 began rising.
The reality: there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature only from about 1980 to 1997. Before and after those years, there is no correlation.
Furthermore, the only verified correlation between CO2 and T on any time scale [from years, to hundreds of millennia] shows that ∆CO2 follows ∆T. That can mean only one thing: changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2, not vice-versa.
Thus, Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart has been debunked by the real world. Of course he will not acknowledge that fact, because the truth is not in him. And his clique of followers have their minds made up and closed tight, so there is no reasoning possible with them.
But most folks just want the truth, and WUWT provides that. For that reason, the world is moving against Mann, the IPCC, and the rest of the purveyors of pseudo-science. They don’t like it. But this article shows them and everyone else: that’s the way it is. The IPCC is discredited, and Mann’s heady days of hero worship are in the past. Now, he’s just a chump.
Amelia is not, according to various sources on the web, a scientist. Probably not a valley girl either, as her pictures show an apparent lack of makeup and hair skills. She has, however inadvertently, produced a nearly scientific approach to her work. Anthony made a statement to the effect that WUWT is the world’s most viewed site on climate change. Her research demonstrated that statement to be true. See how it works, warmistas? Scientist A publishes, scientist B verifies or disproves the published data through independent research. Amazing, init?
Thanks for all the hard work, Anthony.
– – – – – – – – –
Barry Woods,
That is very relevant info. Thank you for providing it.
Amelia Sharman seems to have conducted her research on some skeptic subjects / blogs by the professional, ethical and open way; with consent forms. It seems that would mitigate ethical and legal problems after publication. I congratulate her.
Alert to Lewandowsky and Cook: That is how you are supposed to have done your ‘Recursive Fury’ and ‘Moon Hoax’ research on skeptics. N’est ce pas?
John
That diagram by Amelia Sharman, which looks like it was spun by a spider on PCP, has appeared a couple of times in articles at Bishop Hill last year. It was the ONLY diagram/figure in one lengthy piece she wrote. Needs to work a bit harder at presenting data.
I have to assume I am wrong in order to get to where I am going safely. The ocean teaches humility. So here is the deal: Karl Popper vs unscientific; Freud vs navigating a stochastic system “scientifically”. I am a sailor, navigator & captain, I managed to circumnavigate with out hurting any one. When I set a course I use all of the information available and know damn well that the next time I check my position I will not actually be where I was intending to go. This is because of the hundreds of immeasurable influences that act on the boat. I knew at the time I set the course that I was making the best guess but my guess was probably wrong, HOW WRONG? Is my guess a little wrong or have the possibility of being seriously wrong? In an hour or a minute depending on the currents and situation I take another fix. The issue is always by how much am I off? What did I learn by the distance off and how do I apply that new information to another guess? If I know the magnetic heading and speed through the water and where I actually am verses where I thought I was going to be, I can infer quite a bit about the multiple forces acting on the vessel. This total effect on the course is reduced to a single vector which accumulates all of the forces including imperfections in navigational precision. The vector is taken into account and another best guess is applied to the course. It is comforting to know what the components of the vector are but in the final analysis it is the sum of the forces and net direction that interests me.
The antithesis of what a prudent navigator does is to assume that they are right and plow right ahead. Damn the torpedoes so to speak. This situation is more prevalent than one would hope and is worth comparing to the present CAGW ideology. I submit that the “innocents” are at the early stage of being lost when don’t actually realize that they are lost.
The first step in getting into serious trouble navigating is a phenomena called “bending the map”. Navigators have to always question their assumptions but occasionally an individual wants so badly to be where they though they should be that they misidentify features in order to create a rational that over rides all other tools they might employ. The analogy of this situation to Karl Poppers assessment of Freud and Marxism is strong. Most people experience getting lost in the woods. The fantasy continues until some piece of information registers in between their ears that is absolutely irreconcilable. The fantasy dissolves into the flush of comprehension. There is an instant that the individual realizes that they are lost or mistaken. Having been there and done that I assure you that there is a change in blood pressure.
This epiphany might arrive with the telling change in velocity as the draft of the vessel exceeds the depth of the water. One hopes realization occurs before the vessel is endangered. What makes this analogy more interesting is that it appears to me that the confused CAGW positions are buttressed by bad interpretations of the data or just plain fictions designed to confuse. and thus have the effect of delaying the moment of realization that a fantasy has been created. Darwin made some complaint about the danger of false facts. I think that we should also acknowledge the role of imprudent confidence. Bump! Bump! Wakey wakey! Just thinkin’
@Billy Liar says: April 9, 2014 at 9:15 am
I was merely echoing Sun Spot’s phraseology @ 7:01 am – “I think you are totally un-aware that this web site….”. Clear now?
And here’s another example of how important WUWT is. Just saw this bit o’ propaganda at MSN (link below). I particularly like the part about Glacier National Park’s “over 150 glaciers of which only about 25 remain” and the narrator’s careful neglect of the fact that the “rapid temperature changes” took place during a period when the entire United States interior was a wilderness. My second favorite is the Congo Basin section. Yes, if you decide that it’s one of the places you want to see “before it’s gone,” do be careful about the gorilla warfare which could, you know, spoil any holiday. Hipsters beware.
What rubbish.
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=4&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/30ed8e71-2421-41a4-beed-e129ac4c3380
Well-deserved recognition, Anthony. Pretty good for an ex box painter. And a painter who could only handle one colour, at that. Well done.
Props to your mods, too.
DirkH says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:59 am
“Run for the hills! Even worse:
The song of the whistling cave frog has changed in the past decades, becoming more high-pitched due to Climate Change, US biologists say.
German article
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-froesche-quaken-in-hoeheren-toenen-a-963336.html
We’re doomed.”
_____________________
It’s the chickification of the frogs.
Kudos Anthony! Another blog that’s often worth a look but isn’t mentioned in the study is No Tricks Zone, run by Pierre Gosselin in Germany.
@RACookPE1978 says: April 9, 2014 at 10:35 am
“Would you be upset if I asked, ‘Why?'”
Not in the least. “Why?” is generally a very good question to ask. Whilst I’d quibble with your use of the term “obsess”, in this instance it seems to me that a web site proudly claiming to “focus on the scientific element of the climate debate” should at the very least mention volume somewhere on its summary sea ice page that allegedly includes “every conceivable sea ice source”
In that context it also seems to me that the anomalously high temperatures in the Arctic all winter long are worthy of mention somewhere or other as well.
Only to a cherry picker.
This is the only blog I know of that offers to sell you a thermometer and urges you to “measure it yourself”. Just an observation…
I found WUWT while doing a search on CAGW several years ago on something in the news about a young lady doing a high school paper and blog (Kristen Byrnes with “Ponder the Maunder”). I think WUWT covered it in a post and I’ve been enjoying WUWT ever since. At some point I was soon on my way to an assignment down under, I began enjoying the Jo Nova and Jennifer Marohasy blogs that I found from the WUWT blog roll. I also found a favorite blog via WUWT blog roll relevant to my current assignment in the land of PM Harper (that being SDA or Small Dead Animals). Blog roll is helpful and may play a part in “linking” sites, although it would also link to AGW and Lukewarmer sites as well.
Snow White apparently hasn’t checked the recent Arctic ice charts. His “anomalously high temperatures” are contradicted by current Arctic ice cover, which as we see is above it’s long term average [the red line].
And of course global ice is well above its 30-year average [the red graph]. [Remember ‘global’? That is what the entire debate is about — it’s not about regional fluctuations that are always happening].
Finally, Snow White forgets that the Arctic contains only one-tenth the ice that the Antarctic has. He believes that the Arctic tail wags the Antarctic dog.
But when the only thing the alarmist clique has is the current, natural Arctic ice fluctuation, then that’s what they must use. They have been wrong about everything else, and it is only a matter of time until they are wrong about the Arctic, too.
The reason is because the alarmist clique started out with a basic misunderstanding: they believed that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature changes, when in fact, temperature changes are the cause of changes in CO2. They began with a wrong premise, so naturally they reached an incorrect conclusion.
That part is OK, lots of folks make mistakes. However, the alarmist clique absolutely refuses to admit that they could be wrong. But since they have been proven wrong over and over again about everything they predicted, they end up looking like buffoons.
@dbstealey – Actually, Snow white is just trying to hawk their own website. She has been thread bombing several blogs with her website, but no one cares to follow her links. If she had anything, she would post the source, not the propaganda.
@Monckton of Brenchley says: April 9, 2014 at 11:26 am
I’m afraid I’m going to have to quibble with your number 2. How can any blog “provide a high level of scientific information” about sea ice without mentioning volume on the overview page? Anyone who’s studied a modicum of physics must surely conclude that when discussing the “amount” of a solid the “area” needs to be multiplied by the “thickness”?
REPLY: You don’t even HAVE a sea ice reference/resource page, all you have is whining, gloom and doom video based on your opinions: http://greatwhitecon.info/resources/ so when you have one, you can point out with a modicum of credibility just how bad ours is, Mr. Hunt.
As for the volume plots that are available, we don’t have a lot of faith in them, that said, we’ll add them with a caveat about those concerns. I’ll expect you to point out to other websites that use these plots as an exclusive basis for alarm that they are missing extent, area, and other metrics that are available.
If you wish to comment here further, put your name to your words, as you do for your videos. I don’t have time for cowards that hide behind fake names while criticizing.
– Anthony
or Cross dressers? Snow white is not exactly a top 10 boys name. 😉
Well merited. Consequently: The more human caused climate catastrophe prophecies fail, the more desperate climate sermons. The more desperate climate sermons, the more WUWT attracts.
– – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Is it pseudo-science or is it non-science or is it even integrated reasoning?
My thought is that it is non-science by having insufficiently stated premises and there is no case shown by her that her concepts are integrated sufficiently for one to do a clear logical analysis of her work.
The reason I would not call it pseudo-science is that the essence of pseudo-science is it tries to have scientific looking credibility by mimicking real science. Her paper does not appear to actually mimic science****
****science – as in the concept of science as Richard Feynman conceived it
John
John F. Hultquist says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:19 am
Chris B wrote: “Turns Greens Red with envy.”
Actually, the Greens were Red first and it isn’t “envy” — there are facts in the reference pages they don’t want anyone to know.
Perhaps, the facts turn them black with fury.
_________________________________
Greens and Reds are vulnerable to manipulation via the “politics of envy”. Emotion trumps reason amongst the intellectually lazy..
The fact that this comes out of the arch-warmist Grantham Institute is absolutely amazing. However did this paper get the imprimatur from their powers-that-be?
Anthony – The reason I’ve been using an obviously fake name is that last summer a certain Mr. S. Goddard, I believe a one time resident in these hallowed halls, seemed to take great pleasure in informing me that I was “now spam” as far as WordPress.com/Akismet was concerned:
http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/
Let’s see how using my real name works now shall we?
REPLY: It works fine, and yes sometimes your comments are pretty close to spam. – Anthony
Anthony – Here’s a copy of a comment I attempted to make using my real name. Nothing has appeared yet, so what do you suggest?
The reason I’ve been using an obviously fake name is that last summer a certain Mr. S. Goddard, I believe a one time resident in these hallowed halls, seemed to take great pleasure in informing me that I was “now spam” as far as WordPress.com/Akismet was concerned:
http://econnexus.org/how-to-upset-a-global-warming-sceptic/
Let’s see how using my real name works now shall we?
Would be nice if the paper did a similar study of alarmist blogs to do a comparison.
“New paper finds climate skeptical blogosphere is important source of expertise, reinterpretation, & scientific knowledge production”
=========
Maybe, but they are keeping close track of the products.
I am sorry, but you can’t judge a paper on its abstract.
It’s funny such a study even exists. I was told by the Leftoblogosphere that the center was Big Oil with oodles of money spewing to skeptics. One more failed prediction down the drain.
Anthony – Well it doesn’t work fine from where I’m sat. If I post a comment it disappears completely, and I don’t see the usual “Your comment is awaiting moderation” message.
Thanks for posting a link to my summer sea ice videos by the way. If you’ve had a chance to watch one what do you make of it? In particular, would you say that the Mail on Sunday’s comment on September 8th 2013 that “an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores” was accurate, or not?
[Depending on the content of each posting, it may, or may not, go into the moderator’s queue for review before publication. Be patient, there are 1,235,000 other comments already accepted. 8<) Mod]
– – – – – – – –
Daniel G.,
Correct. That is why I accessed and looked at the paper at the link provided in the lead post. This is the link:
” An open access version of the paper is available here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf ”
John
Poke ’em with a sharp stick in the eye, that always makes ‘fast friends’.
I didn’t see much ‘there’ there BTW; apparently YMMV. What are (or were) the chances your reputation preceded you?
.
And good on you, Anthony. The very, very worst that will be said about WUWT 50 years from now is you and WUWT curbed the excesses of group-think echo-chamber consensus types. All upside from there.
Daniel G. says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:28 pm
– – – – – – – – – –
Daniel G.,
My point is deficiency.
She doesn’t state her premises. You have to endeavor to ‘detect’ them, which is a vote in favor of non-science. A waste of time.
Where is the clearly statement concise concepts that she tries to integrate into knew knowledge and where is the schematic of the integration? Shouldn’t science do that?
John
Hmmm … my screen shows a comment ‘parked’ (in moderation) on S now W hite’s blog since April 10, 2014 at 12:37 am … coming up on 45 min now … wonder what the hold up is?
(DoIreallyneedasarctag?)
Struth. I come here to be educated and to educate. Unfortunately not enough of us know what we don’t know.
Kudos!
The 171 blogs is at least 172, because my rarely updated “Glowbull warming” blog has “The world’s least viewed site on global warming and climate change” as its secondary title.
It has one follower, who doesn’t contribute.
http://glowbullwarming.wordpress.com/
Jim Hunt, AKA: Snow White:
Your blog is just another censoring alarmist blog that cannot stand to post skeptic comment.
When someone is terrified of opposing views, they are being a propagandist. That’s you.
Alarmist blogs are almost always the same, in that they cannot stand free and fair debate. You would do well in Cuba, or the old Soviet Union. But in America? Not so much.
WUWT allows you to comment, but you do not allow comments that debunk your alarmist nonsense. Your hypocrisy is amazing, in that you cannot see it in yourself. But we can.
The reason you fear debate is because you always lose the debate. NONE of your stupid alarmist predictions have happened. You are perfect examples of Chicken Little, running around in circles and clucking, trying to convince the world that man-made global warming exists, without a shred of evidence.
When someone runs and hides out from debate, they have lost the debate.
That’s you.
@mod says: April 9, 2014 at 4:36 pm
My posting of that comment seemed to work as expected. Thanks.
@_Jim says: April 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm
If you’ve listened to one of my videos you’ll have realised by now that I hail from Soggy South West England. The sun is up here now, so normal service has been resumed.
@Anthony says: April 9, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Here’s our shiny new (if somewhat hastily created) Arctic sea ice graphs page:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/
What do you make of it?
REPLY: Given that you only show thickness (volume), and ignore everything else, I’d say you are pretty thick on one variable. But, we already knew that. – Anthony
“Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:37 am
@Sun Spot says: April 9, 2014 at 7:01 am
Whereas I think you are totally un-aware that this web site cherry picks “the facts” it chooses to present to its readers:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/”
I’m sorry Snow White (or Mr Hunt, if you prefer), but I think that a little courtesy would be in order. I’ve read every word on the link you’ve provided, and the central theme of your original post was that “there was no sight or mention of what seems to me the most relevant one of all. The long term trend [of Arctic sea ice]”. You described more than one attempt to bring this deficit to the attention of WUWT.
Given that Michael D posted on your page at April 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm, politely pointing out that the WUWT sea ice page has just such data presented, it would seem a basic courtesy to either acknowledge his assistance (in this blog or yours) and either thank him, or explain why graph does not answer your criticisms.
I acknowledge that your arguments seem to have moved on to volume now, but they have been addressed by others, and better than I could have done.
As an aside, I suppose I could run a blog with limited data about Antarctic sea ice coverage and volumes. I’m sure that I would be criticised, with comments explaining that I was looking at the mural through a microscope, and that the Antarctic buildup cannot be considered in isolation. I think that such criticism would be valid – your thoughts?
Given that it is from the Grantham Institute, I wonder how Bob Ward is taking the news?
No problem this just ‘proves’ that it is evil fossil fuel funded denier blogs which are stopping everyone signing upto ‘the cause ‘ and adopting approaches that will make his pay master even richer.
Snow White says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:54 am
“…I’d hazard a guess that you are currently unaware that the temperature in Tiksi is currently around 0 °C?”
…And did you know that 9 blue whales seem to have been killed by thicker than normal ice off Newfoundland?
http://globalnews.ca/news/1261749/heavy-ice-may-have-crushed-9-blue-whales-to-death-off-newfoundland/
Relevant quote: “We’ve had ferries unable to get across to Newfoundland. We’ve had ice breakers having a real tough time moving through this stuff. It’s under a lot of pressure and it’s thicker than it has been in the last few years,”
Tragic deaths, but it it’s only marginally less relevant than your comment, no?
@GreggB says: April 10, 2014 at 3:33 am
As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg
I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link to “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” showing anything other than a trend in the direction of the bottom right hand corner.” Nobody did. Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either, presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.
Q.E.D. ?
REPLY: People generally know (from your writings and video) that you have a fixed mindset about sea-ice, so likely don’t bother trying to convince you of anything that your mind is closed to. That said, one of the issues (and there’s really now way of getting around this though I’m sure you’ll try) is that there are other satellite observational data prior to the favorite start date of 1979 in most sea-ice datasets. When you look at those, they show that there was a period int he record with significant gain. If the long-term trend was started at the beginning of this data, you’d get a far different trend.
Yes these should be on the sea-ice page, thanks for the suggestion. – Anthony
If the climate change crowd gets their way in the U.S. and takes the economy down there won’t be much money left to support climate “research” and for this we will all be thankful.
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am
My pleasure Anthony, but with all due respect you are evidently not much of a mind reader. I don’t suppose you can provide a link to the data used to generate the graph you reproduce above can you? Since you have apparently been looking at my videos perhaps I might also take this opportunity to repeat another question I previously asked:
“Would you say that the Mail on Sunday’s comment on September 8th 2013 that “an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores” was accurate, or not?”
REPLY: Dunno, haven’t read it, don’t care. I’ve got other other work to do today than worry about your looking up your articles (no link provided) and commenting on your missives – A
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
Can I take it that you didn’t bother clicking any of the links?
REPLY: No, I clicked, I saw, I yawned. – Anthony
Jeff L says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:43 am
I like the conclusion that a focus on science keeps WUWT at the center !
Not mention the fact that the view it presents of the inquiring public as vastly more capable of critical thought than one might gather from politically oriented blogs.
Jim Hunt says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:45 am
… I hail from Soggy South West England …
that explains everything! 🙂
@Anthony says: April 10, 2014 at 11:13 am
I gave you the quote. Here’s a link to commentary about what was going on at the time:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/tough-times-for-sea-ice-melt-enthusiasts/
No need to look anything else up! Accurate, or not?
I wonder if, during the Church-Galileo or Wegener-Simpson scientific battles, anyone bothered to note on which side of the then-“blogosphere” their supporters lie.
WUWT is the center of the entire web, not just the skeptic blogs 😀
Well, I’d like to think I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss in such a condescending manner, issues raised by someone who pointed out such an obvious gaping hole in the sea ice data you present, and attempt to draw conclusions from.
Can any reasonable conclusions be drawn about the amount of coke in my coke bottle, by measuring the surface area of the top of the liquid?
@jim Hunt says:
April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg
I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link to “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” showing anything other than a trend in the direction of the bottom right hand corner.” Nobody did. Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either, presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.
Q.E.D. ?”
Mr Hunt, I read this post, and would like to point out several apparent errors:
1. “I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link”. Once again Mr Hunt, I’ve read everything on on the link provided (as it currently stands), and while I see criticism regarding the lack of a graph, I cannot see a single request for a link on your part.
2. “Nobody did.” This is technically correct, nobody did provide you with a link, but is very misleading, whether by mistake or design, when you consider point 3 (below).
3. “Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either…” As I’ve pointed out to you in a previous post, Michael D did just that in comments posted to your article at 4:01 pm on April 9, 2014 – well before you made this post.
4. “…presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.” The page to which Micheal D referred has a graph with a text description “Sea Ice Extent – Change in Maximum, Mean and Minimum”, showing data for Actic ice from 1979. It seems to me to be exactly the graph the absence of which you were bemoaning.
5. Since you maintain that you are requesting a link, it is apparent that you concerns regarding the purported lack of a graph are no longer confined to the original WUWT article (to which you link in your blog article), but extend to the WUWT website as a whole. It is disappointing to me that you maintain this criticism despite apparently having done little or no research before publishing the criticism (a Google search of “watts up with that” + “sea ice” returns the relevant page as the first match). Did you ask Anthony Watts before publishing, to give him an opportunity to correct your misunderstanding?
6. You justify your maintenance of this position on the basis that you were not spoon-fed the link to disprove it, despite there being no record of your request at your link; and you continue to espouse this view in spite of the fact that you have had the directions to the requested graph pointed out to on at least two occasions before you made this post.
At my count, that’s six errors in a five-line post. I’ve not included the “Q.E.D.” at the end as another line, but of course that would increase the error count to seven.
If I’m mistaken in any of this, please let me know. And I think that you still owe Micheal D either thanks or an explanation.
Apologies for the typos in my post of 2:00am – typing really isn’t my strong suit. hopefully the content and meaning is still discernible.
@GreggB says: April 11, 2014 at 2:00 am
All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/
The last comment in that conversation was from one @Snow White on March 28, 2014 at 7:59 am. Michael D (please note the correct spelling) is conspicuous only by his absence from that conversation. Please reconsider your numbered points in that light.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:40 am:
I’ve read your post, and here is my considered response:
You stated in your post of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am:
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg“.
I took you at your word, and referred to the link you yourself provided in crafting my response. I’ve re-read my post, with reference to the ‘historical record’ to which you refer, and my comments stand.
Then, in your post of 6:40 this morning, you’ve stated:
“All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/”
This is a completely different “historical record”, on a completely different website. In neither post do you acknowledge the other source. You also fail to acknowledge that you’ve changed the ‘historical record’ to which you refer when you request that I reconsider my post and imply that I’m mistaken in my views.
Your changing of history is either an error, or deliberate. If deliberate, I can’t think of anything other than deception as the motive.
If it is an error, then you can easily set things right by apologising for the error and allowing others to waste their time responding to positions you now imply you no longer hold.
As you can see from my post of 5:19am, I apologised for the typographical errors in my post (of which misspelling Michael D’s name was only one of many – sorry Michael). This was before your post pointing out my misspelling. Hopefully you’ll be mature enough to manage an apology too, if your conscience dictates that it’s warranted.
If you remain silent on the issue, then I will leave it to the readers to judge your motivations. Further, it is all but impossible to have a rational debate with someone who not only changes what they claim to have said, but refuses to acknowledge that they have changed.
Dear Gregg,
Please try this simple experiment for yourself.
1. Follow your first link.
2. Scroll to the top of the page.
3. Follow my first link
4. Do you see a “historical record” of any sort?
5. Does it bear any resemblance to your second link?
6. Can you change it in any way?
7. Can I change it in any way?
8. Can Anthony change it in any way?
I await your response to my questions 4-8 with interest. A simple yes or no in each case will suffice
Thanks in anticipation,
Jim.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:40 am:
I’ve read your post, and this is my considered response:
you stated in your post of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am:
“As you can see from the historical record:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/03/watts-up-with-the-maximum-trend/#Gregg”
I read the ‘historical record’ at the link you yourself provided, and crafted my response accordingly. I have re-read my post, and my comments of April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am stand.
Then, at 6:40 am today, you state:
“All my comments you mention in the points you raise, and the “historical record” I mentioned, refer to the WUWT thread to be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/25/arctic-sea-ice-appears-to-have-reached-maximum-and-other-ice-observations/”
This ‘historical record’ is a completely different page to the one in your earlier post, and in fact a completely different website. You do not refer to the other record in either post. You also fail to acknowledge that you have changed what you now consider to be the ‘historical record’ when you asked me to reconsider my points and implied that my views were therefore mistaken.
this is either an error, or deliberate. if it is an error, you can easily set things right by apologising for the error and allowing others to waste their time responding to positions you imply you no longer hold. You will note that I have apologised at 5:19am for my typographical errors (of which misspelling Michael D’s name was only one – sorry Michael). Hopefully you are mature enough to do the same if your conscience dictates that it is warranted.
If it is deliberate, then I can think of no motivation other than deception. Further, it is all but impossible to have a rational debate with someone who not only changes what they claim to have said, but refused to acknowledge that they have changed it.
In any event, you were pointed in the direction of the graph you sought, and I STILL think you owe Michael thanks or an explanation, regardless of where you currently state that ‘history’ can be found.
(Moderator – if this substantially duplicates a post from a few minutes ago, please delete it – when I hit ‘post comment’, it simply disappeared without any “your post is awaiting moderation” message).
Even if I were to take you at (the most recent version of) your word, and reconsidered my points in light of BOTH pages, then here is my reviewed list:
1. “I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link”. On the new “historical record”, I can find one occasion (not more than one) request for a link where you’ve said “Unfortunately CryoSat doesn’t have a whole lot to say about the volume of sea ice in the Arctic just at the moment, unless you can provide a link to some data that I’m unaware of?” This is hardly the specific request for “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” (your quotation marks) referred to in your post of April 10 at 8:33am. However, if this is the request to which you refer, you have my apologies – and further apologies if there are other requests for links I’ve missed. Perhaps there’s a pseudonym of yours that I don’t know?
2. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
3. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
4. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
5. My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
6. “You justify your maintenance of this position on the basis that you were not spoon-fed the link to disprove it, despite there being no record of your request at your link…”. This is correct in relation to the old “history”, and substantially correct in relation to the new “history” (acknowledging that you made a request for a link to Arctic sea ice volumes in terms considerably more vague than you later asserted).
“…you continue to espouse this view in spite of the fact that you have had the directions to the requested graph pointed out to on at least two occasions before you made this post.” My comments regarding your apparent error still stand, even with reference to both versions of the “historical record”.
So, not significantly different, regardless of whether we use your “historical record” A, “historical record”B, or both.
I STILL think courtesy would demand that you offer Michael D thanks or an explanation.
@jim Hunt says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:37 am
I’m sorry, my attempts to follow your steps fell at the first hurdle: “1. Follow your first link.” I haven’t posted any links; I’ve simply been going to the links you yourself provided, and commenting accordingly.
As a result, I’m unsure what you’re getting at with questions 4-8. To the extent that both the links you’ve provided at various times are blog pages with comments, I suppose they are “historical records”. It’s your description, after all.
I think that what you’re asking for has been covered in my post of 10:59am. I’ll let that stand.
I am surprised Roy Spencer is ranked so low considering he is a ….climate scientist.
Follow-up: Alinsky tactics require identification of the enemy before attacking. This looks to simply be the analysis.
Oh! Epiphany! I think we may be able to come to an agreement, Mr hunt.
Are you saying that having gone to the first link you provided, I should then have taken the initiative to find and follow the embedded link to the WUWT page on the Arctic sea ice article?
@GreggB – Oh frabjous day!
I endeavour to fill all my blog posts with useful links to original data and other sources, and not merely screenshots and opinions. Hence yes, I had rather anticipated that in all the circumstances you would have explored at least the first link in the article in question at one point or another.
Excellent! Agreement reached! It’s taken a while, but we’re finally making progress.
now that we’ve established that you hold to the principle that people should have the basic initiative to should look for links and follow them, and given the fact that the sea ice page has a link on the WUWT home page (and can be found in seconds in Google, as I said earlier), can you PLEASE follow it, and stop complaining that the graph doesn’t exist and nobody gave you a link?
[snip – off topic this thread isn’t about sea ice -mod]
@mod says: April 12, 2014 at 1:17 am
However amongst other things it is about what Christopher Monckton described as “provid[ing] a high level of scientific information”!
If I’m denied a voice here, how and where do you suggest I respond to GreggB’s wholly unjustified accusations? Are you going to “snip” those too?
171 blog sites identified. That’s enough to form a meaningful collective, if they get it together and do something. The opposition is a well-armed global leviathan, currently being sniped at by midgets with pea-guns and agreeing with themselves on social media.
@mod says: April 12, 2014 at 1:17 am
I believe that Jim Hunt has behaved in a way consistent with intellectual laziness, has apparently shifted positions in mid argument, and has held me to a standard of research which, had he applied this same standard to himself, would have rendered the entire exchange unnecessary.
However, on this one point, I agree with him – you should snip my comments too. The entire exchange was born out of his complaints about WUWT’s display of sea ice data.
[Reply: we snip with reluctance. WUWT is one of the most open site anywhere. Unless commenters get way out of line, we let them have their say. ~ mod.]
@GreggB – So you thought you’d just throw in a few more unwarranted accusations whilst having been prevented by @mod from seeing my response to your earlier ones?
@mod – And that’s perfectly OK with you?
[Reply: some moderators go beyond what is necessary. ~ Snr. mod.]
I was agreeing with you, and (gently) chiding the moderator for what I saw as partial application of standards – If your comment got canned, then mine should have been as well. It might surprise you, but I do try to live a principled life. Everything else was simply a summation of points I’d made earlier.
That said, this is getting rather tiresome. I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you post the whole, unedited discourse on your blog, without any commentary whatsoever. It’ll take a little courage, but I’d be happy to let your gentle readers decide for themselves. I’ll leave it in your hands.
@GreggB – It’ll take no courage whatsoever. A quick copy and paste operation requires remarkably little effort, as I’m sure Anthony can confirm. However I continue to maintain that my comments are extremely relevant to a discussion concerning a “central blog predominantly focus[sed] on the scientific element of the climate debate”.
The original graphic is from the IPCC – First Assessment Report.
IPCC PDF
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Quick peek
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/ignoring-inconvenient-arctic-data/
Thanks very much for your kind assistance Jimbo.
The IPCC version doesn’t seem to include any of the red annotation in Anthony’s version. Unfortunately Messrs Watts and Goddard, and even the IPCC themselves, all fail to provide a link or reference to the underlying data. Under figure 7.20 the IPCC merely state “Data from NOAA (USA)”.
I don’t suppose you have any more comprehensive links up your sleeve do you?