Revkin of NYT takes back his statement that skeptics are more knowledgeable about the science
From “the Hockey Schtick”
Tom Nelson featured a surprising quote from warmist/alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times in the article Climate, Communication and the ‘Nerd Loop’:
The last link is particularly important, given that it shows, among other things, that those dismissing human-driven global warming tend to have a more accurate picture of the basic science than those alarmed by it.
The quote has since disappeared, now replaced by:
10:46 p.m. | Updated I’ve removed a line I’d tacked on here that gave too simplistic a summary of the Six Amercias [sic] study.
The Yale University Six Americas study in fact states in the Executive Summary on page 4:
…this study also found that for some knowledge questions the Doubtful and Dissmissive [skeptics of man-made global warming] have as good an understanding, and in some cases better, than the Alarmed and Concerned.
see the report for specific examples.
================================================================
I’ll add that Mr. Revkin has always been fair with me, but surely he must have known that this would be noticed, particularly when it paints skeptics in a positive light?
There’s an old Chinese proverb:
Do not remove a fly from your friend’s forehead with a hatchet.
I think it applies equally well to removing things from websites. Nobody really noticed the “fly” i.e. the sentence on Dot Earth until we were presented with a gaping hole of where it used to be. – Anthony
Kevin MacDonald, let’s back out of the ad hominems and insults and find our common ground.
First, do you accept the occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice (LIA) age as more than regional events limited to Europe?
Second, I agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of the LIA.
Third, do you view this warming trend as unprecedented in Earth’s history?
Fourth, do you agree that the Vostok ice core data demonstrates that the CO2 rise followed the temperature rise by approximately 800 years?
Finally, given that the temperature rise since the LIA began before the atmospheric CO2 had been increased dramatically by human activities, how do you account for that given what you feel is known about all possible warming mechanisms?
Kevin MacDonald says:
April 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Do keep up, that particular cherry has already been popped. A single proxy, from a single geographic location tells as almost nothing about the global trend.
The ice cores from multiple locations in both Greenland and Antarctica show similar trends, and along with speleothem, sediments, and other paleoclimate indicators from around the globe prove that the current global warming is neither unprecedented nor exceptional.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
The changing of Revkin’s quotes reminds me of the old Soviet Russia proverb: “The only thing more unpredictable than the future, is the past.”
JamesS says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:03 am
First, do you accept the occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice (LIA) age as more than regional events limited to Europe?
Yes, but on current evidence the regional shifts appear to be asynchronous and I would not agree that either could be described as a global change on the scale we are seeing today.
JamesS says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:03 am
Second, I agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of the LIA.
Yes, but my concern is that warming, as I have already shown, has accelerated in the last 50 years.
JamesS says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:03 am
Third, do you view this warming trend as unprecedented in Earth’s history?
No, but I think it unlikely that there has been such a dramatic shift in human history.
JamesS says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:03 am
Fourth, do you agree that the Vostok ice core data demonstrates that the CO2 rise followed the temperature rise by approximately 800 years?
JamesS says:
April 20, 2011 at 7:03 am
Finally, given that the temperature rise since the LIA began before the atmospheric CO2 had been increased dramatically by human activities, how do you account for that given what you feel is known about all possible warming mechanisms?
Given the asychronous nature of the LIA I think a combination of solar activity and internal variations is most likely.
Hockey Schtick says:
April 20, 2011 at 8:30 am
The ice cores from multiple locations in both Greenland and Antarctica show similar trends, and along with speleothem, sediments, and other paleoclimate indicators from around the globe prove that the current global warming is neither unprecedented nor exceptional.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
I’ll grant you this is a slightly more sophisticated cherry pick, but you have still failed to direct me to a multi proxy dataset that shows that the current warming is not exceptional.
Kevin MacDonald says:
“…you have still failed to direct me to a multi proxy dataset that shows that the current warming is not exceptional.”
The current [very mild] warming is not exceptional. Here is a multi-proxy data set of 18 [non-tree ring] proxies showing that fact.
Those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of the repeatedly debunked CAGW fantasy.
Smokey says:
April 21, 2011 at 6:50 am
Kevin MacDonald says:
“…you have still failed to direct me to a multi proxy dataset that shows that the current warming is not exceptional.”
The current [very mild] warming is not exceptional. Here is a multi-proxy data set of 18 [non-tree ring] proxies showing that fact.
Those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of the repeatedly debunked CAGW fantasy.
Uh, Lohle had to correct paper in 2008 due to data handling errors, so referring to it as “fact” is a little strong. Regardless, even in the erroneous graph you linked to the warming of the last century is the most pronounced.
Kevin MacDonald presumes to criticize an honest scientist for making a mistake, as if he himself is somehow faultless. But of course, we know that is not the case.
Prof Loehle voluntarily fixed an inadvertent error. Isn’t that what the scientific method is all about? Throwing out everything that is shown to be wrong, and going with whatever is left standing? In fact, it turns out that 80% – 90% of all peer reviewed papers are eventually found to be in error one way or another. For exammple, Michael Mann’s MBH98 is a paper that was officially found to be completely in error by Nature, the journal in which it was originally published.
Mann’s paper was found to be so flagrantly wrong that Nature was forced to issue a rare public Corrigendum – much more serious than a simple Addendum, which only indicates an unintentional mistake.
Nature’s Corrigendum was published because Mann’s paper was, to put it charitably, deviously wrong. Thus, Mann’s debunked Hockey Stick in MBH98 can no longer be used by the UN/IPCC – much to that corrupt organization’s dismay. Mann’s Hokey Stick had a visual impact that all subsequent hockey stick charts lack. The IPCC absolutely loved Mann’s bogus chart. They would never have stopped using it, unless they were forced to. Which they were, by the Nature Corrigendum.
That shows the reason that the alarmist contingent always refuses to abide by the scientific method. If they ever ‘opened the books’ on their data and methods, all of their work would be debunked, just like their Hokey Stick was debunked. That’s a fact, Jack. CAGW is based entirely on smoke and mirrors.
If the demonization of “carbon” was based on verifiable facts, then there would be no credible reason to avoid transparency, as the Mann-led climate clique routinely does. So they need to open their books, and show all the raw data, and their manipulations of it, and answer all skeptical questions regarding their methodologies, code and metadata – and let the chips fall where they may. That is how the scientific method works. Anything less is climate charlatanism.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 2:41 am
Kevin MacDonald presumes to criticize an honest scientist for making a mistake, as if he himself is somehow faultless. But of course, we know that is not the case.
This is an outright lie Smokey, you must be getting more desperate. I did not criticize Loehle, I criticized you for using a graphic from a flawed study.
Kevin MacDonald,
You keep calling me a liar, when all I did was direct you to a multi-proxy data set composed of eighteen different proxies from peer reviewed studies.
That data set shows clearly that the current mild, natural warming cycle is not unusual, unprecedented, or out of the ordinary.
I understand that your ego is invested in the repeatedly falsified belief in catastrophic AGW, so when facts are presented your response is to label me “desperate.” As if.
Instead of trying to claim that I am ‘desperate’ [which I am clearly not, I am enjoying destroying your evidence-free arguments], try to present us with falsifications of those 18 separate proxies – if you can.
Take your time, I’ll wait here. While you’re scratching your head, take a look at this chart, and try to figure out how to convince us it’s time to panic. Run along to skeptical pseudo-science or realclimate if you need some new talking points.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 8:14 am
Kevin MacDonald,
You keep calling me a liar, when all I did was direct you to a multi-proxy data set composed of eighteen different proxies from peer reviewed studies.
I don’t keep calling you a liar, I called you a liar once and only then because you lied: I didn’t, as you fallaciously claimed, criticise Loehle, I pointed out that the graphic you referred to as “fact” had since been altered because of data handling errors.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 8:14 am
That data set shows clearly that the current mild, natural warming cycle is not unusual, unprecedented, or out of the ordinary.
That data set stops in 1935, it doesn’t show the current warming at all, here it is with the rest of the 20th added on. You’ll note that the warming from this latter period is not repeated anywhere else in Loehle’s reconstruction making it unusual, unprecedented and out of the ordinary.
Further, here is how Loehle’s reconstruction compares with some other recent reconstructions and here is how the warmest decades in those reconstructions compare to the last decade.
That Skeptical Pseudo-science chart is totally bogus. It attempts to eliminate the MWP and LIA just like the debunked Mann Hokey Stick chart did. Don’t insult our superior inteligence with that kind of fantasy invention. And Ljungqvist’s chart goes right up into the 2000’s, although it’s hard to see at this scale.
And current temperatures are still far below the natural warming cycles during the Holocene.
The alarmist crowd got it exactly backward. The major concern is global cooling. And that is just what has been happening for the past decade, as harmless, beneficial CO2 continues rising, while the planet cools, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
It’s hard for the alarmist contingent to accept the planet’s verdict, but the fact is that CO2 causes negligible warming – and any warming is a good thing. But that fact won’t stop Algore’s red faced, spittle-flecked arm wavers from panicking; they suffer from the Black Cat Fallacy: they’re certain that there is a black cat in their dark room at midnight. But when the lights are turned on… there is no cat. And there never was.
They’re just as certain that “carbon” will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. It won’t. The planet is showing us clearly that CO2 is not a problem. And the planet doesn’t lie.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
That Skeptical Pseudo-science chart is totally bogus. It attempts to eliminate the MWP and LIA just like the debunked Mann Hokey Stick chart did. Don’t insult our superior inteligence with that kind of fantasy invention. And Ljungqvist’s chart goes right up into the 2000′s, although it’s hard to see at this scale.
The “Skeptical Pseudo-science chart” includes Ljungqyist’s chart which clearly shows that the current warming is unprecedented in the modern era.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
And current temperatures are still far below the natural warming cycles during the Holocene.
Back to the GISP2 cherry pick, and you claimed you weren’t desperate.
Smokey says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm
The alarmist crowd got it exactly backward. The major concern is global cooling. And that is just what has been happening for the past decade, as harmless, beneficial CO2 continues rising, while the planet cools, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
The planet has been warming for the last decade.
Kevin MacDonald,
Please stop posting those bogus Skeptical Pseudo-Science hokey stick charts. They are exactly the same kind of debunked charts that Michael Mann’s hokey stick chart fabricated, and which Nature was subsequently forced to retract in its Corrigendum. They are a deliberately false misrepresentation of reality that your cartoonist’s pseudo-science blog spoon feeds to the gullible.
Basing your argument on a debunked hokey stick chart fails. The chart you posted is faked. It is completely fabricated, and does not reflect reality. And the aptly named “WFT” site is every cherrypicker’s dream. Forget the fact that the globe is cooling, it’s much more fun to panic over natural climate cycles.
Finally, there is zero credible evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused, or is causing, any global damage. That is an alarmist fantasy. But there is plenty of solid evidence that increased CO2 results in increased agricultural production. Since the alarmist crowd is only happy when poor folks are starving, they don’t like the proven benefits of more free airborne fertilizer.
The conclusion, based entirely upon verifiable facts, is inescapable: CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. The minuscule warming effect provided by that minor trace gas is all good. Despite the fervent prayers of the anti-human alarmist contingent, there is no sign of catastrophic AGW [and no measurable AGW for that matter], and no sign of runaway global warming. The current very *mild* warming cycle over the past century and a half is entirely consistent with, and indistinguishable from numerous past warming cycles. That is a fact, and it’s a travesty, isn’t it?☺
Smokey says:
April 23, 2011 at 5:06 am
Kevin MacDonald,
Please stop posting those bogus Skeptical Pseudo-Science hokey stick charts. They are exactly the same kind of debunked charts that Michael Mann’s hokey stick chart fabricated, and which Nature was subsequently forced to retract in its Corrigendum. They are a deliberately false misrepresentation of reality that your cartoonist’s pseudo-science blog spoon feeds to the gullible.
Basing your argument on a debunked hokey stick chart fails. The chart you posted is faked. It is completely fabricated, and does not reflect reality. And the aptly named “WFT” site is every cherrypicker’s dream. Forget the fact that the globe is cooling, it’s much more fun to panic over natural climate cycles.
You were the one that, approvingly, introduced Ljungqvis to the discussion, but now you’ve been shown it doesn’t say what you thought it did you dismiss it as “bogus Skeptical Pseudo-Science”. It’s as funny as it is pathetic and sad. Got any more studies you’re hilariously wrong about you’d like to link to?
Kevin MacDonald,
Dodging, weaving, and ignoring the central point doesn’t win the debate. I will concede that there is a “carbon” problem if you can provide testable, verifiable evidence of global damage from CO2. Provide the raw data source, and convincingly show us that CO2, specifically, is harming the planet. Because the rise in CO2 is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare.
Nothing else matters. If CO2 is damaging the planet, then prove it per the scientific method. Complete transparency of all data, metadata, methodologies and code is required. With a proposed cost of many $trillions, nothing can be kept secret from the taxpaying public.
Of course, if you can show convincing evidence that CO2 is causing global damage, you will be the first to be able to do so, and you will be on the short list for a [now discredited] Nobel prize. And you will be Algore’s hero!
So show us that mythical global damage caused by CO2 — or be a standup guy and admit that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial minor trace gas. Everything else is just impotent arm-waving.
Smokey says:
April 23, 2011 at 10:11 am
Kevin MacDonald,
Dodging, weaving, and ignoring the central point doesn’t win the debate. I will concede that there is a “carbon” problem if you can provide testable, verifiable evidence of global damage from CO2. Provide the raw data source, and convincingly show us that CO2, specifically, is harming the planet. Because the rise in CO2 is the entire basis for the “carbon” scare.
Nothing else matters. If CO2 is damaging the planet, then prove it per the scientific method. Complete transparency of all data, metadata, methodologies and code is required. With a proposed cost of many $trillions, nothing can be kept secret from the taxpaying public.
Of course, if you can show convincing evidence that CO2 is causing global damage, you will be the first to be able to do so, and you will be on the short list for a [now discredited] Nobel prize. And you will be Algore’s hero!
So show us that mythical global damage caused by CO2 — or be a standup guy and admit that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial minor trace gas. Everything else is just impotent arm-waving.
I didn’t dodge, weave or ignore anything, I addressed the points you raised:
An OLS fit over the entire period is inappropriate for showing any change in the rate of a trend;
Two years data is entirely too little to show if there has been any change in the trend;
The globe has in fact been warming over the last decade;
A single proxy from one location can not accurately reflect the historical temperature record of the whole world;
Loehle’s 2007 reconstruction, which was presented here as “fact, was retracted due to data handling errors;
Both Loehle’s amended paper, released in 2008, and Ljungqvist’s 2010 paper show, contrary to your claims, the current warming and temperatures are unprecedented in the last milennium or two;
A best fit of all Holocene reconstructions suggest it is likely that the current temperatures are the warmest for that period.
In a move that you characterise as not desperate, you are now abandoning all of these claims, throwing down the straw gauntlet and asking me to prove a case that I never made.
Kevin MacDonald,
You have provided no evidence that shows anything other than natural climate variability. And the chart you copied from Skeptical Pseudo-Science is, as usual, flagrantly inaccurate. It is an overlay that purports to show a preposterous 1.4°C temperature rise, when the most widely accepted figure is half that. I suppose that is what passes for a replacement of Michael Mann’s oficially debunked hokey stick chart.
And the WFT site is a cherrypicker’s dream; anything can be shown by picking specific parameters and years. But when current temperatures are viewed, or satellite temperatures are recorded, no global warming is evident.
I wrote above: “I will concede that there is a ‘carbon’ problem if you can provide testable, verifiable evidence of global damage from CO2… Nothing else matters. If CO2 is damaging the planet, then prove it per the scientific method.”
You declined to pick up that “straw gauntlet” because it is the central argument in the entire debate. If current temperatures and trends are indistinguishable from natural variability [they are], and if CO2 causes no global damage or harm [it doesn’t], and if CO2 significantly increases agricultural production [it does], then the logical conclusion is inescapable: CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
Usually do not instantly halt sprinting halfway Part II
If ever the running whenever she quit the movements of bottom limb muscle rhythmic outcome disappeared, as well as gravity, a lot of blood for the short term stranded for the lower limbs, modify thy bloodstream significantly less equivalent decrease in cardiac creation of blood at this time, Hogan Hi-Sprin,the mind? blood circulation correspondingly reduced, the brain will build a moment of ischemia, the infirm to dizziness or perhaps shock may occur. [url=http://www.hoganscarpeuomo.com/hogan-interactive-shoes-goldsliver-p-94.html]Hogan Interactive Shoes Gold/Sliver[/url]
Gravitational shock occurs, patients should be supine, legs increased, remove the collar and massage, the final phenomenon of victims with cerebral ischemia is often lifted, people will shortly be very clear. [url=http://www.hoganscarpeuomo.com/hogan-interactive-shoes-sliverbeige-p-117.html]calzature hogan prezzi
[/url] Hogan sneakers men. To forestall gravity shock, urine remedy before you run, really don’t quickly stop running along the way; run concluded and do not all at once was standing still, should continue being stress-free jogging, walking, and step by step transitionon track.