Thursday
Dec262013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No challenge
Dec 26, 2013 BBC Climate: Sceptics Even in the season of goodwill to all men, the mispresentation of the climate debate continues apace. This morning we had Professor Steve Jones interviewed yet again on the subject of BBC coverage of science, with the great man once again given the opportunity to portray the climate debate as being between "science" and "deniers".
Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Once again I wonder why the BBC feels that we need to have this false representation of the debate put forward. And once again I wonder at the failure of the BBC's interviewers to challenge it.
The audio is below.
Reader Comments (310)
Richard Drake
Sorry about the long response time, we were out until late last night. The original quote made me post without checking, but no damage done in the end.
The lack of transparency on all the facets of energy supply and charges is non-existent. It obviously suits all parties apart from the consumer. Hopefully once all the banking/insurance mis-selling scandals have been played out perhaps the MSM will move on to the energy markets.
One can but hope.
Entropic
You can copy and paste URLs - it's much more reliable than trying to type them. You can even make them less obtrusive by using the a href tag.
"In debate nowadays, "climate change" tens to be used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change".
I wonder which debates "climate change" is accepted shorthand for "anthropogenic climate change" I also wonder what terms are used in these debates for natural climate change?
Or perhaps natural climate change doesn't enter the debate.
Dec 27, 2013 at 9:49 PM | Jonathan Jones
[Many excellent points which strongly suggest that those whose knee-jerk response is to label in a derogatory way those about whose views they haven't a clue (or - if they have - perhaps their dedication to "the cause" is such that they cannot acknowledge them with anything that approaches intellectual honesty and/or respectful depiction) ... including]
I don't profess to have the answers to these very valid questions. But ... since the labellers and language launderers have so frequently taken the liberty of so labelling those who have the temerity to question any part of their case, I believe I'm within my rights to speculate. So here goes ...
"What do those who call us deniers actually want?" - From my admittedly limited engagement with such individuals, my impression is that their strong preference would be that we just keep quiet and unquestioningly accept their pronouncements - and, in particular, their policy prescriptions for "saving the planet".
"What would they consider victory?" - In light of my answer to your first question, the simple answer to this one would be that we stop questioning and accept that everything is worse than they thought, happening faster than they thought and that we must act now (in accordance with their preferred policy prescriptions for "saving the planet")!
"And why do they think it is "deniers" who stand in their way?" - If they had the ability to be honest with themselves, they would recognize that perhaps their case and their arguments are not as solid as they would like the world to believe.
However, lacking such ability and insight, they resort to the time-honoured "principle" of finding a "scapegoat" on whom to project and blame their failures. And we "deniers", alas, are their chosen scapegoats.
TerryS
I'm sure I read somewhere that Argo data had been adjusted already. Can't remember where though. While I'm doing other stuff I'll think about it and post anything that comes to mind.
TerryS
Argo data mentioned on WUWT but I'm not sure if it's what I was thinking about.
what would it take to make them happy? And why would that make such a difference to them?
Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 PM Jonathan Jones
As another commenter said (above) it would make them happy for us to just shut up. [Or less unhappy - many of them come across as inherently unhappy people.]
It would make a difference to them because they either recognise that there are all sorts of flaws in "the science" (or else they dont follow the argument but know what they want to believe) and they want this to be kept quiet because they see that it jeopardises the prospects for what they want to happen and which they 'know' is correct.
@Entropic man: it's easy to study GHG emission and absorption by MODTRAN, available on the Univ. of Chicago we site. This is probably the most accurate software in atmospheric science and in it you can find evidence, backed up by observation, that shows there is no gas phase thermalisation of GHG-absorbed energy, in contrast to what the IPCC claims! I have also developed some new physics which illustrates why this part of climate modelling fails.
The IR emission of non GHGs is virtually zero at ambient temperatures. On this is superimposed the GHG bands. But remember, MODTRAN computes the Radiation Field at an optically heterogeneous plane detector. Few realise this is different to the RF at any random position in the volume, which is what the experiments of Hottel and Leckner measured.
Taking the CO2 15 micron band, it is a single line up to about 100 ppmv, the amplitude the black body level, after which is spreads sideways as the band broadens. This is because there are few CO2 bands. H2O on the other hand has many bands and instead of being flat topped like CO2, are peaked. The activation energy for new band formation is much lower.
The bulk self-absorbed level for self-absorption of all CO2 bands is ~200 ppmV, for H2O it's about 50 ppmV but there is still significant slope as new bands form. Subtract the computed atmospheric RF to the surface from the surface RF, near black body over all frequencies, and you get about 40% of the black body emission as the net RF, the only part that does work. At 15 deg C, 1/3 rd is in non self-absorbed H2O bands, so is absorbed in the ~30 m of air next to the surface, 2/3rds goes to Space in the 'Atmospheric Window'. Put a cloud in the way and the higher sink temperature reduces AW IR by ~85%. This caused the meteorologists to imagine the 'back radiate' idea: it does not exist.
Basically, Climate Alchemy is very primitive, Cargo Cult Science with poor physics and rapacious researchers who grab funds by claiming anyone who says they are primitive and ignorant, are 'deniers'. The self absorbed GHG band RF sub-field is black body at the optical heterogeneity but for CO2 it is half that amplitude in the bulk. This is because as you get near the detector, the self-absorption falls to zero. Clouds are also optical heterogeneities in the IR and this physics has been completely missed. In short, they need to start again.
With reference to Lindzen, Chandra said in response to Johanna (Dec 28, 2013 at 3:18 AM):
I don't either. Instead I remember Chandra claiming that Lindzen dissents from the consensus that smoking causes lung cancer (Dec 26, 2013 at 8:26 PM).
SJF wondered if Chandra's ad hominem attack is true. Leaving aside the fact that the logical force of an ad hominem is unaffected by its veracity, I thought I'd take a look. I could not find any reference to such contrarianism on his Wiki page. But there is at a thing called "RationalWiki" (which looks to me like a ship sailing under a false flag). This referenced an article in Newsweek which stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking". But what does Lindzen actually say?
I found a transcript of an interview with him here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/webextras/richardlindzen_transcript.pdf
This seems to give the lie to Newsweek's and Chandra's claim that Lindzen dissents from the consensus that smoking causes lung cancer. At the same time it is evidence for a questioning mind. Where would science be without the latter?
Good sleuthing RM
You can even make them less obtrusive by using the a href tag.
Dec 28, 2013 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS
It's also a courtesy to readers. Otherwise you are saying "here, you can copy and past this. I can't be bothered to take the time to make it clickable for you".
Thanks to RM @ Dec 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM,
So we know that the troll, at best, just repeats lies out of ignorance regarding Dr. Lindzen.
Typical troll.
Hilary,
There used to be this guy on Youtube who dressed up as a court jester and lectured on AGW. One of his main goals was to get skeptics to shut up and allow the AGW believers to do what they want done. Despite his fun costume he was very hostile. Eventually he moved up the food chain to a position at the AGU but had some sort of public meltdown.
RM
Good find. Thanks from me as well.
Hunter
I think the situation is slightly more subtle than you suggest.
Let me wander slightly off-topic for a minute. The point was made about a week ago by David Prior, chairman of the Care Quality Commission, that (I'm paraphrasing) the NHS is in crisis because it has become "too big" to criticise. In fact I think he was implying what has been said by many people of many years that criticising it is "not the done thing" because it is a "much-loved national institution".
Similar arguments were being made in today's DT about the BBC and the RSPCA.
There are also a number of things which include medical science and climate change where the same thing applies. So Lindzen, eminent though he may be, is simply not allowed to cast any doubt on the received wisdom of "smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer" (though the activists prefer the simpler "...causes lung cancer" because it sounds scarier) and it must follow that "second-hand smoke also 'causes' lung cancer."
Lindzen is not disputing the former but he is (quite rightly) not convinced of the latter since the evidence for it is virtually non-existent. Where he breaks the rules of health/climate activism is in suggesting that even though there is a good case for the former one should still be wary of taking it unthinkingly at face value, which to an anti-smoking fanatic is heresy
What Chandra is doing is not lying per se; he is just refusing to engage the thinking part of the brain and relying on the scaremongers to be right, behaviour which serves scaremongers well because they know they can rely on it!
@Hilary Ostrov,
Thanks, and helpful, but you're still not quite getting to my (admittedly poorly expressed) question: what do they (the anti-deniers) actually want? Do they (1) want the policies to be implemented, or do they (2) want the deniers to shut up, or do they (3) want the deniers to recant and believe the gospel? It's the apparent obession with (3) rather than (1) than drives many to speak of the anti-deniers in religious terms.
Of course it is possible that they believe that (3) in a sine qua non for (1); that if McIntyre, Monckton and Montford suddenly changed their minds then governments and civil society would swing into action and all would be well. That would be a strange belief, to be sure, but no stranger than many of the other possible explanations.
Jonathan Jones, you asked "I have long wondered what it is that makes so many people "deniers" in the eyes of those who use the term...". Maybe you missed my answer:
No need to wonder any longer, eh?
On smoking, I said nothing of passive smoking. It is however true that I had assumed the evidence of his stance on smoking and cancer to be better than it turns out to be. The best I can find is this quote from Lindzen
I imagine there is other evidence because Hansen's comments on Lindzen not believing that smoking is a cause of lung cancer predates this, so I think the above is Lindzen's spin on the subject.
Because of the connection with climate science, I guess you will all take Lindzen's words as those of a "true scientist" or some such. I just hope that when your children or grandchildren turn up clutching fags that you wont say to them, "well there is of course reasonable evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, but of course it might not, so go on, enjoy!".
Mike Jackson
Chandra, very much in the mould of BB states what he believes as being an unequivocal truth and brooks no argument. Neither, as with BB, will he read any references supplied to him, why that is I don't know seeing as knowledge itself is power. The one difference seems to me to be that Chandra has said several times I don't know
Is this the form of your reasoning Chandra?
*) There is reasonable evidence for P
*) If P is true, the consequences are dire
*) Therefore we should elevate P to the status of being certain and beyond criticism
As opposed to this:
*) There is reasonable evidence for Q
*) If Q is true, the consequences are of no concern
*) Therefore we can question Q all we like (and if, following Popper, it still stands after the most severe and open criticism, so much the better. Or if it falls, we learn the use of the phrase "we thought we knew").
In other words, is this some post-modern change to the scientific method that you are proposing?
"Once again I wonder whether the BBC has ever interviewed a denier, in the sense of someone who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect."
I can help there.
Bob Carter springs to mind, I find he was interviewed as recently as October2013. Then there's Melanie Phillips a favourite of the BBC especially Question Time, she disputes all aspects of the science behind AGW.
@Chandra,
I saw your comment, but not sharing your self-proclaimed ability to peer into people's souls (a skill that would be necessary to accurately diagnose "motivated dishonesty"), I did not consider it capable of being usefully discussed without further details.
Perhaps we can inch towards your definition by considering the concrete examples you chose to ignore. Do you consider Mydogsgotnonose to be engaging in "motivated dishonesty"? Do you consider Montford to be engaging in "motivated dishonesty"? Do you consider Roger Pielke Jr to be engaging in "motivated dishonesty"? And do you consider me to be engaging in "motivated dishonesty"?
I was just giving you my opinion, for what it is worth. Not saying it is a universal definition.
Mydogsgotnonose - woof
Montford - yes
Roger Pielke Jr - yes
You - unknown, as I haven't seen you comment on much (for example on the items I listed on page 1 (Dec 26, 2013 at 4:45 PM)
Chandra
I imagine there is other evidence because Hansen's comments on Lindzen not believing that smoking is a cause of lung cancer predates this, so I think the above is Lindzen's spin on the subject.
Can you back up this opinion or don't you know for sure? If the latter please try and confirm it.
JJ, distinguishing dishonesty from ignorance is indeed a problem. It could well be that people spouting untruths are just ignorant, in which case I should call them fools rather than deniers. However, apart from neophytes, most people involved in the debate have had time to recognize faults in their own position if they want to, so dishonesty is most likely at play. As an example from my previous list, one might well call this year's Arctic sea ice levels a "recovery" relative to last year if one is unaware of the decline curve of recent years and don't understand that the whole Arctic freezes in winter. Once these facts become clear, calling it is a recovery is no longer an honest mistake but is deliberate untruth.
@Chandra,
Thanks for confirming Handcar's summary of your position.
I don't see any actual content in your comment to make discussion worthwhile.
SandyS
Hansen cannot possibly be wrong (about anything) because he is a high priest of the global warming cult. Therefore this has to be Lindzen trying to wriggle his way out since he is a denier and therefore is lying.Ah, but!
When you believe that you already have the knowledge and therefore the power why would you bother to go and look up references?
It's rather like the teacher who asks, "if you didn't know the spelling/meaning, why didn't you look it up?" Answer (even if not actually stated) "But I thought I did; otherwise I would have looked it up."
In the context of my reply to hunter, of course, the true answer would be "it might have given me an answer I didn't want to hear."
An interesting point in Chandra's 12,30PM response:
It's not just ad hom, it's such a tight little circular argument that the only destination is his own backside if he doesn't cripple himself first.
Also note:The usual glib finessing of the actual facts of the case, namely that cigarette smoking increases (perhaps significantly) the chances of contracting lung cancer. It is not itself a direct cause of lung cancer. Typical activist sloppy thinking, their purpose being to get you to do what they want and the message is tuned to that end regardless of the facts.
On no account are the sheeple to be allowed to think for themselves whatever happens.
Chandra
By what definition, precisely, is this not a recovery "relative to last year " or indeed to the last three years (at least; beyond that is a question of defining what point you are comparing)?And what was the average minimum coverage of the last, say, six years, as compared with, say, the 1930s? Given that reliable measurement has only been possible for the last 34 years which (a) just happens to be about the start of the recently completed warming cycle (1975 is often seen as the start date ) and (b) represents about 4.5% of the time since the peak (roughly) of the MWP your comments about Arctic ice coverage have no more significance than anyone else's but somehow my view that this autumn shows a recovery compared with last year makes me a "denier".
Are you telling me that there hasn't been a recovery compared with last year? Are you denying there has been a recovery?
Yeah, Jackson, of course. In the same way that jumping off your roof doesn't cause you to break your leg, it just increases (perhaps significantly) the chances of your doing so. Fool!
Regarding the matter of Richard Lindzen's alleged tobacco advocacy here is a clarification he gave to the Climate Conversation Group (NZ) "Lindzen dismisses Hansen’s defamations" (Richard Treadgold | May 15, 2011)
For the record:
1. I have always noted, having read the literature on the matter, that there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order. I think that the precedent of establishing a complex statistical finding as dogma is a bad one. Among other things, it has led to the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke also being treated as dogma. Similarly, in the case of alleged dangerous anthropogenic warming, the status of dogma is being sought without any verifiable evidence.
2. I have never stated anything in Wall Street Journal Op Eds that I did not support in my discussions with colleagues.
3. In his book, Hansen goes so far as to claim that I testified on behalf of the tobacco industry. This claim is absurd.
I might add that I looked into the possibility of legal redress after Hansen published his book, and learned that I had neither the money nor the time to pursue such a remedy. Incidentally, it should be noted that promoting alarm has proven to be very lucrative. Jim has collected millions and recognition hardly commensurate with his scientific achievements. In that connection, I would be curious as to how much Jim received for his appearances in New Zealand. I suspect that it would be much more than anyone presenting a more rational assessment would receive.
Best wishes, Dick
Chandra
Do you not understand just how idiotic that last comment makes you look?
Jumping off a roof is the direct cause of landing in such a way that, barring a fortunate set of circumstances, I will break something.
Smoking cigarettes is not the direct cause of people contracting lung cancer. There are too many alternative scenarios intervening to provide a conclusive chain of events.
Perhaps you know what percentage of people who jump of roofs break bones as compared with the number of smokers who contract lung cancer. If not I'm sure you could find out.
But hey, if you're happy inside your little self-affirming bubble and would rather not address the issue why should I care.
Cretin!
PS
I notice another long-time absentee troll has clambered out of the pit again.
Hello, Hengist.
"It could well be that people spouting untruths are just ignorant, in which case I should call them fools rather than deniers.. ...most people involved in the debate have had time to recognize faults in their own position if they want to, so dishonesty is most likely at play."
So, now your assertion about Lindzen has been comprehensively blown out of the water, are you, by your own reasoning, a fool or dishonest?
Odd that Chandra has raised the subject of 'motivated dishonesty' - clearly he/she/it (/both, since it has used more than one pseudonym on this site) - the reason I ever bothered to turn up here in the first place was because of the utter plethora of 'motivated dishonesty' cases exposed by Climategate - we all know - hiding the decline, the 'trick' Mann/Jones conning the AGU about numbers of papers to qualify for an award, biased PCA, faked statistical methods, thieving, lying Gleick, faked 'investigations' which didn't investigate, 'playing a blinder', lies about melting glaciers, lies about polar bear populations, faked propaganda photographs, swapping honest IPCC graphs for lying filth, NASA GISS adjusting historical temperature records - there's no bloody end to it, and now we have a fantasist mustelid with a psychological projection problem.
Enough of this pathetic shapeshifting and dissembling drivel, Chandra/'someone'. Science, as Feynman once said, is about the joy of finding things out. Those of us without your personal integrity issues realise that this is different from forcing your warped world view on others.
There is a lovely description in Red Plenty by Francis Spufford of how a molecule of smoke from a protagonist's cigarette enters the lungs and, unlike the multitude of those that preceded it, evades the lung's defense mechanisms and causes a cell in the lung to mis-divide, and then these cells again, unlike the multitude that achieved this feat, evade the cell's protective mechanisms to become cancerous. You may think of some weasel words to evade it, but most people would say the cigarette (and by extension smoking) caused the cell to become cancerous, however much probability or statistics are involved. The fact that many other substances can repeat the trick is no different from the fact that there are many ways to break your leg.
Trumpeting a "recovery relative to last year" is like celebrating the noise in a chaotic system. If I thought you didn't understand that I'd think you harmlessly ignorant, but I know that you do.
DaveS, my assertion? I noted that, "The consensus that smoking causes lung cancer is not damaged by Linzden dissenting." Lindzen says, "...there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order."
Do you really think this is consistent with the consensus that smoking causes cancer (and do you doubt that consensus by the way?)? I guess you will find lots of support for such a proposition here, as people here have trouble understanding 'consensus'. But for me, if he supported the consensus view he might have said, "smoking is a cause of cancer", note the 'a', which I was careful also to use earlier, "but not the only one". Note also that his form of words is his crafty way of throwing doubt upon the science, a mechanism he and others employ widely in the climate debate.
Just to say here's the full transcript of the segment with Steve Jones and Connie St Louis (thanks, Geoff!):
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20131226_sj
EM
"Deniers : Those who do not accept the scientific evidence, believing that no change is happening."
That's the problem with the term - no-one I know believes that there is no climate change, because it always does and always has done.
Chandra
Let's re-work that a wee bit:Most of us on here would be happy to go along with both of those statements. You refuse to countenance either. If Lindzen challenges even the slightest smidgin of the gospel on smoking and lung cancer, even to suggesting — as a good scientist should — that no querying of it should be ruled out you condemn him out of hand.You're spectacularly missing the point again — why am I not surprised.
You quote Lindzen:
And presumably you make the same condemnation of anyone who takes a similar stand on CO2 and climate.
Which makes you a bigot.
Has Spufford suddenly become an authority on second-hand cigarette smoking? When did that happen?
I don't remember "trumpeting" anything about Arctic ice. I do remember pointing you to a reliable data source and asking you if you were saying that there hasn't been a recovery since last year (in spite of the data). Since you've chosen to flannel instead I take it the answer is "I refuse to answer your question because either way I shall look an idiot".
@Mike Jackson
Yes, I expect many would go along with both of your statements. I'm tempted to go further though and suggest that "but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order" should read "but that the case is never so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order".
With reference to your two examples (to which Chandra-types would balk), this would no doubt get a different reaction:
This pick-and-choose leads me to think that Chandra-types are playing fast and loose with the methodology. If true, that is very anti-science. How ironic that those who self-certificate themselves as occupying the high intellectual ground ("my dear, I can't decide whether they're deniers or ignoramuses"), may be doing profound damage to science itself with their politicisation of the subject.
If trolls understood how idiotic they look, they might consider changing.
But trolls are special. As this one shows, they know that skeptics are not merely wrong. No, they are deliberate, motivated liars. Lindzen cannot be trying to clear what others deliberately distorted about his position on a topic. The troll knows he is spinning to cover up his lies.
And of course it is required to spend as much time as possible on the non-climate issue of tobacco, and to ignore as much as possible the qualifications he has to make climate critiques, or that he is in fact a climate scientist, or most importantly, the content of his critique of cliamte science.
Trolls have to live in the ditches and hedges around the bridge of an issue, so to speak. It is what trolls do. Their purpose is to prevent meaningful progress on a topic. They cannot survive as trolls if they openly engage on an issue.
RM
You'll get no argument from me there.
To add fuel to the fire it's worth pointing out that evolution is still only a theory though it would be a brave man that would cast serious doubt on it without very, very good cause and after of a lot of thought and some very well-researched papers to back him up.
Too much late 20th century "science" has been driven by vested interests whether the drug companies looking to boost their profits or activist groups with a bee in their bonnet — which is what the anti-smoking campaign was for all that the identification of the specific health risks (as opposed to the general feeling that it was just "bad for you") was a benefit.
Once that was established it was easier to shout loudly for a blanket ban because of the secondary effects. I haven't heard much of the tertiary effects lately but there was a faction that was trying that on as well!
The other high-profile campaign by activists with a bee in their bonnet is, of course, the demonisation of CO2 with the aim of introducing a ban on the use of hydrocarbons. "Global warming" or "climate change" has damn all to do with it!
Oh no, I missed nothing. Lindzen uses a careful formulation to cast doubt upon the science while at the same time remaining the right side of being considered beyond the pale. This deceit was well practiced by tobacco industry's stooges in the decades during which it was known beyond reasonable doubt the smoking causes cancer. It has been adopted with relish by deniers like you to support your new cause.
If Professor Jonathan Jones is really in doubt about why you people are called deniers he has to look no further than Lindzen's and your weaselly words.
Yes Mike. You are adding fuel to the fire there! Part of me says "don't go there", but another part says "why the hell not!". Let's consider "Michael Behe" as your brave man not-to-be-mentioned, eh? Or if we're not quite feeling that brave we could fall back to Thomas Nagel and pray for reinforcements?
What Lindzen shows is that his mind is ALWAYS open to other alternatives.
Im not quite so sure what is so hard to understand about this? To me, this is the best mindset for a scientist to have. It doesnt mean he believes that the moon is made of green cheese and ham I am BUT that his mind isnt closed to other "things" playing a part in todays complex and not fully understood world.
To me, anyone who plays the old "his opinions on Mann Made Global Warmning (tm) can be discounted because he doesnt believe in XYZ" is someone not worth wasting time on discussing anything with.
Mailman
Mailman
Pavlov wouldn't half be proud of people like Chandra. No thought, just knee-jerk reaction. Say "Thatcher" and everyone boos; say "Lindzen" and everyone hisses.The eco-parasites and their idiot allies the trolls cannot tolerate any dissent.
Just listen to them
Try to put forward any sort of reasoned argument and they run screaming for cover leaving a smokescreen of ad homs, disinformation, irrelevancies and outright untruths behind them and hope you'll get lost in the fog.
Personally I've always understood it that smoking increases the likelihood of developing cancer, in particular lung, mouth, throat and pancreatic. That is, in a population of 1 million smokers more will die of these cancers than in a population of 1 million non-smokers. As Chandra hasn't come up with what Lindzen actually said as he claimed that Hansen referenced, I'll stick with that as being his position also.
I think the smoking causes cancer is a more recent development in the extreme campaign against smoking. The problem with the smoking causing xxx health problem is that some non-smokers die of the same illnesses and some smokers live to a ripe old age.
This could be a misconception on my part but I don't think any recent research has proved otherwise, in fact it seems to me that most recent research has identified a genetic predisposition to developing certain cancers, no doubt more of these links will be discovered in future.
As an ex-smoker of who gave up 40 years ago I happen to prefer public places since the ban came into place.
"Smoking 'causes' lung cancer". I don't think Popper would be very impressed.
Asbestos 'causes' lung cancer, so does Radon. Some smokers never get lung cancer. Smoking 'causes' heart disease - a bigger killer than lung cancer.
CO2 'causes' global warming. CO2 does not 'cause' global cooling. CO2 'causes' plants to grow (except fungi?). CO2 'causes' calcium carbonate to form.
Global warming 'causes' climate change. Climate change 'causes' global warming. Milankovich cycles 'cause' the cycle of glaciations and interglacials. Milankovich cycles do not 'cause' climate change. Blah blah blah.
All a load of bollocks because of the half-arsed formulation of the basic statements.
Here's my own taxonomy of comments:
Discussion of facts or conclusions from facts = argumentation
Discussion of motivations = waste of electrons
Denigration = trolling
Automatic gainsaying = Monty Python
Mike Jackson,
You are bang on the mark!
J Calvert N,
Eating too much bacon causes cancer...just as too much food with charcoal sun lead to cancer and pretty much everything we do can cause the damn disease to raise it's ugly little head!
Regards
Mailman
Today I was going through some of my old files and found some audio from BBC Radio 3, February 2012, which features Steve Jones - have just transcribed it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20120217_r3
He says that science and religion are not compatible, and the problem with religion is its "certainty", whereas science "is the art of the uncertain". He goes on to say:
Alex,
Nice example of circular reasoning by Steve Jones.
Chandra reminds me of the Baptist Pastor who preached to our Boy's Brigade troop during Church Parades during my early teenage years. Said Pastor was no doubt well-intentioned, but the American Baptist movement didn't seem to chime with the very Anglophile NZ society as it was during those post WWII years, and whatever the pastor lacked in religious knowledge and details from the Bible was counter-weighted by his iron-clad certainty. I was a convinced Anglican at that time, but had been cajoled into the Baptist movement by the lure of playing a side drum in the BB's marching band. The Pastor's Hellfire-and-brimstone style of expository preaching was quite scary, but his utter condemnation of any 'so called Christian' who was not fully immersed during baptism paled very quickly, and his terror of and condemnation of Roman Catholics seemed wildly silly compared with the gentle messages about tolerance from our Vicar;
I have never trusted displays of utter certainty that go with a particularly evil type of name-calling since. The Baptist Pastor never doubted his religion.
Sadly, Chandra displays all the same unhealthy attributes of that long-ago Pastor..
Read the smoking section of the Heartland Institute website. Lots to be learned there about tobacco company lobbying technique.
http://heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights
Mike Jackson
The recovery in Arctic sea ice you mentioned seems to have faded out. As of yesterday sea ice extent was close to the lower 95% confidence boundary of the 1981-2010 average and almost identical to 2012.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Jonathon Jones: 'The answer seems to be that we think that the current mitigation systems are either unnecessary or ineffective.'
My comment about mitigation was somewhat cryptic. Mitigation in this context is related to perceived risk; warmers believe that the risk of future harm is serious enough to justify mitigation, while sceptics believe the risk is low enough not to justify mitigation.
Interestingly, the position is reversed over the risks of mitigation action itself, with warmers believing the risks of warming outweigh the risks of mitigation, and sceptics vice-versa.
So it's risk analysis all the way down.