Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Is the climate skeptic community too fragmented to be effective?

Chris, if people want to improve the blog, the obvious thing is for them to call out nonsense when the read it. Plenty will jump on my posts (which might or might not be nonsense), but apart from recent spat over religion (which is different), I have only seen a few dissociating themselves from something written (Yin and Martin, I think).

Maybe people think that a wide diversity of views strengthens the 'movement'. As an outsider I'd say that it weakens and devalues scepticism enormously. A recent discussion of Arctic ice, where a 'sceptic' claimed it was gaining ice and nobody corrected him really shocked me. If sceptics can't even agree that the arctic has an ice problem, then their views on everything else are suspect.

You might say that warmists also ignore nonsense that supports their cause, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Dec 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

If sceptics can't even agree that the arctic has an ice problem

The sceptics are all agreed. The Arctic does not have an ice problem.

Why are you wasting your time interacting with people when everything they say is suspect? There was a lot of calling out on the nonsense from you on the 'temperatures are not increasing' thread. What good did that do?

Dec 15, 2012 at 12:13 PM | Registered Commentershub

We are not a movement. We do not need, on a blog, to have an agreed party line or standards of behaviour beyond common courtesy. Our only unifying characteristic, as sceptics, is our questioning of the firm opinions and party line of others. It is occasionally irritating to find a few participants here repeating the same story on many posts but never fleshing out their view into something you can assess. But there are other blogs for that. Anybody who wants to argue over detailed science can go there. Having grown out of a political blog, this place is more for policy discussions as related to climate.

Having said that, anybody who wants to start a movement, party, pressure group or whatever based on sceptical views is free to do so and to have their own rules. I'll decide whether to join when I see what they are. I don't think the community here provides much of a basis for that.

Dec 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

Congrats BB, you are hereby awarded the Lesser Order of Merit for the 200th post and for persistence in the face of adversity :-) It has been very noticeable to me that although you can be sarcastic and (to some) annoyingly provocative at times, if people behave reasonably towards you, you tend to return the favour. For all I know no sceptical argument will ever cause you to alter your stance on climate change, but at least we can acknowledge each other's humanity and (I hope) mutual good will. This blog would be less interesting without an occasional warmist's perspective, I believe.

I agree with shub that the Arctic does not have an ice problem, as opposed to the observed recent decrease in summer sea-ice extent, for example. Why should that be a problem? It won't cause any sea level rise and sea-ice extent is known to have varied substantially in the past. And as far as I know the jury is still out on Greenland ice sheet melting. AGW cannot be assumed to account for the sea-ice decrease, in any case. What about ocean circulation changes or black carbon from China (reduced ice albedo) for example? Anyway, too late at night here to think clearly - to be resumed tomorrow perhaps.

Dec 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

Chris, it is with great humility that I accept your award. A truly humbling moment.

"...at least we can acknowledge each other's humanity and (I hope) mutual good will." Of course, acknowledged gladly.

On Greenland (and Antarctica) the GRACE results look conclusive to my (lay) eyes. On attribution, I doubt it will ever be possible to say 100% that any change is man-made. Even when Greenland is melted and sea levels are much higher, there will be sceptics who say, "it wasn't us gov, honestly".

Dec 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

May your lay eyes graze gently over the skepticalscience global warming graph with the ocean warmth? Hardly any heat has gone into the land and the ice, has it? Is that the heat that will melt the Greenland?

Dec 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM | Registered Commentershub

For G to "melt" or loose mass, ice lost in summer must exceed ice gained in winter. This is likely to be influenced by more than just that part of the imbalance absorbed directly by G.

Dec 16, 2012 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

imbalance

Are you also into naturopathy? Me too.

Dec 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM | Registered Commentershub

From Jo Nova's blog (connolly, post 15.1):

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video/

I with a group of workers in Wollongong formed Illawarra Against The Carbon Tax (IACT). All of the organizing group care deeply for the natural environment and have been active in the fight for social justice, particularly in the trade union movement. We ponyed up some small amount of money, all of which from workers, pensioners and one dear friend who has now sadly passed away. We put a full page advertisement in the local rag to advertise what was a most informative and inspirational lecture by Professor Bob Carter. I was interviewed on the local ABC before the meeting and the first question I was asked was “Was your advertisement paid for by the coal companies?”!!! It didn’t get any better.

But see, it can be done! Small local groups under an umbrella organisation might just work.

Dec 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris M

Grrr ... numbering changes sometimes as comments are released, I guess. It's now 17.1 although that could change again.

Dec 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris M