Out of town
I will be out of town and mostly away from the internet for the next two weeks, so expect little activity here for the next little while. I apologise in advance for any unsightly spam that gets though my filtering system.
How science works
Through out this blog, in my numerous debates on climate change, I have referenced parts of the scientific process such as peer-review, or the rationality of listening to the relevant experts, but I have never really fully explained how science (and more generally rational thought) works. Thankfully John Mashey writing over at Deltoid has done a wonderful job of explaining how science works in a manner intelligible to everyone, and equally importantly, how to identify when someone isn’t arriving at conclusions based on science and/or rational thought.
Motivation and Approach to Science
By John Mashey
1.1 Why This?
I’m always curious when people with decent-or-better educational backgrounds strongly espouse conclusions directly opposite that of mainstream science. Is the mainstream wrong? Have they not yet done sufficient study? Or are there extra-science reasons?…
Read the rest of this entry »
Trusting the experts
Scott Adams (of Dilbert Fame) has a great post today on the rationality of trusting the experts. While Scott is specifically talking about listening to the advice of economists (which he has surveyed) in regards to figuring out which US presidential candidate has a better plan for the economy, his advice holds true for virtually any complex issue such as climate change. As I have argued frequently in the past, when an issue is so complex that non-experts (like you and me) have no chance to understand it completely (or even be able to construct a reasonably complete picture) it makes little sense to challenge the mainstream scientific (aka expert) opinion.
Read the rest of this entry »
The anti-scientific nature of climate change denial: part 3
In Part 1, we learned that someone who gives advice based on their knowledge is nothing more than priest that should be ignored. Part 2 was about how deniers misuse the complexity of the situation, and Part 3 is about how deniers make use of fear.
The people who tell you that climate scientists want to take away your SUV are trying to scare you. They don’t want you to think about the science. Even if I’m rather optimistic about some things, I have to figure that people who don’t want me to decide based on our best understanding of science are trying to get me to do something I wouldn’t if I thought about it.
Or as Nexus 6 humorously puts it:
Read the rest of this entry »
Cap-and-trade systems are really just a hidden carbon tax
Cap-and-trade systems are really just a hidden carbon tax, except with more inefficient regulations and loop-holes.
Read the rest of this entry »
Climate change is happening too slowly
Climate change is happening too slowly. To slowly for human brains to consider it a real threat, and react appropriately. So says psychologist Dan Gilbert.
(h/t: A Few Things Ill Considered)
Denier peer-review trickery
My recent spat with Marc Morano taught me that deniers are becoming far more insidious. As the public in general becomes more aware of the absolute importance of peer-review, deniers are faced with a dilemma because the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the theory that our GHG emissions are causing climate change (hence the consensus). What is a denier to do? Well people like Marc Morano, have decided that they don’t actually need peer-reviewed research that supports the conclusions they are pushing, because few people will take the time to look at the actual research, so all they need to do is claim that a paper casts doubt on climate change when in fact it does nothing of the sort, and may even explicitly support the theory of climate change.
Read the rest of this entry »
Jim Peden, Atmospheric Physicist makes some very dubious claims [UPDATED]
[UPDATE: After rereading his site I have found the most egregious error made by Peden. It is such a large error that it completely shatters his credibility and his argument]
In one of my recent posts a man named Jim Peden who claimed to be an Atmospheric Physicist, and who was sent by our good friend Marc Morano chimed in on the whole climate change debate. His argument boiled down to ‘trust me‘ but since I don’t know who he is and his claims are contradicted by published research his argument fell flat. As is common for deniers my unwillingness to trust him over peer-reviewed research lead to him claiming I was a member of the climate change religion. Oh well, I’ve been called worse things by better people. Since Peden refused to provide an argument besides trust me, I went to his site and decided to look at the claims he makes in more detail.
Read the rest of this entry »
The real reason why McCain wants to allow offshore drilling
Given that McCain has admitted that offshore drilling wont lower gas prices, one wonders why he is so insistent on allowing drilling in the outer continental shelf. This seems like a good a reason as any:
Read the rest of this entry »
What are we doing tonight, George?
Bush and Harper’s policies finally explained…
Narf!
This is going to go straight to my head
It appears that I am more famous, and making a greater impact than I thought. In my last post, the infamous spin master Marc Morano (and based on his IP I am pretty sure it is him) stopped by to leave a comment.I don’t know whether to feel honoured that anti-science Senator Inhofe’s main spin master is commenting on my little dusty, insignificant corner of cyberspace, or feel sad that government employees spend their time trolling obscure and irrelevant blogs. Is this what deniers have been reduced to?
Read the rest of this entry »
Skeptics vs Deniers
I have been meaning to write this post ever since my original spat with the Irrational Lying Dinosaur, but never got around to it. The recent claim by deniers that the APS changed its position on climate change has finally motivated to write about the differences between skeptics and deniers.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Real Climate Censorship
[This is an old article, but it very well describes the depth to which deniers are willing to make baseless dishonest claims about the IPCC, and climate scientists]
It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling.
The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia(1,2).
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4).
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the right-wing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists, no explanations are required. The world’s most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a cabal of screaming demagogues.
Read the rest of this entry »
Wilson’s Law of conservation
The renowned biologist EO Wilson on conservation, and what he unabashedly calls Wilson’s Law:
If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left, you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
Given the prominence of climate change and the relatively minor attention paid to biodiversity, Wilson’s law is particularly relevant.
Read the rest of this entry »
The conservative case for a carbon tax
Jonathon Kay over at the National Post, lays out the conservative case for a carbon tax, and while he has some legitimate complaints about Dion’s plan, at least he is engaging in honest debate.
Read the rest of this entry »
Did the American Physical Society really reverse its position on climate change?
Did the American Physical Society (APS) who represents over 50,000 Physicists really reverse its position on climate change? Absolutely not, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the deniers. What happened was that the well known non-scientific denier Christopher Monckton published a non-peer-reviewed article pushing his fully-debunked ideas on a forum loosely associated with the APS. Given that deniers will jump any anything, no matter how ridiculous, that could possibly be used to cast doubt on climate change, what happened next shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone.
Read the rest of this entry »
Will you be tricked into supporting the Canadian DMCA?
A brilliant spoof that happens to be far more honest than the original.
The most concise description of the climate/energy problem
We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change. -Al Gore
Meanwhile George Bush’s climate/energy policy remains a joke.
The anti-scientific nature of climate change denial: part 2
In Part 1, we learned that someone who gives advice based on their knowledge is nothing more than priest that should be ignored. Part 2 is about how deniers misuse the complexity of the situation.
For [deniers] complexity is something to be abused rather than a challenge to be understood, underlining quite clearly (again) the difference between science and propaganda.
The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability
Bruce Schneier points us to an excellent paper by Ohio State political science professor John Mueller that discusses some common sense premises and policy implications, that are far to often ignored in our never ending quest to increase our security and eliminate any threat of terrorism no matter how remote.
Read the rest of this entry »
What have I done to deserve this?
Lately the comments on this blog have been much more ‘colourful’ than usual. From being threatened with a absurd lawsuit, to someone hoping that my family is blown-up by Omar Khadr and a bunch of insults thrown in for good measure. What have I done to deserve such comments?
The end result of this outpouring of threats and insults is less leeway when applying the comment policy. So please read it and follow it otherwise your comments may be deleted.
Lebanese ‘hero’ is actually a cold-blooded killer
The Hezbollah militants released by Israel as in exchange for the remains of two captured Israeli soldiers have been hailed as Heroes, but they are nothing of the sort
Hailed as “freed heroes” by Lebanon’s president, five members of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, including a convicted killer, were greeted with an official welcome at a Beirut airport as part of a swap Wednesday for the bodies of two slain Israeli soldiers.
The most high profile of these ‘Heroes’ is Samir kuntar, a cold-blooded killer who in 1979 killed an Israeli father in front of his four year old daughter, and then crushed the little girl’s skull with butt of his rifle. This is the hero of the Lebanese people.
Now regardless of what you think of Israel’s policies, Samir kuntar is not a hero. He does not deserve the freedom he has been given and is a clear example of the extremism and absolute hatred that Israel deals with on a daily basis.
Where is the outrage when christian wackos threaten someone’s life?
We all know that if a Muslim threatens someone’s life it is automatically a news story. We are all understandably worried about extremists, but what happens when the extremists aren’t Muslim, but rather Catholic? Not much, apparently.
Read the rest of this entry »
The National Post on Omar Khadr
I don’t usually agree with what gets passed off as news in the National Post, but today Jonathan Kay has an great summary of why Canada’s treatment of Omar Khadr is a disgrace. Bring Omar home.
Read the rest of this entry »
The US constitution is just a piece of paper
Last week Congress proved that Bush was correct when he quipped that the US constitution was ‘just a goddamn piece of paper‘, by not only allowing a massive increase in the spy powers of the US government without any effective oversight, but also by dismissing any lawsuits against the telecoms who violated the constitution by illegally spying on Americans.
The Senate has granted the telcos immunity with a 69 to 28 vote, effectively handing the President a “get out of jail free” card to not just protect the telcos, but to hide any evidence that the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program may have been illegal. This is a total capitulation, and goes against every concept of checks and balances our government was established under.
This happened shortly after the judge controlling all the cases against the telecoms made it clear in a ruling last week that he found the administration’s secret eavesdropping program was unconstitutional.
Read the rest of this entry »
This is my problem…
(via xkcd)
The solution to climate change and how much it will cost
It is no secret that climate change is a serious problem than needs to be addressed, and the sooner we do it the easier it will be to make the greenhouse gas emissions cuts that are necessary. The longer we delay the more difficult the required changes will be.
The goal of climate mitigation is to avoid dangerous human-caused impacts, which science suggests would mean limiting total warming to 2 °C above preindustrial temperatures. In turn, this would require keeping atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million (p.p.m.) [and if a recent paper by James Hanson of NASA GISS is to be believed we may need to eventually reduce our CO2 from the current level of 385 ppm to 350ppm].
So the question becomes, what do we need to do in order to make the serious cuts to our emissions that the science says are absolutely necessary in order to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change? A recent article in Nature, and a recent report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) have arrived at basically the same conclusions, which coincidentally also agree with some of the IPCC recommendations. When the normally conservative International Energy Agency agrees with both the middle of the road IPCC and more progressive voices like Nature, it should be a clear indication that they are all on to something.
So what did they recommend?
Read the rest of this entry »
G8 nations agree to 50% GHG emissions cuts by 2050
While at first the announcement by the G8 seems encouraging, upon further analysis the statement is nothing more than the latest in a long line of a bland, meaningless statements on climate change by the G8.
World leaders say they will aim to set a global target of cutting carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2050 in an effort to tackle global warming.
Bush Administration Admits That Telco Immunity More Important Than Increased Spying Power
[This isn't the first time Bush has shown that, by his own logic, he is willing to let Americans die in order to protect the telecoms who spied on them]
Today the Bush Administration released a letter threatening to veto the upcoming FISA legislation if it included the Bingaman Amendment, which puts both telecom immunity and the court cases on hold until after the Inspector General reports about the warrantless wiretapping program. If given the choice between new surveillance powers without immunity for telcos on the one hand, or surveillance under the existing law on the other, the Bush Administration said its choice was clear: keep with the existing law.
Read the rest of this entry »
Endangered species extinction rates seriously underestimated
While climate change gets all the attention a potentially greater environmental threat continues unabated: the threat of biodiversity loss. Now new research provided convincing evidence that we may be underestimating the probability of extinctions of many critically endangered species.
Read the rest of this entry »
