Comments 1 to 23:

1. One Planet Only Forever at 13:09 PM on 5 December, 2019

   This recent Comment published Nov 27 in Nature "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against", may be appropriate for the new Informed Opinion and nudges catergory.

   0 0
2. One Planet Only Forever at 13:17 PM on 5 December, 2019

   I have just noticed that the item I linked to above is the basis for the "Climate Tipping Points Are Closer Than We Think, Scientists Warn" article that is included in "2019 SKS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48".

   0 0
3. nigelj at 18:22 PM on 5 December, 2019

   "Questioning scientific practice: linking beliefs about scientists, science agencies, and climate change (open access)" doesn't appear to be open access.

   The informed opinion section is a great idea.

   0 0
4. ed56 at 09:42 AM on 6 December, 2019

   The author and the project may be 100% right in their scientific positions, but why the 'Skeptical' in the title?
   There is not skeptic attitude anywhere in this article or the whole website. You report that the mainstream finding is the mainstream finding, you repeat over and over that consensus has been reached and that there are no AGW denial positions.
   So why not change the name to 'Truescience.com'?
   Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this?

   0 1
5. scaddenp at 09:56 AM on 6 December, 2019

   Scientists the true skeptics - demanding evidence for everything. Pseudo-skeptics are only skeptical about positions that offend what they would like to beleive, swallowing garbage without a blink if it backs their preferrences

   "Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this?"

   If that true, then sure, the site could shut down. However, visitor no.s suggest otherwise. If you think there is no refusal of AGW anymore, then just peruse back through the "comments" link at top for a few pages and see whether you still think so. There is a very strong science consensus but not so much among the voting public who clearly prefer to convenient lies.

   1 0
6. nigelj at 11:54 AM on 6 December, 2019

   ed56 @4, I hear you, but read the mission statement for this website at the top of the home page "This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism." Having read much of the so called global warming scepticism myself, there is much to be sceptical about their claims. This website can't be all things to all people, and it focuses on getting sceptical about what the climate sceptics / denialists like to claim. 

   However there is published science from time to time that takes a sceptical position on mainstream climate science positions, and you sometimes see this in the weekly list of research papers.

   The greenhouse effect is established science, so there's no particular reason to be sceptical about it, in the same way theres no reason to be sceptical about the earth orbiting the sun. The things in genuine doubt include the exact effects of clouds and this gets discussed from time to time.

   And "warmists" argue with each other quite frequently for example look at the comments posted on the article "Video:Is CO2 dangerous" in the list of recent articles. So theres plenty of scepticism if you have your eyes open.

   0 0
7. Daniel Bailey at 12:30 PM on 6 December, 2019

   Being a skeptic is not being given a license to lie.  The science underlying AGW is almost 2 centuries old, and has been independently researched and validated as accurate by the fossil fuel companies themselves.

   I understand that pretend-skeptics don't like actual science that runs counter to their preselected opinions, but then, that's not skepticism.   It's flagrant denial: denial of facts, physics and history.

   Time and history are not on the side of pretend-skeptics, for the time for denial is long over.

   All that is left is to stand up and be counted, either as someone who understands science...or someone who doesn't.

   0 0
8. Doug Bostrom at 18:22 PM on 6 December, 2019

   Ed: "...why does the world need a website like this?"

   Some of us "lifers" on this project are sincerely wishing for the day when this site becomes truly obsolete. :-)

   That's not yet the case. The public is still being fed a rich fare of toxic mental fodder, for later regurgitation.on social media etc. Here's an example published only a few days ago (put your brain in protective wrapping before reading because research suggests we're all more or less susceptible to infection): 

   https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201912011077447053-eu-parliaments-climate-emergency-will-lead-to-disastrous-consequences---former-un-expert/

   Sputnik of course is an O&O organ of a country with an utterly desperate, urgent dependence on fossil fuel revenues, so it figures they'd need to debase themselves by publishing such garbage. Many variations on this  theme having the common tune of money vector preservation make SkS still necessary. We could wish it was otherwise.

   0 0
9. ed56 at 21:00 PM on 6 December, 2019

   Ok, so some people misuse the word 'skeptical' by pretending to have scientific arguments objecting the AGW explanation, while actually they have only misinformation based on political motives.
   Now by calling this website 'Skeptical' you trap them and make them read the truth. Does is work? I doubt.
   Why not be clear: The scientific facts about AGW are not debatable, the political conclusions are. Let's classify them and collect pro and con arguments for each.

   0 0
10. John Hartz at 00:27 AM on 7 December, 2019

    ed56 @9:

    If you click on the About button on this website's Home Page, you will find the following statement:

    Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers.

    The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

    This has been the mission of Skeptical Science since its inception and will continue to be its mission in the future.

    0 0
11. Doug Bostrom at 03:05 AM on 7 December, 2019

    Ed, your point about a site that collects and compares methods and mechansims for mitigation, adaptation etc. is a good one. There's a lot of redundant babble in the popular climate communications world and there could certainly be benefit from more specialization. Perhaps there is such a site— I don't know of it myself. 

    But as to whether or not SkS is useful, site access statistics show a clear result: some half a million persons per month arrive here and land on specific articles debunking various climate change myths. It's a very purposeful and objective use of the site. These people are on personal fact-checking missions and we're here when they need us. There's no other such resource available.

    Skeptical Science is specialized on providing factual corrections to climate misunderstandings. That's our stock-in-trade, our raison d'etre. We're a climate myth debunking encyclopedia.

    Perusing the "Humans dealing with our global warming" section above suggests several other available specialty communications slots. A site focusing on popular conveyance of human cognition of hazards and risks would certainly be good. Much of our problem in dealing with climate lies in our poor mental faculties for that. 

    0 0
12. John Hartz at 04:28 AM on 7 December, 2019

    doug_bostrom @11: You opined:

    Ed, your point about a site that collects and compares methods and mechansims for mitigation, adaptation etc. is a good one. There's a lot of redundant babble in the popular climate communications world and there could certainly be benefit from more specialization. Perhaps there is such a site— I don't know of it myself.

    There are in fact many such sites. Carbon Brief is a prime example.

    0 0
13. Doug Bostrom at 05:53 AM on 7 December, 2019

    Not quite what I was thinking of, John, but it certainly covers the materal in more concentrated way.

    I'm thinking more along the lines of what we do, something that can do better than the current Google results on a question such as "how does co2 capture via chemisorption compare iin cost to direct capture." If you try that query there's no obvious place to go. 

    I don't get out much, so I'm sure I'm missing something. :-)

    0 0
14. nigelj at 06:10 AM on 7 December, 2019

    ed56@9, scepticalscience is just a name. Names need to be short and calling the website "busting climate myths.org" is long and corny and could be interpreted in different ways leading to the need to write "busting the climate myths of the climate sceptics.org  which is even longer.

    Yeah maybe the intent in the name sceptical science was to fishook in a few climate sceptics. No big deal. Clever move.

    But I get your point that Sceptical science implies scepticism should be broadly applied. I think it  would be useful to have the occasional article looking at some of the extremist warming claims and dissecting them. Eg climate change will cause human extinction, and the ridiculous claims on arctic-news.blogspot.com. 

    This website is probably not the ideal venue for looking regularly at mitigation and adaptation and the pros and cons, ie a sceptical analysis, because it can't do everything, but it could look at the occasional mitigation issue such as the very science heavy ones. In fact it did that a year ago by taking a look at the claims made by Alan Savory about regenerative cattle farming being able to sequester vast quantities soil carbon, and took a sceptical position. Heres the article.

    0 0
15. John Hartz at 08:46 AM on 7 December, 2019

    Doug @13: Here's the "About" statement posted on the website of MIT's  Center for Global Change Science (CGCS). Note the final paragraph in particular:

    The Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) at MIT was founded in January 1990 to address fundamental questions about the global environment with a multidisciplinary approach. In July 2006 the CGCS became an independent Center in the School of Science. The Center’s goal is to improve the ability to accurately predict changes in the global environment.

    CGCS seeks to better understand the natural mechanisms in the ocean, atmosphere and land systems that together control the Earth’s climate, and to apply improved knowledge to problems of predicting global environmental change. The Center utilizes theory, observations, and numerical models to investigate environmental phenomena, the linkages among them, and their potential feedbacks in a changing climate.

    The Center builds on existing programs of research and education in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MIT. The interdisciplinary organization fosters studies on topics as varied as, for example, oceanography, meteorology, hydrology, atmospheric chemistry, ecology, biogeochemical cycling, paleoclimatology, applied math, data assimilation, computer science, and satellite remote sensing.

    CGCS sustains a program of discovery science with research on the natural processes in the global environment, concentrating on the circulations, cycles and interactions of water, air, energy, and nutrients in the Earth system.

    Parallel CGCS activities incorporate the insight gained into climate prediction models, and climate policy analysis, with the aim of providing it in a useful way to decision-makers confronting the coupled challenges of future food, energy, water, climate and air pollution (among others). The CGCS also interacts with complementary MIT efforts in the Environmental Solutions Initiative, the Energy Initiative, and the Earth Resources Laboratory.

    Given that cutting-edge research about carbon capture is occurring at MIT, you might want to nose around the CGS website to see if your question is being addressed. 

    0 0
16. John Hartz at 09:02 AM on 7 December, 2019

    ed56@4: You wrote:

    Then again, when there is no refusal of AGW (any more), why does the world need a website like this?

    If you carefully read the following article, you will understand why your global assertion is not accurate.

    Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America, Opinion by Lee McIntyre, Newsweek, May 14, 2019

    0 0
17. nigelj at 16:22 PM on 7 December, 2019

    Regarding "Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America," linked by John Hartz.

    A good read with mostly convincing conclusions, but it was not clear  what it meant by denialists. I think what you have is "hard core" denialists who have gone slightly crazy and have a very extreme view of climate science. There are many moderate sceptics who are just slightly sceptical and people who are rather "impressionable" and easily swayed. The risk is the hard core denialists infect these moderates. This is the war zone we have to be wary of.

    These are two largely different groups, because we are all sceptics of everything to some extent. Facts wont change hard core denialists minds, with a few  exceptions, because they are driven by ideology and conspiracy theory beliefs, but I believe facts do change the minds of the moderatly sceptical people. The article failed to make the distinction so sends a bad message.

    Sadly the article was also rather vague on just how to reach the hard core denialists but rather than throw too many facts at them it might be useful to talk about motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Thus they are not being told they are wrong or have the wrong facts. But the rest of the article was great.

    These denialists seem to go over board with conspiracy theories and they really do "believe". I remember reading about the illumaniti conspiracy and it can be seductive, but I have a big internal wall that stops be falling for this sort of thing, and a careful study of the origins of the group shows its harmless. But that sort of study takes effort to find reliable information and recognise it. Makes me wonder if denialists are often just lazy.
    
    

    0 0
18. John Hartz at 23:47 PM on 7 December, 2019

    nigelj @ 17: You wrote:

    Sadly the article was also rather vague on just how to reach the hard core denialists but rather than throw too many facts at them it might be useful to talk about motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Thus they are not being told they are wrong or have the wrong facts. But the rest of the article was great. 

    My advice to you and everyone — Ignore the hard core denialist and focus on getting the majority of people to move from climate awareness to climate action.

    0 0
19. ed56 at 04:00 AM on 8 December, 2019

    Nigelj, science denial may be a special problem in den US (much less in Europa, where I sit), but then again it is not a challenge for natural science.
    It may be one for sociology, and I miss information here from this perspective.
    You all know better what the effect of this website is, from my superficial perception it could have the effect of further splitting the (social) camps.
    Remember, the other camp is also a natural grown inhabitant of this planet ;-)

    0 0
20. One Planet Only Forever at 07:53 AM on 8 December, 2019

    ed56 @19,

    People who resist expanding their awareness and resist improving their understanding and resist applying what they learn to help develop a sustainable and improvable future for a robust diversity of humanity fitting in to a robust diversity of life are not "... natural grown inhabitants of this planet".

    They are products of the socioeconomic-political systems and story-telling that they developed in. They are humans who have allowed their ability to be 'helpful members of a robust diversity of humanity' to be over-powered by the 'harmful selfish enticements and motivations of the socioeconomic-political systems' that can be seen to develop harmful unsustainable results and develop powerful resistance to correction.

    Climate science and the resistance to accepting it is clearly the largest case study proving that point. But similar examples exist related to every other Sustainable Development Goal.

    Whenever the harmful correction resistant portion of the population sense that learning would threaten a developed belief and resulting personally liked actions they will be tempted to use all available methods to evade 'learning to be helpful rather than continue to be enjoy being harmful'. That is on bold display everywhere. It is even tragically succeeding at temporarily winning unfettered power in some of the 'supposedly most advanced nations'. And it is having significant influence even if that harmful portion of the population do not win unfettered power. Popularity and profitability are hard to effectively fight against.

    The future of humanity is at stake. And there are indeed two camps. And one of them clearly deserves to be Governed and Limited by the Other Camp. The Nature and Humanity camp must govern and limit the Popularity and Profit Camp.

    0 0
21. Doug Bostrom at 12:51 PM on 9 December, 2019

    Analogies don't function in the mind of folks bent on not understanding even as analogies are a very useful way of giving people a leg up on unfamiliar topics. Nor will this web site penetrate diamond-hard dogma.

    Fortunately research tells us that the intractably intransigent are distinctly in the minority. :-)

    0 0
22. Mal Adapted at 14:29 PM on 14 December, 2019

    nigelj @14:

    Yeah maybe the intent in the name sceptical science was to fishook in a few climate sceptics. No big deal. Clever move.

    That's part of the rationale for the name, and it has worked well for the purpose. OTOH, science is a centuries-long, worldwide collective enterprise by trained, disciplined, competitively skeptical individuals, who adopt Nullius in verba as a guiding principle. As nigelj well knows, soi disant "skeptics" of anthropogenic global warming are actually pseudo-skeptical, and are appropriately called AGW-deniers. For the most part, volunteer AGW-deniers are neither trained nor disciplined, and readily succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect. They scorn the lopsided consensus of genuine experts, namely the international peer community of climate specialists; but gladly take the word of professional disinformers who obfuscate reality for hire, with or without scientific credentials. It's no surprise that a robust public deception industry has flourished, under savvy long-time reinvestment of a tiny fraction of annual fossil fuel profits. The persistent failure of the US to enact effective decarbonization policy is a positive ROI.

    Many non-Americans find both our long history of truculent anti-intellectualism, and the vast power of fossil-carbon wealth over our politics, hard to fathom. Alas, they are realities confronting the world 8^(. FWIW, I apologize for my country, and I cling to hope we can somehow blunder our way to a carbon-neutral economy before it's too late for any economy at all!

    0 0
23. icowrich at 05:16 AM on 21 February, 2020

    The escalator gif needs a 2020 update.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.