Climate Scientists Seen As Trustworthy by Americans, Contrary to Reporting:
http://thkpr.gs/3571562
[science, denial, journalism, public opinion]
Cutting Carbon City by City Could Have Huge Impact on Climate Change:
http://thkpr.gs/3571894
Record year for fossil fuel emissions pushes carbon budget to brink: @Readfearn @guardian:
http://gu.com/p/4xp33/tw
[science]
This Climate Change Poem Moved World Leaders to Tears: @FutureTenseNow:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/09/23/kathy_jetnil_kijiner_solastalgia_marshall_islander_s_poem_moves_u_n_climate.html
[Kathy Jetnil Kijiner, Marshall Islands]
Skeptical Science "97 Hours of Consensus" climate science campaign reaches millions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-Hours-of-Consensus-reaches-millions.html …
Top 5 Takeaways from @UN Climate Summit:
http://mashable.com/2014/09/24/united-nations-climate-summit-takeaways/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfb3NhYmV0c3h1aWdoc2dnNCJ9 … via @mashable
[science]
.@WSJ's Message is Always Deny or Delay: Koonin Just Latest Misinformer; @AGW_Prof:
http://wp.me/pKr8Z-Rg
[science, denial, Wall Street Journal, Steven Koonin]
RT Climate Reality @ClimateReality:
MT @CarbonBubble: King Coal's reign crumbling as demand falters. #riskycoal:
http://tinyurl.com/mgqatd6 http://pic.twitter.com/FktmDt4Re3
[energy, investing, divestment]
RT 350 dot org @350:
October 17th, Pacific Climate Warriors will paddle into the harbour of the world’s largest coal port to stop coal:
http://go.350.org/1vhF5HQ
[flooding, sea level, energy, investing, divestment]
“Spooked” Australian coal industry counterattacks divestment campaign: @jeremyleggett:
http://www.jeremyleggett.net/2014/09/spooked-coal-industry-counter-attack-over-divestment-campaign/
[energy, investing, risk]
RT Forecast The Facts @ForecastFacts:
.@eBay: you're a BICEP member—you committed to finding "solutions to the climate change crisis." But you still fund ALEC's climate denial?!?
[American Legislative Exchange Council, Koch, Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy]
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire: @7im @rollingstone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924
[denial]
#FF @ericholthaus @GoFossilFree @readingirl @CelloMomOnCars @BeyondCoal @p_hannam @AllanMargolin #climate
#FF @YaleClimateComm @CeresNews @ClimateHotNews @ClimateNow @CLIMATEMAMA @oscare2000 @wenstephenson @Climateate #climate
#FF @AndrewDessler @ClimateOfGavin @mle_marion @bradleyjdibble @healthy_climate @ForecastFacts @DebbySchade #climate
#FF @kellyrigg @readfearn @ClimateBites @CleanAirMoms @ForecastFacts @jackthelad1947 @hottopicnz @frankejames #climate
#FF @billmckibben @MichaelEMann @AGW_Prof @heidicullen @Bentler @climatecliff @YaleE360 @capital_climate #climate
#FF/join/contribute to: @mmfa @climateprogress @ClimateCentral @citizensclimate @350 @ClimateReality #climate #divest !
Showing posts with label skeptical science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skeptical science. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2014
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Climate tweets for 21 April 2014
Hot Western U.S., Cold East May Be Norm as World Warms: @ClimateCentral http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hot-west-cold-east-may-be-norm-as-world-warms-17319
[science]
Conservative heavyweights have solar industry in their sights: @latimes
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,2718030,full.story#axzz2zSS1VPZS
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,2718030,full.story#axzz2zSS1VPZS
[Koch, renewable energy, clean energy]
What GOP's War On Science Looks Like: @io9
Editorial: World "Running Out of Time" to deal with global warming inexpensively: @nytimes
.@SkepticScience consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013: http://www.skepticalscience.com/SkS-consensus-paper-ERL-best-article-2013.html
[science]
RT Climate Reality @ClimateReality:
Time to stand up. On #EarthDay let's make our commitment to climate heard. RT & join our @ThunderclapIt today
http://bit.ly/OfUirA
Drilling holes in ice sheds light on future climate: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/19/environment-climate-change-ice-core-ancient-air/
Drilling holes in ice sheds light on future climate: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/19/environment-climate-change-ice-core-ancient-air/
[science]
RT CitizensClimateLobby @citizensclimate:
Editorial in San Antonio calls for putting price on carbon! The high cost of climate change denial
Editorial in San Antonio calls for putting price on carbon! The high cost of climate change denial
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Wall Street Journal – Dr. William Happer is Wrong Again
The following is cross-posted with permission from Scott Mandia's excellent blog, Global Warming: Man or Myth?
Letter sent to Wall Street Journal on March 27, 2012, in reply to Dr. William Happer’s op-ed: Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again which should have been titled “Dr. William Happer is Wrong Again”. My LTE has not been published. I am not surprised.
Scientists tell us that heat-trapping carbon emissions are rising, as are global temperatures, sea levels and the risks associated with climate change. But regular readers of the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page are likely to have exactly the opposite impression.
By my count, over more than a two year period starting in late 2008, the Journal published only 4 opinion pieces that supported the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, but 39 that questioned it, attacked scientists or otherwise misrepresented scientific findings. Those trends have continued in recent months. Meanwhile, 97 percent of publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are significantly altering our climate. And our own National Academy of Sciences tells us, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”
The latest op-ed attempting to contradict the science is from physicist William Happer who makes the classic mistake of cherry-picking an individual year and counting forward from there to make spurious claims about global temperature trends.
In reality, the past 35 years have all been hotter than average globally, meaning half of all Americans have never even lived during a year with average or below-average temperatures. Four independent scientific agencies confirm the unmistakable warming trend, as did an analysis (the BEST project) from a former climate change skeptic.
The Journal’s readers would benefit from more high-quality information about the science and less spin from ideologues.
Sincerely,[For a detailed scientific demolition of Dr. Happer's claims, see Yes, Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues by Dana Nuccitelli at Skeptical Science.]
Scott A. Mandia, Professor & Asst. Chair – Physical SciencesT-202 Smithtown Science Bldg., S.C.C.C.533 College Rd.Selden, NY 11784
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Bad news for Bryce as neutrinos come home to roost
Some months ago, I had a good time here poking fun at Robert Bryce, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy, who authored a column in the Wall Street Journal arguing that since a scientific experiment had apparently found neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, all the findings of climate science should be considered up for grabs (see Neutrinos stage speedy rescue from global warming ... whew!, Oct. 9, 2011). No, really, he did.
Unfortunately for Mr. Bryce and his tortured logic, the neutrinos have come home to roost. Late last week, two of the top scientists involved in the experiment, which was conducted at the European high-energy physics CERN laboratory and another research center, resigned after a vote of no confidence by other researchers with whom they had been collaborating. Just two weeks earlier, a second research group had announced that its testing did not confirm the earlier results. The culprit in the first experiment appears to have been faulty equipment.
So yet another "basis for overturning climate science," and a startlingly flimsy one at that, bites the dust.
Was Mr. Bryce wrong? Well, no, not exactly--all science proceeds by trial and error, and climate science is no exception. It's never "settled," and there are still many areas of uncertainty. At the same time, his approach was a uniquely counter-factual one: to cast doubt on all of the findings of climate science without challenging any of them. Very creative, since it required no climate-related evidence whatsoever, but for the same reason, not very convincing.
Here's a modest suggestion, Mr. Bryce: the climate science website Skeptical Science has an excellent and informative page titled 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change. That page itself links to another page from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on a report detailing the reasons why scientists are sure the Earth is warming. Between the two, there are 20 or more significant findings on which the concept of human-caused climate change rests. Next time you undertake to overturn climate science, it might be more prudent, and convincing, to present some reasons, based on observations or research results, for doubting one or more of these pillars of the actual science.
Even if you are able to do that, though, John Cook's admonition from the Skeptical Science page bears repeating:
Unfortunately for Mr. Bryce and his tortured logic, the neutrinos have come home to roost. Late last week, two of the top scientists involved in the experiment, which was conducted at the European high-energy physics CERN laboratory and another research center, resigned after a vote of no confidence by other researchers with whom they had been collaborating. Just two weeks earlier, a second research group had announced that its testing did not confirm the earlier results. The culprit in the first experiment appears to have been faulty equipment.
So yet another "basis for overturning climate science," and a startlingly flimsy one at that, bites the dust.
Was Mr. Bryce wrong? Well, no, not exactly--all science proceeds by trial and error, and climate science is no exception. It's never "settled," and there are still many areas of uncertainty. At the same time, his approach was a uniquely counter-factual one: to cast doubt on all of the findings of climate science without challenging any of them. Very creative, since it required no climate-related evidence whatsoever, but for the same reason, not very convincing.
Here's a modest suggestion, Mr. Bryce: the climate science website Skeptical Science has an excellent and informative page titled 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change. That page itself links to another page from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on a report detailing the reasons why scientists are sure the Earth is warming. Between the two, there are 20 or more significant findings on which the concept of human-caused climate change rests. Next time you undertake to overturn climate science, it might be more prudent, and convincing, to present some reasons, based on observations or research results, for doubting one or more of these pillars of the actual science.
Even if you are able to do that, though, John Cook's admonition from the Skeptical Science page bears repeating:
Science isn't a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what's driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)