One for the CC Deniers to answer ...

[kenneal - lagger]

This article poses a question that all CC deniers should answer.

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

[cubes]

Tbh, I'm surprised that there isn't at least some published works. If the methodology is right then it would expect, in all likelihood, that something would be published.

Otoh, peer-review is far from perfect and some level of bias by the reviewers and editors of the journals can't be totally ruled out, after all, it occasionally happens in other, less contentious areas.

It's an interesting question and I hope someone has an answer that isn't "because they're wrong" (even if they are).

[biffvernon]

I've not seen any articles on the dairy produce origin of the Moon's lithosphere in the scientific literature recently.

Unless this counts: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_t ... _cheese%3F

[biffvernon]

And there's this going around but I don't know which the 'one' is.

[Ralph]

This article poses a question that all CC deniers should answer.

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

Seems to me that this statement can only be made in ignorance.

Nice to see that natural variability is attracting the right kind of scientific research money and being published in high quality journals.

Takuro Kobashi, Kenji Kawamura, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean‐Marc Barnola, Toshiyuki Nakaegawa, Bo M. Vinther, Sigfús J. Johnsen, and Jason E. Box, 2011, High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444, 2011

[kenneal - lagger]

Possible reasons for the differences are numerous,
and include at a minimum 1) our record is a mean ‐ annual
temperature, not a summer temperature, and variability is
minimal in summer but highest in winter [Box, 2002];
2) differences between air and snow temperature may be
influenced by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, which
affect the strength of the near ‐ surface inversion; and 3) our
site is not necessarily representative of the whole Arctic, and
may respond in opposite ways to annular mode fluctuations

This is just one study of many which looks at a very limited area of study which may be construed to mitigate against GW although the authors above sugest that there may be reasons why their study does not correlate with others. I would expect that further research will be carried out to either explain, corroborate or disprove their findings.

They say nothing about recent massive summer surface melting of the interior ice sheet nor about its melting around the edges and the increased flow of glaciers.

[emordnilap]

That very cool pie chart of papers made it into Scientific American.

This chart should tell us why we need to move the debate beyond the fundamental fact of global warming, from disputing the basic science and effects of the process to disputing the details of consequences and the proposed solutions.

Full article

[biffvernon]

If you see something, say something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opini ... thing.html

[clv101]

This article might be relevant to climate change rejection:

The Death of Expertise

[RenewableCandy]

Ten years ago I'd have been inclined to agree with all of that.

But there's one, really major, issue he's completely missed out: these days, expertise can be bought. Just look at the lists of who sponsors academic research, and into which particular topics.

People, especially the young, have a sort of inchoate gut feeling that they are being ripped off. It's visible, almost audible, in the type of awful "comments" the guy rightly slags-off. Expressed suspicion of "experts", whether justified or not, is the one counterweight the ripped-off have to sling against those with enough money to "buy" experts. This probably goes some way to explaining some people's rejection even of things which are obviously beneficial (for example the reaction of Rotherham parents to a new menu of healthy food at their kids' school).

[biffvernon]

Indeed, there's truth in there. He takes a few pot-shots at bloggers but his own is quite interesting, but then, of course, he's an expert.
http://tomnichols.net/blog/

It was written six years ago but Naomi Oreskes' book has stood the test of time and chapter four, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? is well worth reading for anyone interested in the 'scientific method'.

https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/4 ... _wrong.pdf

I've just seen a lecture by her and was quite impressed. She's an expert too.

[UndercoverElephant]

This article might be relevant to climate change rejection:

The Death of Expertise

It's relevant to climate change rejection in the US, for sure. I'm not sure it is so applicable to the European version.

What’s going on here?

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

Maybe that's part of it, but there's something quite US-specific here and it has to do with the American cultural belief in the "rights of the individual". In other words, a lot of Americans believe it is their right to believe whatever they damned well want to believe, because they are Americans and that means they are "free". Free to own guns, free to believe God made the world in seven days and free to reject anything scientists say that challenges something non-scientific they happen to believe. This has always been part of US culture, right from the very beginning. It is not something new that has happened in the age of Google.

So I basically agree with what he's saying, but I think he's failed to acknowledge just how much of the problem is an American cultural disease that predates the current manifestation of the problem.

[emordnilap]

It's hard to point to any one weather disaster and say definitively that it's related to climate change. But it's not your imagination: the number of major weather-related disasters in the U.S. has been steadily increasing over the past few decades.

Source

Not every year has had more disasters than the years immediately prior, but the trend is there. The weather is less stable than it was 30 years ago, and it's racking up some pretty big bills. Presumably, it's a problem that won't get better anytime soon.

Damned right.

[biffvernon]

[emordnilap]

I liked it too.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... 702#249702