2011-01-02 09:16:10Debunking of list of scientists predicting global cooling
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164
Albatross identified a skeptic blog which recently posted an article claiming that there's a growing consensus of scientists predicting imminent global cooling.  So in the spirit of John's plan for a rapid response network, I drafted up a blog post to debunk it.  Comments would be much appreciated.
2011-01-02 11:24:52
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.216.175
Excellent. I do think however, that this should eventually become a rebuttal because it will resurface from time to time, and being on the rebuttal list makes it easier to find. It's always funny when Mojib Latif gets misrepresented so, he even jokes about being called "Mr Global Warming" in clips I've watched.  
2011-01-02 11:28:36good point
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164

Thanks.  Good point Rob - there are rebuttals for "it is cooling", but not rebuttal for predictions of future cooling (except "we're headed for an ice age", which is a bit different).  I can add it as a rebuttal to "scientists are predicting global cooling", or something like that.

*update* I modified it a bit into an intermediate rebuttal to 'scientists are predicting global cooling'

2011-01-02 12:12:45
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.166.150
Looks good to me. "These claims strain cedulity" should be "These claims strain credulity".
2011-01-02 12:34:19Comment & question
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13
Question re the bit about not a single climate scientist not predicting cooling. Just to clarify, are Don Easterbrook, Syun Akasofu, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Joe D'Aleo, and Nicola Scafetta all not climate scientists. Some of them have published peer review on climate. That might be overreaching with that statement which is not essential to your argument.

also, a suggestion. What if we make the rebuttal more general - instead of answering the 'scientists predict cooling', we make it address the argument 'we're heading into cooling' or something to that effect. That way, you get more mileage out of the rebuttal. People can use it to rebut anytime someone argues for global cooling rather than rebutting this specific article. It's a pretty subtle difference, doesn't require much or any change to the rebuttal text, probably just change the argument title. And the blog post can still specifically target the article. Just a thought.

2011-01-02 13:13:46Looks good (kudo's for dealing with a PITA subject)
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170

I like it; well done.

A comment on the presentation & appearance:  in the section on the misquoted scientists, this is how you show it:

Mike Lockwood:  the Lockwood quote supposedly about global cooling simply discusses that decreased solar activity may impact winter weather in Europe, and have nothing to do with global temperatures whatsoever.  Lockwood has performed numerous studies concluding that the Sun is not responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming, and has not predicted global cooling.

 

Instead I suggest that you show it like this:

Mike Lockwood

The Lockwood quote supposedly about global cooling simply discusses that decreased solar activity may impact winter weather in Europe, and have nothing to do with global temperatures whatsoever.  Lockwood has performed numerous studies concluding that the Sun is not responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming, and has not predicted global cooling.

 

This rationale for the change is primarily to strengthen the impact: these are actual working scientists in the field & therefore worthy of more individual treatment than the denier "scientists" in the earlier section of the rebuttal.  It also allows you to play with the formatting a bit, as I've done.  Finally, it allows for a consistency of treatment for the words immediately after the colon (some are capitalized, some not).  And (not so final, I guess) in the above paragraph, in the end of the first sentence, you should change it to read "and has nothing to do with" instead of "and have nothing to do with" to make it consistent with the rest of the paragraph.

2011-01-02 14:54:23thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164

James - good catch thanks, will fix the typo.

John - fair point.  Personally I wouldn't call any of them climate scientists.  Scafetta is closest, but he's more of a solar physicist.  But it's always tricky defining exactly what a 'climate scientist' is.  I'll take the statement out since it's not critical.

Regarding the rebuttal, is there a way to change it (from 'scientists are predicting cooling' to 'we're heading into cooling'?  What I mean is, can we edit the name of the rebuttal without having to create a new one?  By the way, I also sent you an email regarding how to link to the skeptic blog without giving them page hits.

Daniel - that's a good idea, I'll change the formatting accordingly.

2011-01-02 15:22:57Updated argument
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13

I've changed the argument name and given it a URL:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm

So its now live and good to go, at the bottom of the argument list. You can post your blog post whenever you're ready.

I wouldn't worry about the rel="nofollow" link, the admin system filters it out anyway at the moment. Something for me to work on.

Note: admin authors will be able to edit arguments and go live themselves soon :-)

2011-01-02 15:52:14other comments?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164
Thanks John.  I'll probably post it tomorrow morning.  Any other comments?
2011-01-02 15:55:29one last one
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170
With the re-formatting your conclusion no longer stands out.  Perhaps a line divider or a CONCLUSIONS header for the summation?
2011-01-02 17:14:34BTW, thumb from me
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.206.13
Just for the record.
2011-01-02 17:18:56conclusions
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164
Yeah Daniel, I had the same thought that the conclusion gets a bit lost.  I generally don't particularly like having a 'Conclusions' header.  Not sure why - just personal taste I guess.  Just kind of lacks subtlety.  But I'll add some sort of header to the end, because I agree it needs something there to distinguish it from the previous sub-sections.
2011-01-02 19:13:38Wording in the last sentence
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.158.104

The last sentence currently reads:
"The few scientists who are predicting cooling have generally been doing so for several years, and are going against an very large body of scientific evidence that the planet will continue warming rapidly."

I think it should be changed to:

"The few scientists who are predicting cooling have generally been doing so for several years, and are going against a very large body of scientific evidence that the planet will continue to warm rapidly."

Cheers
Baerbel

 

2011-01-03 06:46:43thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.20.164
Thanks Baerbel, I'll correct that.  John just published his Climategate retrospective, so I'll hold off on this one until tomorrow.
2011-01-03 17:09:03Go ahead and publish this anytime, Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.58.57

Didn't mean to cut your lunch, I wasn't sure when you were posting so I shoved this one out (I'd been promising to James that I'd plug his rebuttals after Christmas so didn't want to let this one get away from me). Feel free to publish anytime.

I don't think it's a big deal when people publish - the general rule of thumb is I like to give a post a few hours to breath, that's about it. Some blogs are posting many posts per day - two posts in a day is no bad thing.

2011-01-04 03:24:30sure
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Yeah it's just my personal preference, I tend to like giving each post at least a half day to a day for it's time in the sun.  Nothing wrong with doing a couple posts in a day, but I also kind of like spacing them out so there aren't several days with no new posts.  I don't know if we have any others in the pipeline.  Anyway, I'll post it now.

By the way John, it looks like the formatting on the rebuttal page is kind of funky.