2012-01-25 03:52:32Post for Peter's latest video interview with Katharine Hayhoe
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

http://www.skepticalscience.com/katharine-hayhoe-much-of-this-is-intended-to-intimidate.html

2012-01-25 04:19:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good stuff, I was hoping you'd put that together Rob.  Will post this in the next day or two.

2012-01-25 06:49:30
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.111.181

More advocacy? Barry from the comments thread will not be impressed!

Just me, but I couldn't give a shit what Barry thinks. Thumbs up.

2012-01-25 07:13:29
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.111.181

Errrr, the thumb. 

2012-01-25 13:45:40
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Rob P.,

I fail to see how defending a viscious and orchestrated citriolic and hateful attack against a scientist can be perceived as being "advocacy".  If anything, we are advocating being civil, ethical and fact-based in a scientific 'debate', and not resorting to sending threatening and hateful emails.

Barry has had some valid insights, but he is way off base on this.

His comments on the debunking myth handbook are equally misplaced.  SkS s about debunking myths surrounding AGW, so speaking to the best way to debunk myths is definitely well within the John's mandate.

2012-01-25 14:00:39
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
203.173.233.41

Alby you're preaching to the choir. I forgot to insert my Mutley smiley.

Barry's comments stuck in my head beacuse they were so idiotic. If we think people are going to be convinced by evidence alone, we humans have a long history to demonstrate that that doesn't work.  

2012-01-25 14:31:45
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.169.107

With regard to Barry's comments, they are entirely off base.  This is the introduction on Skeptical Science's home page:

 

"Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

That is fairly straightfoward.  We have taken a side, and we do not pretend otherwise.  We have taken the side of good science, and of science informed policy responses.  But there is nothing in that introduction which suggests we should only present the good science, and the good policy, and not advocate for them too.

That Barry thinks this is a pure science education site is a testimony to the quality of the site.  That we should feel there is something in what he says is testimony to our determination to be guided by science.  But there is no inconsistency between our posting record and our mission statement.

Post is good to, by the way.

2012-01-25 14:41:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

"Many independent lines of evidence show that human activity is responsible for most of the climate change in recent years decades, particularly the warming of the atmosphere and ocean in the last 150 years"

 

Up to 100% in recent decades, but less trhan than in the last 150 years.  See Dana's recent meta analysis.

 

"who study the Earth’s climate today and who investigate past climates agree that global temperature has increased rapidly and significantly in the last 150 years"

 

Note sure 0.8 C is significant yet, and the rate of change over that time has not been that rapid.  Not sure what to suggest, but they need to be very careful not to ovserstate.

 

"This carbon dioxide is the major factor responsible for warming the atmosphere."

Add in recent decades and the forcing is going to increase with time under BAU.