Oh this says quite well what I have observed over the last few years.
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick
We agree completely, except for the "climate denier" term. No one objects to the abstraction "climate" or to the assertion that climate changes over time. Here: "The clear distinction between a scientist and a climate denier (or indeed anyone who has pre-decided what they want) is that the scientist needs very good reasons for discarding or selecting data whereas the denier just needs to know what result they want" we agree completely. We just differ as to which people these words describe.
Interesting observation of yours. I there anybody here you regard as "discarding or selecting data" because they have "pre-decided what they want"? Apart from the usual suspects we can all agree on, of course. Further to that, what data do you feel is being discarded that you regard as evidence against AGW being a real and significant problem?
Like what we saw in the last few days. I answered the unscientific musings about why the topic was dead, by joking that maybe everybody was stuck in the snow and cold up north. (and as I type the snow is still coming down)
Maybe you should just leave off the joking because it doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I still can't see the joke after you've pointed out there is one.
You can see the response to that. which wasn't basded on science, or even data.
That's not usually the sort of response one seeks with a joke. Like I say, maybe the subject isn't your natural thing.
Then I pointed out winters have been trending down, and we see unscientific comments, including denial of the records.
You claim that winters are getting colder but that simply isn't so. In a global sense it doesn't even mean anything. In a hemispheric sense it isn't so. Even on a North American sense it isn't so.
Are you then referring to Florida? Is it even true there? Are you quite sure you're not using data you'd be better off discarding like a Monckton graph?
When I show how the last few weeks have been record cold, more denial. That winters have turned really cold, and the trend is colder winters, isn't in dispute. Yet we see denial here over it.
Why not deny what isn't so? It may have been record cold in Florida recently (really? record cold?), but why would anyone bother to deny that anyway since it signifies nothing?
Or, if it's impossible to deny, then the "deniers" start saying it was global warming that caused the cold.
Are they denying the cold or explaining it? It can't be both. OK, for the likes of Watts it can, but not here. People leap on that sort of thing.
The behaviour of the jetstream is what determines how far south cold air gets in winter (and how far north warm air gets; Nature abhors a vacuum). As the temperature gradient reduces between equator and poles the jetstream makes larger excursions and cold air can get as far as Florida when it wouldn't have in earlier times. This is theory : you're seeing the practice. For a few weeks.
Shameless, and not scientific. It's not hurting the climate skeptic, it's hurting the credibility of real climate science. I am concerned that the more strident and alarmists climate boys are poisoning the well, or whatever it is when you ruin any chance for the real dangers of climate change to be heard.
Perhaps you could take the opportunity to air the real dangers now?
Or acted upon. The lunatics seem to drown out the real science. That is a bad thing for science.
On that we can agree when the lunatics get control of the GOP and the run of the Murdoch media (not to mention the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Express and WSJ to name a few) along with false balance in the rest of a media which is generally ignorant of science.
The scientific message does get out there, though. Not everybody chooses to listen, of course, but waddya gonna do?
!
!) then they better have a solid scientific basis for that. If they do not have a solid scientific basis then they are not a scientist or a poor one.