• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do laypersons have such arrogance when denying human-caused climate change?

New temperature record from China gives no hint of any recent warming that can be attributed to atmospheric CO2 [link]
 

Some WUWT milestones and some housekeeping

Recently, this blog passed a few milestones that I thought would be worth sharing with readers. For all of our critics and the vitriol all they throw our way, I challenge any of them to find a climate related blog that even comes close to the level of readership we enjoy here. We recently passed…

Recently, this blog passed a few milestones that I thought would be worth sharing with readers. For all of our critics and the vitriol all they throw our way, I challenge any of them to find a climate related blog that even comes close to the level of readership we enjoy here. We recently passed 300 million views and 2 million approved comments (more on that later).Here are screen grabs from the WUWT dashboard showing the numbers:

We also recently passed 40,000 email subscribers.
Given these events, I thought it might be time to refresh some of our readers on the most contentious part of operating this blog and that is the comments section. One of the downsides of being number one is that you’re also the biggest target. And being the biggest target we have a plethora of “anonymous cowards” who try to post comments here that are either wildly off-topic, inappropriate, angry, hateful, or otherwise uncivil. Some of the serial offenders use fake IDs, fake e-mail addresses, and even fake IP addresses to try to get their unwelcome point of view or hate-mongering across. . . .



 
[h=1]Solar Update March 2017 – still slumping[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald Our divination of solar parameters is aimed to elucidating two things – the length of Solar Cycle 24 and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. Figure 1: F10.7 Flux from 2014 The F10.7 flux was exhibiting high volatility up to the beginning of 2015 after which it entered a disciplined…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Solar Update March 2017 – still slumping[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald Our divination of solar parameters is aimed to elucidating two things – the length of Solar Cycle 24 and the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. Figure 1: F10.7 Flux from 2014 The F10.7 flux was exhibiting high volatility up to the beginning of 2015 after which it entered a disciplined…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

This is all predicted by solar scientists, but completely ignored by climate scientists.

As for cyle 25 being weaker, it has already been predicted that cycles 25 and 26 will me weaker, and some scientists say will will have a cooling spell.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is all predicted by solar scientists, but completely ignored by climate scientists.

As for cyle 25 being weaker, it has already been predicted that cycles 25 and 26 will me weaker, and some scientists say will will have a cooling spell.
Click to expand...

Not if Gavin Schmidt has his way. Expect a new public announcement of the hottest year/month/day in the very near future coming to a TV set near you :doh
 
flogger said:
Not if Gavin Schmidt has his way. Expect a new public announcement of the hottest year/month/day in the very near future coming to a TV set near you :doh
Click to expand...

Well, it's hard to say how and when any solar cooling will start. And with Asia emitting more aerosols, that's another unpredictable variable as well. The soot on ice may just counteract and natural cooling we should see. I do believe however, that CO2 cannot keep the warming afloat by itself.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, it's hard to say how and when any solar cooling will start. And with Asia emitting more aerosols, that's another unpredictable variable as well. The soot on ice may just counteract and natural cooling we should see. I do believe however, that CO2 cannot keep the warming afloat by itself.
Click to expand...

Luckily, your amateur belief is not included in models.
 
I came across this today and it is just too rich not to share.

 
[h=1]Discussion: Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles[/h]Dr. Judith Curry tips me to this interesting blog post from by Daniel Lakens, an experimental psychologist at the Human-Technology Interaction group at Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. The 20% Statistician A blog on statistics, methods, and open science. Understanding 20% of statistics will improve 80% of your inferences. Five reasons blog posts are of…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Discussion: Five reasons blog posts are of higher scientific quality than journal articles[/h]Dr. Judith Curry tips me to this interesting blog post from by Daniel Lakens, an experimental psychologist at the Human-Technology Interaction group at Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. The 20% Statistician A blog on statistics, methods, and open science. Understanding 20% of statistics will improve 80% of your inferences. Five reasons blog posts are of…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Then you'll love this site:

RealClimate



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
Then you'll love this site:

RealClimate



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Apparently few people do. From my link in #113:


  1. Blogs have Open Data, Code, and Materials [when technical articles are published, yes, whenever possible]
  2. Blogs have Open Peer Review [oh, don’t you know it, except hardly anyone reads RealClimate anymore]
  3. Blogs have no Eminence Filter [just look at the variety of articles on Climate etc, Climate Audit, and WUWT]
  4. Blogs have Better Error Correction [absolutely, mistakes are usually caught within minutes]
  5. Blogs are Open Access (and might be read more). [no paywalls=broad distribution]
 
Jack Hays said:
Apparently few people do. From my link in #113:


  1. Blogs have Open Data, Code, and Materials [when technical articles are published, yes, whenever possible]
  2. Blogs have Open Peer Review [oh, don’t you know it, except hardly anyone reads RealClimate anymore]
  3. Blogs have no Eminence Filter [just look at the variety of articles on Climate etc, Climate Audit, and WUWT]
  4. Blogs have Better Error Correction [absolutely, mistakes are usually caught within minutes]
  5. Blogs are Open Access (and might be read more). [no paywalls=broad distribution]
Click to expand...

I'll refer you to the quoted comments in the OP.

Thanks for illustrating them so clearly!
 
Jack Hays said:
Apparently few people do. From my link in #113:


  1. Blogs have Open Data, Code, and Materials [when technical articles are published, yes, whenever possible]
  2. Blogs have Open Peer Review [oh, don’t you know it, except hardly anyone reads RealClimate anymore]
  3. Blogs have no Eminence Filter [just look at the variety of articles on Climate etc, Climate Audit, and WUWT]
  4. Blogs have Better Error Correction [absolutely, mistakes are usually caught within minutes]
  5. Blogs are Open Access (and might be read more). [no paywalls=broad distribution]
Click to expand...

HotWhopper: Blogs are better? Delusions of grandeur from Class B Climate Conspiracy Theorist Anthony Watts

Blogs are better? Delusions of grandeur from Class B Climate Conspiracy Theorist Anthony Watts


There's an article at WUWT today (archived here) which is edited by that Master of Delusion himself - Anthony Watts. Anthony is portraying himself as a super-hero (again). He is telling his readers that blogs are better than scientific journals. In particular, his climate conspiracy blog is better - oh boy!

Anthony thinks that a blog article he came across via a tip from Judith Curry (of all people) means that WUWT is better than Nature and Science when it comes to scientific articles. (Remember, Anthony is also under the delusion that his climate "hoax" conspiracy blog WUWT is a science blog.)

Anthony's contribution to the article is a sentence at the top of his copy and paste, some comments in brackets in the copy and paste, and some deluded comments at the bottom. (He's not one for writing much these days. He gets himself into too much strife.)

The article he links to is by experimental psychologist, Daniël Lakens, who is arguing (I think) for an improvement in the quality of social science and/or psychology journals. Dr Lakens does this by putting forward (but not testing) an hypothesis that blog articles are better than science journals.

One interesting thing is that Daniël Lakens doesn't provide much by way of data or analysis (let alone code) to support his hypothesis...

Now you won't be surprised that Anthony Watts is very pleased to use Daniël Lakens' article as an excuse to avoid publishing his nonsense in scientific journals. He delights in promoting the notion that pseudoscience and conspiracy theories on climate disinformation blogs is every bit as good as quality research published by career scientists.

Anthony Watts, showing delusions of grandeur, wrote:

" It has been said to me by a few people that WUWT has changed the world. I think it has, but I view it as a collective effort with other climate blogs. If climate blogs didn’t exist, there would be no exposure of Climategate, no exposure of the [IPCC’s] horrid messes in AR4 and AR5, among other issues."

Seriously? WUWT has changed the world? How? His "exposure of Climategate" was a non-event that at best. A few of the stolen emails showed scientists have human feelings. They are not automatons or robots. "Climagegate" did not change the science in any way other than to strengthen it (through the resulting enquiries). There were no "horrid messes" in the IPCC reports. These reports had way fewer errors than your average telephone White Pages (or a dictionary), whereas WUWT is nothing more than one big error.
Click to expand...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Kind of scary when people take the word of bloggers over scientific journals.
Click to expand...
I suspect that something came before scientific journals as a way of disseminating scientific learning,
and as technology improves, there will be something that replaces scientific journals.
A truly open blog could have better access to peer review, in that any could review the work for errors, not just those selected
by the journal.
A blog could also enjoy a much larger population of viewers, most journals being limited to University Library's, and a limited
number of people in a given field.
That the journal publishers would complain about being replaced, is no great surprise, as it is their livelihood,
yet technology marches on, and leaves behind those who are stationary.
 
longview said:
I suspect that something came before scientific journals as a way of disseminating scientific learning,
and as technology improves, there will be something that replaces scientific journals.
A truly open blog could have better access to peer review, in that any could review the work for errors, not just those selected
by the journal.
A blog could also enjoy a much larger population of viewers, most journals being limited to University Library's, and a limited
number of people in a given field.
That the journal publishers would complain about being replaced, is no great surprise, as it is their livelihood,
yet technology marches on, and leaves behind those who are stationary.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure a blog would enjoy a much larger population of viewers but not the point.
 
longview said:
I suspect that something came before scientific journals as a way of disseminating scientific learning,
and as technology improves, there will be something that replaces scientific journals.
A truly open blog could have better access to peer review, in that any could review the work for errors, not just those selected
by the journal.
A blog could also enjoy a much larger population of viewers, most journals being limited to University Library's, and a limited
number of people in a given field.
That the journal publishers would complain about being replaced, is no great surprise, as it is their livelihood,
yet technology marches on, and leaves behind those who are stationary.
Click to expand...

Peer review is no better than the peers reviewing it.

And you and your kind are amateur armchair deniers, not research scientists.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, I'm sure a blog would enjoy a much larger population of viewers but not the point.
Click to expand...
What is the point of expanding human understanding, if not to further that understanding through dissemination?
 
Threegoofs said:
Peer review is no better than the peers reviewing it.

And you and your kind are amateur armchair deniers, not research scientists.
Click to expand...

Actually peer review is no better than the peers selected to review it.
the broader range of people evaluating the work, the more likely someone will spot any errors, if they exists.
 
longview said:
Actually peer review is no better than the peers selected to review it.
the broader range of people evaluating the work, the more likely someone will spot any errors, if they exists.
Click to expand...

Peer review also is limited to the material presented. It doesn't care if relevant variable are left out. People responding to blogs will point out desrepencies. The problem with blogs are numerous as well. Start by only trusting blogs that link their source material, and still verify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom