Skip to main content

View Diary: Hot, Very Hot, Extremely Hot Summers (14 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At risk of getting flamed again, here is Cliff (0+ / 0-)

    Mass at UW objecting to Hansen's exaggerations:

    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/...

    "The problem?  Their conclusions are demonstrably false and their characterization of the science and statistics are deceptive at best."

    "And the problem goes beyond this unfortunate paper.  It extends to the way the media has misunderstood and miscommunicated our current state of knowledge of climate change.  No wonder the public is confused, skeptic/denier groups hold on to wacky/unscientific theories, and our leaders dither on climate change.  And let me repeat something I have said several times....I believe that human-induced global warming is both observed, real, and a serious problem for mankind.  So if anyone wants to call me a denier or some other ad hominem name, please refrain from such remarks."

    "As an aside, the journal that this article was published in...the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)...allows members of the National Academy (like Dr. Hansen) to publish articles with essentially no peer review.  Until 2010 they could publish anything, with no peer review, and most recently the submission review is "supervised" by the submitting academy member WHO GETS TO SELECT THE REVIEWERS. Folks, this is really unfortunate for an entity that claims to be national journal of some reputation.  The result has been a lot of very bad papers in PNAS that would never have been accepted in real journals,with a real peer review process.  One could use stronger words, but this is a family blog."

    "Unfortunately, a very limited, but highly visible, group of scientists like Hansen are choosing to tell a story that is not supported by the facts, with a media that is happy to amplify such claims.  Global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions of mankind is a very serious issue...one which our civilization is not dealing with in an effective way.  But scientists must give society the straight facts and not shade or exaggerate the facts based on our personal views on what should be done."

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:30:20 AM PDT

    •  Frank, you agree we are causing climate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jim in IA, Bronx59

      change, but your every post seems skeptical. You claim to respect the science, yet your every post questions the science.

      No, I won't flame you. I just want you to know that despite your claims to the contraryy, your every post convinces me you are trying to sow doubt.

      There is only one planet suitable for human habitation in our solar system.

      by too many people on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:31:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a big difference between sowing doubt and (0+ / 0-)

        trying to describe the problem with making unwarranted claims that are likely to backfire.  I think the post by Cliff Mass summarizes my concerns with the Hansen paper.  The current heat wave and drought in the US presents a tempting opportunity to replace analysis with advocacy.  There is nothing wrong with advocacy, and I actually support many of the alternative energy initiatives that  will help to slow the build up of CO2.  But we are likely to see climate variation that will tempt the other side as well.  A better approach is to honestly evaluate the scientific evidence and present to the public a realistic assessment of the risks and costs involved with policy alternatives.

        Where are we, now that we need us most?

        by Frank Knarf on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:01:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is a big difference between a weather (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jim in IA

          blogger and a climatologist. I will go with the climatologist.

          There is only one planet suitable for human habitation in our solar system.

          by too many people on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:56:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which one? (0+ / 0-)

            Where are we, now that we need us most?

            by Frank Knarf on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 04:05:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay, you win that point. (0+ / 0-)

              Nevertheless, I would like to hear why you are not panicked by the melting of the arctic. Also, it seems that the pace of change is much quicker than predicted. The models seem too conservative.
              Also, would you concede that if there is even a small probability that things are/will procede very badly, then it is past time to take drastic action?

              There is only one planet suitable for human habitation in our solar system.

              by too many people on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 10:40:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is certainly past time to take action on energy (0+ / 0-)

                policy.  I have long argued that appeal to the precautionary principal is the right way to move public opinion.  My rather Quixotic conflict with some of the more enthusiastic Kossacks on this topic has to do with the danger of making claims not supported by evidence, or confusing uncertain model projections with absolute truth.

                Where are we, now that we need us most?

                by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:44:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I respectfully disagree, Frank Knarf. (3+ / 0-)

      After reading much of what Mass had to say in your link, and comments of the followers, I was left with very little of substance supporting their opposition. It seemed he and others were saying 'Hansen is wrong' with little to substantiate that statement. I don't find that a convincing scientific argument.

      Thanks for stopping by.


      Difference between stupidity and genius...genius has its limits. ~ Einstein

      by jim in IA on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:01:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mass is wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jim in IA

        First of all, Dr. Hansen's paper was peer reviewed and PNAS is, of course, a very respected journal.

        It is important to note that Dr. Hansen's paper is not based on climate models and is not a prediction.  It is based on a statistical analysis of 60 years of actual, measured temperature data.  To avoid "urban heat island effects", the study excludes stations located near areas that are lit up in nighttime satellite images.  The 5000% increased in "Extremely Hot Summers" (anomalies 3 standard deviations above the mean) in 50 years ALREADY HAPPENED!

        If you don't believe it, you can download the data set (or another temperature data set) and do the analysis yourself!  All it takes it some Statistics 101 knowledge.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (57)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site