tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post4013778072635992935..comments2024-03-28T06:43:02.954+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Is nitpicking a climate doomsday warning allowed?Victor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-15829286164350614442017-07-25T00:11:22.582+01:002017-07-25T00:11:22.582+01:00"For WUWT, Breitbart and Daily Mail we can gu..."For WUWT, Breitbart and Daily Mail we can guess intentions."<br /><br />I have to say a word on behalf of other crap organs that will likely feel slighted by this short list, including Daily Caller (utterly unscrupulous), Blaze, WSJ editorial page, New York Post, Fox, Fox Business News, and other Murdoch-owned media. All characterizations MHO.climatehawk1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-66482451817205953952017-07-24T16:50:13.463+01:002017-07-24T16:50:13.463+01:00Victor,
For most people fear is motivating, risk ...Victor,<br /><br />For most people fear is motivating, risk is nebulous. Don't be such a scientist.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-15450273692410177862017-07-24T16:31:30.029+01:002017-07-24T16:31:30.029+01:00Eli, also if you do not fear it, traffic is pretty...Eli, also if you do not fear it, traffic is pretty dangerous. People living below a hydro power plant, next to a volcano or below the sea level are probably (at least partially) blind to the risk. The risk still exists. <br /><br />Perception is naturally important for the question whether the risk is acceptable. Also whether you voluntarily take the risk or whether it is forced onto you by others.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-70826352982722112702017-07-24T16:31:02.199+01:002017-07-24T16:31:02.199+01:00Griff., my scale would have one nonsense for bulls...Griff., my scale would have one nonsense for bullshit, two for somewhat wrong pieces and two for good articles. Would you suggest to have a better differentiation of the nonsense? <br /><br />For WUWT, Breitbart and Daily Mail we can guess intentions. For the individual articles reviewed by Climate Feedback that is normally not possible.<br /><br />I do not think the 1.5°C was mentioned in the Paris agreement as something that will be reached. But is was reachable when we started this process and crossing this 1.5°C limit thus puts a responsibility on the people who caused the problem to help the people they are hurting. (Or as a true libertarian would say, the people whose property rights are violated should at least be compensated for the damages, especially from the time we knew we were violating their property rights.)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-33609920863846679132017-07-24T13:45:14.247+01:002017-07-24T13:45:14.247+01:00
To perceive something as a risk is to fear it, ot...<br />To perceive something as a risk is to fear it, otherwise it is not a risk. Whether the risk is something you can deal with is another question. EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-73008258268314126282017-07-23T20:43:26.203+01:002017-07-23T20:43:26.203+01:00VV I think you have thought carefully about expand... VV I think you have thought carefully about expanding the scale to include more nuance <br />Some of the rubbish, we read daily in denial sources, is so far wide of any science as to be intentional lies.<br />A wider scale would allow your group to differentiate between the outright rubbish and the well intention yet not entirely correct on both sides.<br /><br />We don't need people pushing Venus runaway scenarios and the like that are not physically possible. We do need journalist being able to explore the fat tail of consequence. The audience that needs to be reached is not those of us who are science geeks or involved in the debate.We need Non science journalist that are not fully informed to carry part of the message. Such sources will make honest mistakes or not quite get detail. They need to be encouraged to learn gently rather than be tared with the same brush as some of the extreme propagandists. <br /><br /><br />The Agreement to hold warming to 1.5C is an example of downplaying risk.<br /><br />If we reduced emissions and halted the keeling curves growth today we will probably still pass 1.5C from preindustrial this century.<br />Yet we are building coal plants that have a 50 year life and drilling for oil.<br />It will take a lot more effort to turn around our trajectory than is presently talked about by western governments. <br /><br /><br /> Griff.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-25321896615259771252017-07-23T14:31:58.977+01:002017-07-23T14:31:58.977+01:00Judith Curry also claims scientists in secret agre...Judith Curry also claims scientists in secret agree with her. I find that just as hard to believe as the claim of Kevin Anderson beyond scientists not being confrontational people and being friendly in person.<br /><br />I do not know what is positive about the climate change impacts scientists talk about. They seem pretty devastating to me. <br /><br />It could be that scientists are more optimistic than the population about solving the problem, at least I am. The DWW article was not, however, about whether we would solve this perfectly solvable problem, but about the consequences of not solving it.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-77674812246008073192017-07-23T14:15:51.152+01:002017-07-23T14:15:51.152+01:00I was one of those who felt the criticism of DWW w...I was one of those who felt the criticism of DWW was overdone and ungenerous.<br /><br />Kevin Anderson has noted that scientists are more inclned to agree with his pessimistic viewpoint (although he does not like his views to be characterized that way) in private, while disagreeing publicly.<br /><br />Naomi Oreskes has noted that scientists tend to err on the side of least drama. This may be done for worthy, long-established professional reasons, but in conveying all possible outcomes fairly to policy makers and the public, an extra balancing effort need to be made. In fairness, many scientists have tried to do this in thei popular articles, but the bias persists in formal pieces.<br /><br />Oreskes has also remarked upon the lack of passion in scientists' presentations that talk about dire consequences in dispassionate tones. To the audience this sounds like a disconnect and they may be swayed more by the calm tone than theory technical discussion. (Sorry, I can't find the reference to this. It was a lecture rather than a paper, if I recall correctly.)<br /><br />I believe that the headline to the Carbon Brief article was added by an editor, not by the original author. It was nevertheless DWW's job to check this, but it was not his original exaggeration.<br /><br />I suggest re-reading Mike Mann's interview and his formal commentary. Both are excellent, but the tone of the interview is more closely aligned with the spirt of DWW's piece<br /><br />Despite the errors (which I acknowledge) the DWW article was an important counterpoint to much climate change commentary, which I believe is often biased towards the positive. In the formal criticism, some babies were thrown our with the bathwater.Andy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16313161977123410684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-59275844048901029622017-07-23T13:29:02.042+01:002017-07-23T13:29:02.042+01:00Just like my scale. :-)Just like my scale. :-)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-82676316634759921592017-07-23T13:27:57.160+01:002017-07-23T13:27:57.160+01:00I speculate the scale was not developed based on m...I speculate the scale was not developed based on months of science communication lab experiments documented in a scientific article.<br /><br />As far as I know it just started with one guy with a good idea, doing the best he could to implement it.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-6760997526452205572017-07-23T13:17:55.753+01:002017-07-23T13:17:55.753+01:00Very good follow-up post on this subject. The prop...Very good follow-up post on this subject. The proposed revision to the rating scale is simple and very sensible. I'll speculate that the -2 to +2 scale was adopted by the scientists behind Climate Feedback without input from less technically-minded individuals.Magmanoreply@blogger.com