Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 Next
Comments 60701 to 60750:
-
Tom Curtis at 12:28 PM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
scientificskeptic @35 shows in two phrases why he is not being skeptical:"If our best models cannot accurately tell us the weather Friday week, how can we believe ones that tell us we'll be drowning in a hundred years time?"
The impossibility of accurate short term prediction of weather is a result of weather being chaotic. This is encapsulated in the so called butterfly effect, ie, that the weather is chaotic so that a flap of a butterfly's wing can cause a hurricane. However, while apparently believing that so small effect can have such large consequences, the self named "ScientificSkeptic" believes that we can double the CO2 in the atmosphere with negligible consequences. If AGW deniers truly believed that climate was as chaotic as weather, they would by violently opposed to any perturbation of climate, right down to stratospheric air traffic. In fact, what they actually believe as demonstrated by their practice is that climate is fundamentally predictable, and fundamentally stable. So stable, in fact that you can double or even triple CO2 content and the effects will scarcely differ from natural variability, which they assume to be low over the medium and even long term (in historical terms). Reference to the unpredictability of weather in a climate debate shows only that the referrer has not thought out the logical implication of their claims - that they are feeding us sound bites, not reasons."The main point is how we adapt as a species. Going on our past record, we're pretty good at it."
A similar point can be made about the self named "ScientificSkeptic's" main refrain. His argument depends on the assumption that humans are ultimately adaptable so that adapting to a four degree plus increase in global temperature will not be a problem; but also on the claim that we will be unable to adapt to any means taken to avoid such an increase. Again, he does not follow through his claims with reasoning to ensure consistency. If adapting to a $200 US$ per tonne carbon tax, for example will have significantly harmful effects (as he wants to claim) then adapting to a four degree plus temperature increase must logically also be capable of resulting in significant harm. Given that, he owes us reasons why he thinks one to be more harmful than the other, but no reason is given. What he has in fact done is provided us with slogans in lieu of thought. Because they are slogans, he feels no need to apply them consistently. And because they are slogans, they are empty verbage serving no greater purpose then to identify which camp he is in. Sadly, you rarely find better from any self named AGW "skeptic". It is because of this that they have to call themselves "skeptics", because nobody else would based on their reasoning. -
muoncounter at 11:21 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
SS#35: " Earth's atmosphere and the conditions that have resulted at ground level have always changed, albeit at a geological timescale rather than one of a rolling live news feed." Exactly. The changes we now see are neither geologic nor natural. That they are visible and widespread should disturb you. Now try to focus on specifics rather than vague generalities which sum to 'it will all be ok.' -
John Hartz at 11:19 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
@Kate #1: Lucky for us, Interpol doesn't charge for investigating crimes. -
Muzz at 11:16 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
Strange, my perfectly valid comment about the caption of the cartoon appears to have disappeared lol. It was in position 9 or 10. Must take screen shots in future, in case I'm mistakenModerator Response: [DB] Your previous comment was deemed trolling due to the many polarizing fake-skeptic terms, unsupported assertions and debunked memes it contained. This website explores the science of climate change. As such, all positions are supported by references and citations to the peer-reviewed primary literature published in reputable journals. Please take the time to engage in dialogue that makes a positive contribution, not detracts from it. -
scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
"I think its effect is exagerated, however, because big claims make big headlines." What sort of logic is this? If your understanding of what the effects of climate change are comes from headlines, then please live up to your moniker and look at AR4, WG 2 for what the science says. "If our best models cannot accurately tell us the weather Friday week, how can we believe ones that tell us we'll be drowning in a hundred years time?" Please see Science can predict the weather to get an understanding of the science around this old chestnut. "In any case, we cannot control our climate and it is pure hubris to believe that we can." "Control" no, but your already agree that we effect it. If we stop changing the atmosphere, then we stop our component to climate. Climate that changes slowly, we can handle. Its very rapid change that causes the problems. "I believe all of those people deserve the same standard of living." Then why would you deny it to them - climate change affects many of the poorest countries worst. Sure, let them grow - by cutting the emissions in the West so they can grow emissions without damaging the atmosphere. Do you expect international climate agreement when the West, responsible for most of additional CO2 in the atmosphere to date, wont make cuts? Going by our past record, sudden, unpleasant population crashes result from not taking enough notice of rapid environment change. That's one way to adapt but its not a nice one. SS - you seem to arrived at your current position from a considerable misunderstanding of the science and related issues. Its great that you have found SkepSci. Take some time to look over the arguments and get a proper understanding of the science. -
John Hartz at 11:08 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
@ScientificSkeptic: For the human race, there is no Planet B. -
yocta at 10:51 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
In speculation...the possibilities for the attack. The Australian Institute of Criminology has a discussion on possible motives. A study (** Kilger et al. (2004)) is cited in which summarise in a general sense the motives of hackers:(MEECES) Money Entertainment Ego (Intellectual Challenge) Cause (or malice: attacking the system, vengeance and vindictiveness, power, terrorism) Entrance to social groups Status. I would argue that in this case the hacker would most likely fall into the "cause" camp. The individual (or group) have clearly targeted SkS in a specific and targeted way perhaps trying to emulate (or follow up) on the University of East Anglia email dumps. This might be the type of behavior expected for issues that are becoming very partisan. This hacker is probably is reading through all these comments now feeling very proud of themselves but predictably haven't accomplished anything. *Kilger M, Arkin O & Stutzman J 2004. Profiling. In The honeynet project know your enemy: learning about security threats (second edition). Boston: Addison Wesley. http://www.honeynet.org/book/Chp16.pdf -
Nick Palmer at 09:58 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Notwithstanding the glorious Lord Monckton's oratorical skills which are a frightening example of rabble rousing McCarthyism, the "serious sceptics" one finds online are zeroing in (being forced to zero in) on only a few real debating points. Rob Honeycutt and myself have been hammering away at one of these incorrigibles on a Greenman video recently What they have is only this: 1) It hasn't warmed as much as expected recently 2) Lindzen and Choi 2011, with a side order of Spencer and Braswell have shown that climate feedback is neutral or negative 3) Errrm - ? Nail these two in a manner that could convince the general public in a debating type forum and we win. Fail to do that and we lose the political credibility necessary for sufficient action to be taken soon enough. -
littlerobbergirl at 09:56 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Well im glad i spared a few minutes from walking in the bluebell woods (flowering a month early!), watering the garden before the hosepipe ban (in march!) and mowing the rapidly browning lawn to come on line. Password changed ok, no spam or other obvious problems. Pathetic behaviour, but sadly unsurprising given how influential this wonderful site is now. Good luck finding the thief and securing the site people, but do try to get a bit of sleep! -
MarkJBohrer at 09:22 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Additional thought on post Composer99@1 There is one example still visible today where the ancient Greeks did not look to the future. Because they needed tall trees for their warships, and the need for ships was great, they stripped the hills of their trees. The trees were not replanted. The dry Greek hills used to have trees! The Greeks may not have changed the climate of the world, but they permanently changed the landscape and ecosystem of the Greek peninsula - and not for the better. -
andylee at 08:32 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
In Douglas Adams’ style, perhaps “The Restaurant at the Top of the World” may yet come to pass. -
funglestrumpet at 08:20 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
Number of items: I would prefer more in-depth, but less in number, if only due to time restraints. Yes, I read all articles and most comment threads, except when two people are battling it out and it is clear that neither will give way. Having said that, I rarely go back over the comment threads once I have read them, unless there is an unresolved issue that I am interested in that might be resolved in later comments. I post when the mood takes me, but usually only once per article.Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your active particpation in the comment threads is also appreciated. -
Paul D at 07:38 AM on 27 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A nice tool and created by a volunteer.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
John Hartz at 07:14 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
More evidence that manmade climate change has been impacting the global climate system: “The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.” Source:”Weather records due to climate change: a game with loaded dice,” press release posted by the Potsdam Institute for Climatic Impact Research on March 25, 2012. To access the entire press release, click here. Note: The entire press release will soon be posted verbatim on SkS. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:06 AM on 27 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Better than that would be a shortened url rather than the long ones woodfortrees does. -
pbjamm at 06:57 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
william@28 Coincidentally I was thinking about this subject this very morning. Clay tablets are cumbersome and fragile. Stamping the words into thin metal sheets (like giant dog tags) and stuck in binders would be more durable. This has risks of its own. In the post pox-eclipse world the person who finds such a book might destroy it to use the metal. Not the kinds of future I want for my kids and (potential future) grand kids. -
diessoli at 06:54 AM on 27 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Very useful. Thanks. A nice-to-have would be the ability to create a hyperlink to a specific graph (like woodfortrees offers). D. -
Andy Skuce at 06:46 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
ScientificSkeptic@25 We are not "being asked to gamble our lifestyles on a woolly prediction" we are, rather, obligated to make policy decisions based on the best science we have. Business-as-usual is a choice, too. As for "cut to the bone", well, I would like to hear why you think that proposals to make users of fossil fuel energy pay now, for the consequences of their putting CO2 into the atmosphere, will be all that costly. Prominent economists like William Nordhaus don't think so. See here also. I hope that you are correct about the higher quality of life in 5000AD. You are certainly correct to say that humans have a great capacity for adaptation that will continue--we'll quickly adapt to a carbon tax, too--but one thing that sets us apart from other animals is our ability, limited and imperfect though it is, to see the future. Here's hoping that we use that ability wisely. That's what Kate's article was about. -
dana1981 at 06:42 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Arguments like "Earth will be fine" and "humans won't go extinct" really bother me. Personally I'd like to set the bar a little higher for our species than 'not going extinct'. -
muoncounter at 06:40 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
SciSkep#25: "I think the threat from AGW is rather exagetated " And this opinion is based on ... ? For a counter opinion, based on actual research, see Trenberth's latest: The average anthropogenic climate change effect is not negligible, but nor is it large, although a small shift in the mean can lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. ... It is when natural variability and climate change develop in the same direction that records get broken. Perhaps you will ask: What records get broken? Heat, drought, fire, flood, famine... Exaggerations, not. -
william at 06:21 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Perhaps it is time we put the record of our times on clay tablets, fired them and concealed them all over the world. Our paper won't survive and likewise our floppies, stiffies, DVD's and flash drives. Perhaps the best thing we could do for these people of the future is to record the greed of our bankers and CEO's and the role vested interests played in our society. Dark ages have happened repeatedly in the past but this time it will involve the whole world. Perhaps we can keep the next organized society that rises from the ashes from making the same mistakes. We aren't having much success with this one. -
bibasir at 06:04 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
jimb Not magicians, rather tv wrestlers. -
John Mason at 06:03 AM on 27 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
It is a fine example of science in progress, with actual skepticism applied. Huge difference between that and "I don't like this so I'm not gonna listen!" It's interesting to note how some activists who oppose a lot of climate science are moving towards acceptance of the century-old physics behind the greenhouse effect and the notion that rising greenhouse gases will cause warming: yes there is a debate WRT overall sensitivity including feedbacks both in the literature and in the blogosphere, but even so, to me the bottom line is how big a risk are we prepared to take? -
scaddenp at 05:38 AM on 27 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
If it has unknown driver, then why do we see something like MCA in forcing-based models? (See the AR4 discussion). That is not to say that there is a strong consensus of mechanisms, especially for the regional distribution, but its not a great mystery. -
Geo77 at 05:19 AM on 27 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
J Mason- Thank you for a very interesting post. When reading about the various research articles on the pro and con side of the impact theory I could not help but think - now this is how science really works (as opposed to the political back and forth plaguing the AGW "debate"). This would make a fascinating module for a high school or college earth science class, to expose kids and young adults to how critical thinking plays out in the world of science. Especially since it is playing out in real time. Though the latest evidence appears to be tilting in favor of an impact hypothesis the questions raised by the follow up papers on the Murray Springs site (regarding such things as background iridium levels)appear to have been the true kind of skepticism, well informed and asking reasonable questions. Having been a geology student during the time when many of the details of plate tectonics were being fleshed out I know form experience that very good scientists asking very good questions can later be perceived as having been on the "wrong" side of some of the issues being explored, which I think is unfortunate. As long as the questions are asked in the true spirit of scientific inquiry (ie you have to accept data that goes against your ideas and rework your hypothesis appropriately)there is no such thing as being on the wrong side in a scientific debate. That's why it's so sad to see such an important and fascinating topic as climate change subjected to the political hucksterism and deliberate disinformation that we have so commonly seen in recent years. -
Albatross at 05:10 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Hi Dikran, As you know, AGW is real (not a prediction) and it is happening now (again not a prediction) and it is already having costly impacts (e.g. Coumou and Rahmstorf 2012, Nature), both in terms of lives lost and fiscal losses. Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence that a global disaster is in progress, some continue to deny that we have a serious problem on our hands (e.g., the poster at #23 and #25). -
Bob Lacatena at 05:06 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
25, ScientificSkeptic, You have it backwards. You are being asked to gamble your comfort and lifestyle in about 20 years, and that of your children and grandchildren and all their descendants, against your "thought" that "the threat from AGW is rather exaggerated" (an opinion not shared by scientists, the people who actually know) and the unfounded fear that taking action is somehow going to "gamble our lifestyles." Mitigation now is not nearly that expensive or that bad. The Inhofe's and the Monckton's of the world want you to think so, but taking adequate action now is not going to cause suffering. Failing to take action that is required anyway due to increasing energy demands and falling fossil fuel resources, so that the people who hold those resources can make maximal profits before everything comes crashing down, that's the "gamble" of "our lifestyles." I suggest you use this site to learn more about the facts of the issue. Stop looking for the Hollywood extremes and pay attention to what the science really says. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:24 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Dana... Anthony's issue was with the interview Hadfield did with Sinclair. There is no transcript of that. In fact, I just got an email from Anthony rejecting my offer to transcribe the interview for him. -
jimb at 03:53 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
re 41- and my apologies to those magicians who can pull a real rabbit out of a real hat. -
dana1981 at 03:42 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Hadfield provided a transcript - it's also provided in the above post, below the introduction, before the video. -
jimb at 03:16 AM on 27 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
I have been wondering if Monckton, when he gets back to his hotel room after the applause has died down, feels even slightly embarrassed by the quality of the audience he attracts. For some reason, it made me think of a professional magician who will not show his tricks at a magician's conference, but has to find an audience that is still amazed that he can pull a rabbit out of a hat. -
Dikran Marsupial at 03:05 AM on 27 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
ScientificSkeptic I don't think AGW will be the end of us as a species either. However I rather doubt that many people will think that is a good reason not to worry about it. I think it will almost certainly be the end of many human beings, whos life is worth exactly the same as yours or mine. I think it is also likely to cause a lot of hardship and misery in many parts of the world that don't have the resources to adapt to change as easily as we could. Most codes of behaviour are quite familiar with the concept of the "golden rule", i.e. treat others as you would wish them to treat you. I very much hope this will still be an important foundation of societies in 3000 years time. If not we will undoubtedly have regressed. -
Cornelius Breadbasket at 03:04 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Just keep at it - your excellent work is obviously having an effect. -
Biophilia at 01:39 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Ha, I guess this sucks, but at the same time, my response is "Oh no, people will know I care about climate change!~" In the next few decades and beyond, I highly doubt this will be problematic for me. "Shoot, people know I care about the well-being of future generations." -
martin at 01:36 AM on 27 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@John Cook #81 Thanks! No, the email address is no longer valid (since Dec 2011). Is there anyway, I can send you my email address without posting it openly? I would like to avoid spam attacks. Cheers, MartinModerator Response: [DB] Send me an email here: profpbody at yahoo.com -
AnotherBee at 00:23 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
This may be slightly off-topic, but i have a question triggered by the Toon of the week... This is a Weather question (but with a climate underpinning). Currently, the UK is experiencing an unseasonal heatwave. The proximate cause is a jetstream blocking event, so we are under perpetual high pressure. I note ( from NSIDC that Arctic Sea Ice extent is relatively high (compared to the last few years only!). Is this a flipside of the same jetstream cause?
Moderator Response:[DB] If you look at the areas where the ice is concentrated, you'll note that much of the recent gains in ice cover are in those areas about to melt out abruptly in the next 6 weeks: The Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea, the Kara Sea, portions of the Barents Sea, Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay.
Get your popcorn ready, the show is about to begin (best watched from here). Relevant discussion is here, as well.
As for the other part of your question, Real Climate has a post up on this here and Dr. Kevin Trenberth also has a paper out on much the same topic here.
[Sph] Personally, I think the best show is here (only in the 21st century)
-
Sceptical Wombat at 00:00 AM on 27 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I'm with adelady - quality is more important than quantity. If you can increase quantity without sacrificing quality then go for it. I read all posts and all comments that are there at the time I read the posts - and sometimes go back to see if any one has added a useful comment. I occasionally comment.Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. -
SoundOff at 22:22 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
jyyh at 15:41 PM on 26 March, 2012
"Format Your Quote?
Would you like us to format the text you copied?
Format Text More Options
Powered by Curate.Us"
Is that a pop-up that should happen? Part of the investigation?
No, jyyr, it seems to be a new kind of block quote feature as demonstrated above. -
Bern at 19:45 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A very nice tool, thanks. Great work on putting that together. It's useful to see the uncertainty bounds for the different datasets over different time periods. -
Nick Stokes at 19:42 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin, it looks great, and it all worked for me. And thanks for the kind words. I found a discussion here (near the end) of how to convert a canvas image to a PNG file. -
Kevin C at 18:03 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
OPatrick: Thanks! It didn't occur to me check browser compatibility of save-as. This feature depends on the browser providing a tool to turn an HTML5 canvas into a virtual image. A quick check now shows that it works in Firefox 3.6 but not in google Chrome 17. If it doesn't work in your browser, I'm afraid you'll have to fall back on using a screenshot tool. -
Chris G at 17:24 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
This looks really cool; I may or may not want to play with it a little later. I may not because I'm already disheartened by this bit of news about "...global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario...". Man I hope they are way off; relative to _1961-90_ and _mid-range_ forcing caught my eye. I know, a bit OT; only thinly connected. -
OPatrick at 17:09 PM on 26 March 2012The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
A great tool, thank you. At first impressions very user friendly and clearly explained here. One possible problem, though it might just be me - you say "To save a graph, use right-click/save-image-as." However this doesn't work for me, it's not recognising it as a separate image. I can select the section and copy it, but this doesn't give me the scale or axis labels. -
Marco at 17:02 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Daniel #39: Watts is indeed hearing-impaired. He even used that as a defense when he made false claims about the initial BEST analysis. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 16:18 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Watts says "While I can’t hear what Hadfield is saying (he sounds like a British mumble to me)" And it is because of people like Watts that they replace Sir David Attenborough's distinctive clear voice with American actors thereby taking a superb documentary and turning it into just another bunch of pretty pictures with nothing to distinguish it from other nature films. I saw 30 seconds of Frozen Planet while visiting friends and it had Baldwin narrating--it was turned off quite quickly. Without saying anything to each other we all agreed it was much better to wait for it to air in Canada as they'd keep Attenborough's voice in it. On some consideration, I wonder if Anthony needs a hearing aid?? My dad started complaining that people with accents mumble (he's British so pretty much everyone he met in Canada was "mumbling"), but once we talked him into getting hearing aids--only took five years--he could understand people quite well again. Peter H certainly doesn't mumble. He enunciates quite well and is easily understandable.Moderator Response: [RH] Anthony Watts does have a hearing impairment which would cause this video to likely be somewhat unintelligible for him. I sent him a private email (cc'ing both Peters) saying I would take the time to transcribe the video for him. I have not heard back from him. It's one thing to not be able to hear it, but it's quite another to not want to and to come to conclusions about what is being said without actually knowing what is being said. -
Bern at 15:50 PM on 26 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
markx @ 119: "Whether it was precisely co-incidental is perhaps not of great importance" Actually, I think it is of great importance. If there were warm periods, but they were at different times in different locations, then that is merely evidence that the earth's climate is somewhat variable. On the other hand, right now, it's warmer everywhere at the same, which seems to be unprecedented for at least the past six or seven thousand years. When it comes down to it, though, it's not just about whether the climate was warmer / cooler in the past. It's about what caused those warmer / cooler periods. And right now, there's only one explanation that stands up to scrutiny for the current warming (hint: it doesn't involve the word 'natural'). -
jyyh at 15:41 PM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
"Format Your Quote? Would you like us to format the text you copied? Format Text More Options Powered by Curate.Us" Is that a pop-up that should happen? Part of the investigation? -
Albatross at 15:22 PM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Peter Hadfield deserves a medal for holding Monckton accountable for his nonsense. Peter's efforts have placed Monckton (and those who aid and abet Monckton's fallaccies and misinformation) between a rock and a hard place :) A very sincere thank you Peter! -
markx at 15:09 PM on 26 March 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom Curtis at 13:17 PM on 9 February, 2012 ".....the implicit claim that the MWP was globally warmer than the last two decades for the entire period of the MWP is refuted by the same comparison..." Tom, I'm not sure that IS the claim. The argument is that there exists in various worldwide proxy records some evidence that there was an unknown driver of a temperature elevation which was evident globally within a certain time bracket.(and referred to as The Medieval Warming Period). Whether it was precisely co-incidental is perhaps not of great importance, should a spate of extreme high temperatures such as that be observed today, surely we would label it as evidence of "Global Warming"? -
Bern at 14:54 PM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I'm in two minds about the # of articles. I'll just say that I'd prefer SkS prioritised quality over quantity. I try to read every article on SkS. This can be difficult to squeeze around other commitments at times, but it's always worth it. I've learned a phenomenal amount about climate science since finding this site. Comments I sometimes read, sometimes not (depending on available time & whether that particular topic interests me). I post comments when I feel I have something to contribute. And I must say, it's easy to do so here on SkS, because I know that if I get something wrong, the inevitable correction will be a gentle one. :-DModerator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback and for being a regular reader. Your humor is also appreciated.
Prev 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 Next
