Who says that the climate debate is not evolving? According to the daily newspaper the Guardian, a new application (‘app‘) has been written for iPhones that provides a list of climate dissidents’ arguments, and counter arguments based on more legitimate scientific substance. The app is developed by John Cook from ‘Skeptical Science‘. It’s apparently enough to have the climate dissidents up in arms – meaning that it’s likely to have some effect? Some dissidents are now thinking of writing their own app.
Here on RC, we have developed a wiki, to which I also would like to bring the reader’s attention. Furthermore, I want to remind the readers about other useful web sites, listed at our blog roll.
Great idea. An app is one more attack on the problem — even better if iPad takes off. We need web sites, Facebook groups, YouTubes etc. if we are to stand a chance in the propaganda war.
I do this stuff at my blog regularly (e.g. recently in response to some misinformed questions on an Australian newspaper site).
This kind of thing is important for diluting the denialosphere’s dominance of search results as well as reducing the need for the well-known sites like RC to take on every issue.
But if a lot of us do this individually, without crosslinks or error checking by others, we run the risk of not getting noticed or worse still propagating errors (the last thing we need: the denial case is almost entirely built on errors but if you really care about science, you want to be jealous of your reputation)z. How about we form a friends of science group who review each others’ sites, cross-link, and send out alerts on each other’s contact lists?
That’s wonderful news Rasmus! I’ve just started putting together a series of what I call ‘A Climate Minute’ videos. Finished the first one tonight.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/arctic-ice
I don’t know how the iPhone part works but I left the option on so the videos can be available to iPhone.
—
The Climate Lobby
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
On the last, how does a website get on your blogroll?
http://scienceofdoom.com
Of course realclimate.org is on mine.. I even included your tagline
Is there an application process?
People recommending?
Number of cited papers crossing a critical threshold?
Years in business (let’s hope it’s not that one)
Thanks for the mention. The reaction to the iPhone app has predictably been very polarised – some really positive feedback and some very negative, angry feedback. I’ve been dismayed that the climate debate seems to have moved from science to attacking scientists and the IPCC. So if the app can get people learning about science again, all the better.
The guys at Shine Technologies are currently working on version 1.1 based on all the feedback from the version 1.0 (I sent a wishlist of new, cool features a few days ago so I’m waiting to see what they’ll include). As the app automatically updates its data every few days, I’m also adding new skeptic arguments regularly – just added “Phil Jones said global warming stopped in 1995” today.
My site–at least the Climatology part of it–is at
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com
You have a link to one of my pages, but you’ve got it at the old Ge oci ties site, which doesn’t exist any more.
I keep on mulling over the following idea: a visualisation of the scientific literature and the main claims on climate change – viewable by date, subject, which papers built on evidence, which ones shifted away, contradicted, altered other conclusions. The same underlying framework could be used to visualise any set of arguments and – hopefully – illustrate the incoherence of ant-AGW attacks. (Not to mention keeping the focus on the evidence itself, not false headlines and personal attacks.)
I could maybe work on the Java (and Processing for visualisation) – if anyone else out there had any good ideas on the underlying data structure…? I have some thoughts but it’d be good to discuss with someone. I have this vague hope that, with a few additions, it could work off a Zotero sqlite database, so getting the paper data would be a done deal.
This may be one of those notions that never happens, but in my head it definitely appears to work well! If anyone’s interested, get in touch via my blog or comment here. (Just don’t tell my PhD supervisor…)
Also: Philip Machanick – any ideas for keeping in touch is a great plan. There seem to be lots of us talking on comments who could benefit from more mutual support. Maybe something simple a quick like a Ning network?
I’ve downloaded the app and think it’s really good I was pleasantly surprised by it. Not only does it give the sceptic argument and then a brief summary of the science to counter it. It then goes into detail about the science and links to other articles. I even learnt something about the accuracy of the climate models and how well they’ve predicted the recent temperatures.
I don’t see what the sceptics are so worried about I think it does a good job of introducing people to the science. How can a ‘sceptic’ object to that? What they should do if they are so concerned about bias is make a similar app showing all the science to support their arguments, actually that would be extremely useful.
“Some dissidents are now thinking of writing their own app. ”
That would be fun!
1. Temperatures are not rising, it’s just UHI and microsite issues.
2. Temperatures are rising because of the Sun.
3. Greenhouse effect does not exist.
4. Greenhouse effect is constant.
…
Hey, people when do you get your own RSS feed? Please come back to the 21st century and provide one! Others are doing iPad apps and you are still stuck in the 20th century, come on!!
“Steve Carson says:
19 February 2010 at 4:01 AM
On the last, how does a website get on your blogroll?”
I would suggest to email the site owners and tell them about your site.
It would have to prove itself worthy over time to be included, some of those sites have given years of consistent service and you need consistency if you’re going to pump another site: you don’t want to have to spend your time checking all the sites to see if they’re still worthy.
Alternatively you can put your website in your reply details.
As people read your messages, some will click on the site and the site will get noted.
Even if your site doesn’t get on the roll call, if it’s worthy of attention, it will get attention.
The link on your Wiki to the UK Met Office ‘Climate Change Myths’ is broken.
[Response: Thanks. fixed. – gavin]
Hi – having just bought an iPhone, one of the first apps I looked for (but didn’t find) was a RealClimate app. I like the way the new York times provides ultra-readable information, one of the best designed news apps for reading. If you ever think about putting a RealClimate app, I think there will be demand. I send you my encouragement. And should you do so, please have a look at the NYT app, for “style” tips. Readable apps are so much better !!!
best wishes,
Pete
Yes, great work by John Cook (not just the app, but his years of painstaking work), and much deserved attention.
I also plug away, to a small but loyal readership at http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick. A great deal of climate change material, mainly from political, media, public perception, environmental implications perspectives. I come to the topic from my research background as a palaeoecologist in Australia. I think RC could help get many other voices heard by expanding the blogroll perhaps, and/or cross referencing where appropriate.
#3 Steve Carson
Very clever! You use language that really draws in the doubting Thomases in order to save them from their evil ways. One would think he was reading a denialist blog, but no!
I just skimmed through one of your articles – CO2 Can’t have that effect because – and was really impressed with both the content and the style of writing. It was so clear and understandable for a layperson like myself, but more importantly, the tone was right on point. There was not a trace of condescention or arrogance: You didn’t make me feel stupid.
I would suggest to others that when the “zombies” appear, they be referred to relevant articles on Steve’s site. Skeptical Science might be better for the armchair “scientists” but Climate of Doom is better for the general public.
John #4: if you want a treasure trove of denial refutation, pick up Ian Enting’s errata of Ian Plimer’s book.
RE #4 Hi John, Here’s some more positive feed bacdk for you.
Although I have rarely posted on skepticalscience, I have been a long time fan of the site, I have lost count of the number of people I have directed to the comprehensive list of red-herrings at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Keep up the good work.
That is great. Let the skeptics build their own app, and update the skepticalscience one accordingly, based on their arguments. Ultimately users and the opinion will see, by comparing arguments and justifications from both sides, that AGW skepticism is junk science.
If the scientific community stands united and enriches this app, making it THE reference to skeptics’ arguments, then we’ll be closer to making this debate much cleaner and scientifically sound.
Thanks for this. It’s been pretty dismaying how vicious (and how seemingly well-received) the attacks on science have become. The denialists are really going for the kill right now.
It won’t work in the long run (and in fact I think the attack sows some self-destructive seeds), but time is not on our side when it comes to the larger problem.
In addition to the regular round of commenting, I’ve been doing historical backgrounders on the science, very much in a popular vein. Those who’ve missed them can access them here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-warming-science-press-and-storms
(Nils Ekholm)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Science-And-The-Dawn-Of-Flight
(Svante Arrhenius)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Science-In-The-Age-Of-Queen-Victoria
(John Tyndall)
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Science-of-Global-Warming-in-the-age-of-Napoleon-III
(Claude Pouillet)
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Science-Of-Global-Warming-In-The-Age-Of-Napoleon
(Joseph Fourier)
Guy Callendar is in the works right now.
The articles are “life-and-times pieces,” with summary comments on the significance of climate change-related papers each wrote. They are intended as popular pieces, and are meant to help the layman realize the depth of the science involved–too many seem to think, still, that Al Gore or the Club of Rome dreamed this all up the week before Kyoto.
The ‘classic’ papers can be accessed from the NSDL Wiki, here:
http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming
(This Wiki includes many more articles–and many more modern ones–than I’ve yet been able to write about.)
“””Who says that the climate debate is not evolving?””” Thanks for the iphone info! Cringe…I think we should debate the word “debate” in all its forms! “The people who will not be named” push the idea of “debate” on whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring! -G-
Orestes 2004, Science
IPCC 2007
Another new site based in Canada aims to pull together clear, basic points on climate change to balance off the endless stream of wrong ideas and misunderstandings in the media and online.
http://www.climateresponse.ca
It’s definitely worth sharing links among like-minded blogs. I’m happy to swap links with fellow activists – just point me to your blog or website. Here’s my blog, mainly about climate scientists and contrarians listed on my climate science stats page:
http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com
#8 Molnar
5. We can’t trust reconstructions of past climate
6. We know it was much warmer 1,000 years ago
RE Luis Dias
I would also be interested in a good RC facebook site. Of course, our hosts have their hands full with providing content and moderating comments (as well as their day jobs), but I bet there are a lot of computer-savvy users here who could volunteer some of their time.
I will also second John Cook’s site and app as complements to RC and other fine sites. The beauty of science is its consistency, and John pulls in a lot of single threads into a strong cord. I like the fact that he uses the scientific literature is the basis of his articles and also that he provides links to pdfs whenever possible. That way, we can cite the primary literature when arguing with “skeptics”.
Jiminmpls: “I just skimmed through one of your articles – CO2 Can’t have that effect because – and was really impressed with both the content and the style of writing. It was so clear and understandable for a layperson like myself, but more importantly, the tone was right on point. There was not a trace of condescention or arrogance: You didn’t make me feel stupid.”
I’ve noticed that to be an clear difference between anti-AGW writers generally and sites like skepticalscience and realclimate: while much of the science may be complex, it’s possible to get across clearly. Realclimate / skepticalscience and others goal is to help make findings more transparent, and they succeed brilliantly at it most of the time. It makes for a much clearer reading experience. In contrast, trying to get through a McIntyre blog entry is like wading through the Swamp of Sadness in the Never-ending Story. Right now, I’m working through some diff equation problems and even that seems like crystal clear water compared to most skeptic sites. It’s almost as if there’s some sort of underlying desire to obfuscate…
Philip # 1 You’d better do some googling on “friends of science” before you proceed.
First, skepticalscience.com is one of my all time favorite sites. It really helped me get over the hump and get momentum on any parts of the science I didn’t know at first, and was confused about because of all of the misinformation. It’s also the first place I go when a new anti-GHG argument pops up.
I sadly don’t have an iPhone, but in the last month I’ve been reading the app development docs for it and learning Objective-C (I’m a software developer, have had a Mac since 1985, the daughter has an iTouch, and I’m getting an iPad whether my wife likes it or not). It looks like a pretty easy platform to build for, but there’s a steep learning curve (new language, new frameworks, new hardware capabilities and limitations, new-but-very-friendly IDE, etc.).
What I find interesting in this is that the app appears to be designed, like the Skeptical Science site, to quickly give the user a good synopsis of the facts behind any specific point. I don’t think it will be useful in an argument with a skeptic, because it would take too long to access and read, while they would just keep talking and wandering OT. But in the more common and important case, where friends are discussing the issue in a reasonable tone, without too many preconceptions or too firm an opinion, it may sway a lot of people.
I’m sure, too, it’s really irking the “skeptic” camp that the web site and the app have the word “skeptic” in the name.
This is a great idea. I hope it has some effect in improving the climate IQ of some of the civilized world.
On the other hand, I’m sure it will not take long for the disinformation camp to come up with a counter-app (they’ll certainly get the funding to hire some software developers, or eager volunteers from their rabid fans), one that is full of lies and deceit and that may just as easily sway uncommitted groups of people into the depths of ignorance.
Gavin,
I thought this was a site devoted to climate DEBATE.
Please explain then why you are now bringing in some Apple application that like a stuck record will repeat one of two standard responses to whatever argument is brought up: ‘The science is settled’, or ‘Well, that’s only short-term’.
The Guardian explains that the app may be used to silence your reactionary uncle when he says “It hasn’t warmed since 1998”. Guess what, I was at a party recently and someone told me that actually since 1995 to the present there had been no statistically significant global warming. He was not an uncle of mine, and did not really look very reactionary. He also added that during two recent episodes (1860-1880 and 1910-1940) warming had occurred at a similar rate of about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade as during 1975-1998. It turned out to be Phil Jones, who recently has stepped down as director of CRU at the University of East Anglia and for many years supplied important data for the IPCC reports. He said that he had told exactly the same things during an interview with the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
[Response: What part of ‘short term trends are not significant’ did you not understand? Discussion of Phil Jones interview. – gavin]
Dan Olner, #6:
Interesting. I had a similar idea about 6 weeks ago, and even worked up a mind map of ideas, attributes and capabilities (which I can send on to you, if you get any momentum). Unfortunately the concept became too unwieldy, and I have too many irons in the fire right now to work on it.
I’d be happy to help out in a design capacity, though, if you could get a development team together.
But my basic idea was for a web database of “facts” (applicable to any debate, but designed with AGW in mind), each with related, supporting or refuting facts and documents (e.g. papers, web sites, datasets, etc.), as well as short and long elaborating explanations. This would let the facts be fairly atomic (e.g. “CO2 has been increasing at roughly 2 ppm/year”) while still letting people new to a concept delve deeper, and then deeper, first through the explanation, and then by following paths of related facts.
I also knew I’d never be able to populate the database, and I didn’t want it to be “one sided”, so I created a structure where it would work like a wiki, and visitors could add to it and edit it (with a moderator helping to clean it up, and an ability to lock out trolls).
Visitors could also identify their allegiance on the overall issue (pro/con) and vote on the correctness of facts. They could also request to be identified (by site administrators) as “experts” (and yes, the skeptic camp could have their experts, too, but it would be based on credentials, not media-frenzy popularity). In this way, the site could reflect both common-man and expert voting percentages.
I have loads more ideas. If you’d like to see them, let me know.
I just downloaded Sun 3D which is an app for tracking sun activity. I’m looking forward to more weather & climate apps although the one for climate skeptics is so basic and rudimentary that I don’t need such infantile nonsense, but maybe some good ones will come out.
Re: Skeptical science. A great web site and a great new info distribution mechansim. Thank you Dr. Cook.
Phone apps and other web-based personal devices are the best way to reach folks under 20.
Re: federal and executive agencies stepping forward with investments in public education re: climate change:
NOAA is stepping forward under Lubchenco’s (and Obama Admin.) leadership.
Along with announcement this month of the New NOAA Climate Service, checkout their new prototype Climate Portal at
http://www.climate.gov/
“This effort will gradually transition from a prototype to an operational status over the next year.”
Their goal: “to enhance NOAA’s Web presence in response to customer requirements, emerging needs for improved decision-making capabilities across all sectors of society facing impacts from climate variability and change, and the importance of leveraging climate data and services to support research and public education.”
My own initial skim of the site indicates clearly that they will be working to counter effectively the numerous web-based sources of climate mis-information.
Thank you NOAA. (Better late than never!)
Wilt says: “I thought this was a site devoted to climate DEBATE.”
That is where you are wrong. The purpose of this site is to educate the public about Earth’s climate and the scientific study of it.
From the ABOUT page of this site:
“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.”
The iPhone ap is clearly educational and so consistent with RC’s mission. What is more, any serious skeptic ought to welcome a rapid response to zombie arguments that details the manners of their being effectively dispatched in the past. This can only help the discussion progress to serious topics rather than red herrings. It is like the AnswersinGenesis folks telling Young Earth Creations not to use the long dead entropy argument against evolution. You might want to download the ap, just to make sure you aren’t trying to resurrect a zombie argument.
Dissidents, you say, Rasmus! (“Throw your iPhone into the climate debate.”) Those who hold views contrary to the majority in a scientific debate are to be called “dissidents”??? This word was used in Soviet times, referring to citizens who failed to toe the party line. Sorry if I’m being a tad overearnest here, but please tell me if you’re using the word in a tongue-in-cheek way, like opposing sports supporters tease the other side with friendly insults.
[Response: Sorry to upset you, but no associations are drawn to the Soviet. But I see others also use the term – becausethey feel ‘climate skeptics’ doesn’t quite fit the description. -rasmus]
“Climate.gov” – says more than anyone could could ever convey.
Thanks
Anand
[Response: Actually your comment conveys even more. – gavin]
> subject, which papers built on evidence, which ones
> shifted away, contradicted, altered other conclusions
Dan (6), Google Scholar, for “annual review of” +subject
These reviews come out for every area of science on a regular basis, done by people familiar with the area for various scientific publishers, often more than one for an area.
PS, anyone at Google paying attention?
We could use a “blogged about by” index corresponding to the “cited by” list at Google Scholar. But please keep them separate. Right now, “cited by” is a mix of science journal cites and PR site mentions, often very confusing.
#21 andrew adams
Not forgetting
7. Temperature records have been manipulated to show warming
8. Temperature records show no warming
It’s a great app. I have it. Were I to post a response from it tussling with a resident denier such as over at Brainard’s CJR threads, though, they would just say it’s another “believer” site like this one, cite Christy, call a few names and think they’ve won the argument. Some people have just been slatewiped by politics and aren’t open to being convinced. They have certainty in their falsehoods.
Good luck, guys. I think, however, that you are pissing into the wind. The politics of both the UK and the USA are now such thatthere is (IMHO) almost no chance at all of meaningful climate legislation happening this year — and 2011-2012 look likewise unfavorable.
If I had the money, I’d invest in coal. In the short run, they and the denialists are going to win. In the long term many of us are going to be sweating or underwater.
Maybe investing in Greenland property might also be a good idea.
The iPhone idea is OK – but it is nothing more than the addition of arguments from science to the mix, and that is not going to work. If it did, 50% of the US population would not be creationists. Tea Party idiots are not swayed by any argument that does not feed their warped outlook.
Things can change, of course, and I really hope they will — and work towards that end. But I am not optimistic. someone has to “think outside the box.” I-phone apps are not that. — JWB
“NOAA is stepping forward under Lubchenco’s (and Obama Admin.) leadership.”
She gave a great answer at the Wednesday press conference to a reporter’s question about “Jones says there’s been no significant warming since 1995.” Longer periods of time, 100 years, show warming and so on, to which the reporter, repeated the question. Don’t know the news affiliation but it wouldn’t be hard to predict.
I highly recommend Kevin McKinney’s historical essays (links in #18); fascinating,
well-written and full of background info. (I have been a fan of ‘Doc Snow’ since discovering him last year.)
“21
andrew adams says:
19 February 2010 at 8:10 AM
5. We can’t trust reconstructions of past climate
6. We know it was much warmer 1,000 years ago”
Indeed. And you don’t see proponents of #5 arguing with proponents of #6, do you.
Yet the only thing they agree on is outside their argument. They agree AGW from the IPCC is wrong.
But that isn’t their argument, it’s their AIM.
The “skeptics” of #5 do not act skeptical of the “skeptics” of #6.
Selective in their skepticism? Or not skeptics at all?
I would say the latter is proven by the former.
#31 Brent Hargreaves
Well, it comes from the Latin, so I think it’s been around longer than the ‘Soviet times’. For example, it was also used to describe students at a University in Ohio who protested a ware they thought unjust… who were then shot by members of the US Nat. Guard.
Main Entry: dis·si·dent
Etymology: Latin dissident-, dissidens, present participle of dissidēre to sit apart, disagree, from dis- + sedēre to sit — more at sit
Date: 1769
: disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissident
AGW climate denialism is based on religious styled belief (not science) and both formally and loosely organized, as in a belief system of influences and sphere of influence, as well as the formal institutions, friends of science, CATO etc. So, religious, political system, organization and belief are all applicable.
Seems like pretty good word usage to me. I hope you are not arguing with the dictionary definition?
—
The Climate Lobby
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
A green app for a mobile phone?
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/01/carbon-footprint-of-mobile-phone.html
#8 #21
-Climate sensitivity is very high (Plimer)
-Climate sensitivity is very low (Monckton)
John Cook:
Still, I must tip my hat to Plimer and Monckton. Both utilised their formidable public speaking skills and rhetorical flourishes to persuasively explain why humans can’t be causing global warming. Plimer’s argument was that climate has changed in the past. Eg – climate has a high sensitivity. Monckton’s argument was that climate has a low sensitivity. I think the irony that the two were arguing contradictory positions was lost on most of the audience.”>
I’m tempted to paraphrase Tolstoy: Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Every “sceptic” seems to be sceptical in his own way. I think we’ll have to wait some time for a sceptics’ consensus report or even a sceptics’ iPhone app.
My wife mentioned to me last night that she’d run an analysis tool on one of Friedman’s NY times columns. The software tool estimated that the column was written at a “Grade 14” level. She remarked that if Friedman expects large numbers of people to read and understand his column he needs to drop the writing about 5 grade levels. Scientists are used to writing for other scientists which means for people w/ Ph.D’s. You can be sure that Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, James Imhofe, etc understand how to write at grade levels well below “Grade 14.” I think that dropping the “grade level” of the writing down to the high school level would result in far more people understanding the science. I have no idea how to accomplish this but I suspect that it would be well worthwhile.
Good ideas on both the ap and Wiki page (although my librarian wife would have add a couple of points about Wiki). Might I also suggets updating the Start Here page on your site? The May 2007 date on that might lead one to believe that the sources are not as relevant as they still are. The media and public opinion swing wildy and unpredictably, so all is not lost….stay strong and keep up the good fight. I greatly appreciate the continued effort by this contributors to this site.
Chris
[Response: What part of ‘short term trends are not significant’ did you not understand? Discussion of Phil Jones interview. – gavin]
For the record Gavin, what length of time would you say IS statistically significant, 30 years? 50? 500?
[Response: It’s going to depend on the size of the signal and the ‘noise’ structure in the particular metric. For the current expected rate of warming in the global mean temperature (around 0.2 degC/dec), the AR4 model estimates suggest that you need a little less than 20 years for the trend to be significantly greater than zero 95% of the time. Changes in the decadal means are more significant (but even their you need two decades or more to see the differences (obviously). – gavin]
Frank, and
9. The temperature records show a cooling
过年了也没来给你踩博 O(∩_∩)O哈哈~新年快乐啊 帮我回踩啊 谢谢济南网站优化(www.jn-seo.com)
[Response: Not sure I agree with that.–Jim]
I am sure that just the sight of a link to WUWT will cause everyone here to roll their eyes and go on an immediate ad hom defensive attack, but I am just curious as to what those of you here have to say about this?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north-america-snow-models-miss-the-mark/
I am not trying to get a rise out of people or anything by posting this, I am genuinely curious as to the opinion of those of you in support of the theory of AGW on the fact that the GCMs appear to have really missed the mark on snow cover. I think it is an interesting topic for discussion and hope that we can have a level headed discussion on it.
The climate realist (denier) site is giving Skeptical Science much
publicity. What more could one ask for than have to climate change deniers enlighten themselves? It is nice to see after these people have misled folks searching the web for information on global warming or climate change with fraudulent propaganda sites for years they so howl at the tables turned.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5147
What’s next? An apps race?
Go to the app store on your iPhone. Choose category for WEATHER.
Skeptical Science is the 4th item down.
Install.
The contents will be updated on a regular basis.
Marvelous.