Friday, May 17, 2013

Climate Candy: The Proof

Here's a good indication of how much the SkS study means: just a day after being at the top of HuffPo's front page, it no longer appears anywhere that page or anywhere on their "Science" page.

Easy come, easy go.

Just another result that doesn't change anything.


MikeH said...

"just another result that doesn't change anything."

Oh yes it does.

I suspect you know that. This is your sixth post on the study. Plus all your sneering comments at other blogs.

American Behavioral Scientist have dedicated their latest issue to the same subject.

Here for example

"Leading Voices in the Denier Choir, Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science"

Just paper counting?

sylas said...

I'm with Mike. I like your blog, usually; but I really cannot see what your problem is with this paper.

It doesn't have to address all issues to be useful. It doesn't have to convince all climate deniers to be helpful for some of them.

I really don't get it. It seems to me that you are setting an absurd standard which if applied consistently, would mean than no publications relating to climate talking points had any value.

jsam said...

I'm afraid I agree with the other commenters here. The science is long accepted. The issue now is public acceptance and policy. If the science alone fails to win the day then the emphasis must shift. The so-called sceptics are manufacturing doubt where, at the basics, no reasonable doubt exists. The SkS sponsored paper seems a very reasonable approach to the latter to the acceptance-policy issue.

Sou said...

That's incredibly insightful, David. Wonderful stuff.

Such depth of information, superb context and strikingly brilliant analysis.

I must add that your grasp of testing hypotheses with evidence is truly, well, mind-numbing.

Anonymous said...

Der Spiegel agrees Cooks paper is garbage.

Unknown said...

The Spiegel article is a joke.

The author does a hatchet job, even citing an unpublished survey that no one had seen except himself.

He also claimed Cook ignored respondents who took no position. That is a lie - the "no positions" are clearly identified in the charts published with the paper.

All it shows is that Germany has its David Roses, also.

timg56 said...

It is a sign of great faith to see such stalwart defenders of John Cook and his latest paper.

I wonder if it will still be evident when Cook gets thrown to the lions. (Which, at the rate he is turning out pretend science papers, could be any month.)