I am friendly with and love people who doubt the reality of climate change. The same cannot be said for those who "doubt" the reality of the Final Solution. Lately it has become commonplace to refer to the former as "deniers," but the implicit connection to the latter offends me. To understand why, I think it is useful to look at these groups of people.
Topics
9/11
Acquisition Reform
Advertising
Alaway
Alcohol
Ale
Allergies
Antisemitism
Barack H. Obama
Beer
Billiards
Biology
Books
Budget
Bureaucracy
California
Capitalism
Carbohydrates
Carcinogen
CDC
Chemical Warfare
Chemistry
Chemophobia
Chirality
Climate Science
Colonial Pines
Computers
Conservation Laws
Constitution
Consumerism
Cosmology
CPT Invariance
Creationism
Customer Service
Daesh
David Irving
Dead End
Defense
Dinosaurs
Disasters
Economic
Energy
English
Ethics
Evolution
Fluoride
Food
FTL
Garden Care
George W. Bush
Gerlich and Tscheuschner
GISS
Glaciers
GMOs
HadCRU
Haiti
Health
Himalayan Rock Salt
HITRAN
Holocaust Denial
Home Brewing
How It Looks From Here
html
Humor
Information
Infrared Spectroscopy
IPCC
Iran
ISIS
Islam
Islamophobia
Israel
Ketotifen Fumarate
Law
Lawn Care
Leibniz
Lisbon
Magnetism
Math
Medco
Medicine
Modeling
Molecules
Monopoly
Monsanto
Naphazoline hydrochloride
Neutrinos
Nietzsche
NIH
NIST
Noether's Theorem
Non-hazardous
Norton Ghost
Nuclear Warfare
Oil
Oil Spill
Olopatadine hydrochloride
Opinion
Orson Scott Card
Parody
Pataday
Patanol
Pesticides
Pheneramine maleate
Physics
Plumbing
Politics
Poll
Pope
POTUS
Prescriptions
Prop 65
Psychology
Quantum Mechanics
Quiz
Racism
Radiative Transfer
Relativity
Religion
Respiration
Senior Housing
Signs
Smoking
Specific Gravity
Statistics
Stock Market
Sugars
Sun Tzu
Surface Temperature
Surgeon General
Symantec
Target
Temperature
Terrorism
The Final Solution
The Holocaust History Project
Thermodynamics
Time
Trains
Units
Voltaire
von Clausewitz
Weather
White House
Wine
Yeast
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
"Glacier-Gate" and Healthy Skepticism
The last report of the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained the claim that there was a probability that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035. It now appears that such a claim never should have been made. It is instructive to review the bidding to see how this claim appeared in the report.
The claim stated:
The claim stated:
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).First, I provide some background on the IPCC. Second, I discuss the source of this claim, and third, I discuss what this error means. My conclusion is a discussion of healthy skepticism and what it means. Those who claim that the IPCC made an error and therefore climate science is a hoax, are not healthy skeptics of the sort I mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
