Thursday, June 14, 2012

Good News, Bad News

Via Climate Progress

Via Kevin Drum

MT loses.  It's the weather.


Anonymous said...

Maybe we should not be too surprised.

Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking Fast and Slow examines "heuristics" that we use for "fast" thinking, when we should be using "slow" rational (but energy consuming) thinking.

One is the heuristic of "representativeness" or stereotyping. Most people's stereotypical conception of AGW is more heat waves and more weather associated with hot climates (droughts, violent thunderstorms, cloudbursting rain of short duration).

Getting that sort of weather will confirm the pre-conception. The finding is bad because a cold winter (even if AGW is partially the cause) will act against acceptance of AGW - unless you can train the public's perceptions better.


Anonymous said...

DSL says --

Actually, I'm surprised that the "Scientific Research" response is so high. An overwhelming majority cannot articulate the basic theory, even while they believe it. I suspect the numbers have been bumped up by doubter/denialist types who think the crap of the type posted on WUWT counts as "scientific research." The stronger evidence, as Toby points out, is found by stepping outside each day.

it would be nice to add another category that represents the border between the visible and the research -- sea ice, perhaps.

captcha = "13 Memserv" -- "Memserv" sounds like a cool app.

CapitalClimate said...

Some weather here, some weather there, pretty soon you have real climate:
All 13 Mays This Century in Warmest 14

Rattus Norvegicus said...


This is way, way off topic but you should change the link to Throbgoblins so that it points to the new home.

dbostrom said...

Re CapitalClimate:

'The ancient confusian saying, "It hasn't warmed since 1998"...'

"Confusian" is an excellent term.

Antiquated Tory said...

Slightly off topic, but I have one conservative Texan friend on Facebook, and while he's OK a big chunk of his commenters...I wish Eli were around, that's all I can say. Though Eli, like all climate scientists, would be accused of writing secularist, anti-religious polemic instead of real, "empirical" science.

Steve Bloom said...

Considering the wording of the Fig. 4 question, it's kind of amazing that "warmer temperatures observed" got so few responses. It is good that people are at least noticing the weather, though.

Brian said...

I'm surprised glaciers got such big billing. While I've always been interested in them, I didn't see the public effect.

Maybe somebody needs to start a "Glacier Death Watch" page to chronicle their disappearance.

Steve Bloom said...

Those glacier comparison photos and time-lapse videos make for good eye candy, and actually I think there's been a good supply of such over the last few years, IOW I'm not surprised by the glacier responses. I suppose the lesson is that people will believe their lying eyes, but not much else.

Anonymous said...


Maybe somebody needs to start a "Glacier Death Watch" page to chronicle their disappearance.

You may well know it, but for anyone interested there's the From a glacier's perspective blog.


Anonymous said...

"weather changes observed" is 100% correlated with "liberal retard faux-reporting".