Saturday, April 16, 2011

Revkin of NYT takes back his statement that skeptics are more knowledgeable about the science

Tom Nelson featured a surprising quote from warmist/alarmist Andrew Revkin of the New York Times in the article Climate, Communication and the ‘Nerd Loop’:
The last link is particularly important, given that it shows, among other things, that those dismissing human-driven global warming tend to have a more accurate picture of the basic science than those alarmed by it.
The quote has since disappeared, now replaced by:
10:46 p.m. | Updated I’ve removed a line I’d tacked on here that gave too simplistic a summary of the Six Amercias [sic] study
The Yale University Six Americas study in fact states in the Executive Summary on page 4:
...this study also found that for some knowledge questions the Doubtful and Dismissive [skeptics of man-made global warming] have as good an understanding, and in some cases better, than the Alarmed and Concerned.
see the report for specific examples.


  1. That's not surprising. I've had an open challenge for two years to any and all anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in this area to debate me - so far, no takers. I put a letter or two per month into our local paper about natural climate change - so far, no refutation on scientific grounds, although quite a few "he's an idiot" and "don't listen to him" comments. Since we live on the Northern California coast, and everyone is familiar with the low areas along the coast, it is amazing that even the oldest of the old timers haven't noticed any change in sea level. They do remember the Thirties were warmer. When we check the NASA annual temperature records, we notice that all of the rural cities in this area have an overall slight cooling or no warming trend for the past 100 years. Fort Bragg in particular has cooled, and so has fast-growing Santa Rosa. In fact, only San Francisco exhibits a steady warming trend; a perfect example of the urban heat island effect. I'm sure I'm the only person in this area familiar with H. H. Lamb's epic "Climatic History and the Future." In over 700 exhaustively researched pages Lamb demonstrates time and again that climate change is natural. Naturally.

  2. Michael, you're not the only one who follows up climate records! But I'm very pleased to be able to contact you. I've "analysed" climate records of many sorts and from many areas for many years, and intend to carry on doing so. Yes, San Fran. is very unusual, and my reading of its data agrees exactly with yours. What I would really like is a pointer towards the other data - from coastal California - that you mention, which seem to be showing little response to time. Any chance that you could provide a link?

    My analysis method(s) might be regarded by traditional climatologists as somewhat eccentric. They are not, being simply different from what one normally sees. I am especially interested in abrupt change, which, if one uses appropriate methods, is readily identified and almost ubiquitiously present in any climate time series. Don't know how to send graphics, otherwise I'd demonstrate the point!

  3. This is the web page that I pulled my charts from:
    Then I clicked on near cities to get their usually about 100-year temperature graphs.
    Here's one for our biggest city in the area, Santa Rosa, about 50 miles north of San Francisco.
    Santa Rosa's population has almost quadrupled to 113,000 since the end of World War II, and yet it shows a cooling trend.
    Fort Bragg, about 150 miles north of SF, has had a steady population of around 10,000, and a marked cooling.
    Ukiah is our largest city, 15,000, and was warming in the early, mid 1900's, flat for awhile, then recent cooling.
    Our rural northern California cities are not participating in global warming. Click on San Francisco and you can see a period of cooling following 1906, and warming after they recovered from the earthquake damage.
    Here's one of my recent blog posts summing it all up.