- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you been reading the exchange here you know that regardless of what you say about one person (Michael Mann), your claim of a conspiracy requires an untenable complicity among a much larger group. Address that, if you can.
And if you want to discuss the claims of Dr. Tim Ball, then please go ahead and do so. Just posting a link to where we can buy his book does not amount to an argument.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
The general workings of greenhouse gases was understood 150 years ago. That fact, however, has absolutely no bearing on what is or is not known about the impact of heightened levels of CO2. Knowing that there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas is an irrelevancy, so referring to the fact that this much was known a century and a half ago is meaningless. Just as it is not particularly meaningful to argue that increasing CO2 in an actual greenhouse will also raise its temperature. What happens in controlled space does not model what happens in the real world.
Ah, then you recognize the fatuousness of Cook’s claim that 97% of scientists agree that man is responsible for global warming. Clearly if the science is not settled then scientists cannot be agreed on the significant points.
It would be nice to see this kind of response to other posters who make the “science is settled” argument. I look forward to that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Whenever I see the claim being made that “the science is settled,” it is over a much weaker form of the climate change theory - generally the parts that really are settled, like the ones you mentioned above that have been known for 150 years. I have not seen anyone here post the claim that the science is settled with regard to exactly how much the temperature will rise in the next 100 years. If I did, I would post my disagreement with such a claim.LeafByNiggle:
It would be nice to see this kind of response to other posters who make the “science is settled” argument. I look forward to that.
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
Hi LBN,
The history of climate science would appear to be an exception then. It is replete with examples of the larger community encouraging and even aiding and abetting conduct unbecoming a scientist, or, in the face of crimes against science, remaining silent.
Folks like Stephen Schneider encouraged Mann to stonewall and otherwise impede the auditing of Mann’s work. He even colluded with IPCC schemers to get some made-to-order research included in the 4th AR, research that was so bad it eventually couldn’t even be published. The general paleo-community surrounded the wagons around Mann and adopted his stonewalling tactics to prevent the auditing of their work. Only a handful in the mainstream that I can recall–e.g. Richard Muller–condemned Mann’s conduct in the Hockey Stick Affair. Muller criticized Mann for not releasing his computer code, but he was a lonely voice and was branded a denier because he dared to criticize climate science’s golden boy. Where were the rest? The NAS panel utterly failed to call out Mann for his scientific conduct. They begrudgingly admitted Mann used bad data and his methods were flawed. But no harm in the end because he got the right result!
Phil Jones was caught red-handed refusing to give up his data and violating the British FOIA laws. But no matter. He was exonerated by 3 different panels.
Phil Jones co-authored an urban heat island paper with Wang. It was proven that Wang fraudulently misrepresented his Chinese data. No matter. His university completely exonerated him. Jones should have condemned his co-author. Instead Jones continued to cite the paper as evidence.
Mann was investigated by Penn State, but he was exonerated on the grounds that he made a lot of money for the university. The panel ruled some of the more obvious and egregious charges off limits, causing Richard Lindzen to exclaim “What is going on here?”
James Hansen and his cronies at NASA, including Gavin Schmidt, keep adjusting the data so they can they support their money claim that 1998 is the hottest EVAH! Who calls them out for this obvious fraud? Where are the brave NASA GISS minions–or anyone else in the industry-- who know the score and will blow the whistle?
Outsiders figure prominently among those who have been policing the climate scientists. Stephen McIntyre, Warwich Hughes, Donna Laframboise, Anthony Watts, Tony Heller… All doing the job the climate science establishment refuses to do.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are making your job harder and harder. First you hypothesize and unlikely conspiracy, and now you hypothesize exceptional behavior of one particular field of scientists. The more you rely on exceptions, the weaker your argument is. Do you realize how unbelievable this sounds? Real conspiracies in history have involved a select group of people who are in the know. But this proposed conspiracy will be the first one ever that involves a large number of loosely knit individuals who have maintained the conspiracy for at least 22 years. Real scientists in history spend their time trying to prove each other wrong. But scientists in this field band together and support what others have said. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. You have a big job ahead providing that exceptional proof.LeafByNiggle:
Hi LBN,
The history of climate science would appear to be an exception then. It is replete with examples of the larger community encouraging and even aiding and abetting conduct unbecoming a scientist, or, in the face of crimes against science, remaining silent…
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
The logical response is to REQUIRE SCIENTISTS TO PAY.
So, if you propose certain hypotheses, then you have to pay out of your pocket.
So, it is not a matter of getting a grant, but that YOU have to put YOUR money behind your words.
So, if you propose certain hypotheses, then you have to pay out of your pocket.
So, it is not a matter of getting a grant, but that YOU have to put YOUR money behind your words.
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
Hi LBN,
In one of her lectures, Naomi Oreskes, just like you, argued that scientists are incapable of pulling off the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time to Perpetrate Climate Fraud. They are too independent and competitive. Besides, she quipped, they are too disorganized. But she was being disingenuous.
In explaining the present lamentable state of climate science we don’t have to resort to a vast, world-wide, top-down, command and control conspiracy. That’s silly. What I have been arguing is that global warming has become a world-wide social movement with many actors and many motivations. What they have in common is the conviction that global warming serves their agendas. Radical environmentalists, population controllers, rent-seeking corporations, socialists, and world government types are all in the mix.
Positioned at the heart of this movement is the IPCC, an organization of governments dedicated to promoting the CO2 theory of global warming. It was founded by a group led by Maurice Strong, the Canadian UN apparatchic. Self-described as a communist in theory and capitalist in methodology, Strong was a billionaire and ardent Club of Rome guy.
Over time the IPCC has positioned itself as the world’s leading climate expert. While around several thousand scientists participate in the writing of the IPCC reports every 6 or 7 years, a relative handful actually write the reports and an even small number write the all-important summaries for policymakers.
The IPCC bureaucracy is dominated by representatives of green, socialist, and similar groups. Over time skeptical scientists have learned that they need not apply, and the scientists who do participate are pretty uniform in their support for the party line.
Over time IPCC types have expanded their influence. Key IPCC types have come to dominate the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Society. The ranks of NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation… are full of IPCC supporters.
Coincident with the rise of the IPCC has been the surge in funding of climate science in the US. Eisenhower was famous for warning us about the military industrial complex. Not so well-known is his warning about the rise of a scientific technological elite driven by government money. Richard Lindzen from MIT, who watched it all happen, comments that a lot of people got rich and famous by promoting global warming. The heads of leading scientific societies have publicly stated that they will be willing tools for the regulatory state.
In one of her lectures, Naomi Oreskes, just like you, argued that scientists are incapable of pulling off the Greatest Conspiracy of All Time to Perpetrate Climate Fraud. They are too independent and competitive. Besides, she quipped, they are too disorganized. But she was being disingenuous.
In explaining the present lamentable state of climate science we don’t have to resort to a vast, world-wide, top-down, command and control conspiracy. That’s silly. What I have been arguing is that global warming has become a world-wide social movement with many actors and many motivations. What they have in common is the conviction that global warming serves their agendas. Radical environmentalists, population controllers, rent-seeking corporations, socialists, and world government types are all in the mix.
Positioned at the heart of this movement is the IPCC, an organization of governments dedicated to promoting the CO2 theory of global warming. It was founded by a group led by Maurice Strong, the Canadian UN apparatchic. Self-described as a communist in theory and capitalist in methodology, Strong was a billionaire and ardent Club of Rome guy.
Over time the IPCC has positioned itself as the world’s leading climate expert. While around several thousand scientists participate in the writing of the IPCC reports every 6 or 7 years, a relative handful actually write the reports and an even small number write the all-important summaries for policymakers.
The IPCC bureaucracy is dominated by representatives of green, socialist, and similar groups. Over time skeptical scientists have learned that they need not apply, and the scientists who do participate are pretty uniform in their support for the party line.
Over time IPCC types have expanded their influence. Key IPCC types have come to dominate the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Society. The ranks of NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation… are full of IPCC supporters.
Coincident with the rise of the IPCC has been the surge in funding of climate science in the US. Eisenhower was famous for warning us about the military industrial complex. Not so well-known is his warning about the rise of a scientific technological elite driven by government money. Richard Lindzen from MIT, who watched it all happen, comments that a lot of people got rich and famous by promoting global warming. The heads of leading scientific societies have publicly stated that they will be willing tools for the regulatory state.
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
I know you don’t watch youtube lectures, but you really should listen to Pat Michael’s lecture on the present state of science. Something bad has happened to the culture of science in general, not just climate science. Universities encourage group-think and uniformity, and it is all about funding. [Michael Mann is the poster boy for “I can get away with anything as long as I bring home the bacon!”] It’s all about positive results and flashy headlines; papers with negative finding need not even apply to the leading journals. The incentives for publishing are great. Not surprisingly the incidence of fraud is increasing. Pal-reviewing is a real problem. Peer-review in general is proving to be unreliable.
Coincident with these developments is the rise of post-normal science which justifies activism by scientists. Stephen Schneider is a good example. Throw in some noble cause corruption (“A little exaggeration here and there is OK as long as we are saving the planet”), and witness the results: scandal after scandal.
So one doesn’t have to posit the existence of vast, world-wide, top-down, command and control conspiracy to explain the present corrupt state of climate science. It is enough to highlight the history of the IPCC, the larger social movement behind it, certain structural and cultural developments within science, and, of course, the scandals. One doesn’t have to show that the IPCC controls all scientists who work in the field. It is sufficient to show it exerts influence on key agencies and organizations such as NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc. One doesn’t have to show that all climate scientists are guilty of misconduct or of conspiring to do bad things. It is enough to show that certain key figures have been caught doing so. However, regarding the culpability of the climate science community in general, we can say this: It has been largely silent and ineffectual in the face of the scandals.
Coincident with these developments is the rise of post-normal science which justifies activism by scientists. Stephen Schneider is a good example. Throw in some noble cause corruption (“A little exaggeration here and there is OK as long as we are saving the planet”), and witness the results: scandal after scandal.
So one doesn’t have to posit the existence of vast, world-wide, top-down, command and control conspiracy to explain the present corrupt state of climate science. It is enough to highlight the history of the IPCC, the larger social movement behind it, certain structural and cultural developments within science, and, of course, the scandals. One doesn’t have to show that the IPCC controls all scientists who work in the field. It is sufficient to show it exerts influence on key agencies and organizations such as NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc. One doesn’t have to show that all climate scientists are guilty of misconduct or of conspiring to do bad things. It is enough to show that certain key figures have been caught doing so. However, regarding the culpability of the climate science community in general, we can say this: It has been largely silent and ineffectual in the face of the scandals.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Exactly so.
But that kind of conspiracy is just as hard to prove. For why would you think that such a large group of randomly selected people would have such an agenda, and that they would all have the same agenda? Frankly I think it would be easier to convince someone there was a top-down command and control conspiracy.
There is no reason to think that only such people would be drawn to be scientists.
I have already made it clear why no world-leading climate expert can subvert the whole community of scientists.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I avoid them like the plague. They are too slow, hard to search, and hard to research.
I sometimes watch Numberphile on Youtube just for fun though.
T
Theo520
Guest
It is all about he money, and there is no money in the status quo. There is also no additional Govt mandated control to address the problem, not redirection of wealth to the fix the developing world.
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
The IPCC doesn’t have to subvert the whole community of scientists to be successful. Many, for reasons given above and previously, were more than willing to jump on the bandwagon. It was also helpful to the cause to be able take over key, strategic positions such as head of NASA, NOAA etc., not to mention NAS and the Royal Society. They occupy most of the positions of power and they wield the carrots and sticks. They control the three main producers of thermometer temperature datasets. All the main journals are sympathetic to the IPCC line, if they aren’t acting as open partisans. Oh, and I forgot to mention that they have most of the organs of mass communication and a whole host of sycophantic journalists such as Seth Borenstein ready and willing to do their bidding.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
First, take care with your numbers. One corrupt organization I might believe. But when you have a long list and claim they are all corrupt, then you have to start providing a reason why so many such organizations should have a common reason to be corrupt. Otherwise you run into the same problem when you tried to claim that all climate scientists were corrupt.LeafByNiggle:
The IPCC doesn’t have to subvert the whole community of scientists to be successful. Many, for reasons given above and previously, were more than willing to jump on the bandwagon. It was also helpful to the cause to be able take over key, strategic positions such as head of NASA, NOAA etc., not to mention NAS and the Royal Society. They occupy most of the positions of power and they wield the carrots and sticks.
Secondly, there is one big carrot and one big stick that an organization like this can never wield, but they are very important to scientists. And that is fame. To go down in the history of science as the guy who claimed there was cold fusion, only to find out that his measurements were the result of electrical noise from a nearby elevator - that would be very distressing. On the other hand, to go down in the history of science as the guy who proved that Newtonian mechanics, despite being universally hailed as complete and settled, was actually wrong a speeds comparable to the speed of light - well, that’s Einstein. That carrot is huge!
M
Mulligan2
Guest
The OP’s question is ‘Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?’ ‘Reason’ is defined as either (1) a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event, or (2) the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. Understanding global warming is to understand the science behind it. In this case, ‘science’ is defined as (1) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. So with global warming, ‘reason’ and ‘science’ go hand in hand. As the science (warming) is provable, yes, it would be considered unreasonable to be a global warming skeptic.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The science hasn’t proven it.
M
Mulligan2
Guest
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
Hi Mulligan,
Chiming in with Luigi, the global warming hypothesis has not been sufficiently proved. In my opinion it is unreasonable to fashion public policy based the recommendations of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. For the full story, see the 12 part series starting here:
I
iggypkrebsbach
Guest
Hi LBN,
Regarding the carrot of fame…
If the rank and file climate scientists were true to your vision of the typical scientist, then they would have exposed Mann’s flawed research, not a semi-retired mining analyst from Canada. They would have audited the US surface temperature stations and exposed their deficiencies, rather than relying on citizen volunteers. They would have exposed Hansen’s biased adjustments of the temp data. They would have criticized Mann for not releasing his computer code. They would have condemned Phil Jones for not releasing his data. They would have insisted that the IPCC clean up its act and adopt the reforms recommended by the Interacademy…
Getting back to my favorite whipping-boy, Michael Mann, we know from the climate gate emails that his colleagues discussed among themselves how bad Mann’s research was. Yet they didn’t criticize him in public.
All this confirms that the community of scientists who contribute to the body of climate knowledge have failed us, bigly. Knowing participants in the scandals are the most culpable. Folks in the know who did and said nothing also share in the blame. The vast silent majority of scientists share in the blame to the extent of their knowledge and freedom to act. I imagine a good portion of them learned from the examples of the few brave heretics who got squashed by the establishment for speaking out. Sometimes it is more about avoiding the stick rather than pursuing the carrot.
Regarding the carrot of fame…
If the rank and file climate scientists were true to your vision of the typical scientist, then they would have exposed Mann’s flawed research, not a semi-retired mining analyst from Canada. They would have audited the US surface temperature stations and exposed their deficiencies, rather than relying on citizen volunteers. They would have exposed Hansen’s biased adjustments of the temp data. They would have criticized Mann for not releasing his computer code. They would have condemned Phil Jones for not releasing his data. They would have insisted that the IPCC clean up its act and adopt the reforms recommended by the Interacademy…
Getting back to my favorite whipping-boy, Michael Mann, we know from the climate gate emails that his colleagues discussed among themselves how bad Mann’s research was. Yet they didn’t criticize him in public.
All this confirms that the community of scientists who contribute to the body of climate knowledge have failed us, bigly. Knowing participants in the scandals are the most culpable. Folks in the know who did and said nothing also share in the blame. The vast silent majority of scientists share in the blame to the extent of their knowledge and freedom to act. I imagine a good portion of them learned from the examples of the few brave heretics who got squashed by the establishment for speaking out. Sometimes it is more about avoiding the stick rather than pursuing the carrot.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your argument is circular. But apparently you don’t see that, so let me explain in detail.
You initially claimed climate science is corrupt. I claimed it is not corrupt. To support my claim I cited the desire for fame, which has driven scientists throughout the ages, makes it more likely that scientists would contradict a widely-held belief if they thought it would make them famous.
Now here is where your argument gets circular. You refute my argument by saying that fame is not such a big motivation for scientists, because if it was, they would have reported on all the corruption in climate science, which there surely is. That is your argument. Do you see the circularity yet? You have to assume climate science is corrupt in order to discredit my argument. And discrediting my argument is how you are supporting your argument, which is that climate science is corrupt. Now do you see it? Let me repeat, you have to assume climate science is corrupt in order to prove climate science is corrupt. That is certainly circular. You can’t assume the thing you are trying to prove in order to prove that thing, no matter how strongly you believe that thing is true. It is just circular.
Now if you have any non-circular refutation of my “fame” observation, I would be happy to see it.
- Status