Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iggypkrebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
Why is it only in the field of climate science that researchers engage is such extensive public shaming, as a matter of course?
Click to expand...
Because the creationist “researchers” have all been credibly defeated. There are currently no other battlefields.

(Sorry, couldn’t help myself)
 
Hi Vonsalza,

Welcome to the fray.

As I said to Godisgood, brief summaries in this thread starting at 364 and running through 392. Jump on anything that strikes yer fancy. Also check out my Very Professional Video Series for which I was paid megabucks by the fossil fuel cabal.
 
Last edited:
Hi Von,

The oppressive tactics of the climate science establishment are evidence that field has become very politicized. Why, if their science is so strong and unassailable, do they need to be so ruthless? I’ve mention this earlier, but the Oregon state climatologist [forget his name] is a good example. They not only tried to get him fired, they also went after his kids. Nasty people.

See also the tales of Judy Curry and, before her, Sallie Baliunas. And what about Tim Ball? He cracked a joke about Michael Mann [“He should be in the State Pen, not Penn State”] and is being sued. Heretics are not welcome and will be punished! Is this a healthy development in any scientific discipline? Does it enhance the credibility of the reigning dogma on global warming to have the science establishment which promotes it being so nasty?

[BTW, not that I want to get diverted into a discussion on evolution, but there is a more intelligent alternative to creationism, namely intelligent design.]
 
Last edited:
iggypkrebsbach said:
Hi Von,

The oppressive tactics of the climate science establishment are evidence that field has become very politicized… Heretics are not welcome and will be punished! Is this a healthy development in any scientific discipline?
Click to expand...
Its something that manifests with a devotion to anything we hold as core-truth.

I can be pretty uncharitable to flat-earthers. I just find their arguments to be so far-fetched as to insult objective reality. My sense of being is offended by their ideas.
Does it enhance the credibility of the reigning dogma on global warming to have the science establishment which promotes it being so nasty?
Click to expand...
I don’t think most of them are so nasty, but rather a vocal few. It is very beneficial in those situations if more measured members of their team worked to reign in their rhetoric.

But in many things scientific, we may never find irrefutable proof - it’s pretty rare. The best we usually get is evidence of varying degrees of strength. And pertinent decisions must still be made, despite the lack of certainty at the time.
 
Vonsalza said:
I don’t think most of them are so nasty, but rather a vocal few. It is very beneficial in those situations if more measured members of their team worked to reign in their rhetoric.
Click to expand...
But what doesn’t help is that it is key figures who are acting like such partisans. Folks like James Hansen and Michael Mann, for example.

What we really need are more honest brokers. Richard Muller tried to be one when he called out Mann and Phil Jones for their conduct unbecoming a scientist. And he paid a price. [But not to worry, for he has recanted and atoned for his indiscretions. He is now back in the fold.] Judy Curry, in the aftermath of climategate, tried to be one. For her willingness to dialogue with skeptics she got stabbed in the back (figuratively, in her own words). She has now quit the academic world. The Roger Pielkes (Sr. and Jr.) tried to be honest brokers. Jr. has now quit the field.
 
Last edited:
iggypkrebsbach said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
I don’t think most of them are so nasty, but rather a vocal few. It is very beneficial in those situations if more measured members of their team worked to reign in their rhetoric.
Click to expand...
But what doesn’t help is that it is key figures who are acting like such partisans. Folks like James Hansen and Michael Mann, for example.

What we really need are more honest brokers. Richard Muller tried to be one when he called out Mann and Phil Jones for their conduct unbecoming a scientist. And he paid a price. [But not to worry, for he has recanted and atoned for his indiscretions. He is now back in the fold.] Judy Curry, in the aftermath of climategate, tried to be one. For her willingness to dialogue with skeptics she got stabbed in the back (figuratively, in her own words). She has now quit the academic world. The Roger Pielkes (Sr. and Jr.) tried to be honest brokers. Jr. has now quit the field.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think the problem is quite as wide, but this is obviously a YMMV difference.

I think what a lot of folks are concerned about is limiting some sort of loudspeaker effect - which is a very legitimate concern.

Citing an over-the-top, but easy to identify example: a lot of the propaganda that extremist leaders like Hitler and the like use might be demonstrably, factually incorrect. But it becomes “true” because so many people believe it because it’s delivered with charisma or errantly meets some sort of need or insecurity they experience.

Rolling that into the climate change debate, for the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, this is a settled issue. The only continuing debate is how much the impact is and what can be realistically done to address it.

Again, there are folks who resist this view, but at this point they’re the shrinking minority hold-outs that remain unconvinced when the same evidence is sufficient for the other vast majority who are convinced.

Perhaps we’re victims of the same sort of loudspeaker effect! But the probability of that being true diminishes with wider and wider consideration and agreement.

But you’re totally right. Being rude about it isn’t the best way to go. But that that point, both parties are probably equally hardened against genuine consideration of each-others points.

In the words of Vonnegut - “So it goes…”
 
Vonsalza said:
Rolling that into the climate change debate, for the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, this is a settled issue. The only continuing debate is how much the impact is and what can be realistically done to address it.
Click to expand...
Hi Von [Vonnegut?]

Actually that is not true. There is no overwhelming majority in favor of each element of the global warming hypothesis. A majority probably would agree that human CO2 emissions are causing some warming, however.

One of the problems has been the exaggerated certainty expressed by the IPCC and the rest of the climate establishment. And if one honestly looks at the science, there is plenty of room for doubt.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Rolling that into the climate change debate, for the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, this is a settled issue. The only continuing debate is how much the impact is and what can be realistically done to address it.
Click to expand...
Hi Von [Vonnegut?]

Actually that is not true. There is no overwhelming majority in favor of each element of the global warming hypothesis. (emph. mine)
Click to expand...
Oh no no no. That’s just your attempt to frame the debate for me, done either deliberately or unconsciously.

Respectfully and gently - “No Thanks”.
One of the problems has been the exaggerated certainty expressed by the IPCC and the rest of the climate establishment.
Click to expand...
Sure. But then I think we should reasonably consider that many if not most of the folks who think global warming is a reality don’t do so in homage or deference to the IPCC.
And if one honestly looks at the science, there is plenty of room for doubt.
Click to expand...
Sure. But as I said, the number of people who think that is shrinking.

The evidence, while absolutely open to interpretation, is swinging more folks toward the “yeah” side on the issue of global warming.
 
Last edited:
iggypkrebsbach said:
My X, Y, and Z were short-hand for all the reasons I’ve given so far (scandals, fraud, bias, bad science). Are you saying none of them have been proved?
Click to expand...
I think you can add the NOAA study that came out last year that purportedly showed that there never was a hiatus in warming. The paper appears to have little scientific support:
  • The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.
  • They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.
  • The greatest changes are made since 1998, which is interesting because this is when we have the highest quality of data and global coverage using several methods.
It is so out of step with all the other data that Congress has subpoena’d the research papers on which it is based. NOAA, to absolutely no one’s surprised, has refused…because everyone knows that real science is done on a “just trust me” basis.
 
Hi Ender,

Yes, this was Tom Karl’s work, or that of his progeny (he is now retired from NOAA I think). Cut from the same cloth as Hansen and Jones.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Are you a time traveler from the future come to enlighten us? If not, how do you come to be so sure of science that is misunderstood by the vast majority of scientists today?
Click to expand...
Let’s frame it this way: Why do I think that the conclusions advanced by climate establishment led by the IPCC (however many scientists practicing in the field believe them) are not credible? My argument is this:
  1. The IPCC is the acknowledged gold standard authority on all matters climate. Sure, other entities have weighed in on global warming, but only the IPCC has undertaken such a long-term, inter-disciplinary, and comprehensive project to summarize the state of our climate knowledge.
  2. Yet the IPCC has been utterly discredited. Its testimony can be wholly rejected .
  3. Computer models, used by the IPCC to put the blame on CO2 for causing global warming and for making the case that added Co2 will be dangerous, have also been decisively discredited. Toss their testimony too.
  4. The rest of the climate science community has also been discredited. If they didn’t actively participate in the scandals, they either chose to or were not able to speak out. The field has been compromised by politics and money. There aren’t enough honest brokers, scientific revolutionaries, or true scientists according to LBN’s stereotype, to make a difference.
  5. Apart from the complete discrediting of the all the major witnesses, the scientific case, when honestly examined has not been made. In my humble, subjective opinion, none of the elements of the GW hypothesis have been established by even a preponderance of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Hi LBN,

Regarding Crichton’s examples of eugenics and Lysenkoism, here is a quote from his essay:
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Sure. But then I think we should reasonably consider that many if not most of the folks who think global warming is a reality don’t do so in homage or deference to the IPCC.

Sure. But as I said, the number of people who think that is shrinking.

The evidence, while absolutely open to interpretation, is swinging more folks toward the “yeah” side on the issue of global warming.
Click to expand...
My sense of the trending among scientists is the opposite. Things changed after McIntyre’s debunking of Mann’s hockey stick curve and climate gate. Some scientists like Judy Curry got red-pilled. Some who had hidden doubts have become emboldened. But the establishment position is still solidly in tune with the IPCC.

Results of public polling have been exasperating for alarmist types. Joe Sixpack will go along with the proposition that our burning fossil fuels is a problem, but he will rank this at the bottom of a list of other problems. Establishment social psychologists are working on that.

The IPCC is the go-to authority for policymakers around the world. Its talking points and memes are disseminated far and wide. Public opinion, I am sure, has been largely formed, directly and indirectly, by the IPCC.

Climate scientists who live and move and have their being outside the IPCC and its allied entities do not all hold establishment views in deference to IPCC. I am sure most come by their opinions honestly and independently. But they live and move and have their being in an environment and a scientific culture corrupted by money and politics and which discourages dissent and encourages running with the herd. That is undeniable.
 
Last edited:
Huey_Lewis said:
ROME — As he flew near Caribbean islands devastated by Hurricane Irma on his way back to the Vatican from Colombia on Sunday, Pope Francis said that political leaders and others who denied climate change reminded him of a passage from the psalms about man’s stubbornness.

“Man is stupid, the Bible said,” he said. “It’s like that, when you don’t want to see, you don’t see.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/world/europe/pope-climate-daca-trump-colombia.html?smid=tw-share

Not seeing things as they are because you don’t want to see them is stupid.

The Holy Father is calling climate skeptics stupid!
Click to expand...
Hey Hooey,

I stumbled across another of your stooopidity posts. Not helpful.

We are not arguing about matters as settled as, say, gravity. The elements of the global warming hypothesis are open for debate, and–in my humble opinion and speaking as a poor, pitiful, fallen son of Adam, stooopid in many ways–have all been falsified. Feel free to debate the issues.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
  1. The IPCC is the acknowledged gold standard authority on all matters climate. Sure, other entities have weighed in on global warming, but only the IPCC has undertaken such a long-term, inter-disciplinary, and comprehensive project to summarize the state of our climate knowledge.
Click to expand...
I would like to see some hard numbers on this claim. For example, how much of the funding for climate scientists comes directly from the IPCC proper and how much comes from various other entities, such as universities, government agencies, and private research groups? I suspect you are inflating the degree of influence the IPCC leadership has over the field.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Then you problem is with the media, not with scientists.
Click to expand...
The alarmism is symbiotic between the media and a select group of AGW scientists.

Mann etal could change the media tone by not publicly calling their opponents ‘DENIERS’.
 
Last edited:
It’s a shame that politics has made this issue so controversial. I’m not bothered by those who receive funding for their work. I’m not bothered by people who think it’s all a hoax. Why all the fuss?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top