What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

HarryStotle:

Scientists, like women, apparently, just ought to be believed without evidence, merely because they are scientists.

That’s only applies to ‘Climate Scientists’, who also get a pass in applying the Scientific Method to their work.

On the contrary, their work is subject to more scrutiny than is given to scientists of any other field.

 

[HarryStotle]

I looked this up. She is a high school graduate…
This, again, is part of the problem. Many of the so-called scientists that deny climate change, aren’t. There have been three mentioned on this thread which were journalist or commentators, presented as though their opinions were evidence.

Actually, no one claimed Candace Owen is a scientist, and she would likely be the first to deny that she is one.

I think @1chlctrth was merely making the claim that leftists attack anyone who holds an opinion that differs from the politically correct one.

That attack has been extended to climate scientists who dissent from the global warming hysteria. Bill Nye, (AKA “the science guy”) declared that climate change deniers ought to be jailed. And that from someone who isn’t even a climatologist. seems like his is a dangerous opinion.

Although, @LeafByNiggle claims that the Michael Mann case was about defamation, it was also a test case regarding whether a scientist questioning the scientific findings or conclusions of prima donna scientists like Michael Mann amounts to defamation or slander.

As to the “part of the problem” being those who aren’t scientists expressing opinions about scientific matters, you need to speak to people such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Greta Thunberg and numerous celebrities and politicians such as AOC who have no real expertise on the issue but yet feel compelled to become activists and promote massive political and cultural change on little more than a rudimentary understanding.

At least the members of this forum who express their opinions are not traveling the globe and marshalling large numbers of people or raising billions of dollars to promote massive change. They are merely expressing opinions.

Perhaps you ought to save your ire for those who do more than merely express their opinions, even when those opinions come from those, as you say, who “present their opinions as evidence.” DiCaprio, Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, most of the Democratic candidates for president, Bill Nye, and numerous others come to mind.

When are you going to post decrying all of those individuals presenting their opinions as if they are indisputable to justify massive political, social and cultural change?

I guess my response to you, in a nutshell, would be that if those opinionated individuals can declare their bloviating as the last word on climate change, individuals holding the opposite view ought to be just as free to voice their opinions to the contrary; along with refusing to fork over their hard earned money to green new deals.

The crux of the matter is that the alarmists have made global warming a political issue, one that affects the livelihood and lifestyles of everyone. That means everyone ought to have an informed opinion, the debate ought to be vigorous, and the case proved beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt. It hasn’t.

Besides which, basing a conclusion just on the available scientific evidence, my opinion is that those who dissent from global warming alarmism have a far more compelling case.

 

[HarryStotle]

On the contrary, their work is subject to more scrutiny than is given to scientists of any other field.

And their work is having far more current and future impact on the lives of every human being on the planet, so there ought to be massive pushback to make sure every dot and tittle is in place in the data.

Yet, Mann refuses to show his data for scrutiny. Pretty difficult to scrutinize what is not made available.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

pnewton:

I looked this up. She is a high school graduate…
This, again, is part of the problem. Many of the so-called scientists that deny climate change, aren’t. There have been three mentioned on this thread which were journalist or commentators, presented as though their opinions were evidence.

Actually, no one claimed Candace Owen is a scientist, and she would likely be the first to deny that she is one.

I think @1chlctrth was merely making the claim that leftists attack anyone who holds an opinion that differs from the politically correct one.

The thread is called “what do you think of climate change?” Not “what do liberals attack?” Therefore a discussion about progressives attacking what Candace Owen says is irrelevant to this thread. But if you insist on talking about who attacks what, it appears that some conservatives attack dedicated and hard-working climate scientists, probably because their views are ideologically inconvenient. They suggest solutions that require community action, and the word “communitiy” has too many letters in common with the word “communism.” But as I said, none of that really matters in this thread.

That attack has been extended to climate scientists who dissent from the global warming hysteria.

No it has not. They attack commentators who twist what these scientists say to make it sound like they profoundly disagree with global warming. There is not one reputable scientist who says that global warming is all a hoax, but there are plenty of conservatives commentators who say that.

…continued:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing…:

HarryStotle:

Although, @LeafByNiggle claims that the Michael Mann case was about defamation, it was also a test case regarding whether a scientist questioning the scientific findings or conclusions of prima donna scientists like Michael Mann amounts to defamation or slander.

Which means it is about defamation, which includes slander.

As to the “part of the problem” being those who aren’t scientists expressing opinions about scientific matters, you need to speak to people such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Greta Thunberg and numerous celebrities and politicians such as AOC who have no real expertise on the issue but yet feel compelled to become activists and promote massive political and cultural change on little more than a rudimentary understanding.

They are all the problem.

At least the members of this forum who express their opinions are not traveling the globe and marshalling large numbers of people or raising billions of dollars to promote massive change.

Because they can’t or they don’t care. But not because they are resisting a temptation to do so.

I guess my response to you, in a nutshell, would be that if those opinionated individuals can declare their bloviating as the last word on climate change, individuals holding the opposite view ought to be just as free to voice their opinions to the contrary;

And they are free to do just that - and those who disagree with them are free to attack those opinions as they have been. What do you want? One side to shut up?

The crux of the matter is that the alarmists have made global warming a political issue, one that affects the livelihood and lifestyles of everyone.

Or maybe,…the crux of the matters is that impending climate change is going to force changes to the livelihood and lifestyles of everyone whether we accept it or not.

That means everyone ought to have an informed opinion, the debate ought to be vigorous, and the case proved beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt.

When a person is bitten by a runaway dog suspected of having rabies, does he asked that it be proven “beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt” before beginning treatment?

LeafByNiggle:

On the contrary, their work is subject to more scrutiny than is given to scientists of any other field.

And their work is having far more current and future impact on the lives of every human being on the planet, so there ought to be massive pushback to make sure every dot and tittle is in place in the data.

Yet, Mann refuses to show his data for scrutiny. Pretty difficult to scrutinize what is not made available.

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

 

[Theo520]

Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

lol, Mann the ‘molester’ does have a good ring to it.
And he has molested us by his pushing models that fail the scientific method.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I guess when logic fails, one must turn to name-calling.

 

[HarryStotle]

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

It wasn’t made available to the court. That is why he lost his case in court.

Are you calling the judge in the case a “blogger?” Interesting.

 

[E-Ireland]

Two kinds of people who like to present themselves as aeronautical experts are aero modelers and pilots. Rarely does any of them have it right. In the case of the 737 MAX, the electric trim on two airplanes owned by “third-world” airlines went bonkers, causing the two large trim wheels with “flags” on them to spin rapidly right in front of the pilots. The standard procedure for this kind of runaway electric trim is to shut it off, and the switches are up front and easily reached. But, no, they let the trim run so long that there was no recovery. They crashed. Any airplane made by any company will crash if the pilots let the electric trim run away like that. How is it Boeing’s fault?

Also, there isn’t a product made on earth – not your car, your smoke alarm, or your pacemaker that is made without regard to cost. It’s the central trade-off in every design/development program. It is sheer libel to turn this on its head and say that bean counters made the engineers do unsafe things or disregard safety in any way.

Yes, of course, it’s easy, after the fact, to play “coulda, shoulda;” but the basic question here is simply whether the FAA certified the airplane with too high a regard for third world pilot capabilities. It appears they did, and they have said out loud that they are re-thinking that. Clearly, in much of the world, the piloting and incident follow-up standards, as practiced, are lower than in the USA.

 

[HarryStotle]

There is not one reputable scientist who says that global warming is all a hoax, but there are plenty of conservatives commentators who say that.

I can name a number of reputable scientists who do claim global warming hysteria is far overblown. I can also name a few who say it is a great hoax to pin global warming on human activity: William Happer, Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Tony Heller, Judith Curry, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook, Tim Patterson, John Christy, William Gray, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Moore, Elliot Bloom, and more…

In fact there have been some 31, 000 scientists, academics and grad students just in the US who insist that while some warming is occurring, it isn’t being caused by human activity and it isn’t the issue it is made out to be by alarmists. The globe is continually warming and cooling to some degree and what is happening now is not out of the ordinary.

And here is an Australian scientist, Dr Peter Ridd, an expert on coral reefs, who lost his position at the University of Australia for insisting that coral reefs, specifically the Great Barrier Reef, is not “dying” due to global warming and is actually doing very well, thank you very much.

Now why would a professor be fired for stating scientific truths related to the global warming narrative?

Ah yes, you will not venture an opinion about things you aren’t familiar with.

Still, here is his story, for those who are interested…

Perhaps you will revise your “not one reputable scientist” claim based on the names above?

Or will you move to define “reputable” based upon whether or not they happen to agree with global warming?

In which case, it is you, a relatively uninformed abecedarian, committing what you have stated in the past is a major faux pas by questioning the bona fides of bona fide scientists, to say nothing of reasoning in one big vicious circle.

 

[Maximus_Power]

Climate change really is only an issue for athiests.

Do believers really think that Jesus is going to come back only to find humanity is dead? Isn’t he watching? Isn’t he involved?

 

[HarryStotle]

Because they can’t or they don’t care. But not because they are resisting a temptation to do so.

My money would be on “can’t,” precisely because there hasn’t been made available the millions and billions of dollars to dissent from global warming the way that the money pours into the hysteria.

Think about Greta Thunberg for a moment. She, an unknown 16 year old, is taking a trip across the Atlantic in a €4 million yacht for no other reason than to promote “awareness” with the full attention of the hysterical press.

Hey, I’d be willing to do take a yacht across the Atlantic to promote dissent. I haven’t had any serious offers though.

I certainly wouldn’t resist the temptation to do so to show the world that I “care.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is not one reputable scientist who says that global warming is all a hoax, but there are plenty of conservatives commentators who say that.

I can name a number of reputable scientists who do claim global warming hysteria is far overblown.

Can you name one climate scientist who says it is all a hoax? Not a physics professor. Not a grad student. Not “far overblown.” A Hoax. (I don’t have time to search through all the chaff you threw at me.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

It wasn’t made available to the court. That is why he lost his case in court.

The court was acting because of the blogger. As I said, the data exists, and Mann isn’t the only one with data. Many independent climate scientists also have their own data that confirms global warming. But do you what data is missing? Comprehensive data showing that global warming is not happening.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

The data was made available to other climate scientists. Mann just did not feel compelled to open up his raw lab notes to the blogger who just compared him to a sex abuser.

It wasn’t made available to the court. That is why he lost his case in court.

The court was acting because of the blogger. As I said, the data exists, and Mann isn’t the only one with data. Many independent climate scientists also have their own data that confirms global warming. But do you what data is missing? Comprehensive data showing that global warming is not happening.

Dr. Tim Ball is not a blogger. He has a PhD in geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. He was professor of geography at the University of Manitoba until he retired in 1996. The case was brought by Mann against him.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

There is not one reputable scientist who says that global warming is all a hoax, but there are plenty of conservatives commentators who say that.

I can name a number of reputable scientists who do claim global warming hysteria is far overblown.

Can you name one climate scientist who says it is all a hoax? Not a physics professor. Not a grad student. Not “far overblown.” A Hoax. (I don’t have time to search through all the chaff you threw at me.)

Let’s note that you have moved the goalposts from “one reputable scientist” to “one climate scientist.”

Let’s also break this down just a little, shall we?

Your insistence that the reputable scientist must use the exact words that “global warming is all a hoax” muddies the water just a bit, and focusing on global warming in isolation from all the other claims being made by the propagandists detaches all the other questionable aspects of the hoax from the small and indisputable point that the global climate happens to be warming somewhat from the last ice age.

That isn’t the claim being questioned and it doesn’t amount to ‘global warming’ in the sense that the alarmists use the term.

William Happer, for example, in the above linked video states categorically that carbon pollution is a MYTH and carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to the current warming. He makes several points along the way including that warming periods such as we are currently in have been going on for a long time and are unrelated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. He further makes the claim that the current warming has led to no increase in severe weather.

Tony Heller documents original NOAA and NASA data, and in several of his videos claims that the earth was warmer during several decades over the past hundred years when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. In fact, a number of metrics including numbers of days with extreme heat, maximum temperatures in summer and winter, number of locations breaking heat records, among others, have been quite low this past decade and are showing a decrease.

Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT before his retirement – definitely a meteorologist. He denies the global climate warrants the kind of response the alarmists are exhibiting.

John Christy and Roy Spencer are climatologists, both of whom work in remote sensing of global temperatures and global climate change using satellite temperature recordings. Roy Spencer makes the claim in the above video, referencing Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick graph,’ that “Mann-caused global warming is an example of statistical over–manipulation.” John Christy was on the committee that reviewed Michael Mann’s data and findings and stated that there were serious concerns about what Michael Mann had done, although the committee tried to protect his reputation.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Judith Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She states in the video that there is no particular evidence that severe weather events are getting worse. She insists that many have oversimplified both the situation and the solutions.

William Gray (deceased) was emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and is widely recognized as the father of hurricane research. All his government funding was cut off after he refused to go along with Al Gore that global warming was attributable to anthropogenic causes.

Don Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. He has a great deal to say about ocean levels attributable to geology rather than global warming. His specialization makes him a voice to be listened to regarding sea level claims by climatologists, who are less competent to make such claims than he probably is.

Tim Patterson is a paleo-climatologist whose specialty is analyzing the earth’s climatic record.

The ‘and more’ in my previous post adds a number of other names of professional climatologists and meteorologists.

Now, whether or not they specifically use the word “hoax” instead of “myth,” or “statistical manipulation” or some other similar term, the point of everyone of those videos was to show that the claim that anthropic global warming ought to be of major concern to human beings is not a true one.

Definitionally, a ‘hoax’ is something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication. Mann’s “hockey stick graph” and the attendant claim of an unprecedented rise in global temperatures over the past decades were established by data manipulation and the fabrication of so-called “models.” The data records when looked at truthfully and without precognitive bias do not support the truth of the claim. According to Merriam-Webster, that would be sufficient to warrant calling the claim a hoax.

Now, whether or not scientists are actual climatologists or not is not a necessary qualification to question the use or abuse of weather data. Any responsible physical scientist in related fields has the wherewithal to assess data and how it is being used to make meteorological claims.

Tony Heller does an excellent job showing the fabrication and manipulation of weather data in this video.

One need not be a climatologist to assess data manipulation.

Are you ready to retract your claim that “not one reputable scientist… says that global warming is all a hoax?”

Notice how you moved the goalposts by now asking for one “climatologist.”

By the way, I listed six “climate scientists” who dispute the claim that global warming is anomalous and significantly due to human causes, in case you are counting.

 

[Theo520]

I guess when logic fails, one must turn to name-calling.

Yes, that does seem to be the modus behind calling skeptics ‘deniers’

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your insistence that the reputable scientist must use the exact words that “global warming is all a hoax” muddies the water just a bit, and focusing on global warming in isolation from all the other claims being made by the propagandists detaches all the other questionable aspects of the hoax from the small and indisputable point that the global climate happens to be warming somewhat from the last ice age.

I would say it clarifies rather than muddies the issues. Whenever a whole bunch of complaints try to get addressed all at once as if they were all the same thing, it is bound to lead to confusion and chaos. In the present case, it would be an attempt to conflate legitimate disagreement among scientists regarding particulars of global warming (how much? how fast?) with outrageous claims of widespread conspiracy, fraud, and deception. I quite admit that scientists disagree about the extent of climate feedback and other details. I do not agree that scientists consider global warming a hoax. So that is only charge I would like to contest at this time. Don’t drag in the kitchen sink too.

William Happer, for example, in the above linked video states categorically that carbon pollution is a MYTH…

A myth supported by zero climate scientists, so on that point I agree with Happer.

and carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to the current warming.

…depends on what one considers “significant.” Looks more like a disagreement in degree than a disagreement in kind.

He makes several points along the way including that warming periods such as we are currently in have been going on for a long time and are unrelated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

A point well-recognized and understood by all climate scientists.

He further makes the claim that the current warming has led to no increase in severe weather.

That is a statistical claim that takes much longer to verify because there are so many other chaotic factors affecting severe weather.

Tony Heller documents original NOAA and NASA data, and in several of his videos claims that the earth was warmer during several decades over the past hundred years when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now.

Cherry-picking decades can support any narrative one wants to tell. Again it is using chaotic factors to obscure a long-term trend.

In fact, a number of metrics including numbers of days with extreme heat, maximum temperatures in summer and winter, number of locations breaking heat records, among others, have been quite low this past decade and are showing a decrease.

And there are a number of metrics in which one can say the earth is about to burn up. Another example of cherry-picking.

Richard Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the MIT before his retirement – definitely a meteorologist. He denies the global climate warrants the kind of response the alarmists are exhibiting.

Which says nothing about the underlying science, which apparently he does not dispute.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Dr. Tim Ball is not a blogger. He has a PhD in geography with a specific focus on historical climatology. He was professor of geography at the University of Manitoba until he retired in 1996. The case was brought by Mann against him.

From Wikipedia:

Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin. Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, “Canada already had PhDs in climatology,” and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball’s years as a full professor. In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere, ignoring the fact Ball’s PhD thesis in 1983 was on climate and weather.”

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Johnson’s statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball “…never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming,” and that he “…is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a tenured professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in the broader discipline of geography, and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

…continued:…