What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And linked to the article that specified the page…

Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.

In reading the archived debate on this deletion, the editor gave his reason as

This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN..

Cross categorization means correlating two categories that have a very poor justification for being correlated. For instance, a list of concert musicians in the US might be a justified encyclopedic article, and a list published romance authors might be a justified encyclopedic article. But a list of concert musicians who are also published romance authors has no encyclopedic value. It just a curiosity. The editor went on to say:

No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming

The justification of deleting the list was for the same reason that Snopes found the “petition signed by 30,000” to be misleading. The qualifications were not tight enough on both the signatories to the petition and the scientists in the list.

While you are at it, you might want to dig into why Wikipedia drastically reduced the death rate for the Spanish Flu from 10-20% down to 2-3% for no apparent reason.

Zerohedge

The WHO report they use as a source is not about the Spanish Flu, but simply mentions it in passing. It does indeed say 2-3% of those infected died, but gives no source for this, and also claims this represents 20-50 million people.

The trouble with that is the higher range of this estimate (50 million as 2% of total cases) gives a figure of 2.5 billion total cases . Which is higher than the entire population of the world at the time!(1.8 billion).

 

[StudentMI]

That Zero Hedge article included this link which is interesting.

Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation? – OffGuardian

I think I just found a new favorite website.

 

[EndTimes]

Wrong. I know some climate science. But I am not an expert. I defer to them.

As in - you defer to SNOPES rather than at least show something of what you ‘know’?

Are the owners of SNOPES - Climate "experts" too?

Or - Do they peddle themselves as being Know It Alls About Everything - As in Secular truthtellers?

Does Olde Sol contribute to Earth’s Climate?

PS - Off the top of your head. No C&P from anti-Climate Denier sites…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Wrong. I know some climate science. But I am not an expert. I defer to them.

As in - you defer to SNOPES…

I don’t go to Snopes for climate science. I go to Snopes for journalistic fact checking. Snopes does not do climate science. But they can tell when a social media post is misleading or downright false. And Snopes always cites their sources so no one has to rely on them as an authority. You seem to associate to Snopes with exclusively left-leaning debunking. Just yesterday I had occasion to cite Snopes to debunk a left-leaning meme that had been going around Facebook:

Did Trump's Mom Once Call Him an 'Idiot'? | Snopes.com

Does Olde Sol contribute to Earth’s Climate?

PS - Off the top of your head. No C&P from anti-Climate Denier sites…

When you learn how to ask that as an unambiguous question I may try to answer it. In the meantime I recommend you examine the posts of Ender to see how to debate your side properly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And why should they be more selective? Anyone with a bachelor of science in science is quite capable of following the arguments being made.

We have gone over this before. You would not trust someone with only a degree in electrical engineering to pass judgement on the validity of recovery times of anterior vs posterior total hip arthroplasty. So why should you trust someone with only a degree in geology to pass judgement on methods of homogenizing satellite readings vs homogenizing surface temperature readings?

 

[Ender]

We have gone over this before. You would not trust someone with only a degree in electrical engineering to pass judgement on the validity of recovery times of anterior vs posterior total hip arthroplasty. So why should you trust someone with only a degree in geology to pass judgement on methods of homogenizing satellite readings vs homogenizing surface temperature readings?

Have you ever gone to another doctor to get a second opinion? If one doctor says you need an operation and the other says you don’t, how do you decide? Do you go to a third to get a tie breaker opinion and just do what the majority recommends, or do you consider the pros and cons as presented and make your own decision?

I’ve been in that situation, and just like with global warming, I rely on my own ability to determine what is best based on the analyses presented. I don’t need a degree in medicine to make an informed decision.

 

[gama232]

Climate change is a hoax. The only way it will be real is on condition of billionaires making their factories pollution free. On the condition that people in China stop wearing face masks and China stopping their massive coal consumption. Those two things should tell people everything. People in China wearing face masks!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Have you ever gone to another doctor to get a second opinion? If one doctor says you need an operation and the other says you don’t, how do you decide?

I’ll go with the one that isn’t named Dr. Nick Rivera.

But seriously, if neither one of them was Dr. Nick Rivera, I would go by reputation. I would find out what other doctors thought of the two I was considering. Failing that, I would look for reputation among former patients based on their outcomes. One thing I would not do is trust to my understanding of technical medical matters to judge the medical justifications given to me by the two doctors.

 

[EndTimes]

Climate change is a hoax

The Political Party of Death uses it to their advantage -

And those whose science acumen is below par - remind of those who followed that piper… .

 

[EndTimes]

46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

1. Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

 

[EndTimes]

1. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
2. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
3. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
4. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
5. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
6. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
7. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
8. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
9. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
10. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

 

[Ender]

One thing I would not do is trust to my understanding of technical medical matters to judge the medical justifications given to me by the two doctors.

When was the last time you went to a doctor where he explained things to you in terms only another doctor could understand? You keep referring to “technical matters” which you claim to be unable to understand, but no one goes to a doctor and says “Just do whatever you think best; I’m too ignorant of ‘technical matters’ to be able to understand.”

No one actually does that, not in the real world. Actual doctors actually explain things to their patients because they want them to make informed decisions, which clearly they think people are capable of making, even those who are not doctors.

 

[Ender]

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t.

Christopher Landsea, who was both an author and a reviewer for the 2cd and 3rd assessment reports, withdrew from the 4th assessment.

“ I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. ”

Even after his withdrawal the IPCC continued to list him as one of the 3000 scientists supporting the IPCC. They would not remove his name even after he demanded they do so. He had to resort to suing them before they finally complied.

In line with your list of scientists objecting to the IPCC, here are maybe 100 more, and their comments are not flattering. This one is not atypical:

Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer, has been IPCC co-coordinating lead author: “ I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said. ”

 

[Theo520]

But seriously, if neither one of them was Dr. Nick Rivera, I would go by reputation. I would find out what other doctors thought of the two I was considering

So you would base your decision effectively on their social media ‘likes’ rather than take the mental effort to digest what they had to say.

I think it’s far better to listen to both their reasons, ask questions, then evaluate the personal risk.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

One thing I would not do is trust to my understanding of technical medical matters to judge the medical justifications given to me by the two doctors.

When was the last time you went to a doctor where he explained things to you in terms only another doctor could understand? You keep referring to “technical matters” which you claim to be unable to understand, but no one goes to a doctor and says “Just do whatever you think best; I’m too ignorant of ‘technical matters’ to be able to understand.”

No one actually does that, not in the real world. Actual doctors actually explain things to their patients because they want them to make informed decisions, which clearly they think people are capable of making, even those who are not doctors.

Yes, doctors try to explain things to their patients in terms they can understand. But you raised the question of what to do when two doctors disagree. Do you suggest that I choose between them based on which of them was better able to make their case to me “in terms I could understand”? Chances are, both explanations will sound equally convincing to my non-medical understanding. So again, I would still defer to reputation over which doctor has the slicker tongue.

Similarly, I would not choose between two climate scientists based on which on produced the slicker Youtube video. Reputation is a much better predictor of who is right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But seriously, if neither one of them was Dr. Nick Rivera, I would go by reputation. I would find out what other doctors thought of the two I was considering

So you would base your decision effectively on their social media ‘likes’ rather than take the mental effort to digest what they had to say.

You did a good job of portraying the worst possible way to assess the reputation of a doctor. As I said, my first choice would be opinions of other doctors I trusted. I would also consider word-of-mouth from friends and acquaintances. And finally I would consider the opinion of strangers as a last resort, provided those opinions were gathered in an authoritative way (not just Tweets).

I think it’s far better to listen to both their reasons, ask questions, then evaluate the personal risk.

If I did want to base my decision on a personal interview, I would probably base it off of my impression of their overall character, not on my assessment of their technical accuracy which I am not qualified to assess.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In line with your list of scientists objecting to the IPCC, here are maybe 100 more, and their comments are not flattering.

Wonderful list, thanks for sharing.

 

[Ender]

Yes, doctors try to explain things to their patients in terms they can understand. But you raised the question of what to do when two doctors disagree. Do you suggest that I choose between them based on which of them was better able to make their case to me “in terms I could understand”?

Yes, exactly so.

I would still defer to reputation over which doctor has the slicker tongue.

Unless your doctor is truly notable (good or bad) you in fact have no way of determining which is better based on “reputation” since you can’t find much beyond anecdotal opinions. How many of your doctors have you actually done this with?

Reputation is a much better predictor of who is right.

You may be willing to let others tell you what to believe, but most people won’t sacrifice their independence by turning responsibility for their lives over to others without even trying to understand why they are being told to go left instead of right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, doctors try to explain things to their patients in terms they can understand. But you raised the question of what to do when two doctors disagree. Do you suggest that I choose between them based on which of them was better able to make their case to me “in terms I could understand”?

Yes, exactly so.

I would still defer to reputation over which doctor has the slicker tongue.

Unless your doctor is truly notable (good or bad) you in fact have no way of determining which is better based on “reputation” since you can’t find much beyond anecdotal opinions. How many of your doctors have you actually done this with?

None, because I have never had something serious enough or marginal enough to feel like I needed a second opinion.

Reputation is a much better predictor of who is right.

You may be willing to let others tell you what to believe, but most people won’t sacrifice their independence by turning responsibility for their lives over to others without even trying to understand why they are being told to go left instead of right.

I can’t agree. I have never met anyone who evaluates their doctor based on how much scientific sense he makes to them. It has always been based on the items I mentioned:

• Character
• Past results
• Recommendation of friends and family
• Recommendation of other doctors

 

[LeafByNiggle]

EndTimes has presented a cherry-picked list of negative comments with no estimate at all of the amount of support the IPCC has from other scientists.