Don't both sides claim this kind of thing has happened to them? So again, who do we believe?
An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
41–50 of 94 posts
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#42This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the…
> It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates.
Definitely. There are groups willing to spend a lot of money to spread doubt about global warming. And, there are groups willing spend a lot of money to spread fear about global warming.
> There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity.
Consensus suggests correctness, but it isn't a guarantee. Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping. Granted we've come a long way in science, but we're also analyzing far more complex systems.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the…
I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it, but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group). Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' wa…
The problem is that deniers don't advance the science. They are just trolling, effectively obstructing the possible improvements. Please read the article for an example of a huge trolling action.
The consensus just means that the different scientists can independently reproduce the similar results. You can do the calculations yourself too.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember: the science just improves, and the science works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforesta…
Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.
What you're doing is baselessly asserting things.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Bullshit politics" "crap" Keep it civil. You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to…
Keep it civil. Seems like you're trying to augment your argument by asserting some sort of language dominance. Do you find that helps with other people? You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community Her work? Partially. I prefer her calm approach to Science that demands evidence and remains skeptical vs the all-too-often politically-driven one I see at the IPCC. That said, I read…
Seems like you're trying to augment your argument
Yes, it is. When someone's getting emotional about a topic, particularly a scientific one, it's useful to point it out, to rhetorically place yourself on the side of scientific, rational debate. You do the same thing one line down when you emphasize how much you prefer her "calm approach to Science."
Her work
Which work? Is it her scientific papers you respect, or her publicizing the evils of other scientists?
outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too
Miley Cyrus is great. But are you comparing the entirety of the climate science community to fans of a particular pop singer, when it comes to judging scientific credibility?
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural…
Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently says things that align with your pre-existing opinions? Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth, but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With That) with, say, RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ Th…
RealClimate has a history of censoring intelligent skepticism [0] and of mindlessly defending the scientifically indefensible [1].
[0] http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/hockey-stick-gets-...
http://amac1.blogspot.com/2011/06/tiljander-data-series-appe...
[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/doing-...
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.
My thoughts exactly. The planet goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Man made "climate change" of any stripe is a hoax.
"hoax" seems like way too charged of a word.
But I don't understand the intellectual condescension towards people who are skeptical about a theory that claims to not only predict the future behavior of an entire planet's climate but also how much one element of the planet (humans) impacts the climate.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying that climate scientists are motivated by greed and stupidity? And if you've been involved in climate debates before, you know full well that an article in Newsweek does not mean global cooling was widely accepted among climatologists. It was not.
There's always this adage: "No problem, no funding."
Are you insane? If there was any credible science to contradict the climate change hypothesis, it would absolutely be funded. There are trillion dollar industries with massive vested interests in climate change not being a real thing.
I can't say for certain how corrupt or not the climate science community is. I can say for certain that there isn't a lot of money in being a scientist.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the…
> It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. Definitely. There are groups willing to spend a lot of money to spread doubt about global warming. And, there are groups willing spend a lot of money to spread fear about global warming. > There is a practical scientif…
Once there was a consensus the sun rotated around the earth and that was dis-proven by a guy with a telescope and good record keeping.
There was a recent article in Scientific American about this (unfortunately, subscription required).
Given the size of the image of a star seen thru a telescope, either the size or the distance can be calculated from the other by elementary geometry. Because of diffraction from the wave nature of light -- which wasn't understood back then -- these calculations said that if the stars were the same size as the sun they couldn't be much farther away than the farthest planets. Which would be close enough to see annual parallax if the earth really did move around the sun.
And so because of this and a couple other reasons, Copernicus had to resort to proof-by-theology since the available evidence appeared to disagree with his position.
Re: An insider’s story of the global attack on climate science
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the…
> It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates. Definitely. There are groups willing to spend a lot of money to spread doubt about global warming. And, there are groups willing spend a lot of money to spread fear about global warming. > There is a practical scientif…
Have you actually read the article? It looks you haven't. It's about the deniers who obviously trolled everybody at the expense of the taxpayer's money not bringing any scientific improvement at all.