The US Treasury Claimed Doge Technologist Didn't Have 'Write Access' When He Did

> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008

This is a good example of how the fossil fuel companies create the impression of uncertainty by finding any possible cause for doubt, exaggerating it, and then claiming it discredits entire careers or even the field. I’ve heard that claim from many people over the years but when you look at it you realize how weak it is. That was not in a peer-reviewed publican, or even a single claim:

In 1988, he was speaking casually with a reporter who asked him to speculate about what would happen 40 years later if CO2 doubled. The reporter put that anecdote in the book.

In 2001, the reporter gave an interview to Salon and briefly mentioned the conversation but misremembered the timing and left out the most important claim about doubling CO2 entirely.

https://skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-ab...

This seems like an excellent distraction from the fact that the actual scientific consensus has been consistent since the 1980s and the publications like IPCC forecasts have proven quite accurate.

The reason, of course, is that scientists have already been doing what you’re asking for. Those papers and reports represent enormous amounts of time spent creating and critically reviewing experiments, models, data, and thinking of new ways to cross check them. It would a career-making move to find a significant flaw, and the idea that there’s some perfectly hermetic conspiracy is laughable if you’ve ever been around a group of scientists.

Now, contrast that with the deniers who promote those talking points. They get lavish funding from a range of industries (some got their start on behalf of the tobacco companies) and they’ve played games which are familiar to anyone who has dealt with creationists where they toss out various theories and move on to new ones as the old ones are disproven. While scientists have been converging on the truth from a variety of independent sources, the deniers have been all over the map and wrong in many different directions. If there are concerns about openness and reputation, the double standard is quite striking.

Uh-huh.

OK, I'll bite. But this is the last time.

With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear.

Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking.

With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do.

And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything.

Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want.

You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/

I'm done here.

> https://skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-ab...

LOL! You literally just linked to the exact thing that I referred to! Did you miss it? I said that Hansen was dumb enough to repeat his prediction, but bump the timeline to 2028! You literally just linked to Hansen saying that!

In 1998, he was wrong about 2008. But he doubled-down and said it'll be underwater in 2028. I criticized him for 1998 and you just linked me to him repeating it for 2028!

Why are your beliefs based on errors like this?

The thing that paints a clear picture to me is, the Republican party are always on the assault. They have endless bad things to say, blame to cast. They are out for destruction. If the Democrats are lying to defend trans people or immigrants or school lunch or head start... is that really a bad lie?

I think that's extremely telling, about what's a lie and what isnt. But let's just say, both parties are liars: there's still only one party trying to destroy opportunity & excellent, trying to cut the throat of the USA.