Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

I think you've been lead astray on this one. Several studies of scientists, climate experts and of papers taking a position on the subject all confirm an overwhelming consensus. The Doran & Zimmerman (2009) study you mentioned, surveyed 3,146 earth scientists and asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Of that group 82% answered YES.

This was all covered very nicely in a topic on it's own last year. There is no doubt that among Climatologists and meteorolologists, there is a pretty good consensus that Human activities are the major cause of Global Warming.....so much so that the best survey out there (one that actually asks the questions) says that a low of 52% of all climate-related scientists to a high of 78% of actual publishing Climate Scientists - believe that Humans are the major cause of GW......but that is a far cry from 97%. Have a look at the table on the last page - a very good sample size, reasonable questions, pertinent fields of expertise.....then tell me I was led astray.

Link: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This was all covered very nicely in a topic on it's own last year. There is no doubt that among Climatologists and meteorolologists, there is a pretty good consensus that Human activities are the major cause of Global Warming.....so much so that the best survey out there (one that actually asks the questions) says that a low of 52% of all climate-related scientists to a high of 78% of actual publishing Climate Scientists - believe that Humans are the major cause of GW......but that is a far cry from 97%. Have a look at the table on the last page - a very good sample size, reasonable questions, pertinent fields of expertise.....then tell me I was led astray.

Link: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

This is from the study you linked:

355 Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change

356 among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009):
357 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have
358 contributed to global warming.
The study you cited found a 93% consensus among climate experts and a strong consensus among active non-experts at roughly 80%. In addition, the study you cited mentions they asked about a 150 year warming trend instead of a 50 year warming trend. They mention that they received emails stating that answers would have been different given a shorter time frame. Hence they stated that "our results therefore may represent a more conservative estimate of the consensus on global warming than would have been obtained had we asked about a 50-year time frame."
Inactive, non-publishing scientists were least likely to be convinced, which fits with the Cooke et al. (2013) study of published papers. They found that only 0.7% of published papers reject AGW and that most of those papers are old. "Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
So the experts are on the same page but you somehow support a conspiracy theory. Why do you feel that the active expert members of the scientific community are wrong on this? Your cited study notes denial among conservative members of the population. So are you drawn to conservative politics because of a vested interest in fossil fuel profits or do you subscribe to conspiracy theories just because you're a conservative fanboy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cooke et al. (2013)

This paper is drivel with huge methodological problems that completely undermine its so called "conclusions". The fact that you quoted it *twice* as a reference simply shows that you are unable to separate crap from substance. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This paper is drivel with huge methodological problems that completely undermine its so called "conclusions". The fact that you quoted it *twice* as a reference simply shows that you are unable to separate crap from substance.

:lol: ya ya... so says your guy Toll, hey? How's he doing lately... not so good hey? Ain't it sweet to see Toll get his long deserved comeuppance - yes? But oh my, who will be your go-to fake-skeptic economist now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was all covered very nicely in a topic on it's own last year. There is no doubt that among Climatologists and meteorolologists, there is a pretty good consensus that Human activities are the major cause of Global Warming.....so much so that the best survey out there (one that actually asks the questions) says that a low of 52% of all climate-related scientists to a high of 78% of actual publishing Climate Scientists - believe that Humans are the major cause of GW......but that is a far cry from 97%. Have a look at the table on the last page - a very good sample size, reasonable questions, pertinent fields of expertise.....then tell me I was led astray.

Link: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

you were led astray... both times now - first in the 'consensus thread', now here, again! This was all hashed over in the other thread. Perhaps your study/suvey title should have been your first clue, hey? Again, from the American Meteorological Society (AMS)... even though the AMS has a very strong position that accepts the human influence on climate change/warming, there are vocal deniers within it's ~15,000 members. As described in the other thread, the principal reason for this study was an effort by the AMS to better understand some of the disagreement amongst its membership makeup. In any case, of those that responded to the survey, only 13% claimed climate science as their area of expertise..... so, again, yes Simple, you were led astray.

in any case, I do believe we've made some progress here. Throughout the previous thread, you categorically refused to state just what it was you were disputing... just what the consensus was... what your interpretation of it was. In spite of the incessant waldo junkyard dog act, you simply refused to qualify your concern/your dispute. Of course, as is your way, you pompously came forward to claim "thread closure"... and, of course, I gave you my own version of your claimed thread closure. I suggest if you really wish to resurrect this consensus topic, please do so in the/that appropriate thread. Perhaps you could pick up from this post, hey?

closure, Simple? I'll give you/your thread the needed closure you appear to be striving for:

- none of you presuming to contest the consensus are willing to state what it is you're contesting.

- the only consistency you/others maintain is to simply repeat a reference to, "the 97% consensus".

- you/others have never qualified that 97% number... never provided your interpretation of what that number means, what it includes, how it was arrived at, how it was qualified, etc., etc., etc.

- all you/others are sure of in your contesting is that, "you contest it... it's, as you say, far less than that 97%"! But what is it... that is far less? What's your "it"? Who knows what your "it" is, since none of you will actually step forward and fully qualify your interpretation of what the consensus means... to you!

- none of you actually know what the consensus position is? None of you! But why let that get in the way of your absolute certainty... of something you categorically refuse to state/define!

there Simple, that is your/this thread's closure! You're welcome...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gawd. You have been on this forum enough to know that this argument is objectively nonsense because 1) it assumes that there is no institutional bias and/or group think going on and 2) that scientists are the only ones qualified to comment on questions of economics, engineering and values.

Why do you keep using it? You can argue your POV without using this completely dishonest talking point. If nothing else, you should understand that no one except your ideological kin think it has any merit and it only distracts from whatever point is being discussed.

ah yes, let the waldo provide needed perspective here; again, from the other thread... and as I suggested to Simple, if you really want to resurrect this consensus topic, I suggest you pick up from the linkage shown within the following post I've taken the liberty of extending here... liberty which really reinforces what the consensus actually is and how it derives. Again, no need to further derail this thread... pick it up in the other thread - I've given you a starting point with the quote linkage below:

The word consensus means "nearly everyone agrees". I say you need >90% before you can claim consensus. Below that level you have a large majority (>75%) or a majority (>50%).

as you well know, in the actual domain the consensus position applies to, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, accepts that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

endorsement expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities.

qualification expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associate to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.

of course, as you also well know, the actual domain of the consensus position does not encompass the wizardry that emanates from and appears on "the blogs" of your favoured gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier "blog scientists". Why, not that far back in this thread, we had a guy here trying to falsely claim an article from a fake-skeptics blog was a peer-reviewed publication... falsely posturing that it was published; imagine that! You know, just like you've done, many, many times over in the past through an assortment of many, many past MLW threads. Of course, I had to call this out and highlight that the individual was taking peer-review/peer-response to a whole new level..... you know, a level where you've gone many, many times/where you perpetually reside; a level outside the domain that the consensus position applies to and reflects upon.

from your latest comment, it's quite clear that you measure the, as you say, "growing number of your [fake-]skeptics", from the ranks of your gaggle of fake-skeptic/denier blogs.... which, of course, is outside the consensus domain of the body of scientific experts that the consensus position reflects upon, applies to and associates with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What causes someone to accept blog posts over peer reviewed papers, produced by the world's top scientists? And why would they want to prolong the use of fossil fuels when they are harmful on so many fronts?

I have a hard time understanding the conspiracy theory rationale that deniers cling to. They remind me of young earth creationists. Why do people choose to be embarrassingly on the wrong side of the collective evidence produced by the foremost experts from around the world? Creationists have the excuse of being indoctrinated at a young age, facing the effects of brainwashing plus familial and social systems that are difficult to escape from.

This isn't the case for deniers though; their conspiracy belief was a choice. So what's the motivation? A small percentage directly benefit from fossil fuel profits though I'd bet that most do not. So do they just feel it's their duty as conservative foot soldiers to put corporate interests ahead of humanity's? To borrow a Bill Maher phrase it appears that most are "just corporate America's useful idiots"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the motivation?

The motivation from what I can see is that they don't like academics, they don't like David Suzuki and are cynical about earnest people with good intentions, hippies and so on. This suspicion is reflected in other types of issues such as the anti-vax people, the 9/11 truth people, the Federal Reserve people, the GMO people, the Zionist conspiracy/New World Order/FEMA camp people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What causes someone to accept blog posts over peer reviewed papers, produced by the world's top scientists?

Stop putting people on a pedastle. Scientists are human and humans are fallible. The scientific method only works because it is a process - a process that needs to be followed. I have taken the time to read a few papers which are touted by climate scientists and I have found they have broken basic rules of the scientific process in order to create "high impact" papers. These papers provide no useful insights as a result yet they are treated as "fact" by many.

To make matters worse, when these failures are pointed out by knowledgeable people who are equal to any scientist the establishment refuses to even acknowledge that the have a point worth discussing. This latter tells me that something is very rotten in our scientific institutions and they can no longer be trusted. This does not mean they are always wrong - just that their word is no longer enough. If a climate scientist makes a claim I need to see objective evidence (i.e. climate models that actually predicted the future as opposed to past). In climate science there is little objective evidence to be found. When you dig into it most of it is opinion disguised by statistics.

Bottom line: I believe in the scientific process. I don't believe in scientists.

In terms of skills and ability there are plenty of people who are just as smart as any "top" scientist. The only difference is they choose a career in private industry where their skills were directed towards practical objectives. Some of these people have blogs. You have to actually read the blogs to determine which ones are run by smart people with a deep knowledge of the material and which ones are just political rants. Most alarmists what to assume that all skeptical blogs are the latter because it allows them the preserve the illusion that there is nothing wrong with their institutions.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why would they want to prolong the use of fossil fuels when they are harmful on so many fronts?

Personally, I am surprised that so many people are completely ignorant of our energy systems and what needs to be done to keep the massive cities we have running. Fossil fuel use is not a choice no more than breathing is a choice. No one who knows anything about energy production believes that fossil fuels are going away anytime soon. Policies designed to eliminate them must be designed to fail for that reason (and politicians know this). That makes these policies wasteful.

That said, I am not against reducing fossil fuel usage but we can't do that if we reject the one practical alternative: nuclear. My attitude is as long as nuclear is forbidden in most countries there is no point in crafting any policy that 'reduces fossil fuel' use. They would just waste money. When I see major environmental groups like Greenpeace advocating for nuclear then I would be more inclined to support policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Until then don't waste my time on stuff that does nothing but cause harm.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: I believe in the scientific process. I don't believe in scientists.

In terms of skills and ability there are plenty of people who are just as smart as any "top" scientist. The only difference is they choose a career in private industry where their skills were directed towards practical objectives. Some of these people have blogs. You have to actually read the blogs to determine which ones are run by smart people with a deep knowledge of the material and which ones are just political rants. Most alarmists what to assume that all skeptical blogs are the latter because it allows them the preserve the illusion that there is nothing wrong with their institutions.

no - again, as you've been apprised many times over... your "blog scientists/blog science" does not rule! It's just bloody amazing that all your favoured guys can sure write up a blog storm but they have such an aversion to actually formalizing their "gems" into actual formal challenges to published papers. Imagine that! Go figure. They sure likeee their isolated confines in 'blog world' (aka, the denialsphere)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am surprised that so many people are completely ignorant of our energy systems and what needs to be done to keep the massive cities we have running. Fossil fuel use is not a choice no more than breathing is a choice. No one who knows anything about energy production believes that fossil fuels are going away anytime soon. Policies designed to eliminate them must be designed to fail for that reason (and politicians know this). That makes these policies wasteful.

That said, I am not against reducing fossil fuel usage but we can't do that if we reject the one practical alternative: nuclear. My attitude is as long as nuclear is forbidden in most countries there is no point in crafting any policy that 'reduces fossil fuel' use. They would just waste money. When I see major environmental groups like Greenpeace advocating for nuclear then I would be more inclined to support policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Until then don't waste my time on stuff that does nothing but cause harm.

glad to see you aligning with esteemed scientist James Hansen (and his advocation for 'next gen' nuclear... good on ya!). Your statement that "stuff (aka renewables) does nothing but harm", is a total crock... as has been shown (to you) many times over. Of course, when you worship at the ConcernTroll altar of your "Do Nothing, Delay At All Costs, Mitigation is a Waste, Adapt-R-Us-Only", what else should one ever expect from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good illustration of how government funding distorts science and creates biases:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/07/the-real-money-in-the-climate-debate.html

The big money has always been in climate alarmism. Climate skeptics are outspent a thousand to one. Here is just one example

It sounds like the makings of a political-action thriller. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) has awarded Arizona State University a five-year, $20 million agreement to research the effects of climate change and its propensity to cause civil and political unrest.

The agreement is known as the Foresight Initiative. The goal is to understand how climate-caused disruptions and the depletion of natural resources including water, land and energy will impact political instability.

The plan is to create visually appealing computer models and simulations using large quantities of real-time data to guide policymakers in their decisions.

I can tell you the answer to this study already. How do I know? If they say the security risks are minimal, there will be zero follow-up funding. If they say the security risks are huge, it will almost demand more and larger follow-up studies. What is your guess of the results, especially since the results will all be based on opaque computer models whose results will be extremely sensitive to small changes in certain inputs?

I don't understand why people understand the conflicts of interest that come with private sector funding are so blind to the same conflicts when it comes to government funding. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good illustration of how government funding distorts science and creates biases:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/07/the-real-money-in-the-climate-debate.html

I don't understand why people understand the conflicts of interest that come with private sector funding are so blind to the same conflicts when it comes to government funding.

oh nooos... not the coyoteblog!

so, your (and the coyote's) play is to presume on the output from the grant to ASU... that it will distort science, that it will be biased... with the "expected" distortion/bias aimed to simply secure more funding! You (and the coyote) are certainly clairvoyent, hey? No distortion, bias or agenda in that clairvoyance, hey?

of course, the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is a key component within the overall U.S. intelligence community... and it's funding for this ASU initiative would appear to align with one of its funding branches; specifically, the NGA Academic Research Program (NARP):

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is the nation's primary source of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Intelligence Community. As a DOD combat support agency and a member of the IC, NGA provides GEOINT, in support of U.S. national security and defense, as well as disaster relief. GEOINT is the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information that describes, assesses and visually depicts physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth.

The NGA Academic Research Program (NARP) is focused on innovative, far-reaching basic and applied research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that has the potential to advance the GEOINT mission. The objective of the NARP is to support innovative, high-payoff research that provides the basis for revolutionary progress in areas of science and technology affecting the needs and mission of NGA. This research also supports the National System for Geospatial Intelligence, which is the combination of technology, systems and organizations that gather, produce, distribute and consume geospatial data and information. The end result is aimed at advancing GEOINT capabilities by improving analytical methods, enhancing and expanding systems capabilities, and leveraging resources for NGA, DOD and the IC.

note the NGA provides support to DOD... and in that regard, I've previously written several references to the U.S. DOD's position on climate change as a U.S. national security threat. A somewhat dated post that spoke to the U.S. 2010 Quadrennial Defense Report... along with a CIA reference:

...

How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat?

Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA.

A Quadrennial Defense Review Report issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources."

an update on that U.S. DOD 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review; per the U.S. DOD 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review:

Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence

so, uhhh... TimG... are you suggesting/implying the NGA has distorted the science... has biased the U.S. intelligence community's view/position on the security threats associated with climate change... and that it will do so further in regards it's recent grant funding to Arizona State University? Is that what you're saying/implying here?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: I believe in the scientific process. I don't believe in scientists.

This is a nice sounding statement but it's not really true, is it? You cling to the work of people that do not participate in the process. Scientists are human and some will falsify records or make mistakes. Errors made by publishing scientists are reviewed, highlighted and either corrected or discarded in time by the scientific process. You however, endorse those who simply comment on the work of others, on their own blog sites more or less immune from the input of others. Their informal commentary which can be and often is flawed itself is protected from formal rebuttal and thus does not contribute to the scientific process at all.

I think that like the religious you have chosen a conclusion in spite of the evidence, causing you to discount and ignore work that contradicts while favouring any commentary that in some way supports your beliefs, regardless of its rigour. MH, hit the nail on the head when he said that conspiracy theory behaviour like you are exhibiting is fueled by a distrust of academics. I don't understand how you can rationalize this distrust though. You trumpet individual commentary made on private blogs which is often thoroughly and painstakingly rebutted by others, yet can't trust work openly published, reviewed and contestable by others. Your actions contradict your words, which is why I suspect you have other reasons for choosing a desired conclusion, in spite of the preponderance of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am surprised that so many people are completely ignorant of our energy systems and what needs to be done to keep the massive cities we have running. Fossil fuel use is not a choice no more than breathing is a choice. No one who knows anything about energy production believes that fossil fuels are going away anytime soon. Policies designed to eliminate them must be designed to fail for that reason (and politicians know this). That makes these policies wasteful.

This statement could have been made about the horse and its impact on the economy not that long ago. Nobody is talking about eliminating petroleum products overnight, just hastening the transition to sustainable alternatives. Currently, we are still subsidizing unsustainable, unhealthy and destructive fossil fuels. These policies are wasteful.

Simply shifting the existing subsidies and advantages we currently grant to the production of petroleum to cleaner, greener, healthier and sustainable alternatives will create dramatic change for the better. We have used public money to encourage petro production for 100 years, now it's time incentivize more intelligent alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errors made by publishing scientists are reviewed, highlighted and either corrected or discarded in time by the scientific process.

That is the way it *supposed* to happen. But in climate science errors are ignored if correcting them undermines the cause. This why climate science is simply not trustworthy as a field.

You however, endorse those who simply comment on the work of others, on their own blog sites more or less immune from the input of others.

WTF?! They are blogs with comments - the suggestion that they are "immune from the input of others" is ridiculous.

Their informal commentary which can be and often is flawed itself is protected from formal rebuttal and thus does not contribute to the scientific process at all.

Actually, the formal scientific process is extremely flawed because it is near impossible get rebuttals published because of all of arbitrary restrictions that journals put on the process - restrictions that have nothing to do with science.

More importantly, the peer review process has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is process put in place to support institutional science. Science can be done in any forum and in many ways blogs are a much better forum for analyzing scientific papers than in the journals. People who say otherwise are generally only saying it because they want to use the journals as a way to suppress commentary which they don't like.

I think that like the religious you have chosen a conclusion in spite of the evidence, causing you to discount and ignore work that contradicts while favouring any commentary that in some way supports your beliefs, regardless of its rigour.

You are just describing yourself and your fellow alarmists (I see climate alarmism as a religion which is indistinguishable from any other religious cult).

The only people in this debate who have any interest in what the science actually says are skeptics. You don't seem to care what the science says - all you seem to care about is that it supports your ideological views and you accept it without thinking or analysis. You are simply not willing to think for yourself and ask whether what is being claimed makes any sense. You want to lecture me about listening to the scientists but unlike you I have actually read the science behind the media hype! I don't simply take someone's word for it. And that fact alone makes my views more firmly based on science and rationalism than yours will ever be.

I realize that you and MH want to rationalize your own adherence to the global warming cult so you want to label people who take the the time to learn as "conspiracy nuts". But that is your problem. Not mine.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply shifting the existing subsidies and advantages we currently grant to the production of petroleum

The subsidies given to fossil fuels in the developed world are a rounding error.

We have used public money to encourage petro production for 100 years, now it's time incentivize more intelligent alternatives.

I am not against public money for research into alternatives. What I am against are arbitrary rules designed to increase the market share of energy technology that are not capable of filling the needs that we have in its current form. R&D needs to be done first and if/when viable replacements are found then it is worth talking about increasing the market share. Before then it such efforts waste money and are doomed to fail. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that you and MH want to rationalize your own adherence to the global warming cult so you want to label people who take the the time to learn as "conspiracy nuts". But that is your problem. Not mine.

I'm trying to balance this against the rationalizations that faithful adherents of the Church of Economic Alarmism bring to these discussions. It seems there's calamity and catastrophe no matter which church you subscribe to.

That said I think the first place I'd look for evidence of a self-interested and self-aggrandizing not to mention self-serving class of scientists, it would be that which studies money for it's living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are just describing yourself and your fellow alarmists (I see climate alarmism as a religion which is indistinguishable from any other religious cult).

Tim the evidence is overwhelming, along with the conclusions of climate experts and the scientific community in general. In order, to defend your unsupported position you are asserting that thousands of people are in on a conspiracy to suppress the truth. You're suggesting that mountains of evidence has been falsified to simply garner funding for continued falsified research. Can't you see how ridiculous that position is?

Furthermore, you assert that a handful of bloggers, some with known ties to fossil fuel associations, are doing the pure scientific work, free from bias and agenda. How can you rationalize that? Bloggers largely funded by the industrial sector set to be most adversely affected by mitigation strategies are your trustworthy source. Really?!

If you're on the wrong side of a massive body of evidence and believe that thousands are in on a secret plot, you just might be a conspiracy theorist.

Read your own statements here out loud and listen to how they sound.

- Science can be done in any forum and in many ways blogs are a much better forum for analyzing scientific papers than in the journals. People who say otherwise are generally only saying it because they want to use the journals as a way to suppress commentary which they don't like.

- That is the way it *supposed* to happen. But in climate science errors are ignored if correcting them undermines the cause. This why climate science is simply not trustworthy as a field.

- Actually, the formal scientific process is extremely flawed because it is near impossible get rebuttals published because of all of arbitrary restrictions that journals put on the process - restrictions that have nothing to do with science.

- More importantly, the peer review process has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is process put in place to support institutional science.

- I realize that you and MH want to rationalize your own adherence to the global warming cult so you want to label people who take the the time to learn as "conspiracy nuts". But that is your problem. Not mine.

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim the evidence is overwhelming, along with the conclusions of climate experts and the scientific community in general.

Sorry - generalized statements mean nothing. What *specific* conclusions are you talking about? That the world is warming and humans are a contributing cause? Well I agree. That CO2 is a GHG? I agree too. That our knowledge of the consequences of increased CO2 is certain enough to justify causing real harm today? I don't agree.

You are playing a game where you appeal to this amorphous "authority" and claim that they cannot be disputed without actually explaining what specific points you expect people to agree with. You create strawmen by assuming that I disagree with things I don't disagree with so you can avoid engaging on my real points.

In order, to defend your unsupported position you are asserting that thousands of people are in on a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Do religions exist? Do these religions include billions of people who believe things that are likely not true? Are religions conspiracies? Are people conspiracy theorists because they claim that religious people believe in things which are not true?

My argument is that climate scientists have demonstrated over and over again that they care about the the "cause" - not the science. And by putting the "cause" ahead of the science they have become indistinguishable from a follower of any religion.

You're suggesting that mountains of evidence has been falsified to simply garner funding for continued falsified research.

Again - you are playing games. What specific evidence are your referring to? None of this generalized appeal to authority garbage. Explain exactly what evidence exists that refutes the points that I actually make (not the strawmen that you wish I would make).

Furthermore, you assert that a handful of bloggers, some with known ties to fossil fuel associations, are doing the pure scientific work, free from bias and agenda. How can you rationalize that? Bloggers largely funded by the industrial sector set to be most adversely affected by mitigation strategies are your trustworthy source.

Ah yes. I see now that you are projecting your own failures when you call me a conspiracy theorist. The bloggers are mostly unpaid individuals doing because they are appalled at how climate science has been corrupted by politics. They obviously have their biases (everyone does) but what you fail to acknowledge is how government funding corrupts the scientific process as much as (if not more than) any private sector money.

It is corruption caused by government funding which has created the mess in climate science today. What makes it dangerous are the number of people who refuse to believe that this corruption can even exist because they believe that government is good and government NEVER causes bad things to happen.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is corruption caused by government funding which has created the mess in climate science today. What makes it dangerous are the number of people who refuse to believe that this corruption can even exist because they believe that government is good and government NEVER causes bad things to happen.

You are describing a criminal intent to commit fraud. How many examples of people being charged are you aware of? Lots, or so I would assume.

Anyone who has been here as long as you knows full well by now how deeply I believe that governments are as corrupt and corruptible as the day is long. They constantly cause bad things to happen...constantly. If anything it's corruption is only increasing the threat of climate change,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are describing a criminal intent to commit fraud. How many examples of people being charged are you aware of? Lots, or so I would assume.

So how many times have drug companies been charged with criminal fraud for conspiring to produce studies that favor their drugs? I would expect you have lots of examples or you will have to argue that drug companies do not use their influence to get the results they want. This assertion is no different than the one you made and just as absurd.

Corruption shows up in many ways. Criminal intent for personal gain are a small subset of how corruption manifests itself. When it comes to science funding the corruption shows up mostly because research grants depend on creating a need for research into a field. There is no money to be made saying everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about. But come up with a premise that suggests there is a big danger ahead and you can write your meal ticket for years - especially if the "solution" to the problem requires policies which support the existing political platforms of influential politicians. This is what has happened with climate change. If you are a career scientist there is no money to be made from private companies - the path to fame and fortune comes from hitching your future to the catastrophic climate change meme and advocate for the policies that progressive politicians have always wanted.

That is the kind of corruption that has led us to the point where climate science has no credibility as a field of study.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...