Thread: 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

You display the problem that warmers show, a complete lack of knowledge of the opposing views, often written by very well qualified scientists. This is not surprising since they will be shunned or ridiculed by the warming community. Yet things like forcing are only theories with "no real world proof" whatever.

I'm not completely ignorant of opposing views. I'm simply taking the stance held by the wider scientific community as it is the only rational thing to do. This is not the alarmist stance.

I choose to keep my mind open and find things like the doom and gloom scenarios forwarded by a few as fear mongering when a warmer climate will actually benefit man as past climates have proved to be much more firtile with more arable land available. Even during this Holocene period, it has been warmer than it is now and grasslands grew in Iceland while forests grew on the now fairly barren Scottish Islands. So you can see skepticism in the "predictions of doom" even if it is warming.

Said it yourself, "by a few". Why focus on the few scientists making dire predictions instead of the larger community that is saying, yes we think this is happening but there are still uncertainties?

Though judging by the rest of your post you are already convinced you are correct and the majority of the world's scientific organizations and scientists are wrong. This is symptomatic of a loss of rationality.

More people should try and think outside the box instead of just believing what a select few wish you to believe.

Ironically you are the one believing the 'select few'.

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Ironically you are the one believing the 'select few'.

There is no larger community only the illusion of one.

[Bradley] I have not given this a lot of thought, but I feel that the effort should be initiated by us, [you & me] rather than attempt to get a "writing group" together....I'd welcome your views on this.

[Briffa] Again yes ... with feeling. We can just ask the apppropriate people for (very short ) descriptions of the latest position as regards our chosen content. If necessary , invite one or two to the 'week' . The important thing is to get good input as regards data and answers to specific questions. Between us , we know the necessary input and the people to supply it.

[Bradley] I see this as following the IPCC approach where a small set of leaders does the dirty deed and then sends it out for review. We could solicit input on certain topics, but I think we know the field well enough to make that an unnecessary burden on others...what do you think? Creating a synthesis requires that there be a synthesiser...not a bunch of specialists writing about their favorite proxy....

Originally Posted by MannieD

How about you using the same search terms Anderegg used : " author:PD-Jones climate " from : http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca Or are you being dishonest?

Did you not read this?

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

The paper expicitly says the methods were, "we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: "author:fi-lastname climate")"

It does not say they selectively used a middle initial. Is the paper lying?

When I use the paper's method I now get 1880 results.

The results of the paper are not reproducible.

Originally Posted by MannieD

from your website:
Did you not read this sentence from the Anderegg paper:

"We conducted the above analyses with a climate researcher cutoff of a minimum of 10 and 40 publications, which yielded very little change in the qualitative or strong statistically significant differences between CE and UE groups."

or did you ignore it because it does not fit into your rant?

I am well aware that the paper stated that unsupported nonsense, none of which changes the fact that who is considered an "expert" is subjective. An objective criteria would be if a scientists has or has not published on climate science. That would mean if they published 1 paper or not.

Originally Posted by MannieD

Wow! There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that survival from a nuclear explosion is in any way related to the ability to survive a warming ocean. As a matter of fact, just the opposite:
"We suggest the highly diverse Rongelap Atoll to the east of Bikini may have contributed larval propagules to facilitate the partial resilience of coral biodiversity in the absence of additional anthropogenic threats."
With a warming ocean there would be no larval propagules from the Rongelap Atoll available.

I agree, as I consider a nuclear explosion to be much more severe. You have no evidence to support that there would be less larval in a warming ocean.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I trust the scientists who have earned my trust. I dont give my trust blindly.

This makes no sense. You put your trust in science and scientists every single day. Did all of them earn your trust? Why is climate science different? To go through life only believing the 'scientists you trust' is plain ridiculous.

And I'm no fool. You may be but a majority of what makes "climate science" statistics, systems analysis, power generation is my profession. So I (*)(*)(*)(*) well will have my own opinion thank you very much. In the crucial aforementioned fields of expertise I have found that I have a better understanding and education than most all alarmist climate scientists. No (*)(*)(*)(*)ing astronomer(James Hansen) is going to give me a lecture in systems analysis.

This seems rather arrogant. I don't doubt you have expertise but it sounds like you honestly think you are smarter than 'most all alarmist climate scientists' (I don't know what constitutes an 'alarmist scientist' so maybe this is a very small few, which would take me back to my original point). Do you have any peer-reviewed papers? Surely if you are smarter than them you should have some refutation of their works? I gotta say I'm skeptical....I mean, you are posting on a rather silly discussion forum...on the internet...Far as I can tell you are just another guy off the internet who thinks he knows it all. Why should anybody listen to you over credible scientific organizations?

Originally Posted by Windigo

There is no larger community only the illusion of one.

What?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Originally Posted by The Lepper

Though judging by the rest of your post you are already convinced you are correct and the majority of the world's scientific organizations and scientists are wrong. This is symptomatic of a loss of rationality.

This is an unsupported statement.

Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released or signed by a handful of their council members or in many cases just the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

Policy statements release by the council members of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than the handful of members in the council. It is meaningful in that those few members in the council support such statements. It is meaningless to imply that the membership bodies of these scientific organizations (which never approved such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the member's position in relation to the organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

The difference is a mere count of these scientific organization's handful of council members vs the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Originally Posted by Poptech

This is an unsupported statement.

Please provide a comprehensive survey or poll of those scientific organization's membership bodies in support of the position statements released or signed by a handful of their council members or in many cases just the president. Failure to do so discredits your ability to use them as justification of proof of consensus.

Policy statements release by the council members of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than the members in the council. It is meaningful in that those members in the council support such statements. It is meaningless to imply that the membership bodies of these scientific organizations (which never approved such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization's policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the member's position in relation to the organization's policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

To say they are meaningless is straight up naive. The organizations that are in agreement are among the most prominent and credible in the world. What are you implying by "statements can speak for no one other than council members"? That the organizations do not try to represent the body of scientific evidence available and instead have all made remarkably similar yet arbitrary statements?

Originally Posted by The Lepper

To say they are meaningless is straight up naive. The organizations that are in agreement are among the most prominent and credible in the world. What are you implying by "statements can speak for no one other than council members"? That the organizations do not try to represent the body of scientific evidence available and instead have all made remarkably similar yet arbitrary statements?

Are you claiming the hundreds of thousands of members of those organizations are in support of those statements or not?

Originally Posted by The Lepper

I'm not completely ignorant of opposing views. I'm simply taking the stance held by the wider scientific community as it is the only rational thing to do. This is not the alarmist stance.



Said it yourself, "by a few". Why focus on the few scientists making dire predictions instead of the larger community that is saying, yes we think this is happening but there are still uncertainties?

Though judging by the rest of your post you are already convinced you are correct and the majority of the world's scientific organizations and scientists are wrong. This is symptomatic of a loss of rationality.



Ironically you are the one believing the 'select few'.

The warming community is actually treated to gate keeping by the IPCC which has proven to not forward opposing views. While a majority of scientist agree that warming happens even though there is no indication of that the last decade and man contributes, which is not really in question. Anything after that is pure conjecture and what I dispute.