Skip to comments.Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
Posted on 02/29/2012 11:21:15 PM PST by neverdem
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists -- also divided into three parts. On the one side are the "warmistas," with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the "deniers." Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That's how we're trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications -- just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects -- at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore "inconvenient truths" and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views -- and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Really...who cares...like there is anything anyone can do about “The Weather”. Oh yeah...commies want to make the sun rising a political issue!
>> In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories.
The community of scientists, whatever that might be, dragged its heels on one of the greatest frauds of modern times. Many took a stand, but most fell silent. The idea scientist are by nature virtuous, in constant pursuit of truth, is a load of crap.
Singer should stick with Dyson spheres.
You are so right - this is a apologetics piece for the science brigade, very few of them have anything to be proud about when it comes to the Globul Warming fraud.
I think what most people are against is the scheme—Cap and Trade.
Governments, political insiders and the like are so obvious— they practically have drool hanging from their jowls. They look like my Boxer pups when I am preparing their meals.
Just like everybody says it is not a contraception argument, it’s a first amendment argument. This is not a climate denier versus true believer argument—it is about CROOKS and FREEDOM!
Whatever reality there may or may not be to this climate fuss— it is not about saving the planet. It is about control of people and wealth.
Quote: [ The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) ] Well that tells you all you need to know about the warmists. IE: It’s all political & no science is involved. After all - it was the warminsts who were caught red handed sending incriminating e-mails to one another talking about using a “trick” & about “hiding the decline”. The so called “deniers” are simply folks who have looked at the research & have found that it does not support the dogma of the warmists. The so called deniers are the true skeptics as they are not as dogmatic as their warmist counterpart.
Thanks a lot. That was to be kept secret.
hahahaha! That was good...
Kind of a weird article
Using a very small sub group of “deniers” to counterbalance the massively large super funded “warmists” - is a bit odd.
Plus - even given the outlier nature of the “deniers” as he deems them - I’m still not aware of them fabricating data, stealing documents, “adjusting” offical data, etc. Is there a “denier” IPCC? Afraid not. The most popular “Skeptic/denier” websites and programs - Climateaudit, WUWT, and Heartland - etc. - aren’t “denier” sites - they are skeptic sites.
So - even given his rules - the warmists really are “special”. They are not just some guys confused about some physics.
It may have been better to split the “warmists” into those who are a bit confused, and those who are felons.
Kind of weak tea for a guy working at UVA with Dr Mann - who is such a “scientist” he goes to court to hide his data and methods - from the people who paid for the data!
You are quite correct in noting the objection should be toward the exploitation of science by politicians resulting in, for example, cap and trade.
In this context, I note that Newt Gingrich might have been sitting on the wrong side of the couch but when it came time to attack the cap and trade legislation he was seated right in front of the committee testifying against it.
BIGLOOK: “It’s simply amazing what one can learn in college these days; what they never learn is critical thinking, the scientific method and just plain ole common sense.”
I was discussing genetically modified foods just the other day. Like your college student, this person was worried about all the poisons evil corporations, like Monsanto, were adding to our food. Somehow the concept that it would be bad for business to kill customers didn’t cross his mind. What’s the average lifespan up to these days? Yeah, they’re killing us...
Yes. It has always been so, they just reminded us of it.
Singer tries to be “fair and balanced” and in the process demeans the “deniers” who see through the AGW scam. Sure, there are some who get the science wrong. But there are plenty of “deniers” who recognize the AGW coalition of self-centered scientists and socialists for what it is: a grab for money, power, and control.
He does have some great quotes at the end of the column, though.
It would be nice if this were a dispositive argument (and I do not mean this by way of singling out Monsanto) but it isn't. At the most trivial we see the safety and health problems daily in Chinese exports -- and supposedly the Chinese want their customers to keep buying. If Monsanto (as an example) can get enough people thinking that with their huge laboratories they are a cut above the ordinary mortal, somehow up there with the idealistic pure gods on Mt. Olympus, they can get the kind of toleration that Chinese quality control troubles get.
Indeed, slyentists do not deal well with those who question them on a sociological basis.
He certainly stays in the “room” the warmistas put him in— adjusts all the pictures on the wall, but never bothers to look out the window.
yes, completely wrong. It is possible that physics is all wrong and they are right, but very unlikely.
But there are plenty of "deniers" who recognize the AGW coalition of self-centered scientists and socialists
That's politics which is different from denying or ignoring or misunderstanding a large portion of physics. I am one of those "recognizers", but I also understand the science pretty well.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” -Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research”
The data doesn’t matter.
I call them "warmies", akin to "moonies"...
We are going to give you chains and balls to carry... IF we ever get back in power... you commie MF’ers!
When you see what the AGW scientists are saying to each other (ClimateGate e-mails), you see that their motives are not pure. They conspire to avoid releasing data, they try to stop publication of articles which contradict their own findings, they seek to punish editors and journals which allow such articles to be published.
And then we find that the IPCC has been relying in part on non-scientific environmentalist articles.
You don’t have to understand the science very well to see that there is something rotten in the AGW camp, and that their science has very likely been corrupted because of personal motives.
That’s all true and the science has been corrupted. But the corruption was in specific areas like the tree ring temperature “proxies” which turned out to be proxies for rainfall and other things besides temperature. Those involved have yet to admit their errors (e.g. Mike Mann). They tainted their colleagues and science took a hit. But that doesn’t mean there is not sound physics behind the greenhouse effect and other things.
Correct quote “Gallia est omnis divisa est in partes tres, ....”
Most people don’t doubt that there is a greenhouse effect of CO2. I guess there are some who do, but I believe they are in a minority.
The questions have to do with:
How much warming is occurring because of man’s contribution to CO2 in the air? (Or, in other words, what would the temperature be without our contribution?) How much of “climate change” is attributable to variations in the sun’s radiation or other natural causes?
Assuming there is some measurable, and verifiable, contribution by man, what are the risks of letting it continue, and what are the costs to remediate it?
Is there a positive feedback, with a tipping point, which will cause the temperature to soar? Or is the atmosphere self-correcting, with negative feedback?
I know there are other important questions as well, but at the moment, those are the ones which occur to me.
One more thing. I am not particularly enamored of complex computer models which are used to try to simulate complex systems like the climate, and especially to forecast the earth’s temperature decades in the future.
I am really surprised at how persuaded the AGW scientists are in the validity of the projections of their models. They are willing to spend vast sums of tax dollars and greatly harm our standard of living to try to avert the temperature rise predicted by their models.
If they could spend a trillion dollars and lower the earth’s temperature by one tenth of a degree, I believe they would do it. Of course, it’s not their trillion dollars. In fact, they would probably get grant money from that trillion to support more of their research.
No, the computer models should be tested for many years before they are trusted to predict the climate decades ahead.
Your kidding right? Everyone I know knows that CO2 does NOT create a greehouse effect. CO2 does not “float” up into the atmoshpere - simple 8th grade physical science. I think you are a troll. Is that you Al Gore?
Those are very good questions (all three).
NPR Science Friday had Michael Mann on today. It’s worth a listen: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147815862/michael-mann-from-the-trenches-of-the-climate-war
Ping to any other climate interested party.
Thanks neverdem. For years author S. Fred Singer has been excoriated as a “fossil fuel” industry mouthpiece, by the subhuman leftist trash (whoops, guess I’m an extremist now) pushing the political agenda of AGW/global warming/greenhouse gases that has corrupted all the sciences in this country and elsewhere. Apparently he’s forgotten that, or maybe he was just playing a role in the first place.