Matthew W writes in WUWT Tips and Notes:
Today’s “Fun Challenge:”
I dare anyone to go to this blog/website and get an intelligent, coherent reply posted:
Excerpt:
This is just the sort of metaphorical setting into which the climate change denial lobby is trying to place the debate over climate change without the public or even most policymakers realizing it. The deniers in the fossil fuel industry and elsewhere are attempting by sleight-of-hand to get both the public and policymakers to abandon the preponderance of evidence standard used primarily in civil trials–and which is similar to evidence-based public policymaking–in favor of another judicial standard designed for criminal trials, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So long as the deniers get to claim the role of defense attorney in this public fight, their task will be much easier. The reason that the deniers want to change the standard of proof, of course, is because climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change. The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used.
Typical of the Cultist, there is no dissent allowed !! The article is being featured on the Yahoo homepage
Well, at least I couldn’t find on my Yahoo Home page – or even in their Green section…
Mosher,
I think Lindzen addressed abuse of language in the advocacy of climate change as follows.
So, Mosher, it looks to me like your first four points (which can be viewed as being equivalent to implied questions) are of the kind that Lindzen finds are a form of abuse of the climate science language. Then your next two questions are not the key ones as you suggest, but secondary/ derived ones based on more fundamental key questions. Lindzen’s 3 questions are the more fundamental ones.
.
John
Yes it seems they blocked mine, despite accepting 51% Prob that 51% of the post 1950 warming is above-trend from 1800 and therefore attributable to CO2. I merely argued that the same standard should apply:
– In criticising politicians for claiming droughts and storms, where the IPCC believes “low probability” of linkage
– to any cost-benefit on publicly funded “renewables” and other policies
Interesting that WUWT should post on this subject. Yesterday I responded to this Resilience.com article as posted by Yahoo on 3 separate occasions. None of which the moderator allowed to be shown. What we all need to understand is that there really are blind and bigoted people in this world who brook no dissention. Debate is not a word they understand. Pure EVIL.
This is from their headline web site: “This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial.”
Just follow the comment track posted below: Note the “part of a journalist’s job is to serve as a gatekeeper” comment. OK, let’s forget the truth or opposing points of view.
toomuchgas > Luminapede • a day ago
I was a newspaper publisher and I never rejected a letter based on subject matter. Sometimes it was edited for length, grammar or taste or when a writer repeated the same argument.
toomuchgas, I was a newspaper editor. As you know, part of a journalist’s job is to serve as a gatekeeper. You call it editing for taste, but one also has to be on the alert for potential libel, obvious untruths, crackpots, etc. Many publications also select letters for their freshness, intelligence and diversity.
As I’ve explained elsewhere, what we have in the case of climate change is a barrage of comments from strangers, many of which are abusive. In other cases, the comments repeat talking points which have been thoroughly debunked.
If we weren’t under siege from climate deniers, it might be interesting to have a discussion with those skeptics who are reasonable (i.e. they listen, they understand the concepts of science, evidence and peer review, they are not abusive).
However, to do so would require more resources than we have available. Of the 200+ comments this article has receive, I’d estimate less than a dozen of the rejected ones would be worth printing.
Our first priority is to our regular readers, who understand and accept resource constraints and global warming, and want to do something about them.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-04-12/how-the-climate-change-debate-got-hijacked-by-the-wrong-standard-of-proof
Resilience Post # 1 (Moderator deleted)
How the climate-change debate got hijacked by the wrong standard of proof is an interesting perspective. To paraphrase, what is being suggested is that we should take the AGW hypothesis at face value and prepare for the worst scenario being increased global warming. That begs the question: is AGW the worst scenario that we should be taking action on or is there another scenario that we should consider? Evidence is mounting that would suggest the opposite and we should worry more about being cold and starving versus being warm and well fed.
Let history be our guide? From a historical perspective of where the climate has been, where we are today on the climate cycle and where it is likely to be heading this research report & video is worth watching / reading.
“We live in the coldest period of the last 10,000 years” , says glasiologist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen who take us back in time to the Greenland ice cores and reveals the secrets from the past.
Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist, F. C.: Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature over the last millennium with a method that preserves low-frequency variability, J. Climate, 24,6013–6034, 2011. http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
To the authors statement that “There are only a tiny number of bona fide climate scientists who still say that the evidence is inconclusive concerning human contributions to climate change.” I would suggest that he takes the time to visit this site:
“Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth Say Friends of Science”
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
“Therefore, the persistent effort to make the public believe 97% of all scientists agree can only be understood as an intentional manipulation of data and public opinion for commercial gain.”
As to preponderance of evidence, this IEA article is worth reading.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html
Resilience 2
Came across this site / article via Yahoo. I like the name “Resilience” and the concept of “Our focus is on building community resilience in a world of multiple emerging challenges: the decline of cheap energy, the depletion of critical resources like water, complex environmental crises like climate change and biodiversity loss, and the social and economic issues which are linked to these.”
Therefore I find it puzzling that Climate Change can only be considered as a one way street and that building resilience should not be considered for the case of a colder world versus a warmer world? This should not be confused with Denial. No one denies that the climate changes, it does, but the world has historically been colder than it is today with the latest Ice Core data suggesting that the world has been cooling off for the past 10,000 years.
To quote the renowned UK Climatologist H.H. Lamb (1968) from his book The Changing Climate: “It seems prudent to assume that the longer-term temperature trend is at present on balance, downward and likely to remain so.”
funny my comment got deleted however i used their analogy:
Of course the judge would set the defendants free when one piece of evidence is given to them: a scientific report of the ice core data showing the end of young dryas, and all the hot and cold spells which prove that climate never has been stable and never will be stable
sure they didn’t liked that 🙂
Just had a look and comments are closed. I think their delete button may have broken from overuse.
You want an intelligent coherent reply from these warmies?
Not likely- http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/profits-doom/
Dontcha know that dogs can eat an awful lot of homework?
We lawyers have a saying: “If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.
All I hear from the cited blog, and others like it, is a lot a table hammering
I don’t even bother to read Yahoo News anymore. It’s more like Yahoo Lefty propaganda. It’s all BS. And there is a story promoting global warming as settled science posted about every 20 minutes. LOL.
This is an example of “their science” that is good enough to convince the general public, and it is easy to see why.
” http://www.climate-change-guide.com/evidence-of-climate-change.html ”
Anybody equipped to counter this, part by part, and publish it?
Surely the debate being over does not mean the conclusion of that debate was correct anyway? It just means one group has the power to silence the other and the lack of integrity to use that power.
David, I agree, but it seems that a separate debate on whether the original debate is over, has arisen.
It also seems that the “science” debate is not over, and never will be, but in any case is purely academic. No conclusion is ever likely to result, no consensus feasible.
Scientific conclusions are not arrived at by debate or consensus. They are based on facts. That some persons are unable to understand facts from speculation is a shame. Understandable in the public arena, but disappointing when many scientists themselves, have lost the ability to be objective and logical.
Heaven forbid. but it appears only a full blown Ice Age would solve the dilemma.
I have said this before, but probably even then the political control machine will still convince the public that “global warming” is the culprit and CO2 must be controlled 🙂