Guest summary by Sheldon Walker
RealClimate recently published an article called “The Climate Scientists are Alright“.
The article is about the “climate scientist blues”.
I posted the following comment under this article.
====================
Sheldon Walker says:
——————–
I am willing to believe that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job.
However, it must be depressing to find that a large number of people don’t “trust” what climate scientists are saying.
This is because global warming is a “toxic” issue. There is a lack of trust on both sides, and a high level of nastiness.
Climate scientists need to continue doing a good job. But they need to work on building “trust”. Stopping calling people “deniers” is the first step.
So an important question is, CAN climate scientists stop calling people “deniers”. If they can’t, then perhaps we are all doomed.
——————–
Gavin replied to my comment:
[Response: Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable. By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science. – gavin]
====================
I tried to post another comment, in reply to Gavin’s comment. But my comment was put into “The Bore Hole” (which is described as “A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations”).
The following is my comment that got put in “The Bore Hole”.
====================
Sheldon Walker says:
——————–
Gavin,
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are not “deniers”. They are just people who disagree with what you, and the other name callers, believe.
Most of the people who get called “deniers”, are intelligent people. When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.
If you listened to them, rather than calling them names, then you might get somewhere. There are no guarantees, but the name calling strategy isn’t working.
I have been following the global warming debacle since before the original climategate (for over 10 years). In all that time, I have NEVER claimed that global warming is not happening. But I have been called a “denier” constantly, because I question some aspects of global warming.
I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.
Climate denial exists. But to categorize everybody who disagrees with you, as a “denier”, makes you even worse than a “denier” (if that is possible).
I will put modesty aside for a minute, and say that I am an intelligent person. I have a number of university level scholarships and prizes to prove it. For my Bachelor of Commerce degree (21 papers), majoring in Finance and Economics, I got 12 A+’s, 5 A’s, and 4 A-‘s.
I also have a good science education. I specialised in science from my second year at high school. I got A+’s at university for stage 1 Physics and biology, and I got an A+ for Stage 2 Chemistry Honours (direct entry to Stage 2 Chemistry Honours School from high school).
But Alarmists constantly call me a denier, and insist that I am a “science denier”, who doesn’t know any science. I suspect that I am better qualified than most of them, but I am too modest to point it out.
I hate Alarmists for how they treat me. They treat me as if I am evil, and not human. I will oppose most of the things that Alarmists want, just because I hate them so much. I don’t need any other reason.
If you want to know what I think about global warming, then you should visit my website.
Even though I hate Alarmists, I still try to listen to them. Because I know that I don’t know everything. I am still hopeful that some “nice” Alarmists will appear, and have a friendly debate with me about global warming.
I can be reasoned with. But not by a person who calls me a “denier”.
====================
The following is an additional comment for Gavin to think about:
Gavin, you claim that NOT calling people “deniers”, would be avoiding the truth.
It is possible to tell somebody that you disagree with them, without calling them a nasty name. You can even show them evidence to support your view, without calling them a nasty name.
I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.
If you want my respect, then you need to earn it. I am willing to give you the chance to convince me. It is now up to you.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CAGW alarmism is a political phenomenon, not a physical one.
Using facts, data, logic, reason, historical records, math, physics, statistics, the scientific method, etc., to show how CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis is a waste time when debating with Leftists who call you a “science denier” or “climate denier”…
Leftists’ blind beliefs are about being Politically Correct, not being factually, empirically or logically correct.
Eventually, Leftists’ blind beliefs become so laughably devoid from reality, they’re abandoned, and replaced with a new Politically Correct faux crisis, which can only be fixed by governemnt hacks wasting $trillions more of taxpayers’ hard earned money…
I wonder what the next Leftist “crisis” will be? Manmade Global Cooling, perhaps?
Speaking of trust, per Rodney Dangerfield:
“Trust is getting oral sex from a cannibal”
That is the funniest line I ever heard.
Tom in Florida
I read your witticism to the Long Suffering Mrs. Jewett.
She huffed and said “MEN!”.
No sense of humor.
Hello Everybody,
When confronted with names such as ‘denier’ I am reminded of Mike Hulme’s book, “Why we disagree about climate change” [Ref. 1]. Hulme is/was Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (i.e. the university at the centre of the Climategate affair) and founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
In his book Hulme says, at page 78, “Climate change has become a classic example of … ‘post-normal science’: the application of science to public issues where ‘facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ … Normal science, science as guided by Merton’s four classic norms of scientific practice – scepticism, universalism, communalism, disinterestedness – is no longer fit for purpose.” Personally, I disagree profoundly with Hulme; I believe normal science has a huge amount yet to contribute provided it is not drowned out by post-normal scientists and their allies in the mainstream media.
Later in the book, pages 340 – 341, Hulme writes, “Climate change is not a problem that can be solved … we need to find other ways of categorising it … I suggest we change our position and examine climate change as an idea of the imagination rather than as a problem to be solved. By approaching climate as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of task, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” Is this not Hulme inviting us to set aside Feynman’s “scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty” in favour of research outcomes which are policy-directed (i.e. highly political)?
From the above it seems to me that we should be calling out post-normal science (PNS) and post-normal scientists whenever they practice PNS but fail to declare their commitment to it, especially when they claim to be normal scientists in the Mertonian and Feynman tradition. Making this distinction would, I suggest, be very helpful to the public – although it might not help the mainstream media with their desire to sell exciting/catastrophist copy.
Reference
1. Mike Hulme, “Why we disagree about climate change”, Cambridge University Press, 2009, especially at pages 78 – 79 and 340 – 341.
Regards,
Idiot_Wind.
Just remember what Popper and Feynman said.
the way to disprove science is to find a few guys who call you names. If some person X, believes in theory Y, and calls you name Z, then Y is false.
or better. Post to a blog. if no one reads your junk, they must be wrong.
Scott adams was collecting bad skeptical arguments.
somebody I know is a broadcaster..
Looks like Steve has had his wittle feewings hurt.
You can tell this because he starts lying about what other people are saying and doing.
The way to disprove a theory (you don’t disprove science, even you should know that Steve) is by showing that the theory fails to accurately reflect the real world.
That is what we’ve done. However Steve can’t accept that because his salary is dependent upon the continued belief in the so called “climate science”.
The way to disprove a theory (you don’t disprove science, even you should know that Steve) is by showing that the theory fails to accurately reflect the real world.
BINGO MarkW. Science is predictive. If the predictions fail then the theory or hypothesis that made those predictions is falsified – that’s how science works. If there are no predictions then there is no falsifiability and thus it is not science. Either way CAGW fails. It’s projections/predictions routinely fail to match observed reality (so it’s falsified) and if you insist that it only makes “projections” which are not to be considered “predictions” than it’s not science (see “Science is predictive”).
Just to give Steve Mosher the props he deserves:
“Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails
“Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails
· Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”
From the next post by Dr. Tim Ball.
I think Mosher and Fuller deserve full credit for publishing Climategate: The Crutape Letters, clearly airing much of the behind the scenes manipulating going on in the past.
Sheldon
second article
https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1/
“I don’t think that many people would spend the time that I have, collecting the temperature statistics for over 36,000 locations on the Earth. ”
do you get why this is funny and not very skeptical?
Care to explain why you find it funny? or why you think every sentence a self-described skeptic writes must be “very skeptical” (to you undefined nebulous standard) or else they’re not a “real” skeptic? or are you “simply making assertions and not providing evidence”? I thought you were against that?
Its funny because he took a huge amount of time to do 10 minutes work.
and then got the work wrong!
He took so much time because he doesnt know sources.
Look at his temp versus Latitude? Do you know why that is wrong?
Do you see how smooth it is around his curve?
Do you know there should be a divergence at approximately 15 degrees latitude?
do you know why?
Do you see he is missing data below -50 Lat?
Now my suspicion is he used gridded data ( and says so elsewhere)
But in the actual article he doesnt cite his sources.
So why is it funny.
1. Because he Uses the time he spent as evidence of his dedication when in fact its
evidence of ignorance and incompetence.
2. Because he tries to vouch for himself and credentials when
A) you cannot vouch for yourself
B) data matters and not credentials– ask willis
3. Funny because he has no idea how dedicated other people are or how much time they spend.
funny.
People like Gavin exist and prosper because of ignorance on the part of the vast majority of the people in this and other countries. A dumbed down educational system is crucial for his continued prosperity.
For example, anybody familiar with the history of science would understand that we are just in the beginning of our understanding of the climate on Earth. Since climate science is basically observational, we cannot do laboratory experiments to test any hypothesis. (Note: I typed “confirm any hypothesis” at first. We have no way of confirming a hypothesis!) Some might question is such an activity appropriately even called a science.
There is simply no way that we can create realistic climate models, for example. It would be like making a computer model of a human and using that model to test drugs to treat cancer.
Then, our student of science would learn how crooked the path to the truth can be. Every scientific question has lead to many wrong paths being pursued by diligent scientists. The theory of evolution is an excellent example. Humans have speculated for centuries on the origin of the different species on Earth and even on how life began. Even though we think we now understand evolution, there are many unanswered questions. Is Darwin’s idea that evolution is a slow and gradual process true, for example. If so, how do similar species have different numbers of chromosomes? Does not that imply a quantum step? And who would dare to put forth a computer model, predicting with mathematical precision, the genetic state of the human race in 100 years?
Now, imagine if any researcher who differed in his view of evolution from the current mainstream thinking were labelled an “evolution denier” or worse. For example, what if a paleontologist said an astronomical catastrophe destroyed the dinosaurs? In my youth, such a man was called a crackpot or a religious zealot. Now, the same view identifies you as a solid, mainstream scientific worker.
My view is that the asteroid hit did not kill off the dinosaurs. Am I an evolution denier?
What folks have to realize is that the term denier is encapsulated framing. Whenever you allow the opponent to define the framing, you lose. Learn to co-opt, hollow out and redefine their framing. For example, deniers means those who deny that thermodynamic physics is just as relevant to climate science as radiative physics is. Or those who deny that climate model ensembles are not data.
Sorry, didn’t mean for my comment to appear under yours. Must have intended a comment, clicked “Reply”, then re-thought, then had another thought and replied. This comment app acts weird sometimes.
For example
https://twitter.com/UCIHumanities/status/1088245019528581120
See how they frame the discussion as “Data and Denial”, whereas they are the ones who deny scientific method by using models as data.
Here’s a good example of political reframing. Instead of allowing the Ds to frame the border wall discussion in terms of excluding illegal immigrants (which they moralize as inhumane) Trump reframes the discussion in terms of “Crime, Human Trafficking, Gangs and Drugs.” They cannot fight that without looking like criminals.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088470495312400384
Steven Mosher wrote, “in short nobody in science is arguing that the danger or risk comes from increases in annual temp.” I think that’s not correct but I’m curious to know where you think people “in science” think the risk or danger of global warming come from.
biggest risks?
SLR, ocean neutralization,
temperature EXTREMES .. which are daily or seasonal and not ANNUAL temps.
changes in precipitation extremes ( floods and drought)
You want a whole list?
Europe
see the drivers? Not ANNUAL temps,
see the drivers?
not annual temps.
drivers?
NOT annual temps
drivers?
you guessed it.. Not annual temps.
I could go on, but the drivers of the risk are not the average annual temperature.
changes in seasonal temps
changes in extremes
annual? Sheldon focuses on it to distract from the actual argument.
Now look, you may not ACCEPT the actual argument, but if you ignore it you fail rhetorically
@Steven Mosher You state that blogs aren’t science and now you post links to an agenda driven blog as the source of your claims. LMAO
“This blog used to be known as WottsUpWithThatBlog, which was chosen to indicate that a goal was to address climate science claims made on Anthony Watts’s Watts Up With That (WUWT) site. I say “address” because the goal wasn’t to simply refute what was said on WUWT.”
Sure, but if annual temps aren’t increasing then global warming isn’t happening and SLR, extremes, etc., which are claimed to be caused by global warming, also cannot be happening.
Ocean acidification (neutralization) is a different subject. Not what we were discussing here.
With less than 10% of the visits of WUWT and almost a 50% higher bounce rate, lots more folks will see the letter here – and even more so the unfiltered comments – than at RC.
It must really burn to so badly want folks to believe your narrative that you’re willing to disingenuously suppress skeptical points of view only to have those views expressed here to an audience more than 10X as large.
Yet a Google search for “climate change skeptic websites” returns realclimate.org as the fourth hit and wattsupwiththat.com as the 60th.
The science is shallow and the corruption is deep.
That’s why you should never use google as your search engine. They are self-confirmed Leftist and Globalist that hate capitalism but wield as a sickle and hammer.
Wow! That is truly disturbing. I think it’s even more interesting that Bing lists WUWT as 4th.
Wow. I find that truly disturbing. I should note that Bing lists WUWT 4th.
The weather in the east of the US will not be boring.
First you write:
Then you write:
You started off reasonable and non-confrontational, and then you went into attack-mode, using a word (Alarmist) to describe those who you say you hate! Who are these “Alarmists”(always with a capital ‘A’?) and why do you describe them as “Alarmists”? Is it just an easy insulting description for those who you don’t like and hate? Just like those who use the word ‘denier’? Gavin gave his description of what he sees as ‘climate denial’ (not using the word ‘denier’) and yet you have automatically used the word ‘Alarmist’ as a catch-all against all those who you seem to hate.
And you mention “name callers” and resort to name-calling.
And you know that most “deniers” are “intelligent”? How do you know this?
I’ll leave by quoting your own words back to you: “When you insult them, by calling them a nasty name, they become your enemy. That means that you have lost.” Bad luck, then…
“Alarmist” is descriptive. It is an appropriate adjective for someone who is alarmed. How is it insulting?
“Denier” implies a false description, and is intentionally provocative, being used to describe racists who deny that millions of Jewish people were exterminated in a holocaust meant to wipe them out.
Also, the term “denial” implies that what is being denied has been proven to the point that no rational person could doubt it.
An honest term would be skeptic, but the climate alarmists gave up being honest a long time ago.
And even when they say “skeptic,” they spit it out as if it should carry a degrading meaning, for exactly the same reason – their “belief” that their point of view has been “proven” to the point that no rational person could doubt it, when the reverse – no rational person who actually bothers to examine their claims in detail could possibly do anything BUT doubt it – is the truth.
I’ve made two attempts to post a comment there, but my comment just disappears (Screenshot #1, Screenshot #2).
This is the comment which I tried to post:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Gavin wrote to Sheldon Walker, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth. The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”
The truth is that most of the people who use that term do not restrict it to know-nothings. Anyone who disagrees with even the most tenuous aspect of climate alarmism gets called a “denier” by climate alarmists (often from behind anonymous handles like “t marvell,” “DukeSnide,” “Mal Adapted,” “Al Bundy,” etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the disagreement is based on mere reflexive gainsaying or solid evidence.
In fact, most of the people who use that pejorative term also insist, ironically, that there is no such thing as “solid evidence” against climate alarmism.
For instance, when I show graphs like these as proof that CO2 level does not significantly influence the rate of sea-level rise, and thus that the IPCC is wrong to claim that rates of sea-level rise depend on emission scenarios or RCPs, I usually get called a “denier,” or worse:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_global_thumbnails5.html
Sea-level continues to rise in some places and fall in others, at rates not significantly different from 90 years and 105 ppmv CO2 ago.
All that additional atmospheric CO2, CH4, etc. has not significantly altered sea-level trends, thus far. (Nor, contrary to Leif Knutsen’s comment, has it caused worsening droughts, forest fires, or storms.) The major effects, so far, are modest & benign warming (mostly at high latitudes, where it makes frigid climates a little bit less harsh), beneficial “greening” of the earth, and agricultural gains.
Those are proven facts, yet most climate alarmists refuse to admit them, and many of them are the very same people who call those who disagree with them “deniers.”
It also doesn’t help that the name-callers are often unwilling to engage in civil discussions with those who disagree with them, and that they even often seek to censor those who disagree with them, if they can. For instance, even though several people here, including Gavin, have written replies to Sheldon Walker’s comment, including a question, he is not permitted to respond to them here. When he tried to respond, his very measured comment was removed to “The Bore Hole.”
“Valid criticism does you a favor,” noted Carl Sagan, but it takes a big person to be properly grateful for it. Sheldon’s criticism was valid, constructive and gentle, but I’m not detecting any gratitude for it.
Gavin et al moved my comment to the RealClimate “Bore Hole,” along with Sheldon’s.
When Gavin came to town for an event a few years ago, I attended, and afterward we had a cordial chat about the causes of Arctic amplification. But on-line, he’s a bully. It seems that on-line venues often bring out the worst in people.
Ha. The notorious Real Climate.
This happened exactly as I describe.
Years ago I’d engage them. Always calm and simply inquiring in search of genuine discussion.
Their censoring turned ugly when one of my comments was literally edited to alter it’s meaning.
Then their goons tore into it while I was blocked from posting any reply.
When I did not reappear and respond to their trash talking of my edited comment they mocked me for having run away in defeat. Which of course I had not. I was prohibited from telling them I was blocked.
Stuff like that carries a lot more weight if it’s documented with screen caps.
Who routinely “screen caps” all of their on line activity?
Indeed, to prove the editing he’d have had to have the foresight to screencap his post before it was edited, but not being Psychic he’d have no way of knowing beforehand that his post would be altered so would have to have literally been screen capping all his online activity in order to have a relevant screen cap. So unless Canman routinely screencaps all his on line activity (which I’d be willing to bet he doesn’t) its unreasonable of him to expect that of others.
Well, I kinda wished I could have screencapped my UseNet discussions with people like William Connolly (or at least remembered what name I was using…).
They made some quite checkable predictions twenty years ago or so. Would be nice to say “told you so” to “experts”.
You could probably dig them up with some effort. As long as you know the time frame and the usenet message group you could probably fine them by searching for William Connolly’s posts.
I think I did at the time. And may have shared it here. But it was 10 years ago.
And I dont care how much weight it carries.
Of course the edited/altered version was so stupid it was easy to be debunked and ridiculed.
But I never said it and was blocked from responding.
My response has always been, “No, I am not a holocaust denier, and you are not a member of the national socialist German workers party. Can we get back to talking about science?”
Gavin isn’t a scientist. He’s a climate modeler. Big difference. Gavin specifically eschews scientific methods to advance his computer toys to a more “scientific” state. I salute you for trying, but I fear you will never crack this particular nutshell. Because Gavin knows the level of the inner meat. He knows he’s got a very thin gruel but trying to sell it as Filet Mignon. He gets results by bullying, censoring, cronyism, and having expanded his influence within the teat-suckling interest group that is climate research. He’s been a success, too. At least in that he has helped climate science as a whole to strongly shift away from the very objective, but problematic remote sensing tasks (problematic because the data don’t always back up his case), and towards climate modeling, which is vague and which can always be found to be in agreement with a tiny amount of opacity and prestidigitation with some FORTRAN code. Furthermore, this is a great political and financial victory for him. But the science of climate models is worthless, the outputs they generate are merely innumerable and innumerate hypotheses that we’ll never be capable of testing, even if an honest person was in charge, rather than people like Gavin, who seem to be running the show. Oh, geez, did I just hint that I think Gavin is a dishonest person? I guess I did. And I think he’s a terrible coward, too. (witness: the borehole, John Stossel show, etc.)
I once had your experience of trying to speak some sense, calmly to the other side. This was at BadAstronomy, the blog run by CAGW alarmist Phil Plaitt. It went nowhwere. But I gave the audience at that blog a prediction of the future that gives me great comfort. I told them that when all the dust of the great CAGW debate settles, in the end, the use of the term Climate De NYE r will define it’s accusers far more effectively than it will define it’s targets. I told them that the climate hysteria of the late 20th and early 21st centuries would become a phenomenal sociological case study in mass delusion and political brainwashing. I hope that tiny seed took root in a young, impressionable mind or two.
Since Gavin and his pal Mike both act like jerks, I stopped posting (rather attempts at posting) on Realclimate. I noticed that obsequious posts survive and got supportive answers whereas serious, but non-obsequious questions vanish.
I’ve simply stopped giving sites like that my clicks. They are worth money* (advertising), and just as I don’t go where I’m not welcome, my money doesn’t go where I’m not welcome.
*No idea if that site actually sells ads, but you get the picture. Even if they don’t, someone is counting clicks…
Gavin would probably say that the word alarmist is just as derogatory as denier. So be it. I call them worse than that “bedwetters” .
RealClimate? Is that actually still around? I guess it could be useful as a repository for leaked, incriminating emails…..
I salute the fact Gavin Schmidt actually takes part in the discussion.
‘might need to do something about carbon emissions’
The trouble here is we won’t ‘do something’. Believing we need to, will be a pain.
There are two options: adaptation or doing nothing. ATM we’re doing nothing: China will grow emissions, none knows how to reduce them in a cost efficient way. Cost efficient == less people die than by not acting.
We should be ready to adapt to. If +1C is this bad, +1.5C must be devastating. Add /sarc if needed.
Problem with “carbon emissions” is that they have the wrong demon. It’s carbon dioxide. There still are actual emissions of carbon from coal mining, and many other types of mining where the actual carbon is incidental to what is being mined.
The problem with “might need to do something about carbon emissions’ is that fossil fuels compromise something like 60% of the world energy supply and an even larger fraction, roughly 80%) of transportation fuels such as the fuel for the 1300 private jets that flew to Davos recently to discuss climate change and carbon emissions. Right now there is no viable substitute on the horizon that will make a significant(say 20-30%) reduction in CO2 emissions. China and India simply won’t do it. Neither will sub-Saharan Africa. Once they have gotten to decent level of GDP they will, but not now.
It’s not that we “won’t” do something. Presently we simply can’t make any usefuls substitute for fossil fuels in the supposed time we need to do it. The only possible possibility might be dispersed nuclear power both for electricity and transportation. Small, difficult to weaponize reactors would easily fit in the giant container ships. Unfortunately nothing but fossil fuel will work for aircraft.
Someone who reflexively uses the term “denier” is putting everyone in the same category. Do they really believe that everyone is in the same category? Do they really believe that all skeptics believe more or less the same things? If they do, it’s a very safe bet that they would be unable to articulate the mainstream skeptical positions.
It’s not hard to counter incorrect arguments on the other side that are outside the mainstream. If all someone can do is attack extreme positions that almost nobody holds, I will automatically assume that their position is so weak that that’s all they can muster. We can laugh at an elected politician who says that we only have 12 years to live, but it would it add anything to the discussion to debunk such a claim?
Supposedly, failing to develop a political consensus that global warming requires radical action, we’re facing all sorts of catastrophic events. And THIS is how they engage? With lives at stake, they throw insults? That’s weak.
As a side note, rather than saying “… it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.” It would be better to say, “It is a mistake to think that only you know the truth.” Don’t talk about versions of the truth as if you believe there is more than one.
“Denier”, an other word for “heretic”, is part of religious vocabulary, as the complete AGW building (church) is only a religious question of believe it or not.
Further I see no reason to ask if the author of the open letter is skeptic or not.
Not only is his VERSION of the truth not the only version, but also his version amounts to the opposite of what he implies, meaning he is labeling a lie as “truth”.
There is no such thing as “climate denial”. In defining this phrase as he does (between the dashes), he falsely manufactures a definition of this phrase that is NOT legitimate (according to what the word, “climate”, actually means).
He hijacks this phrase with his own, narrow, linguistically-perverted definition, which means that he is presenting a FALSE definition, which makes him a liar, in order that he can continue to lie in discussions where this phrase is used, … where other people are forced to adopt his linguistically perverted definition, to the exclusion of properly interpreting the words.
Read my previous comment again, and then laugh at his utter hypocrisy. By using a contrived, narrow-minded application of a fake label, he MANUFACTURES untruth in the context of all other words he uses.
I would suggest that if people want to be rightly be called a climate scientist, they don’t make up linguistically degenerate definitions to aggressively label other people who point to real-world evidence and competent mathematical treatments revealing abuse of science in the name of climate.
Mosh,
Do you post on Real Climate or Skeptical Science? If you are welcome at either or both, that says a lot about you.
You keep talking about “science.” Do you know what science is, and is not? You talk about interpolating data. Data cannot be interpolated, much less extrapolated which is what BEST and all temp data sets actually do. And, data certainly cannot be “adjusted,” for any reason ever. Data is what the instrument recorded. If you need better data, get a better instrument.
There is no other “science” where 30 years of effort have resulted in NO PROGRESS towards determining the central question, what is the ECS or even the TCS, and is there actually a difference.
Is Michael Mann a “scientist?” Are there proxies for GAST? Did you know that those bristlecone pines he used only actually grow for six weeks a year? Well, that makes a nice temp proxy for the whole world, doesn’t it.
Why do “climate scientists” use “forcings?” There are no forcings. There is an amount of heat in the atmosphere, which changes every minute. The Sun shines, the dirt, sand, rock, grass, and water reflect and radiate to space, and water vapor and CO2 absorb, thermalize, and re-emit IR. Is Kevin Trenberth a scientist? Can the atmosphere heat itself, or the Earth’s surface?
You should not talk about “science” until you start doing what real scientists do, and no one in “Climate Science” does this, except maybe probably Lindzen, but he is retired.
How about those ARGO buoys? They showed the oceans cooling, so the keepers of the “Data” let Josh Willis throw out the cool readings. Wow, how scientific. How about those TOB “adjustments?” How about a system which changes temps from 100 years ago because of new readings?
I could go on, but I needn’t…
“Do you post on Real Climate or Skeptical Science? If you are welcome at either or both, that says a lot about you.”
In the begining I posted on RC. then I got attacked and left.
I comment there maybe once a year
SKS?
I am banned.
any more idiotic questions?
Instead of insulting him asking for more questions you could have tried answering some of the nearly a dozen other questions in that post that you completely avoided addressing. That you avoided all those questions and choose to attack him with a disingenuous “any more idiotic questions?” speaks volumes.
What Gavin doesn’t seem to understand is that the output from computer models isn’t “true”. You aren’t denying the truth by being skeptical of the accuracy of predictions of future warming and predictions of how that warming may impact the earth and mankind.
I’m very skeptical that there will be any kind of meaningful action taken in the next 10 years to reduce emissions. It’s politically impractical as shown so clearly in France.
“I agree with you, that trust should be based on telling the truth. But it is a mistake to think that you have the only version of the truth.”
Gavin and Skepticalscience think they have the only versions of the truth.
I no longer waste my time on these sites but they are quoted by people who will not take the time to do some real searching and comparisons.
So, yes, you are wasting your time.
My reaction to Gavin’s “response” –
“Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth.”
– Which is why “climate scientists” pushing “climate change” propaganda aren’t trusted. Tell the truth (about the complete lack of empirical evidence regarding your claims, the massive uncertainties and lousy data, etc.), and then people might have trust in you; when you instead resort to data manipulation, exaggerations, cover-ups, refusal to share data and methods, refusal to openly debate the issues with those whose views differ, attacks on scientists (and anyone else) whose views differ from yours, outright lies regarding the “confidence” that it’s all the fault of humans, etc. ad nauseum to push a POLITICAL agenda, don’t expect “trust” because YOU DON’T DESERVE IT.
“The existence of climate denial – the reflexive gain-saying of any scientific result that might indicate that we might need to do something about carbon emissions – is undeniable.”
– The only “denial” going on is the denial of NATURAL climate forces, which have driven changes to the climate which extend far beyond the range of anything currently being experienced, which have driven rates of change faster than anything currently being experienced, and which haven’t gone “on holiday” so as to have nothing to do with current climate changes. Just because “climate science” has yet to adequately identify, measure, and study all of the natural forces involved doesn’t mean our minuscule CO2 emission input is now “the” primary driver, based on the “pet hypothesis” of so-called “climate scientists.” So the propaganda pushing so-called “climate scientists” are the REAL “deniers.” Because, unlike their pseudo science, NATURAL climate change is a FACT – it requires no “belief.”
“By demanding that scientists ignore this, or refuse to name it, you are asking that they avoid the truth. I would suggest rather that if people don’t want to be rightly accused of climate denial, they don’t go around denying climate science.”
– Nobody is asking “climate scientists” to avoid “the truth,” just to refrain from demonizing people who disagree with their garbage pseudo-science as if it were religion. In order to be “denying” something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST, so there is no “rightful” accusation of “climate denial.” There is nothing remotely convincing in so-called “climate science” to convince anyone with a brain who (1) isn’t interested in pushing the agenda, and (2) is actually looking critically at the ridiculous claims being made, to convince them of the imaginary “truth” of which “climate scientists” are so defensive.
Indeed, “Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth.”
That trust, however, has to be based on demonstrable facts. Real science is based on the production of hypotheses that can to objectively proved/disproven. Climate “science” is rife with apocalyptic claims (ice-free Arctic, endless California drought, annual Katrinas) that are patently false. The response from the climate alarmists is always some convoluted interpretation of sparse and obscure data to justify a correction ex post facto, then demand funding for more “research”.
That’s how swindlers operate; not scientists.