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.
We all know who the deniers are. Actually, they are the ones calling other people “deniers.”
Well said Sheldon! The use of “denier” is foolish wrong and unhelpful I am a proud skeptic. I don’t know everything and I know that, but I also cannot tolerate the arrogance and self-righteousness of the warmists. It is not an opinion or a belief to say that AGW “science” is created from a political premise and given to the UN to “study” as though there could be no other cause than CO2, which in itself is laughably daft. The use of the word “denier” is indicative of a belief system and politics, and betrays any actual science, wherein no emotion or politics can be present.
I’m skeptical of a science where it seems anything cute, fluffy, or nourishing is on the verge of some tipping point that will lead to its extinction, whereas anything nasty, disease-carrying, or crop-destroying is on the verge of some tipping point where it will flourish. Because I’ve observed that nature tends to be indifferent to human perceptions of good and bad.
I’m skeptical of a science that, when observations for the previous few decades showed cooling, predicted that cooling would lead to more intense storms; but when observations for the most recent few decades indicate warming, predicts that warming will lead to more intense storms.
I’m skeptical of a science that airbrushes out familiar and descriptive terms in favour of alternatives that obfuscate. For example, ‘Medieval Warming Period’ becomes ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’; ‘Global Warming’ becomes ‘Climate Change’; ‘Unusual Weather’ or a “Bad Storm’ or the latest flood or drought collectively become the new catch-all ‘Extreme Weather’.
And since I mentioned Anomaly, I’m wary of any science that adopts everyday terms in a manner that will mislead laypeople. Normal implies ‘to be expected’, but I am unlikely to observe a ‘normal’ temperature on a cloudy and rainy day, or on clear and sunny day. Yet I expect both kinds of days, and some that are a mix of sun and cloud. Anomaly implies something irregular, but decades of temperature measurements and centuries of proxies indicate that it would be more irregular if temperatures remained the same year after year, decade after decade, and century after century.
That’s just some of the baggage that climate science has chosen to adorn itself with, and to warrant ‘Extreme Scrutiny’, and to rate the integrity of its output somewhere between that of Economists and Astrologers.
The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is NOT proven beyond reasonable doubt. A major role in science is to raise specific rational questions which probe a theory. For example wrt to global warming, the theory states that incoming solar energy is constant but rising CO2 reduces energy loss to space (measured as outgoing long wave radiation or OLR). Constant input, reducing output creates an imbalance which causes Earth to warm. It strikes me the most basic test is to check, is OLR reducing as CO2 rises? Answer – all the data I have seen shows that OLR is rising not falling.
Asking such a question is not denial, it is a reasonable rational question pertaining to an unproven thesis and to call that denial implies an unwillingness to engage in rational reasonable scientific debate. That in turn means believers know they cannot defend their theory. One cannot “prove” a theory simply by claiming unilaterally that it is beyond dispute.
By the way, as the temperature of Earth rises one would expect OLR to increase but the claimed rise in temp is <=1C with a climate sensitivity of 3 watts/sqM/C so temperature rise could maybe account for up to 3 watts/sqM if we assume no reduction of OLR from CO2 – which by the way would disprove the thesis. The data from NCEP shows the rise is more like 6-8 wats/sqM since 1950.
“I expect scientists to act like mature adults. Not like 5 year old bullies.”
But we’re going to be swallowed by the bloodthirsty jaws of INESCAPABLE DEATH!!!!
They feel obliged to chivvy us along…
Interesting post,nice reply on the authority front,did seem to go off the rails pretty quick.
I am sceptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,in all its names, I have heard many adherents to the cause speak of “the science”.
But their science is alien to me,it lacks defined terms, the data is weirdly fluid,the error bars exceed the amplitude of the signal.
Enquiries and requests for information are treated as personal attacks by these “Keepers of “The Science””, replication is impossible.
Output from computer programmes is not data,the constant attempts to defend G.I.G.O as evidence is astounding,persons who attempt to defend this indefensible position reveal themselves as fools.
Climate Science would make Mark Twain proud, 40 years of endless speculation based on so few facts.
Those who argue from authority are keepers of the faith,they can see the evidence for climatic doom,just as the experts of the Emperors Court could all see the naked mans wonderful clothes.
And they use the same arguments that Hans Christian Anderson immortalized.
Human Nature is amazing.
As for Gavin..Real Climate is still a thing?
Kind of sad when a bureaucrat starts a website for propaganda purposes and then censors to the point that almost no one bothers going there.while demonstrating the same “honesty” with comment handling he demonstrates as a “Climate Scientist”.
“…Trust is based (or should be) on telling the truth…”
And yet he and others will go blue in the face defending Stephen Schneider (“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…) and the antics revealed in Climategate.
But speaking of Gavin and trust, who can forget this gem?
https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/04/gavins-mystery-man-revealed/
“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?
(since you posted….)
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.
Yesterday there was a big ugly fly in our living room. It flew around and made a lot of noise, yet nobody started running after it and after a while it sat down somewhere and didn’t bother us anymore. Can we please do the same with this Mosher guy?