That’s direct quote from Scott Adams in this video he posted yesterday. Well worth your time.
In this video, ‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams solves the climate debate and saves the world (really).
Watch:
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1gqGvnVYBYBGB
h/t to Joe Born
There’s also this classic Hockey Stick cartoon from Josh, also well worth your time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have yet to watch the video but did notice Scott interacting quite a bit with Steve McIntyre recently on Twitter. Very interesting!
Also with Tony Heller.
Who is Tony Heller? I googled. This was the first link. It was the second link on DuckDuckGo. It had me going for a while.
This is what he has to say about himself.
Why does Scott think Tony Heller is the greatest skeptic?
That is not Heller’s site. Fake news.
It took me a while to realize that. That said, even when you look at what he has to say for himself …
One of the accusations on the fake site can be dealt with here. Did Anthony ‘fire’ Heller as a guest author?
cBob: Tony Heller used a pseudonym of “Steve Goddard” in a way that our host found deceptive, so there’s some love lost. Heller’s best stuff (besides the photos of CO under feet of AGW) is showing news articles from the past that blow AGW up. Too many examples, but for instance the “Global cooling” scare of the ’70’s (our friend N. Stokes says that was just the press, but Heller finds lots of stuff from Hansen and S schneider and others, science pubs fell for it hard; and news articles from 1920’s and thirties about the North Pole ice melting out). Some great stuff, but not as in depth or as broad as this site. It doesn’t surprise me that Scott Adams would go there, he does not have the attention span for this site, while Heller’s site can be very effective at debunking the worst AGW nonsense.
Heller’s videos are among the best explanations around.
There is no posting Heller has made using Goddard I have seen. It is unclear if the accusation is credible, and if so, who cares. The argument is what matters. Saying someone uses a pen name so as to not be harassed ruins his scientific credibility shows a propensity to argue emotional venom is equivalent to science data, and means that the person making the argument the use of pen names is meaningful at all, seriously lacks an understanding of what science is. Now, in terms of the quality of Heller’s arguments, they are useful propositions that are the start of an investigation, but they are not conclusive because they are colloquial summaries of others and not the raw data in many but not all of the cases he uses. All the data may not even be available for the public. Citations of some scientists views historically is interesting but does not validate that is the dominant view of that time. Like Potholer who cites one paper to define the world, in the actual real science world there are debates all the time. I have a paper out for review where I take on two dozen major science reports on infrared physics, and show how their conclusions are not credible, for example. So a paper or reporting of a paper or study does not validate the science or the dominance of that view.
@Donald Kasper
How long have you been around here? I’ve been here on and off since 2006 or so … so have many others …
Well, I have a few hundred of them linked in the Brain archive. (I strongly recommend TheBrain.com; I’ve been using this software since the 1990s.)
The reveal that Steve Goddard’s real name was Tony Heller came after years of posting excellent links to pre-adjustment graphs, inconvenient news articles, and analysis of numbers and adjustments from all over the climate arena.
A few of his analyses were criticized by folks here, and this helps get to the bottom of the science. But one cannot criticize posting of articles from Australia a century ago posting temperature records that have subsequently been erased for climate convenience.
I’ve been interacting with Scott and his followers as well on the climate matters, supporting in a small way the work of Steve McIntyre and Tony Heller. (I’ve never been a fan of Dilbert, as it creates a sort-of self-fulfilling prophesy of bad corporate management, which annoyed me as a CEO of a good corporation.) I am glad to see Scott’s apparent change of heart on climate catastrophism.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)
Try https://realclimatescience.com/
Very interesting what he is doing up there! And good for a couple of laughs too, when he’s butchering some over-the-top alarmist like ‘blowtorch’ Reggie. LOL
Commie, really? You have been missing out. Scott likes Tony because he is persuasive. But the thing about Tony is his dry presentation is hilarious. He is like the John Stewart of the climate change debate. When the alarmists say something, Tony has archives of history of climate scientists saying the opposite or some opposing data from long about that shows the absurdity of the claim. Golden as we sit here watching the 30 year predictions tick slowly by.
My opinion as a skeptic is that Tony Heller is not really too persuasive. He’s aggressive, makes a bit laughable citizen science, doesn’t explain caveats or admit mistakes, only tries to make his opponent a target of despise. And he repeats himself.
He has good some historical perspective on public discourse and he has exposed Stephen Schneider neatly, but in the end, he’s venomous enough to undermine realist positions.
Heller would be persuasive if he’d have an effect. Now he’s in the marginal. Adams himself is persuasive.
“Commie, really? You have been missing out.”
That was my thught, too. I thought everyone knew who Tony Heller was.
Heller debunks the surface temperature manipulations and just as importantly, he puts the historic perspective on climate by citing many old newspaper articles that show us just how extreme the weather was back in the 1930’s as compared to the mild weather we are experiencing today.
We have lots of weather data we can use in old newspapers. They contradict the CAGW narrative.
“My opinion as a skeptic is that Tony Heller is not really too persuasive. He’s aggressive”
Tony doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
Tony’s charts look pretty persuasive to me.
Actually, what he doesn’t suffer is having his errors pointed out. Do that, and he’ll block you.
re: “Actually, what he doesn’t suffer is having his errors pointed out. Do that, and he’ll block you.”
I rode that fine line a few years back; it’s true. Step carefully …
The short answer is tony heller has demonstrated the following with ample research pictures and sources:
1. Adjustments to the data and their magnitude.
2. Warming is coming from areas they aren’t measuring.
3. Falsified historical climate claims.
4. Global cooling was a thing
Each of these claims is sourced and each of the claims are persuasive. Hes not the only skeptic to have done so but his presentation is the best.
Secondly Scott has limited his perspective to persuasion not number crunching, alternate theories or some of the lone by line stuff skeptics tend to do. He doesn’t find the technical stuff to be persuasive as there are rebuttals to nearly any point, but you can’t really rebut historical articles, letters, data and associated figures.
Scott Adams has been doing a series of videos on climate change.
He is plenty smart, smart enough to evaluate graphs, look for patterns etc.
However, Scott is acting as if he is not a scientist, and simply considering persuasion.
Persuasive tactics that work for scientists, do not work for non-scientists.
Things that do work for non-scientists include Fear and Imagery.
The videos open a new viewpoint onto the world, at least for me they have, and I’ve only been watching for about a month.
You can google “Coffee with Scott Adams Podcast”, and when you get there click on “climate change”. I find it easiest to then google “Youtube Scott Adams Episode [xxx]”.
This is how Scott Adams express himself about persuasion in his book : Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter (p. 99). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
«Some forms of persuasion are stronger than others. Here I am talking about the broad categories of persuasion and not the specific tools. Below I rank for you the broad forms of persuasion by their relative power. The strongest are at the top. Notice that the emotional topics near the top are stronger than the more “rational” ones at the bottom. This is based entirely on my own experience as a persuader. The persuasion stack isn’t science, so I recommend viewing it as directional.
Big fear
Identity
Smaller fear
Aspirations
Habit
Analogies
Reason
Hypocrisy
Word-thinking»
Persuasion got little to do with facts and reason.
Yes – just posted something similar lower down.
Don’t forget guilt. When the truth be known, and guilt can be resolved, beware the anger in reaction. This the alarmists have not considered.
====================================
With 86K followers and it appears 26K viewers of the video it’s good to get people thinking and talking about the climate scare. Most here will share the frustration of attempting to have a serious debate about an issue that increasingly drives policy in many countries when it’s declared “settled”
Dont tell the folks at skeptical Pseudo Science. The 8 exonerations have proven mann and the hockey stick to be infallible and accurate. Same with marcott, Gergis, pages2k
Joe, Is your reference to “skeptical Pseudo Science” the same as https://www.skepticalscience.com/ ?
In an attempt to find a quality site that was pro-warming, I ended up here for a while. I also commented on a couple issues and was kicked off. They were written as sincere challenges or questions but I think I invaded the moderator’s safe space.
It seems this site is dumbed down and tries to be attractive to younger students, non-technicals and true believers. They even offer prepackaged arguments for those that prefer to sub out their thinking.
I am still looking for a high quality pro warming blog to counter balance WUWT. Any suggestions
They’re not discussing.
To paraphrase Lord Kelvin, there is nothing new to be discovered in climate science now. All that remains is bigger and bigger alarm.
Now that is funny.. a “high quality” site for pro warming.. an oxymoron?
I like SS’s CO2 lags temperature, what does it mean? page, which I incorporated into this climate chautauqua in 2014, which is a position I still hold today. The extraordinary proof required to depart from a primary TdrivesCO2 causation has not been established.
“I am still looking for a high quality pro warming blog to counter balance WUWT. Any suggestions”
All the warming blogs will do to you just like Skeptical Science did, they will kick you off if you challenge the CAGW orthodoxy. I wouldn’t recommend any of them.
You can get both sides of the story here at WUWT, and you won’t be booted if you have a different opinion. You might be challenged, but you won’t get booted. You usually only get booted around here for bad behavior, not opinions.
I too went to skepticalscience just yesterday. It is just a alarmist site of little use. I echo Citizen Smith’s interest in finding a credible pro-warmist site. I suspect my quest is futile.
Skepticalscience is the Pravda of academe/government.
Citizen Smith, there probably isn’t one, because they have a losing case.
However, the most middle-of-the-road one I can suggest is The Science of Doom. Though I haven’t visited it for a long time, he certainly seemed to have a lot of patience for people from both sides of the argument. That can usually only last so long, but there is a lot of good stuff worth reading from a few of the commenters. Like everything else, you have to be prepared to do some work yourself because there is rarely a simple answer to most questions worth asking.
The reason “your still looking” is they bury their head in the sands.
AKA, Gavin Spencdr walks of the stage of a TV set and refuses to discuss anything with him, Roy Spencer. Both men have Ph.D.
Spencer is part of climatescience.com
Pruit of the EPA has propose red team blue team debate, again has not come to fruition.
Over and over examples show up and it doesn’ occur becasut eh warmist run away.
I beflievd BIll Nye tried one. (a minor imporovement) We simple must keepa attacking theior wierd science conclusino and simply schedule debate invite and the when they don show up, we can read qouote from the wamest and then discredtit them, time and time again. pershaps then they might show up at the table.
“you’re still looking”
Stasi spelling poh-leece here. Yes, you have violation.
Citizen, here’s your ‘high quality’:
https://www.google.com/search?q=high+quality+pro+warming+blog&oq=high+quality+pro+warming+blog&aqs=chrome.
Have a good time.
Interesting.. but it is the Climate Alarmists that are making the claims and hypothesis – they need to be the ones with a top 5 list that gets debunked.
Exactly. Scott is riddled with confusion and falls into the same logical fallacies of the climate cultists. He keeps on referring to the two groups as experts and climate scientists on one side and Heller and skeptics on the other. If this is where you are starting to frame your debate or persuasive argument from, then you need to keep backing up until you start from a reality based axiom.
Speaking of the cult: anyone notice the High Priest Al Gore trying to sell an indulgence to the governor of Virginia?
We’ll forgive you if you oppose a pipeline or two.
I mean, the mask is slipping, isn’t it?
Reading your comment, I decided “No, that can’t be, it must be fake news!”
So, I googled “al gore to virginia governor pipeline”
Up came an AP article that includes the line
“Gore said Northam should fulfill his promise for racial reconciliation by opposing the pipeline project.”
Here’s the link https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/02/al-gore-to-visit-virginia-in-environmental-justice-tour/
After watching Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her followers trust me none of this matters you can’t work with stupid only darwinism will take care of them. The trick is to get far away from them and let them go into extinction on there own (think Venezuela). 🙂
But children like AO-C can burn down the house as well as anyone. A better strategy is to take away their matches and toys and put them in a time-out.
I think it more important to end the “teaching” careers of those that pounded that crazy stuff through her thick skull. She is a poster child of what academia seeks to produce.
+1
Actually, for BU (Boston University), the most important thing is producing good Ice Hockey teams, which they are very good at. Their Economics curriculum, from which An Occasional Cortex graduated from, not so much. In office just over a month and has already destroyed 25,000 IT and hi-tech jobs in NYC. BU should stick to hockey.
Economics and Climate Science have a lot in common, both use complicated computer models to create flawed predictions that never come true.
At one point, many years ago, both fields focused on understanding and seeking the truth, but the focus has now shifted to Activist Science.
Post Modern Science is Grievance Science — choose a victim and someone or something to blame then let your confirmation bias run wild.
Yes – better hockey than hockey stick graphs.
Woah she passed an economics curriculum, I don’t want to think about how she did that.
When Stalin established his totalitarianism, he executed most of the AOC types unless they were “useful idiots”….communism not being very patient with party members who question the leadersrhip.
You can bet Pelosi is working on that process right now, figuratively.
And just think of all those backing up that lie.
Hmmm. Take two hockey sticks, cross them in the middle, and what do ya got?
You get the crossed pistols on the patch worn by U.S. Military Police. To bad the climate politicians/fraudsters/rent-seekers can’t be arrested.
A face off!
It is great to hear more from well known, thinking people like Scott! More people like him need to speak out now before a movement like like NGD gains traction and a real war is required to stop it.
I’m ready.
See, the nitwits and cucks that support the GND are mostly anti-gun vegans. They are weak minded and have a low testosterone, high estrogen imbalance. Too much soy and BPA.
They only feel confident when hiding in large numbers, but once they see real force flying in their direction they will scatter.
They know nothing about bush craft, how to survive harsh conditions, feed themselves by hunting. They don’t stand a chance and neither does the military if the actual Patriots of this country have no choice but to defend themselves.
Fighting for everything you have and care for, when someone else is arbitrarily taking it by force, is much more powerful than sheer numbers or technology. It’s principle and that is a massive intangible.
Never underestimate an angry father’s ability to suffer for what is right. The left literally, in every perceivable metric or scenario, stands no chance in an actual war.
I pray it never comes to that. I rather enjoy my comfortable, safe, reliable life. Some of them can actually be reached but it takes unrelenting persistence
“More people like him need to speak out now before a movement like like NGD gains traction and a real war is required to stop it.”
It’s my opinion that the proposals contained in the New Green Deal are so outlandish and impractical that there is no chance of them ever being implemented. The American people are not going to radically alter their lifestyles for these CAGW promoters, who can’t even provide one shred of evidence that CAGW is real. Just saying it is so, doesn’t make it so..
I don’t think a war will be necessary to put the GND insanity to bed.
I pray very hard regularly to avoid such catastrophe. Internal war would be a very bad idea
Has the NGD even been assigned to a Committee (or Committees) in the House for review, markup and a vote? Long way to go before it ever becomes law. I expect a lot of changes in Committee, especially the part about paying people “unwilling to work”.
The “Young Turks” are exhilarated by their electoral victories, but are now just beginning to realize that there is a “Deep State” in the House, as well.
If it goes forward in the House of Representatives, the GND will be sliced and diced, divvied up among the various Committees/Sub-Committees, and twisted, turned and tortured by every special interest group. Anything emerging will be lard-laden, feel good, and fool the citizens mush.
Nope; but a landslide re-election for DJT wouldn’t hurt!
It would hurt some people, everyone else would cheer.
No he doesn’t “solve the debate.” He merely sets up a simplistic test for who in his judgement makes a better case for their position. This then comes down to who can capture Adams’ biases better, not which position is more accurate and truthful.
That said, I’d rather have Judith Curry or Steve McIntyre as the skeptics’ champion than Tony Heller. Tony’s highly informed but the others have more weight.
I really enjoy Tony and he’s significantly aided me in my journey to reason. He is a wealth of information and knowledge.
I’d go with Happer.
I like him too
Well I’d suggest picking up a damn science book instead, but whatever floats your boat I guess lol
Who is Tony Heller?
https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Also …..
“Anthony Watts (Comment #130003)
June 6th, 2014 at 8:00 am
I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing.
Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards.
See:
Before: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w…..before.png
After: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w….._after.png
Note the change in wording in the highlighted last sentence.
In case you didn’t know, “Steve Goddard” is a made up name. Supposedly at Heartland ICCC9 he’s going to “out” himself and start using his real name. That should be interesting to watch, I won’t be anywhere near that moment of his.
This, combined with his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..a-at-113f/
And then when we had an experiment done, he still wouldn’t admit to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..-possible/
And when I pointed out his recent stubborness over the USHCN issues was just like that…he posts this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress…..reeze-co2/
He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO.
So, I’m off on vacation for a couple of weeks starting today, posting at WUWT will be light. Maybe I’ll pick up this story again when I return.”
He went by the name if Steve Goddard on twitter because at the time he worked for a very ledtist company. When they found out his position on global warming, they fired him.
Tony has done more than any other person on the planet – including Anthony, OR YOU – to dig up historical records showing that climate scientists are full of cr@p. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
+1 Tony may have a obstinate streak but he has done yeoman’s work.
“He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO.”
So what level of legal discovery does Tony have his detractors at trying to bankrupt them? That comment indicates a level of disconnect that is hard to fathom. A person can be pigheaded (and pointed out) but comparing someone who isn’t anywhere near as bad as someone and stating they are worse…. good job, the daily cortez award has a winner.
I like this site and enjoy Tony’s videos…. personal issues is drama we could do little with here detracting from the good work both (sites/entities) do.
Here’s his Bio and background:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/who-is-steven-goddard/
And while we’re at it, who is John Galt?
Hey Scotty, if it looks like a fraud, smells like a fraud, and is packaged like one, then – common sense alone tells you that it is indeed, a fraud. Like a lot of fence-sitters, you need to dig deeper, because you’ve been lied to by the Climatists. But I suspect, you actually prefer your fence-sitting position, because you think it makes you look rational, and partially, I think it is just laziness on your part.
When I first looked into CAGW, I opened up the first 10 sites I found and read through the boards. After 4 hours of reading I chose the skeptic side to be the most honest, asked the best questions and tried to answer the questions the most thoroughly. I’ve not been disappointed in my choice since then.
I agree with you. One side goes to some effort to answer a question; the other side abuses you and kicks you from the board. You don’t need a mathematics degree to identify which side is being forthright.
Unfortunately none of the believers will watch the video. Too busy on Facebook (keeping track of their herd) and bleating over low-fat lattes and discussing the end of the world with other simple-minded sheep. To be seen to fit in with others and appear cool is the only thing they understand.
You could replace “Young / Journalist” with “Sheeple”. Sheeple don’t bother to check or question anything and choose to believe whatever helps fit in with other sheep. Truth or facts are irrelevant. Sheeple simply don’t have any capacity for independent thought or critical thinking. They are obsessed about fitting in with their herd. Beliefs are value-based towards empathy with their herd.
Well said. I have an intelligent, successful son who lives in Denver. He lives in a conformist culture. It takes time and effort to debunk the bs. It’s easier to just nod and agree with the group think. He still claims to be a capitalist so there’s still hope.
Good luck out in Kalifornia 2.0.
I live out here, unfortunately, and it is saturated with collectivists. Low IQ saturated population. Very unfortunate.
Probably why they enjoy dope so much out here
I remember a time when “being cool” meant one didn’t herd up with the other loser sheeple.
The libtards have so corrupted the language that “being cool” now means “compliantly marching in regimented lock-step with the rest of the hive-mind”.
If that’s “being cool” nowadays, then I’ll pass. I’m too cool to be a follower.
“I’m too cool to be a follower.”
I like your attitude!
Yeah, being cool to me meant NOT following the crowd. Still does. 🙂
wish he did blog stuff again, I have issues watching videos. not a slam on his style, etc its due to issues I have.
Same here, dmaceo, although maybe no the same issues.
I can’t hear them and the auto-generated text gets a lot of words wrong that you have to quickly sort out.
The best videos are the ones designed to have closed captioning from the start, so the producers put in the actual, grammatical, and (generally) spelled correctly text.
If there’s no cc, then it’s out for me, and Scott Adams’ videos don’t have cc. If it’s auto-generated text I give it shot, but then I miss some of the visual information while I’m trying to puzzle out the text.
Note: I did once buy a headset specifically to listen to Bob Tisdales first video. It sorta worked and it was a treat to see and hear his presentation. Since then I have switched the type of hearing aid I use and headphones don’t play nice with the aids.
Oh, hey! Just below, Reg Nelson posted the video with cc, and the cc looks good. I can now give it a shot.
Thanks, Reg!
Closed captioning requires skill *. Automated youtube speech to text sucks badly and the ‘rendering’ finishes it off.
*Timing, dropping ums, uhs, and errs, lining punch lines. After you’ve seen good work, you despise white-on-white late umms for good.
I don’t watch videos that beg me to log in or make some other conditional requirement to view it.
He also uploads them to YouTube:
Two very good things Scott does in this video: 1) direct people to Tony Heller, and 2) acknowledge the need for swift progress in gen 4 nuclear.
Thanks, Reg N,
I went there and watched the video.
TU for the YT link.
The other website was dysfunctional, non-deterministic IMNSHO.
What would it take to convince me CO2 were a problem?
1) someone would have to prove I am completely mistaken about the science and that natural variation does not exist and that speculative ideas about mythical feedbacks are actually science.
That won’t happen
2) Someone would have to convince me that climate academics are impartial.
Unless they are all sacked and new professionals from outwith the politicised arena of academia are brought in, that is not going to happen
3) Having replaced the present bunch of dishonest charlatans with credible professionals, I would need a purpose made temperature measurement system put in place that is capable of measuring the very small change that is being discussed and I would need to see a substantial period of warming larger than natural variation.
That doesn’t look like it will ever happen
4) I would then need to be convinced that despite cold being the biggest killer and rising CO2 being a boom to plants, that somehow warming is going to cause damage. Not by speculative hand waving carp, but by sound science supported by significant credibly measured trends and evaluated by impartial professionals and not politicised academics.
That looks very unlikely
5) And finally, I would need to see a full set of costings. I would for example need to see the direct and indirect energy costs of production windmills and be convinced that when all things are considered that there is a net saving of CO2 emissions from such technology. Having worked out the ACTUAL CO2 savings for each option and therefore the total costs of trying to stop CO2 rising I would need to compare this with the total costs of any damage and taking account of lost opportunity costs by wasting money now which our children could have used, I would need to see there is a cost benefit for action.
Again, I am very dubious, given the lack of any trends in severe weather and the wholesale dishonesty in this area, that anyone could ever convince me that increasing plant food and increasing warmth were a problem that warranted the eye watering costs of action with almost no effect when implemented.
Note by “academics” – I mean those who currently write the vast hoard of drivel about “global warming” and “Climate change” that is endlessly published in academic journals including Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist, etc.”
And if you think my demands are too high, like the Irish say …. “If I wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here”. If these types of changes had started when Climategate first revealed the appalling behaviour of academics, and politicians had acted, … we wouldn’t have had this vicious cycle of ever increasing groupthink resulting this almighty mess to clear up.
All it would take for me is for someone, anyone, to provide objective, repeatable, verified evidence that changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on climate metrics, and by how much, with error bands.
I won’t accept playing with unverified, unvalidated computer games, running them without and then with “CO2 Forcing” as objective evidence of anything.
Scot Adams wants a debate and the skeptics go last. Well good for him, I hope he’s successful – but I doubt it will ever happen.
He paints the journalists as believing everything climate scientists say. I wonder how many meters of sea level rise by 2100, how many times stronger methane is than CO2 or how fast the sub zero poles are going to melt would have to be before their BS meter goes off. So far it looks like never.
If you ever watch Tony Heller’s in person videos, he has a calm factual style which would be great in such a debate.
I’ve got more than 5 conditions required for me to be persuaded that man caused global warming is so urgent, so catastrophic, so certain and so guaranteed to continue that we should form a world government and run the world on that priority and doing “everything we can.”
Speaking of five, I would be persuaded if every climate paper were required to use a five sigma standard for significance, as is customary in physics. However, if that standard were applied retroactively, I am not sure that many papers, if any, from the past 100 years would survive. It is a harsh standard, but it minimizes the risk of a false positive. When proposing to change a society so fundamentally, in a way that creates great risk for the survival of so many, anything less should be unacceptable.
The fact that so few of them believe in complete transparency is enough for me to disbelieve them.
Well, at least Scott Adams is introducing doubt into the CAGW debate.
CAGW used to be “settled” science. Scott has changed the focus for a lot of people whose focus wouldn’t otherwise be changed. That’s a good thing.
+10
Having a debate is a value in itself.
I’d go with McIntyre’s original stance, that if you make claims like the end of the world you need to at least reach the same standard of honesty as a mining prospectus. Or better, but never worse. And you must rebut every sceptical counter-claim.
The question to ask AGW ‘scientists’ is the opposite to Scott’s. It is ‘what would it take to falsify the AGW hypothesis?’
THAT’s a question we’ve all been asking for a LONG time.
The long-term lack of a response is an answer in itself: “Nothing.’
The problem being that the AGW hypothesis is not falsifiable, because it continuously “morphs” into something it wasn’t before in order to accommodate the latest trends in that thing called “reality.”
Or to look at it another way, it already HAS been falsified, repeatedly – no troposphere “hot spot” as predicted by the AGW-assumed-to-be-factual “climate models;” endless “tipping points” which have come and gone without anything changing to any degree (pun intended); the colossal list of failed “predictions” regarding highways that were supposed to be under water nearly a decade ago, disappearing winter snow, and disappearing Arctic sea ice/”ice free” Arctic Ocean; lack of any (ACTUAL) acceleration of sea level rise; Pacific islands that were supposed to be in the process of being swallowed up by rising seas by now that are instead GROWING; the continued widening of the gap between “climate models” and reality, DESPITE all the “adjustments” to the so-called “data;” the fact that the “climate models” run in pretty good agreement with “reality” ONLY when you TURN OFF any sensitivity to CO2 which is programmed in; and more I’m sure I’m forgetting about.
I read your pacific island rise comment and had to see WTF you were talking about. I found this:
A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.
It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.
I guess I missed this earlier post too: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/12/remember-when-sea-level-rise-was-going-to-cause-pacific-islands-to-disappear-never-mind/
What would it take to convince me that CO2 emissions are a problem? Step 1) Stop Lying. Step 2) Produce some actual, real-world evidence (they can’t because there isn’t any).
Scott would save himself a lot of trouble if he would simply acknowledge why Tony is more persuasive. Tony argues from historical/empirical data, which is always more persuasive than the futuristic projections and claims of scientific authority, the reputation of which has been marred by corruption and its countless bogus claims made over many decades.
However much I may doubt Scott’s intentions or ability to navigate these waters, he does seem to get it
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-02-20
OK, I watched the Scott Adams video and revisited the Josh cartoon, both excellent. Scott Adams looks to me like a fairly intelligent person and his logic trains are good. What would convince me? I am a Geologist trained, certified, and experienced in Sequence Stratigraphy, which is the coherent world-wide (first order events) geologically preserved record of grand variance in sea level and the attendant glacial/interglacial events. These events show 50 meters higher and 150 meters lower sea levels as normal events. Show me a clear signal that there is some abnormal acceleration in the movement of the current sea level towards either of these extremes and we can talk. By the way, Manns’ hockey stick was designed to show just this unusual acceleration and it is, thanks Scott Adams, BULLSHIT1
?Are we able to follow the coming debate here?
that would be great
Communism has always been built on lies. The man made global warming scam is nothing but new lies for old.