Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Lockjaw]

Accepting the view of the majority of experts is the rational position to adopt without even needing to understand the science.

 

Only if you have total faith in the objectivity of their views.

 

Many people don't.

 

Therein lies the reason for, for instance, the length of this thread.

 

The arrogance and contempt shown by those who are pro-AGW towards those with opposing views (or even with sympathetic views but seeking clarification) is not helping this situation.

 

Regarding your earlier post regarding incontravertible evidence ... Nobody is charging us to make sure the sun rises or that atoms exist. Granted, there is taxation on smoking but that did not originate, as far as I'm aware, as a consequence of the government-of-the-time's concern for our collective health.

 

I, personally, have seen, at first hand, evidence that smoking causes cancer. Given the forty-odd years experience I have of the sun rising daily, I am happy to assume it will tomorrow. Atoms ... haven't seen any incontravertible evidence myself but the consequences of their existence and structure manifests itself to me in a number of ways each day of my working life so I'm happy to go along with that one.

 

I have, also, seen direct evidence that the climate is changing, in this country and others; most recently, in Iceland. The climate has been constantly changing since the Earth was formed. There are a lot of people trying to convince me that this current climate change is caused by gases released into the atmosphere by human activity. I was, initially, happy to go blindly along with this but, recently, I have seen enough evidence to cause me to doubt the certainty of this claim.

 

The zealot-like actions I have observed on this thread and elsewhere do not fill me with confidence in the AGW claim. I have yet to find any pro-AGW source which does not appear to be convinced, unswervably, by the AGW claim and is simply fighting off opposing ideas.

[Wildcat]

The zealot-like actions I have observed on this thread and elsewhere do not fill me with confidence in the AGW claim. I have yet to find any pro-AGW source which does not appear to be convinced, unswervably, by the AGW claim and is simply fighting off opposing ideas.

 

The reason for that is we have known about the link between carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect for ages now. The sceptical scientists when you do get some sense out of them don't deny that fact, but the denier blogs make all manner of contradictory claims. If you look through this thread you will see people arguing the temperature is getting colder, we should discount all tree ring data, tree ring data shows a MWP was warmer than today, the sun is responsible for warming, solar rays are responsible for warming, it has something to do with a volcanic eruption, it is water vapour..... all contradictory arguments and all rubbish. Because none of them are consistent with the evidence.

 

Compare that with realclimate for example, or skeptical science where you can read through the comments to the posts where you will see sceptical arguments and non-sceptical arguments uncensored together along with intelligent discussions of the issues. That doesn't strike me as zealot like.

 

Compare that with Watts and his conspiracies:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-crock-week-whats-anthony-watts-take-2

Edited February 5, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

I recommend these videos to explain the issues:

 

Climate Change -- the scientific debate

 

Climate Change -- the objections

 

Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth

 

Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin

 

Climate Change -- isn't it natural?

 

Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

 

Those emails and censorship:

 

It is interesting to see the progression of his viewpoint as he goes through making the videos.

 

More videos here if you like that sort of thing:

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-science/the-science-videos/

Edited February 5, 2010 by Wildcat

[barny_100]

But the burden of proof is not upon me. It is not me that is the one making the argument that the views of the majority of experts in the field is in error.

 

Accepting the view of the majority of experts is the rational position to adopt without even needing to understand the science.

 

Absolute rubbish and a revealing insight into your mindset. The burden of proof is always on those wanting to prove something is true. The "consensus" opinion is a smokescreen used by those who prefer cosy grants from like minded types to proper Science.

 

There was once "consensus" that the world was flat, did that make that view any more correct? It had no bearing either way and to say otherwise is dishonest, although frankly that's par for the course in the whole AGW debate.

[Wildcat]

Absolute rubbish and a revealing insight into your mindset. The burden of proof is always on those wanting to prove something is true. The "consensus" opinion is a smokescreen used by those who prefer cosy grants from like minded types to proper Science.

 

There was once "consensus" that the world was flat, did that make that view any more correct? It had no bearing either way and to say otherwise is dishonest, although frankly that's par for the course in the whole AGW debate.

 

When people took the commonsense view that the earth was flat because round balls stayed still and didn't roll off, the burden of proof that the earth was a sphere rested with those opposing the received wisdom. Similarly today if someone wanted to argue the earth is flat (perhaps with a argument involving topology and planes) the burden of proof would be on them because they are arguing against the wisdom of expert opinion.

 

To discount expert opinion on global warming because you don't like what they say, and you think they have some sort of self interest in saying mankind has a part to play in driving recent temperature change involves a conspiracy so large it really requires some evidence. Evidence not there in all the emails leaked from CRU, where you would have thought it would be obviously available had there been one. Out of the thousands of emails all that there is evidence of is a bit of unprofessional language, Scientists sharing results and opinions and being understandably protective of the nature of their science and the peer review process where like when the sceptical ClimateResearch paper was published that would have been failed had any undergraduate submitted it because of its basic errors. To make an argument based on such a large conspiracy you really need a bit more evidence than that they have a self interest because they receive grants to research climate change.... something they would receive regardless of their conclusions.

[retep]

THE GATHERING STORM

There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.

 

This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

 

The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

 

The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

 

The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.

 

source,

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

[truman]

Thanks for that, Wildcat. Though, since the pertinant link doesn't work, that page is simply denies the claim rather than refutes it.

 

Having said that, I'll assume that if the link did work it would lead to evidence which refutes the claim.

 

Have you read any of the "released" emails from the UEA CRU?

[Lockjaw]

Have you read any of the "released" emails from the UEA CRU?

 

Sure have.

 

Not sure that's relevant to this point, though. I was merely asking WC to justify his implicit suggestion that the article he linked to refuted your claim regarding the "4000" as I couldn't see that it did.

[Wildcat]

THE GATHERING STORM

There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.

 

This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

 

The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

 

The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

 

The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global warming, did not come out through the due process. ......

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

 

If you had been reading this thread you would know the claims made are wrong.

 

Phil Jones kept nothing out of the IPCC reports. He sounded off in an email about a couple of papers but they were both referenced in the report.

 

The second issue is taken way out of context and the fact the correction was made shows that it has no basis and is of little concern.

 

The third point is equally bizarre if it is claiming the peer review process was set aside because a mistake was made. The peer review process as can be seen from the published comments did ask for a reference for the glaciers claim and in response a reference to the WWF was provided. That doesn't show the peer review process was "set aside" it shows that it was followed and a mistake was made.

 

And the final point is absurd because the reviewers comments were and are publically available, as was shown when the above point was made earlier on the thread and the refutation cited the comments.

 

For an article that is supposedly defending the scientific method and honesty it has a funny way of showing it.

[retep]

If you had been reading this thread you would know the claims made are wrong.

 

Phil Jones kept nothing out of the IPCC reports. He sounded off in an email about a couple of papers but they were both referenced in the report.

 

The second issue is taken way out of context and the fact the correction was made shows that it has no basis and is of little concern.

 

The third point is equally bizarre if it is claiming the peer review process was set aside because a mistake was made. The peer review process as can be seen from the published comments did ask for a reference for the glaciers claim and in response a reference to the WWF was provided. That doesn't show the peer review process was "set aside" it shows that it was followed and a mistake was made.

 

And the final point is absurd because the reviewers comments were and are publically available, as was shown when the above point was made earlier on the thread and the refutation cited the comments.

 

For an article that is supposedly defending the scientific method and honesty it has a funny way of showing it.

 

Still got your fingers in your ears going 'la la' I see, be careful you don't slip off that shrinking icecube.