Discussion > Why Do Climate Scientists Believe That There's a Debate To Be Had
diogenes,
Lindzen's figured out the entire warmie game - from its 'science' to its politics. And he was one of the earliest to do so.
shub
and the citations are?
diogenes
Citations to prove what?
Richard Drake
Johanna, thanks for the support for some of my posts :-) I have a lot of time for yours and most of those who post here. I'll try and redeem myself.
I am not talking about what sceptics ARE or even WERE but what things are attributed to us. To reject the claims of the other side is different from pretending those claims won’t be made.
It is an easy link for warmists to claim, that sceptics of one science are like the sceptics of another. eg It doesn’t matter one jot that those who reject conventional medicine are very unlikely to be sceptical of climate and visa versa. On the whole I’d guess that environmentalists would reject more conventional science than most climate sceptics. Most of us are into technology and all things modern. Where science works, we want it. On the other hand, environmentalists are the epitome of anti progress. Unfortunately we haven’t yet convinced the world that the reason we’re anti climate science is because it’s bad science. Part of this is the legacy of the past. It doesn’t have to be OUR past.
Claiming that bad practices from the past are connected to the good people in the present might not be fair but it is to be expected. We have to work with that burden even though we never earned it. I suspect there wasn’t just oil company campaigning in the past but that there is ongoing lobbying by oil companies and big business against green initiatives. It will be much more direct than funding sceptics, involving a lot more champagne lunches and a lot less internet conversation. The lobbyists won’t talk climate at all, they’ll talk about freedom to trade, profits, healthy economy and election funding. And, being businessmen, many of the politicians will be receptive to the ideas presented to them. Lobbying by business is a necessary balance to lobbying by greenies and if we allow one, we need the other, to maintain good sense. However, in today’s silly, cotton wool lives, business and fossil fuels are all bad. Just by being on the same side we are automatically tarnished with the same illogical brush.
Sky Dragons are in our camp whether we want to claim them or not. So too are those who don’t know anything about the science but just assume that it’s all a conspiracy to raise taxes. We get the hard right brigade, more concerned about the freedom to do anything they want than any serious thought about what threat AGW might or might not pose. Luke warmers are ours. Indeed, anyone who has expressed a single doubt about the ludicrous mess that is CAGW, is instantly zapped into our midst as punishment for insurrection. We can and do welcome these people, sometimes to their horror. We can also count all those people who don’t think about AGW and either don’t take a side or even support CAGW but complain about the smallest of costs. It adds up to an enormous percentage of the population. They can be viewed as either an overwhelming force for change or an embarrassment, unfairly linked to thoughtful, well read ‘real’ climate sceptics.
TinyCO2
Thanks for your thoughtful response, TinyCO2. I think that I better understand your train of thought as a result.
But, I still don't acknowledge that individuals, or blogs, or organisations, are somehow responsible for everything that someone who claims to be "on their side" says or does. I get that you are mostly talking about public perception, and that is a fair point. But we part company when you say that "we" (whatever that means) "can and do welcome these people". The assumption that there is a "we" always makes me think of Tonto's apocryphical line "What do you mean, "we", white man."
johanna
I don't agree that 'slayers' are anything bad. These guys wrote a book with the name. So why call names?
It has to be understood that the enhanced greenhouse effect explanation has a number of holes in it, holes apart from just accepting the greenhouse properties of greenhouse gases that is. Ask any two people to give a good explanation of how increased CO2 causes warming and they'll give you two different explanations. And now, with the "deep oceans, aerosols, etc etc" two dozen explanations for why temperatures aren't rising, I cannot tell who's more unscientific. Where were all these elements , say, just 4 years back? It appears to me the warmie camp blames all warming on CO2-greenhouse when warming occurs, and goes into contortions when it doesn't. I'd lump slayers and warmies in the same camp.
When you don't know, you say you don't know. When you don't know, but it looks like your explanations fit, you say "what I say might be correct". You don't immediately start a political movement. That's what the warmies did - Hansen, Houghton, Ehrlich, Holdren, Schneider, Schllenhuber, Rahmstorf, Mann...and there are many more...who hide their politics but are in the same basket. When was the last time you heard an expression of uncertainty from these actors?
shub
Tiny, I don't get the 'fossil fuel companies did something bad' thing. Do you have a specific example or episode in mind?
shub
Shub writes:
When you don't know, you say you don't know. When you don't know, but it looks like your explanations fit, you say "what I say might be correct". You don't immediately start a political movement. That's what the warmies did - Hansen, Houghton, Ehrlich, Holdren, Schneider, Schllenhuber, Rahmstorf, Mann...and there are many more...who hide their politics but are in the same basket. When was the last time you heard an expression of uncertainty from these actors?
Indeed. These are the ones I separate out as "Beliefers" - engineers of the CAGW religion that "Believers" follow*.
These people *may believe* in the threat of CAGW, but they have *wilfully* corrupted, distorted and/or concealed the science which conflicts with their beliefs in order to grow their ranks, or have set out to denigrate and vilify any who publicly denounce their religion. They are "Beliefers" because it is clear that they DO know better, and have made a conscious decision to pervert the public's perception of the true state of the science.
* - Like EM and Chandra, who appear to genuinely believe in things, infilling with faith where they have little depth of understanding. True "Believers".
Simon Hopkinson
Tiny, I don't get the 'fossil fuel companies did something bad' thing. Do you have a specific example or episode in mind?
shub, I've been appreciating you much more than is healthy for either of us of late. :)
Richard Drake
Simon Hopkinson:
> Like EM and Chandra, who appear to genuinely believe
in things, infilling with faith where they have little depth of
understanding. True "Believers".
Unlike you? Tell me some significant aspects of climate science Simon that you can personally prove to be incorrect. I don't mean by quoting someone
else's opinion, I mean something that you personally can prove to be incorrect.
Chandra
Chandra, how is it that you don't know by now, in life, that there is no burden to prove a negative? Seriously, how is it?
It rests upon the shoulders of climate science and its protagonists to show, using.. yanno.. like, SCIENCE.. that an impending catastrophe looms. And when I say science I do actually mean in the commonly understood sense of The Enlightenment.
Unless you think this demand is.. unreasonable!? LOL!
Simon Hopkinson
Simon, you can either:
1. use your own knowledge and skill to falsify the AGW hypothesis;
or failing that:
2. accept the AGW hypothesis on the basis of what climate scientists who study the subject say;
3. reject the hypothesis on the basis of what non-climate-scientists who don't study the subject say.
Your reticence in showing what you can personally show to be untrue about AGW indicates you selected 3. In other words your belief that AGW is not a serious problem stems from an acceptance of your selected set of authorities and has little to do with your understanding of science (or should that be SCIENCE).
Chandra
Simon, you can either:
Wannabe puppet master tries and fails at puppet mastery again.
You missed: 4. Reject the CAGW hypothesis on the basis that climate scientists who do study the subject have failed to advance into testable, falsifiable theory.
What you, Chandra, and Entropic Man both do is incessantly conflate simple, testable GHG theory and an emotive CAGW meme. You never advance beyond it. It's so freaking boring constantly having to remind you that your religion isn't based on anything but belief, with nothing to underpin it.
You have to demonstrate that the result of anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophic warming and you can't. You can't even demonstrate conclusively that the net feedback of increases in anthropogenic OR natural CO2 are positive.
And this, Chandra, is why you're a religious fanatic, whether in name or not, and whether or not you accept this truth or not. It is the truth INDEPENDENTLY of your denial of it, and it is demonstrated to be so daily by you and EM.
Simon Hopkinson
"Tiny, I don't get the 'fossil fuel companies did something bad' thing. Do you have a specific example or episode in mind?" Shub.
You mean apart from genuine examples of pollution? Most businesses are not evil but few are squeaky clean. All major industries have points in their history where something was done or not done that turned out bad. Sometimes it was unavoidable, sometimes it was negligence, sometimes it was deliberate but from ignorance and sometimes it was just plain nasty.
If you mean lobbying, then it depends whether you mean your 'bad' or someone else's 'bad'. Businesses lobby. There has probably been lobbying from the moment there was someone to petition and someone who wanted to sway things in their favour. It's why there is no minimum price for alcohol and pub opening hours were scrapped. Is lobbying bad? Do you think it's 'good' to have the WWF and Greenpeace whispering in the ears of government? One person's good can be another person's bad. Businesses are not charities. Left unchecked some, if not most, would take advantage and do things that many would consider bad eg the banking scandals. Do you really think the oil companies have never played the political system? Do you think they’ve stopped?
TinyCO2
Chandra, your pathetic attempts to derail this very interesting thread just highlight what a troll that you are. Begone.
johanna
TinyCO2, do you not think that the windfarmers and solar hucksters have lobbied governments as well?
All governments get lobbied, all the time. That's democracy. The question (and it never goes away) is to what extent that they sway their decisions against the evidence because of it.
johanna
TinyCO2, I'll respond to your paragraph 3 in the comment above.(Mar 15). Fossil fuels are practical and therefore profitable. Their prospectors will become wealthy and edge closer to politicians ears and will try to secure more favourable long-term contracts and monopolies. This should be discouraged. But fossil fuel companies see government setting up to impose nonsensical measures (by their own standards) such as carbon taxes and cap-and-trade and 'emissions' trading, they have a right to approach government. Of course, the latter will -appear- no different from the former ('companies fighting for their bottom-line'), but there is a difference.
Things like solar and wind power would never stand a chance but for the climate stuff. Why are they in play in the market? These are pure corporeal expressions of top-down governmental corruption.
shub
shub
Things like solar and wind power would never stand a chance but for the climate stuff. Why are they in play in the market? These are pure corporeal expressions of top-down governmental corruption.
In my opinion that is a virtually completely meaningless, myopic, pretentious, ignorant, pointless and untrue statement.
Do you really think that CSIQ FSLR SPWR SCTY would all just fold away and disappear into the mist if it weren't for government handouts and support? I'll tell you what wouldn't happen without government handouts and support. And that's shale oils and gas drilling. Now that is something that would not have a snowball's hope in hell of being done if it weren't for government handouts and support.
replicant
Do you really think that these companies are installing commercial quantity solar power generating stations because it is government that is forcing this to happen because of subsidies that are being granted? And this suspicion that you have in this conspiracy, it makes you angry?
replicant
Funnily enough I thought shub's comment exceptionally clear and to the point and the final sentence outstanding. But that's what's so nice about climate blogs - so many different points of view to enjoy.
Although I consider this summary of the role of fossil fuel companies excellent, I want to reiterate the obvious: 'we' as sceptics aren't to blame for the bad stuff. It shouldn't need to be said but long-term and vile smearing has I think had an effect on the victims. That was what I think geronimo was challenging originally and a motivation for my questions for TBYJ about his version of history:
And if someone is asking you about something they know is true, and you deny it happened, then you start to anger them.
Angering one's abuser. Now that is serious.
Richard Drake
shub
"the enhanced greenhouse effect explanation has a number of holes in it"
There needs to be more attention to research conducted by the Connollys and reported in their papers and discussions here: http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
They investigated readings from radiosonde balloons, attempting to measure the impact upon the atmosphere's temperature profile from increasing amounts of GHGs. The climate models include assumptions about tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling that are not supported by the observations. This should be a big deal, and reminds me of John Christy's APS presentation.
Ron C.
Do you really think that CSIQ FSLR SPWR SCTY would all just fold away and disappear into the mist if it weren't for government handouts and support?
Mar 16, 2014 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterreplicant
Do you really think that BP Solar Operations would just disappear into the mist if it weren't for government handouts and support?
Oh.... It has. BP knows which energy sources are intrinsically more profitable than others. The photovoltaics industry is squealing from Germany to China because of overcapacity and unrealistic market expansions driven by governments as a result of lobbying by the greenmachine.
michael hart
You missed: 4. Reject the CAGW hypothesis on the basis that climate scientists who do study the subject have failed to advance into testable, falsifiable theory.
And this, Chandra, is why you're a religious fanatic, whether in name or not, and whether or not you accept this truth or not. It is the truth INDEPENDENTLY of your denial of it, and it is demonstrated to be so daily by you and EM.
Mar 15, 2014 at 11:03 PM Simon Hopkinson
No. 4 is the one.
Chandra at least concedes that he does not understand the details of 'the science' and therefore has to choose who to put his faith in. (Not quite sure why he sees it as an either/or forced choice but I guess that's part of the rationalisation inolved.)
Poor EM maintains that his faith is confirmed by ..... Not sure what. His tendency to bullshit about things he clearly does not understand or has no knowledge of, while attempting to give the impression he is talking authoritatively, together with his tendency to break off discussions when the questions become difficult, makes it unclear what exactly he does believe confirms his faith.
Martin A
What BP does is their problem. There is no way a fossil fuel company could morph into a solar voltaic power company. Or even coexist with one. As much as they would probably like to save their own ass. BP knows in which energy market it has the most clout and which generates the most profits. So? The question is whether or not solar power generation has a future or not. I mean what can I say. Since there really isn't any long term future for a fossil fuel economy, that doesn't really leave a whole lot of options does it?
replicant
ok, Drake, so what contributions to knowledge of the climate has Lindzen made since 1988...giving citation numbers....For the sceptic cause, he is a busted flush because the "mainstream" has discarded him. I would love you to be able to show otherwise with lots of climate scientists acknowledging him....I do not see many citations