+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 70

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    This reminds me of something...hmmm. I'll think of it.

    Oh, yeah I remember. 'Everything I have ever written on this topic'.




    Who are the climate denialists now?


    by Walter Starck

    January 2, 2011

    In recent years anyone daring to question the imminent reality of catastrophic global warming has risked being labelled a denialist with implicit, and sometimes even explicit, reference to holocaust denial as well. Ironically, over the past year in the face of a cooling climate and collapsing scientific credibility, climate alarmists have themselves begun to increasingly express opinions that can only be seen as denialist.

    Even though exposure of the Climategate emails and other material from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit was unequivocally a major blow to the credibility of AGW science, warmists reacted by trying to downplay the significance as being only an academic spat with no relevance to the scientific validity of any of the research involved. However, as it became apparent that serious breaches of scientific standards and ethics were involved, basic honesty should have called for a clear condemnation. By opting to attempt to dismiss such serious matters as only trivia, damage to credibility with the public was compounded.

    Then, to make a bad situation even worse, investigations that were obvious shams were conducted. Predictably they announced finding nothing of any real concern. Instead of resolving suspicions about a few researchers this only served to widen them to the institutions themselves and even to the government.

    At the same time, the Climategate scandal also turned public attention onto various other false or doubtful claims about climate change. The result has been a large increase in mainstream media coverage for climate scepticism and a significant decrease in stories promoting climate alarmism. Unable to effectively refute all of the doubts being presented, the proponents of dangerous warming have responded by ratcheting up the level of proclaimed threats. Without any convincing new data, everything was suddenly claimed to be much worse than previously stated.

    For persons purportedly committed to reason and evidence, the response of climate change researchers would be more than a little incongruous. It is however, fully in keeping with the politically correct, postmodern perspective which now dominates in academia.

    In this view objective truth is only a delusion and basic research a bourgeois elitist indulgence. In environmental research in particular, advancement of basic understanding has been largely abandoned in favour of that having “relevance” to “problems” and only findings which support a politically correct agenda may be publically presented.

    Even researchers strongly committed to the AGW hypothesis have found themselves viciously attacked for offering opinion or findings not fully in accord with alarmist dogma.

    When confronted by reasonable doubts or conflicting evidence, the warmist response has been to refuse debate and to instead proclaim authority, expert consensus and moral virtue while attacking the knowledge, standing and motives of any who question the threat of catastrophic climate change. While this kind of denigration may be an accepted practice in academia, to the broader public it only looks like juvenile schoolyard bullying by adults who haven’t grown up. It certainly has not aided the alarmist cause.

    Although the climate change bandwagon may appear to roll on unstoppably regardless of all doubts or discredit, it has in fact suffered a serious loss of momentum in public acceptance. It has lost power and is now only coasting while trying to maintain a face saving facade for those so deeply committed that any graceful retreat is unthinkable.

    Worse still from the alarmist perspective, has been the painfully obvious failure of climate itself to cooperate. For the past three years all over the world savagely cold winter weather has repeatedly set new records for snow and low temperatures. Time after time global warming conferences have been greeted by record and near record cold weather.

    Trying to dismiss this as merely coincidence or just weather, not climate, has lost all credibility; especially after it has happened repeatedly amidst a background of extreme winter conditions over large areas. Continuing to offer this increasingly lame excuse has only made it look more like a lie or delusion than an explanation.

    Regardless of the ongoing hype and spin of the diehard proponents of AGW, the attitude of a large majority of the electorate has turned decisively against the idea of any imminent threat. This shift in sentiment is unlikely to reverse anytime soon.

    It developed over time and involves not just the Climategate emails but a much wider shift in the balance of public awareness as well as a sense of betrayal and dishonesty by researchers claiming certainty and righteousness. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once a belief is abandoned, few people readily return to something they have decided was false. All the spin and hype is now achieving is to exacerbate the discredit. For supposedly intelligent people, this kind of behaviour does not indicate it.

    Meanwhile, as the warmists continue their doomscrying and seeking further hundreds of billions of dollars to carry on their vast charade, the whole economic structure upon which everything depends is teetering on the brink of disaster with little effort to address or to even recognise the very real and present dangers which confront us.


    All over the developed world, governments have committed to unfunded liabilities and fostered a proliferation of bureaucracy which their increasingly uncompetitive productive sectors cannot sustain. Most are now running on empty with no credit left, no plan B and no apparent recognition that the path they are on leads only to the edge of a cliff.

    In the U.S., Japan and most of the EU, government debt and deficits have passed a point of no return and are rapidly escalating. The bailouts and stimulus efforts have only deferred inevitable defaults while making them even larger and more damaging. Taxes cannot be raised without accelerating the economic decline and any meaningful austerity will result in riots and political suicide for the party in power.

    There is no painless solution. The situation has developed over decades and will require major reforms as well as long hard effort to correct. Large sectors of many basic industries no longer even exist. Their skills, knowledge and factories are gone and their products are now imported. Much of what does remain struggles to remain profitable while meeting ever increasing government demands and ever growing competition by lower cost imports from developing countries.

    In Australia the price of food, housing, utilities and finance are among the highest in the world. For increasing numbers of people the cost of living is becoming unaffordable and all indications are for ongoing further increases. None of this is because of shortages of resources or lack of knowhow. Overwhelmingly, it stems from government policies and demands.

    In addition to a deteriorating economic situation, the proliferation of government and bureaucracy has been accompanied by a serious degradation of basic personal rights and freedoms which are the very soul of democracy. It is fundamental to democracy that ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, not the government. However, over recent decades government has increased its power and control to the point that the people are becoming only chattels of the state, indentured wage serfs who will have to toil their entire working life in order to simply pretend to own a home. In reality they will just rent it from the state through payment of exorbitant rates until their sham “freehold” is confiscated either for old age care or via taxes.

    Bloated dysfunctional government cannot even recognise, much less rectify, the problems it has created. It has grown into an engorged parasite on the body politic. Until the people reassert their rightful sovereignty, severely prune back government and make it properly subservient, it will continue to drain the vitality of the productive sector until economic collapse must result.

    The idea that they will fix things by redistributing wealth is a pathetic joke.
    The wealth of a society ultimately depends on what it produces. Wealth in private hands can only be spent, invested or saved. Any of these uses results in increased production.

    Only government pays people to produce nothing, or to produce things no one wants, or to actively interfere with those producing the things that are needed and wanted.

    Even when it does try to do useful things, government tends to do so inefficiently, poorly and at high cost. Too much government is the problem. More cannot be the solution. No genuine economic recovery is possible unless government is downsized, basic rights restored and the productive sector permitted to function more freely again.

    In a world teetering on the edge of economic chaos with a huge population highly dependent on a healthy economy and severe winters not seen since the Little Ice Age, the ongoing obsession with global warming and decarbonisation is surreal.

    Every day government deficits grow larger. Even with a 100% tax on income, the U.S. government would still be in deficit. Most state governments and many municipalities there are operating in serious and growing deficit. Already the first municipal defaults have occurred. In the EU bankruptcy looms over various member states. Interest on government bonds is having to be substantially increased and even then buyers are becoming harder to find. Serial sovereign defaults and further severe global economic recession seem unavoidable.

    In these conditions, the ongoing obsession over AGW is looking more and more like a mental disorder, not unlike the mass manias of the Middle Ages.

    It seems an especially poor time to be insisting on failed prophesies calling for austerity and increased costs. In the likely prospect of severe hardship becoming manifest, angry mobs may be only too willing to accord full credit to false prophets.

    The prayer to the Mayan jaguar goddess Ixchel at the recent Cancun climate meeting seems singularly appropriate to our times. The Mayan gods were a bloodthirsty lot and at least one early Spanish account reports that young women were routinely sacrificed to Ixchel.

    If the warmists were to have their way and full decarbonisation imposed, agriculture, transport and winter heating as we know it will no longer be possible.

    This alone should provide a sacrifice of at least several hundred million persons. Ixchel must surely be pleased at the prospect. However, this promise must surely have had more credibility if only the conference had offered a down payment as a show of good faith. If they really wanted to assure Ixchel’s favour they could have selected a few hundred delegates to have their hearts removed with obsidian knives atop the great pyramid at Chichen Itza and their bodies tossed down the steep steps. This would have been far more convincing to Ixchel than just beseeching her with dubious promises.

    Our large brains provide our species with a remarkable capacity to rationalise whatever benefits us personally and dismiss that which does not.

    AGW has provided fame, fortune and a delicious sense of moral righteousness to many of those so ardently proselytising for it.


    Our politico-economic problems offer only austerity and great effort. Unfortunately, repeated experience strongly indicates that there is an objective reality which does exist regardless of whatever we might choose to believe. However ardently we may choose to deny it, it always prevails. How much more of it is going to be needed to make us give up our fantasies and start dealing with it?



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Wow. You were able to find an article which agrees with your point of view.

    And this proves ....... what? This is ALL you ever do.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Wow. You were able to find an article which agrees with your point of view.

    And this proves ....... what? This is ALL you ever do.


    Your utter ongoing ignorance on this topic is truly mesmerizing--stop pretending that you keep up with the news or pay attention to any new developments in...well, anything.

    Are you under the impression that the shakedown has had a good year or two? LOL

    That corruption hasn't been ferreted out ALL OVER the racket?

    That the stealing hasn't been largely derailed?

    That they are not finding more lies and corruption every week?

    That the climate shakedown isn't on it's last legs?

    Why don't you know ANYTHING about this topic?


    Just bizarre.



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    An opinion piece by someone, on a website, no matter their expertise (and Im not saying this author has any) is just that and nothing more. Its an opinion piece by one man.

    And this trumps scientists in the field?

    No.

    THAT is the point.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    An opinion piece by someone, on a website, no matter their expertise (and Im not saying this author has any) is just that and nothing more. Its an opinion piece by one man.

    And this trumps scientists in the field?

    No.

    THAT is the point.

    The point is that 'scientists in the field' have no credibility anymore, and denying this fact does nothing to help reestablish any.

    THAT is exactly why the shakedown fell apart--because the 'scientists in the field' keep LYING.

    Pretending this isn't the problem won't make it go away.

    But I will say--it is entertaining to watch and read. I will continue to keep you updated as this scam disintegrates, always looking for THE MOMENT it all becomes clear to you.




    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    The point is that 'scientists in the field' have no credibility anymore, and denying this fact does nothing to help reestablish any.

    THAT is exactly why the shakedown fell apart--because the 'scientists in the field' keep LYING.

    Pretending this isn't the problem won't make it go away.

    But I will say--it is entertaining to watch and read. I will continue to keep you updated as this scam disintegrates, always looking for THE MOMENT it all becomes clear to you.




    .
    So, political rhetoric aside, what percentage of scientific endeavour is a scam? Do you think its higher today than in the past? Limited to one or two fields?

    Me, I see no reason to think the few cases in any field can be extrapolated into scientists not having credibility. Oh, theres always mistakes and even intentional lies in science, but thats a tiny percentage.

    I think you are confusing political bandwagons on the back of science, and the science itself. On whichever side, left or right.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    So, political rhetoric aside, what percentage of scientific endeavour is a scam? Do you think its higher today than in the past? Limited to one or two fields?

    Me, I see no reason to think the few cases in any field can be extrapolated into scientists not having credibility. Oh, theres always mistakes and even intentional lies in science, but thats a tiny percentage.

    I think you are confusing political bandwagons on the back of science, and the science itself. On whichever side, left or right.
    I have read accounts of how the CAWG theory went awry. Dr Roy Spencer has written a book on the subject. The actual number of scientist needed to be involved in any "lying" is very small. You probably would need more than one hand to count them but two would probably get real close.

    The book is called the "Great Global Warming Blunder." You can go here http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-W...der_1594033730 and click on the picture of the book and read for free. In the introduction and background section go to "How the IPPC politicized science" and read that section. I think if you take the time to read that section you will understand how CAWG theory can be controlled by a fairly small group of scientist.
    Last edited by cirussell; 01-12-2011 at 01:04 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Hmm. I question why this man outweighs the rest of the scientists involved in the field. Assuming, as I do, that the majority of experts in the field disagree with him (we've discussed why before).

    He appears to have written 3 books on the subject of climate change being political and wrong.

    Fine, but again, I dont see why his view is critical. You see there are perfectly believable scientists who will write books about other fields of science in which they are in the minority, eg those who write books about evolution being untrue and advocating Intelligent Design.

    They are perfectly entitled to do so, but again, the opinions of that one person, or even a few, dont mean that much when I am told - by the weight of scientific consensus - that the opposite is true.

    To make my point:

    Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and he argues that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[6]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.
    Now, that doesnt negate his views. It doesnt affect them at all, and doesnt indicate if he is right - or wrong - about climate change. But it DOES show that you, and I, dont know. And that we shouldnt rely on that one apparently brilliant expose as a reason to overturn what we are told is the current scientific view or consensus.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Hmm. I question why this man outweighs the rest of the scientists involved in the field. Assuming, as I do, that the majority of experts in the field disagree with him (we've discussed why before).

    He appears to have written 3 books on the subject of climate change being political and wrong.

    Fine, but again, I dont see why his view is critical. You see there are perfectly believable scientists who will write books about other fields of science in which they are in the minority, eg those who write books about evolution being untrue and advocating Intelligent Design.

    They are perfectly entitled to do so, but again, the opinions of that one person, or even a few, dont mean that much when I am told - by the weight of scientific consensus - that the opposite is true.

    To make my point:



    Now, that doesnt negate his views. It doesnt affect them at all, and doesnt indicate if he is right - or wrong - about climate change. But it DOES show that you, and I, dont know. And that we shouldnt rely on that one apparently brilliant expose as a reason to overturn what we are told is the current scientific view or consensus.


    do you not realize that ALL the most visible 'scientific' leaders on this topic are now disgraced? That they conspired to quash opposing views? That the IPCC knowingly presented false information at the Copenhagen conference? That hanson is gaming data from 1934? That the NZ climate vermin were found guilty in court of lying? And that I can list many, many more examples?


    How this doesn't effect your opinion of the issue is beyond the pale.

    Maybe this is why Europeans blindly fall for every ing thing. Who knows?

    Americans are skeptical by nature--that is why we were able to build the most succesful society in history, and why it will take more than a state-owned media and non-stop lies from the filth to keep them in power.

    They are DONE, precisely because we know a scam when we see it.


    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    do you not realize that ALL the most visible 'scientific' leaders on this topic are now disgraced? That they conspired to quash opposing views? That the IPCC knowingly presented false information at the Copenhagen conference? That hanson is gaming data from 1934? That the NZ climate vermin were found guilty in court of lying? And that I can list many, many more examples?


    How this doesn't effect your opinion of the issue is beyond the pale.

    Maybe this is why Europeans blindly fall for every ing thing. Who knows?

    Americans are skeptical by nature--that is why we were able to build the most succesful society in history, and why it will take more than a state-owned media and non-stop lies from the filth to keep them in power.

    They are DONE, precisely because we know a scam when we see it.


    .
    You appear to be suggesting its the US scientists vs the scamming foreign scientists. Thats not the case, the scientific community in US as well as other countries think AGW is happening.

    And I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    With respect pwron you don't get to declare who a leader is.

    You have tried to disgrace many people and called them leaders but the fact remains that 90% of them I've never heard of before. So if they were leaders of anything they were pretty poor ones.


    How about you answer the actual question instead of making more random accusations. Or does it prove beyond a pale of a doubt how empty your argument is.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    With respect pwron you don't get to declare who a leader is.

    You have tried to disgrace many people and called them leaders but the fact remains that 90% of them I've never heard of before. So if they were leaders of anything they were pretty poor ones.


    How about you answer the actual question instead of making more random accusations. Or does it prove beyond a pale of a doubt how empty your argument is.


    Here are the leaders and proven liars and/or idiots--which ones have you "never heard of before"? LOL


    jones, fanning, ehrlich, gore, hansen, mann, the IPCC...shall I go on?

    Heard of any of them? ALL LIARS.



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    Here are the leaders and proven liars and/or idiots--which ones have you "never heard of before"? LOL


    jones (vindicated), fanning (can't find anything), ehrlich (a guy who wrote a book on population 20 years ago), gore (idoit american politican), hansen (an activist against Carbon tax, missed that didn't you), mann (vindicated), the IPCC (2 reports out of 10,000)...shall I go on?

    Heard of any of them? ALL LIARS.
    .
    You also don't get to decide who lied and declare all the work they are connected to fraud.

    I thank you for actually providing a known list this time instead of quote mines from 20 people I've never heard of before.

    BTW. You still didn't answer the question.
    (I didn't forget. Nore did thistle, nice try)
    Last edited by Spector567; 01-12-2011 at 04:44 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Hmm. I question why this man outweighs the rest of the scientists involved in the field. Assuming, as I do, that the majority of experts in the field disagree with him (we've discussed why before).

    He appears to have written 3 books on the subject of climate change being political and wrong.

    Fine, but again, I dont see why his view is critical. You see there are perfectly believable scientists who will write books about other fields of science in which they are in the minority, eg those who write books about evolution being untrue and advocating Intelligent Design.

    They are perfectly entitled to do so, but again, the opinions of that one person, or even a few, dont mean that much when I am told - by the weight of scientific consensus - that the opposite is true.

    To make my point:



    Now, that doesnt negate his views. It doesnt affect them at all, and doesnt indicate if he is right - or wrong - about climate change. But it DOES show that you, and I, dont know. And that we shouldnt rely on that one apparently brilliant expose as a reason to overturn what we are told is the current scientific view or consensus.
    Just curious, did you read what I ask you to read? You have said nothing in your post that makes me think you did.

    Your argument for believing the majority doesn't hold water if what Spencer says is true. What I ask you to read has nothing to do with the consensus on global warming, just how the "consensus" was developed.

    If you aren't interested in looking into any of this I'll shut up. Seems like you are though, but your going to have to do more than google a name, find something negative about them and dismiss without reading and considering. I guarantee there will be something negative posted on the internet about each and every skeptic or non-skeptical scientist involve with this. Personally I don't think thats a very good way of deciding what to believe.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    You also don't get to decide who lied and declare all the work they are connected to fraud.

    I thank you for actually providing a known list this time instead of quote mines from 20 people I've never heard of before.

    BTW. You still didn't answer the question.
    (I didn't forget. Nore did thistle, nice try)
    What utter bullshit...these ers were not 'vindicated' by anyone who can read a ing e-mail. AND the hockey stick is made-up and tweaked, obviously a lie. You can read the e-mails and decide for yourself who is lying. Hanson is working as we speak to game data from 1934 to fit his lying hypothesis, filthifying the very name of Goddard.

    All the legit quotes I have cited ( and you ing KNOW they are legit, just lying again about it) are from KEY players in the climate game, which, if you haven't figured it out yet, is anything but apolitical.

    The sad fact is--you really don't know ANYTHING about the climate game.


    Is THIS the question you are whining about? I missed it the first time.

    thistle:
    So, political rhetoric aside, what percentage of scientific endeavour is a scam? Do you think its higher today than in the past? Limited to one or two fields?


    I don't think ANY percentage of scientific endeavour is a scam. We need scientists to work all the time to further our knowledge of everything.

    The climate issue is obviously poisoned by politics, and it is also true that the scientists themselves have direct monetary interests in the results.

    There only needs to be one or two corrupt scientists to game the opinion--obviously no one is going to check behind these 'stars'--they will simply take their word for it. Just like we have for years.

    However, once the dam broke, checking behind every single one of these guys became essential, and when we do...well...let's just say we have learned a LOT about how science can be and has been gamed.

    This is a scam, a blatant scam, and it didn't require more than a couple guys to pull it off.

    As for the IPCC, they KNEW those reports were LIES yet presented it anyway. It wasn't a mistake--anyone can make a mistake, but not everyone will lie to forward a shakedown. Wanna talk about "two out of 10000 reports"...yeah, how many of those do you have faith in now?

    How come you display no common sense about this? Honestly, scince is not supposed to trump common sense, they are supposed to work together.

    For instance--if we KNOW they lied in public about two different reports, isn't it COMMON SENSE that the rest of their shit is suspect?

    Really, come on.

    Are you even aware of the politics and special interests of your stars?



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Who are the 'Climate Denialists' now?

    Quote Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
    Just curious, did you read what I ask you to read? You have said nothing in your post that makes me think you did.

    Your argument for believing the majority doesn't hold water if what Spencer says is true. What I ask you to read has nothing to do with the consensus on global warming, just how the "consensus" was developed.

    If you aren't interested in looking into any of this I'll shut up. Seems like you are though, but your going to have to do more than google a name, find something negative about them and dismiss without reading and considering. I guarantee there will be something negative posted on the internet about each and every skeptic or non-skeptical scientist involve with this. Personally I don't think thats a very good way of deciding what to believe.
    You missed where I made the point that me finding something negative doesnt negate anything they have written. His book may well be quite brilliant.

    If I bought it, and read it, lets say I decided wow, he's right, according to the facts he lays out here the whole system of scientific consensus is corrupted.

    I could go tomorrow and buy a book exposing the irrefutable facts that the moon landings never happened. I could buy a book which, if I took what was written within as unbiased fact, would show me without doubt that vaccines are dangerous.

    A little extreme perhaps, but the point is the same - how do you know who to believe.

    And despite me saying Roy Spencer's book cant be dismissed because of unrelated opinions he holds, what would give me cause to distrust his opinion on climate change is his attempts over many years to present a case against it. He has tried various arguments, refuted and shown to be wrong by others. Now, for some reason, you think his argument that the system is at fault holds special weight?

    I have read the portion available on amazon now. He makes a lot of claims, but why am I supposed to think his narrative is more correct than others? I dont mean Al Gore, I mean other scientists.

    I have only seen one brief offhand review of the same free chapter by someone considerably more knowledgeable than me:

    [Response: I read the first chapter at Amazon and..... well, it's not logically very sound. He assumes that the only constraints on climate sensitivity are found from radiation measurements in the modern period (which is not even close to true - see Annan and Hargreaves (2006) for instance). Then asserts (with no evidence) that natural variability is not considered by other scientists (again something that is patently false), and finally declares that his upcoming super-secret paper will unequivocally prove that sensitivity is negligible (all the while ignoring the plentiful evidence from the paleo record - particularly the ice ages - that it can't be). Bestsellers do not good science make. - gavin] (Gavin Schmidt Realclimate)
    And again, I dont see why Spencer's opinions of the IPCC hold special weight. He doesnt like them, he doesnt like the conclusions, fair enough. But other scientists say it works very well, and it appears they are adapting to be more transparent: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...c-report-card/

    The Inter-Academy Council report on the processes and governance of the IPCC is now available. It appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes – from suggesting a new Executive to be able to speak for IPCC in-between reports, a new communications strategy, better consistency among working groups and ideas for how to reduce the burden on lead authors in responding to rapidly increasing review comments.


    As the report itself notes, the process leading to each of the previous IPCC reports has been informed from issues that arose in previous assessments, and that will obviously also be true for the upcoming fifth Assessment report (AR5). The suggestions made here will mostly strengthen the credibility of the next IPCC, particularly working groups 2 and 3, though whether it will make the conclusions less contentious is unclear. Judging from the contrarian spin some are putting on this report, the answer is likely to be no.
    And http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1008...l/467014a.html


    So again, who to believe? Do you suggest I should read every book, for and against? Should I read every peer-reviewed paper, all the evidence, and make a judgement for myself?

    If I had the time, expertise, and inclination, possibly. I have none of the above. So who do I trust? I trust the process, flaws and all, and the process leads to trusting the scientists who trust the IPCC represents the facts, and those facts are supported by all the major scientific bodies. (I trust that over one man who writes anti climate change books, no matter convincing his first chapter may be in isolation)

Similar Threads

  1. Climate change: How do we know?
    By LogicallyYours in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 05:11 PM
  2. Sun Causes Climate Change
    By mumbles in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-23-2011, 12:47 AM
  3. The Climate of Depravity
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-25-2011, 10:41 PM
  4. Climate Scam Unravels
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 06:29 AM
  5. AGW denialists hate free speech
    By bic in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 03:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •