Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[lumeer]

Can't find the number you are quoting. Again nobody is arguing that the climate change doesn't occur but rather the factors involved and their significance.


Again don't see the consensus you mention.

The number is in that paper. 75 of the 77 climate scientists expressed the view that humans are changing the climate. And in one of your earlier posts, you *did* dispute that there's a net change in temperature.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

But isn't this just classical Dunning-Kruger stuff? That a novice like yourself should declare that the experts all have it wrong?

I don't have to be an expert in Christianity to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion. I don't have to be an expert in science to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion.

 

[Ponderer]

I don't have to be an expert in Christianity to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion. I don't have to be an expert in science to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion.

I have been told that this cult-like belief in "science" is known as "Scientism".

 

[rietrot]

But isn't this just classical Dunning-Kruger stuff? That a novice like yourself should declare that the experts all have it wrong?

Lol.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability

That's not it.
And your argument from authority that the experts know best and can't be wrong is faulty.

 

[Ponderer]

Lol.


That's not it.
And your argument from authority that the experts know best and can't be wrong is faulty.

Wrong.
That's exactly it.

 

[lumeer]

Lol.


That's not it.
And your argument from authority that the experts know best and can't be wrong is faulty.

First, experts do know best, that's why they're called experts. Second, it's not appeal to authority when one cites mainstream scientific thinking.

Tell me, what's your background in climate science? Read a few blogs and watched a few YouTube videos, have we? Saw Tucker Carlson interview a climate change denialist and thought, "well that makes sense", have we?

PhD scientists generally have high IQs and they are formally well-educated in their fields. Don't you think that any flaw that you think you might have spotted in the science, has already been asked and answered by these high IQ well-educated scientists. Aren't you being a bit narcissistic in dismissing a highly complex and technically advanced science just because you think it has flaws, rather than considering that perhaps it is you who is the one who just has his facts mixed up?

 

[Geoff.D]

Agree. Experts are not automatically right. But a person is considered an expert when he is generally more often right than wrong. That IS the essence of Science. A Theory is developed, tested, researched validated and Accepted ----- until new evidence comes along and challenges it. Then that evidence is validated found to be correct and the Theory is then either replaced with a new one or modified to take into account the new evidence.

The theory on Climate Change is still in its infancy with many uncertainties and risks. Just go and read the AR reports to get an appreciation for what is generally accepted. The IPCC had to even come up with a scale of "acceptance" to be able to distinguish between parts of the theory that is now almost uniformly accepted from those parts of the theory where plenty of doubt still exists.



Even the top rating on the likelihood Scale still leaves it open for uncertainty, which is excellent and standard Science practice. Just about nothing in Science is ever granted 100% factual status.

 

[lumeer]

I don't have to be an expert in Christianity to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion. I don't have to be an expert in science to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion.

Can it not be argued that it is the fault of the denialists that the mainstream have become cult-like on the issue of climate change? Urgent and decisive action is needed to prevent a catastrophe and the denialists are hindering this much-needed action, hence why the mainstream have become radicalised on the issue. The medical mainstream are similarly cult-like on the issue of child vaccination, because the stakes are so high.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Can it not be argued that it is the fault of the denialists that the mainstream have become cult-like on the issue of climate change?

The denialists aren't the ones who are attempting to maintain institutional credibility. Claiming that the denialists are the ones responsible for you(general you, not personal you) abandoning the principles required to maintain institutional credibility strikes me as an own goal.

Urgent and decisive action is needed to prevent a catastrophe and the denialists are hindering this much-needed action, hence why the mainstream have become radicalised on the issue. The medical mainstream are similarly cult-like on the issue of child vaccination, because the stakes are so high.

There is simply no credible alternative to fossil fuels at this point in time. We cannot maintain our civilisation without them because of how they're involved in our food production and distribution practices.

I'm all for urgent action, but urgently committing suicide is not how I would approach the problem.

 

[Geoff.D]

First, experts do know best, that's why they're called experts. Second, it's not appeal to authority when one cites mainstream scientific thinking.

Tell me, what's your background in climate science? Read a few blogs and watched a few YouTube videos, have we? Saw Tucker Carlson interview a climate change denialist and thought, "well that makes sense", have we?

PhD scientists generally have high IQs and they are formally well-educated in their fields. Don't you think that any flaw that you think you might have spotted in the science, has already been asked and answered by these high IQ well-educated scientists? Aren't you being a bit narcissistic in dismissing a highly complex and technically advanced science just because you think it has flaws, rather than considering that perhaps it is you who is the one who just has his facts mixed up?

Precisely why I tend to avoid reading information or watching videos posted from sources known to be suspect. That is until I feel I have gained sufficient background to be able to detect when the stuff is starting to deviate a bit too far from what is currently accepted. It is an entirely different matter to just accepted anything one is told, read or watch versus being able to critically analyse it and then decide to accept it outright or accept it with some provisos.

That still does not mean it is necessary or desirable to simply reject something and call it BS without analysis and reflection. And motivation. Behaving like that immediately destroys any chance of having a proper debate about disagreements.

 

[lumeer]

Precisely why I tend to avoid reading information or watching videos posted from sources known to be suspect. That is until I feel I have gained sufficient background to be able to detect when the stuff is starting to deviate a bit too far from what is currently accepted. It is an entirely different matter to just accepted anything one is told, read or watch versus being able to critically analyse it and then decide to accept it outright or accept it with some provisos.

That still does not mean it is necessary or desirable to simply reject something and call it BS without analysis and reflection. And motivation. Behaving like that immediately destroys any chance of having a proper debate about disagreements.

I am not an expert on climate science and have no intention of becoming one. That would require probably a decade of intensive study to bring me to a point where I could truly understand the science. I have neither the time, nor the mental energy and interest, for that. So I know only the basics and I accept that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, hence why I trust the experts, the same way I would trust a surgeon who is to operate on me.

 

[Geoff.D]

Can it not be argued that it is the fault of the denialists that the mainstream have become cult-like on the issue of climate change? Urgent and decisive action is needed to prevent a catastrophe and the denialists are hindering this much-needed action, hence why the mainstream have become radicalised on the issue. The medical mainstream are similarly cult-like on the issue of child vaccination, because the stakes are so high.

Absolutely! BUT up until AR 4, the approach was just mitigation -- based on instilling fear of immediate and total annihilation.
The Planet is going to Die! STOP burning ALL fossil fuels, STOP growing food chopping down trees etc.!
You are all going to die! In reality, the Planet will not die. It may just not be suitable for humans to live on.

The resistance to these views from detractors to the ToCC ARE the ones who pushed and pushed until the "establishment" was forced to consider other alternatives such as "adaptation".
The AR 5 narrative is different from previous reports - moving away from doom and gloom to more for many realistic views of CC and the longer-term outcomes.
To illustrate what happened between AR4 and AR5, here is an extract out of a report on the IPCC, which helps to understand the change in stance, attitude and communication style of the IPCC, for the better I would say.

Public debate after the publication of AR4 in 2009 put the IPCC under scrutiny, with controversies over alleged bias and inaccuracy in its reports. In 2010, this prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to request that the InterAcademy Council (IAC) review the IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen its processes and procedures for the preparation of AR5. The IAC report made recommendations to fortify IPCC's management structure, to further develop its conflict-of-interest policy, to strengthen the review process, to clarify the guidelines on the use of so-called gray literature, to ensure consistency in the use of probabilities for the likelihood of outcomes, and to improve its communications strategy especially regarding transparency and rapidity of response.

 

[Geoff.D]

One of the criticisms still around about how the IPCC is dealing with CC is that right from the start of the process there was an underlying sentiment showing through and that all the so-called "research" undertaken across the board is actually aimed at just confirming that sentiment. In other words, a prophecy was tabled that GW is caused by humans and then data was gathered to simply fulfil the prophecy.

That issue still pervades many of the documents and reports issued by the IPCC. The latest AR 5 report includes, at last, a fairly complete Glossary of Terms. If one goes through the definitions of terms, one sees plenty of evidence of the accusation that all the IPCC is doing is going through the motions. The Conclusion was pre-determined. In my opinion, herein lies why there are persons who continue to reject the outcomes even when the evidence is pretty well confirmed.

As an example, here is the definition of the term GW (Global Warming):

This glossary defines some specific terms as the Core Writing
Team of the Synthesis Report intends them to be interpreted
in the context of this report. Red, italicized words indicate
that the term is defined in the glossary. The references to
Working Groups (WG) I, II and III in italics at the end of each
term in this glossary refer to the AR5 WG glossaries and
should be read as: WGI (IPCC, 2013a), WGII (IPCC, 2014a),
and WGIII (IPCC, 2014b).

Global warming
Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected,
in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative
forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions. {WGIII}

This definition already quite deliberately implies that GW is only as a result of man-made emissions. It does not even bother to acknowledge that natural processes also contribute to the GHGs present in the atmosphere.

There are many more examples in the Glossary of the same pre-supposed outcomes.
How then can the IPCC claim objectivity and openness to other possibilities?

 

[Geoff.D]

I am not an expert on climate science and have no intention of becoming one. That would require probably a decade of intensive study to bring me to a point where I could truly understand the science. I have neither the time, nor the mental energy and interest, for that. So I know only the basics and I accept that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, hence why I trust the experts, the same way I would trust a surgeon who is to operate on me.

Neither am I an expert in the field. At best, I suppose I am a reasonably well-informed layman.

 

[nightjar]

Not sure if this has appeared in the last 470 posts but worth a look.

Digital Exclusive: Dr. Patrick Moore TEARS APART The Green New Deal | Huckabee

 

[Gordon_R]

More fake news: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

A high profile scientific journal is investigating how it came to publish a study suggesting that global warming is down to natural solar cycles. The paper was criticised by scientists for containing “very basic errors” about how Earth moves around the sun.

The study was published online on 24 June by Scientific Reports, an open access journal run by Nature Research, which also lists the prestigious Nature journal among its titles. A spokesperson told New Scientist that it is aware of concerns raised over the paper, which was authored by five academics based at Northumbria University, the University of Bradford and the University of Hull, all in the UK, plus the Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory in Azerbaijan, and the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia.

The authors suggest that Earth’s 1°C temperature rise over the past two centuries could largely be explained by the distance between Earth and the sun changing over time as the sun orbits around our solar system’s barycentre, its centre of mass. The phenomenon would see temperatures rise a further 3°C by 2600, they say.

Ken Rice of the University of Edinburgh, UK, criticised the paper for an “elementary” mistake about celestial mechanics. “It’s well known that the sun moves around the barycentre of the solar system due to the influence of the other solar system bodies, mainly Jupiter,” he says. “This does not mean, as the paper is claiming, that this then leads to changes in the distance between the sun and the Earth.”

“The claim that we will see warming in the coming centuries because the sun will move closer to the Earth as it moves around the solar system barycentre is very simply wrong,” adds Rice. He is urging the journal to withdraw the paper, and says it is embarrassing it was published.

Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies says the paper contains egregious errors. “The sun-Earth distance does not vary with the motion of the sun-Earth system around the barycentre of the sun-Jupiter system, nor the sun-galactic centre system or any other purely mathematical reference point,” he says. He says the journal must retract the paper if it wants to retain any credibility.

Michael Brown of Monash University in Australia lamented uncritical media coverage of the paper in Australia.

Following criticism of the paper, lead author Valentina Zharkova, of Northumbria University, described Rice as a “climate alarmist” in an online discussion.

“The close links between oscillations of solar baseline magnetic field, solar irradiance and temperature are established in our paper without any involvement of solar inertial motion,” Zharkova told New Scientist.

 

[buka001]

I don't have to be an expert in Christianity to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion. I don't have to be an expert in science to recognise when some people have started to use it in a cult-like fashion.

No.

You have to be an expert on cults.

 

[rambo919]

In other words, a prophecy was tabled that GW is caused by humans and then data was gathered to simply fulfil the prophecy.

Climategate but especially the establishment reaction to it pretty much proved it. Instead of actual reform a literally spontanious coverup emerged as everyone hastened to protect their scam. My obviously subjective feeling is this was never REALLY about climate in the first place but about the accumulation of power. It's a unofficial cartel protecting itself. Remember, there was a time where the mafia "did not exist" even though they were eventually reckless enough to operate in the open and start to abuse their communities.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

No.

You have to be an expert on cults.

You don't have to be an expert at all. Some things are simply that self-evident.

Do you rely on a climate expert to tell you that the sun is shining when you're already walking outdoors?

It is THAT obvious that this pseudo "consensus" science is far more political and faith-based than it is scientific. But as with any cult, those who are indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge they've been had.

 

[rambo919]

But as with any cult, those who are indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge they've been had.

"Pappa can't be wrong" syndrome in some cases.