User: Sineso

Sineso

November 27, 2018 (edited November 27, 2018)

Link Parent

I admit there are many studies which make a case for climate change. The problem - which is what these sorts of debates inevitably lead to - is the question of authority. To my mind, having read...

I admit there are many studies which make a case for climate change. The problem - which is what these sorts of debates inevitably lead to - is the question of authority. To my mind, having read the Climategate emails, the IPCC is not a reliable source. Yes, I am aware there were a plethora of investigations into these emails that all found no wrongdoing. The problem is that I didn't just read the results of these investigations I also the read the emails themselves, and the political and unscientific motivations behind the individuals working at IPCC is absolutely apparent.
You say we've reached a consensus? How so? I hope you aren't referring to the "97% of scientists agree" bit which is an outright lie (and it doesn't take a degree in climate science to see why). It's this figure that initially woke me up to the level of dishonesty going on.

The main paper behind the 97% claim, authored by John Cook, uses dishonest trickery. A 2016 peer-reviewed paper lists 5 methodological issues with the 97% figure. To quote their abstract:

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for.
Source

Cook responds that same year with his owner paper responding to Tol, adding a new dimension, "expertise", to overcome his inaccuracy. He writes:

Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.
Source

These are published in the same paper in the same year. If the scientists can't even agree about the level of consensus, how are we supposed to?

Below are quotes from a Forbes article which cites the HadCRUT4 near surface temperature data set, and the Merged Ice-Core Record Data from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, among other sources:

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested.
Source

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.
Source

So have I replied to the sources you listed in your post? No, I haven't. What I have done is demonstrated there is enough ambiguity going on here that the topic should be approached with a degree of skepticism.
You are quoting a government report at me. How much do you trust the government? You do understand the food pyramid was in textbooks for years, right? You have heard of the sugar conspiracy I hope, how smoking was once 'physician' approved, the countless FDA lies and fuckups, the decades of lies surrounding psychedelics and marijuana, MK Ultra, the list goes on and on. From the government's mouth has been a never-ending stream of lies.

This is the main difference between our opinions. Not so much our interpretation of climate data, but of our meta-level trust in authority.

Thus when I read in a telegraph article:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

I think "they falsified the data, how typical." You on the other-hand will think "these idiots don't understand science, how typical." How are we to cross such a divide?

Both of us can pick and choose quotes all day:

The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.'

The problem is epistemological. I am not so gullible to trust globalist mouth-pieces of the U.N. Read How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed and tell me how this isn't 100% political. The whole industry is corrupted. Why shouldn't I trust the whistleblowers?

2 votes

Sineso's recent activity

Comment on A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday in ~enviro

Comment on A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday in ~enviro

Comment on A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday in ~enviro