3 ms·

I think your suggestion we watch the video and make our own decision is unreasonable and made in poor faith. An hour is quite a long time to spend watching a pr

by plus 10y ago

I think your suggestion we watch the video and make our own decision is unreasonable and made in poor faith. An hour is quite a long time to spend watching a presentation by a man who is notoriously untrustworthy, based on his prior history at the University of Colorado and Macquarie University. Since I am not a scientist in the field of climate change, I do not feel the need to convince myself that scientific consensus is correct by examining the raw evidence myself -- in fact, I suspect that doing could only mislead and cause confusion, since I am not trained in how to analyze and interpret that sort of data. Therefore, I defer to the scientific consensus. The opinions espoused by a very small minority of climate scientists that disagree with that consensus do not trouble me, particularly when these scientists have been fired from multiple research institutions, since I cannot be sure they are operating in good faith.

pdx 10y ago
I wish you would watch it, even if it is quite long. As I mention in another downvoted to hell post, it is a subject that takes time to present the material in an understandable way. People talk a lot about how oil money may be biasing the scientists who are skeptics. But you should know that there is a lot of money on the non-skeptic side as well. Carbon credit trading and carbon taxes are set to be huge money makers for governments and private institutions alike. As you say, many climate skeptic scientists have been fired from their positions. That tends to make the rest of them stay pretty quiet, if they don't agree with the mob. As you can see by the responses to my posts here today, it really is a dangerous opinion for a scientist to put forth, so it's reasonable that many are silent.
- plus 10y ago
  While I may not be a climate scientist, I am a scientist, and you are being disingenuous when you insinuate that those who disagree with the scientific consensus are punished by losing their position. Dr. Salby was not fired from two research positions because he rocked the boat, he was fired because he was a poor scientist -- refusing to fulfill the requirements of his professorship, illegally profiting from state grant-funded research, etc. You are also misinterpreting the disagreement you see on HN as malice or anger. People simply are refusing the drink your kool-aid, and many people are giving very good reasons why. Perhaps you should read and understand the comments in this thread before assuming people are out to get you or your ideas.
- epistasis 10y ago
  I wish you would respond to the absolutely devastating rebuttal of Salby here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura... It's been in many many comments. It can be read in less than an hour, unlike your video. Why would anybody watch an hour video when the source makes egregious errors like this? Also, why are you putting politics above science? Why are the politics more important than reality? Politics should be subservient to scientific truths, not the other way around. I suspect that that's why you keep on trying to deceive yourself and others on this matter.
  - pdx 10y ago
    Thanks for the link. I did read it. The comments are also interesting. Some of them even supported Salby. You will note that it's from a 2012 lecture, not the 2016 lecture I linked to at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM While most of the commentors were obviously pro-AGW, seeking to pick flaws in whatever he said, even to the point of criticizing his use of 2005 figures instead of 2012 figures, it was refreshing to read people debate real science, rather than what generally happens. Thanks for the link.

by plus 10y ago

pdx 10y ago

I wish you would watch it, even if it is quite long. As I mention in another downvoted to hell post, it is a subject that takes time to present the material in an understandable way. People talk a lot about how oil money may be biasing the scientists who are skeptics. But you should know that there is a lot of money on the non-skeptic side as well. Carbon credit trading and carbon taxes are set to be huge money makers for governments and private institutions alike. As you say, many climate skeptic scientists have been fired from their positions. That tends to make the rest of them stay pretty quiet, if they don't agree with the mob. As you can see by the responses to my posts here today, it really is a dangerous opinion for a scientist to put forth, so it's reasonable that many are silent.

plus 10y ago
While I may not be a climate scientist, I am a scientist, and you are being disingenuous when you insinuate that those who disagree with the scientific consensus are punished by losing their position. Dr. Salby was not fired from two research positions because he rocked the boat, he was fired because he was a poor scientist -- refusing to fulfill the requirements of his professorship, illegally profiting from state grant-funded research, etc. You are also misinterpreting the disagreement you see on HN as malice or anger. People simply are refusing the drink your kool-aid, and many people are giving very good reasons why. Perhaps you should read and understand the comments in this thread before assuming people are out to get you or your ideas.
epistasis 10y ago
I wish you would respond to the absolutely devastating rebuttal of Salby here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natura... It's been in many many comments. It can be read in less than an hour, unlike your video. Why would anybody watch an hour video when the source makes egregious errors like this? Also, why are you putting politics above science? Why are the politics more important than reality? Politics should be subservient to scientific truths, not the other way around. I suspect that that's why you keep on trying to deceive yourself and others on this matter.
- pdx 10y ago
  Thanks for the link. I did read it. The comments are also interesting. Some of them even supported Salby. You will note that it's from a 2012 lecture, not the 2016 lecture I linked to at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM While most of the commentors were obviously pro-AGW, seeking to pick flaws in whatever he said, even to the point of criticizing his use of 2005 figures instead of 2012 figures, it was refreshing to read people debate real science, rather than what generally happens. Thanks for the link.