3 ms·

Climate Realism Against Alarmism

3 points by vixen99 9y ago

vixen99 9y ago
The roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism should give pause for thought to those who simply label those who question received opinion on climate as ignorant of 'the settled science' or 'in the pay of the fossil fuel businesses'.
- eesmith 9y ago
  There is a direct parallel with how creationists have created lists of scientists who actively question evolution. One response was Project Steve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve a list of scientists with the first name Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, Esteban, etc., all of whom support evolution. This list is far longer than any list of scientists that creationists have put out. Similarly, the "roll call of scientists" who support the current rather pessimistic view of the human-caused effects on global climate, is far larger than the list given there. Continuing the parallel, those opposed to evolution say that its supporters treat it as a "religion". I note Ivar Giaever says that of climate change, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever . As another parallelism, many of the scientists who support creationism/are against evolution aren't from a background which is closely connected to evolutionary biology. (Eg, a physicist instead of a biologist or paleontologist.) That's "many", not "all". Going down the list, Giaever started in superconductivity, and then went into biophysics. He now is an adviser for The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute received funding from Exxon, a fossil fuel business. Robert Laughlin, condensed matter physics. Frederick Seitz, solid state physics. He was founding chair of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received funding from Exxon-Mobil. Before getting CO2, he was one of the so-called "merchants of doubt" about the harmfulness of tobacco smoke. Richard Lindzen, a bona fide climate scientist. You know that because they wrote "an atmospheric physicist" instead of a generic "physicist" like the previous scientists. Fred Singer, another atmospheric scientist. Who "has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer . It's boring now, so I'll jump down the list to John Coleman, a weathercaster trained a journalist who, among other things, claims "the polar ice is increasing, not melting away" - an incorrect statement. He has never done any research in climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Views_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercast... Now, of course it isn't required that people be trained in field X to provide useful input or counter-point to that field. My point instead is that if the criteria for a "roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism" is so broad as to include people who have never done any scientific research in the field, or in the case of Coleman, never having done any scientific research at all, then you need to have a similarly inclusive definition when coming up with people who support "climate alarmism." It is a much larger number. Just like Project Steve.
airbreather 9y ago
I notice that once again one of the comments to the article raises the issue of glacier melt and automatically leaps to the conclusion it is caused by elevated CO2, when much evidence indicates it is due to soot - ://www.scientificamerican.com/article/subcontinental-smut-himalayas/# The plague of humans is causing a lot of problems for the planet, but it is essential to use good science to understand the real cause of problems so appropriate efforts can be made to minimise impact and not waste even more resources. Most things are not as simple as they may seem in the case of such complex systems, so undounded dogma that prevents good questioning science isn't going to help.
- eesmith 9y ago
  The only mention of "melting" in the comments is "the rate of both polar and ice sheet melting is worse than predicted." This was in the context of giving an example of a prediction that Gore made. The comment says nothing about CO2 vs. soot. If anything, soot may be the reason for the increased rate. You pointed to a SciAm article from 2009 concerning the Himalayas. I'll respond with a 2014 Guardian piece titled "Climate impact of black carbon severely overestimated, says study" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-impact-of-black-carbon-severely-overestimated-says-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-... Or this 2016 piece from the Earth Institute, citing research from 2013 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects... > a 2013 study estimated black carbon’s effect to be 1.1 watts per square meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56 watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it returns to earth with rain or snow. This appears to be a well-studied topic in climate research. It therefore makes no sense to point out a possible mistake or incomplete comment by a random someone from the internet as the basis for a call for "good scienc", nor does it justify accusations of "undounded [sic] dogma".
  - airbreather 9y ago

3 points by vixen99 9y ago

The roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism should give pause for thought to those who simply label those who question received opinion on climate as ignorant of 'the settled science' or 'in the pay of the fossil fuel businesses'.

eesmith 9y ago
There is a direct parallel with how creationists have created lists of scientists who actively question evolution. One response was Project Steve - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve a list of scientists with the first name Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, Esteban, etc., all of whom support evolution. This list is far longer than any list of scientists that creationists have put out. Similarly, the "roll call of scientists" who support the current rather pessimistic view of the human-caused effects on global climate, is far larger than the list given there. Continuing the parallel, those opposed to evolution say that its supporters treat it as a "religion". I note Ivar Giaever says that of climate change, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever . As another parallelism, many of the scientists who support creationism/are against evolution aren't from a background which is closely connected to evolutionary biology. (Eg, a physicist instead of a biologist or paleontologist.) That's "many", not "all". Going down the list, Giaever started in superconductivity, and then went into biophysics. He now is an adviser for The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute received funding from Exxon, a fossil fuel business. Robert Laughlin, condensed matter physics. Frederick Seitz, solid state physics. He was founding chair of the George C. Marshall Institute, which received funding from Exxon-Mobil. Before getting CO2, he was one of the so-called "merchants of doubt" about the harmfulness of tobacco smoke. Richard Lindzen, a bona fide climate scientist. You know that because they wrote "an atmospheric physicist" instead of a generic "physicist" like the previous scientists. Fred Singer, another atmospheric scientist. Who "has been a paid consultant for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer . It's boring now, so I'll jump down the list to John Coleman, a weathercaster trained a journalist who, among other things, claims "the polar ice is increasing, not melting away" - an incorrect statement. He has never done any research in climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)#Views_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercast... Now, of course it isn't required that people be trained in field X to provide useful input or counter-point to that field. My point instead is that if the criteria for a "roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism" is so broad as to include people who have never done any scientific research in the field, or in the case of Coleman, never having done any scientific research at all, then you need to have a similarly inclusive definition when coming up with people who support "climate alarmism." It is a much larger number. Just like Project Steve.

airbreather 9y ago

I notice that once again one of the comments to the article raises the issue of glacier melt and automatically leaps to the conclusion it is caused by elevated CO2, when much evidence indicates it is due to soot - ://www.scientificamerican.com/article/subcontinental-smut-himalayas/# The plague of humans is causing a lot of problems for the planet, but it is essential to use good science to understand the real cause of problems so appropriate efforts can be made to minimise impact and not waste even more resources. Most things are not as simple as they may seem in the case of such complex systems, so undounded dogma that prevents good questioning science isn't going to help.

eesmith 9y ago
The only mention of "melting" in the comments is "the rate of both polar and ice sheet melting is worse than predicted." This was in the context of giving an example of a prediction that Gore made. The comment says nothing about CO2 vs. soot. If anything, soot may be the reason for the increased rate. You pointed to a SciAm article from 2009 concerning the Himalayas. I'll respond with a 2014 Guardian piece titled "Climate impact of black carbon severely overestimated, says study" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-impact-of-black-carbon-severely-overestimated-says-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-... Or this 2016 piece from the Earth Institute, citing research from 2013 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects... > a 2013 study estimated black carbon’s effect to be 1.1 watts per square meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56 watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it returns to earth with rain or snow. This appears to be a well-studied topic in climate research. It therefore makes no sense to point out a possible mistake or incomplete comment by a random someone from the internet as the basis for a call for "good scienc", nor does it justify accusations of "undounded [sic] dogma".
- airbreather 9y ago