8 ms·

Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres

11 points by novalis78 7y ago

bristleworm 7y ago
From Wikipedia: "Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made to law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies" I'll just let this stand for itself...
- alecmg 7y ago
  Does labeling them wholesale as "having ties to deniers and oil and gas" make their arguments irrelevant?
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    It makes their arguments suspect. Money tends to have that effect.
    - ybalkind 7y ago
      There is money on both sides of the argument though. The following is from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-dangers-of-news-media-overplaying-climate-change/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-d... As climate scientist William Briggs observes: “Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda. “You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.” There are also innumerable “green technology” companies, from solar and wind energy manufacturers, to battery makers and electric car companies, to lithium miners and biofuel farmers, that benefit handsomely from climate alarmism, and donate freely to the groups that will advance their marketing shtick. There is arguably more money in green alarmism than there is in skepticism.
      - Beltiras 7y ago
        It took me a while to realize the conceit of this post. I took it seriously because you are absolutely right that there is money on both sides. The difference between the camps is that one has data supporting their argument while the other does not. Climate denial is supported by money and ignorance. Climate science is supported by a big grassroots efforts both by citizens and scientists AND the data. I hope in the long run this camp wins out because I would like my grandchildren to have a shot at correcting my generations mistakes. Here's Phil Plait tearing William Briggs apart [1]. If you can call him an authority on climate science, I can call the Bad Astronomer an authority on science discussion. [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-briggs/#.XZNUnh_nhhE http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-b...
        Yetanfou 7y ago
        You use terms like climate denial and climate science as if they mean something. You also simply state that we are right and they are wrong as well as give an emphasized hint that the data supports your claims. If you read what these people (and many others with them) say you'd see that they also claim their position is staved by the data. They call for an opportunity to discuss these matters in public, without being shunned in the way you just did. If their ideas are as faulty as you seem to think they are your side would have nothing to lose by going into this discussion. This rhetoric is part of what makes the 'climate change' movement look like a religion. Blind discipline, a statement of fact which can not be discussed, shunning of those who dare to differ, making a clear us versus them distinction with terms like climate science versus climate denial. You can even buy off you sins by paying for climate compensation. Yes, the climate is changing as it has been doing for as long as there is a climate. Human activity has influence over the climate in many ways ranging from soot deposits on snow and ice fields (which warms them up) through local warming by direct emission to the emission of IR-active gases like CO₂ and CH₄. The role of CO₂ is disputable, it is not a strong 'greenhouse gas'. CH₄ is a strong greenhouse gas, as is water vapour. Condensed water (in the form of clouds) has the opposite effect by raising the planet's albedo (reflection coefficient). The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen since the end of the little ice age, partly due to human activity by burning fossil fuels, partly due to the increase in sea water temperature. How much of the rise is due to human activity is unclear, estimates range from 15 ppm (i.e. hardly anything) to nearly everything. The models used by the IPCC are incomplete (as all models are) and the predicted rise in global temperature turned out to be overstated by a large margin. In 1972 a group of scientists at Brown University decided the science was clear on the fact that (I quote) the present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing as the present pace and sent a letter to then-president Nixon to warn him of the consequences of a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind. They were right in that a new ice will come but they were not correct in their estimate on when that would happen - Nixon did not have much to worry over in that respect. There was no global public internet in 1972, there were no social media, there was no opportunity for celebrities to signal their social engagement and virtue by standing up and proclaiming that the time had come for all good men and women to act now or risk freezing in the impeding global climate catastrophe. The ice age scare largely was confined to a group of scientists with a few articles popping up here and there about increasing glacial masses and early winter snows. Had there been a global public internet in the early 70's and had Joan Baez, Sly and the Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell and all the others spoken up... who knows what this would have led to. Imagine a second Woodstock 'for the climate', the public chanting 'no snow no snow no snow' instead of their previous rain-obverse incantation. Just imagine. Also, don't treat this subject like a religion. It isn't. It is an important subject which should be subjected to all the rigours of the scientific method. That method does not tolerate dogma nor the shunning of differing voices. It is the observation which disproves your hypothesis you want to look for, not the opposite.
  - DollarGuru 7y ago
    It certainly undermines their argument. Whether they are biased or not they are implicated in a conflict of interest.
    - tjansen 7y ago
      The other side argues that climate alarmists are often backed by organizations whose funding depends on the existence of a climate catastrophe. Without a looming catastrophe there would be less public funding and far fewer donations. I call it a draw.
      - happytoexplain 7y ago
        From personal observation only, the climate denial side seems to have fewer scientist in all, with less direct relationship to climate science on average, a more direct and pressing connection to their corresponding sources of bias, and with a greater proportion of those scientists who have that connection - and all those faults in a great majority. So, from my point of view, it doesn't seem like a draw when it comes to bad faith polluting each side of the conversation.
        tjansen 7y ago
        I agree that there are fewer climate scientists, but I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment. Unless the employer is on the climate denial side, in which case the critical scientist would be automatically discredited by being employed by the wrong side.
        Oletros 7y ago
        > I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment Are you saying that almost every climate scientist is a climate alarmist?
        7y ago
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Yes, pretty much. We have decades of experience with this. It's why scientists have to declare conflicts of interest: we know that it undermines their arguments.
  - Onanymous 7y ago
    Yes. Because the major selling point of it was linked to who actually made those arguments: "prominent scientists, etc". In fact there are very few scientists in the list, and I have not found a single "prominent" one.
sawaruna 7y ago
>A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout Well let's see who this is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout > Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor. Berkhout started his career working for Shell. > In 2019, Berkhout founded the climate change denial organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).
- ohduran 7y ago
  Sounds a lot like Thomas Midgley Jr[1], inventor of leaded gasoline - followed by a ferocious PR campaign against banning it, and CFCs - same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
  - rudiv 7y ago
    Somewhat fitting that he was killed by his own invention (not tetraethyllead or freon). I remember hearing about him from Stephen Fry on QI.
    - ohduran 7y ago
      A Brief History of Nearly Everything goes over the story. An amazing, very recommended read.
airbreather 7y ago
Interesting how challenging science is framed as "denial" rather than "questioning".
- Beltiras 7y ago
  Many of the signatories are not climate scientists. Lead signatory is an engineer that worked for oil and gas his entire life.
  - alecmg 7y ago
    I think that is actually a plus. Other scientists can see implications of zero-carbon laws to different aspects of economy and society.
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      I don't think economy or society will benefit in the long run from receding coastlines. The Greenland glacier is melting. From the bottom.
  - airbreather 7y ago
    Often the best questions come from someone outside the field. Just because someone has a degree in a certain subject does not make them the only one that can ask questions about that subject. This is called "White coat syndrome".
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      They are however most often answered by someone within the field. These folks are saying they have an answer, not a question.
    - colinb 7y ago
      "often" is a weasel word here. How about "sometimes"? Sometimes good questions come from outside a field. Nevertheless, when I'm suffering from a serious medical condition, I prefer to see a medical doctor. When my central heating packs up, I call a licensed gas-fitter. Argument from authority seems like a bad plan. But arguing against someone _because_ they have authority seems worse.
martincollignon 7y ago
I'm astonished by the randomness of expertise among the signees. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
I can't say much about the arguments themselves as I'm not competent enough, but many people on the list are not scientists, and many of those who are specialize in fields very distant from climate change.
jerome-jh 7y ago
"500 scientists and professionals" so title is voluntarily misleading. Overall there are much fewer than 50% physical science doctors.
- Beltiras 7y ago
  500 also sounds like so many when in reality it's a very small number.
Gys 7y ago
The misleading title has some suggestion the letter is from the UN. But its a letter send to the UN. The original title is 'Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres'. Already in the first sentence the story weakens further by explaining the 500 include 'professionals' as well - which can be anybody with a job, basicly.
berbec 7y ago
I guess we need a Project Steve [1] for climate change. 1: https://ncse.ngo/project-steve https://ncse.ngo/project-steve
RickJWagner 7y ago
I wish we could stop attacking the character of the scientists and instead consider the merit of their arguments. I find it disturbing that so many people criticize some of the signers for ties to gas and oil, or to 'denier' groups. Yes, that just means they have had reason to study the issues. It does not mean they are evil or crazy. Does what they say make sense?
- ryansmccoy 7y ago
  This is an interesting point. I know nothing about climate science but do know a little about human behavior. I often had to figure out whether I thought a CEO was good at running a company or full of shit. So, the difficult part for me is figuring out what is true. One thing I often try to figure out who/what is incentivizing/motivating people to hold their viewpoint. While it's easy for people to see the oil/gas money, isn't the other side, and obviously, correct me if I’m wrong, also being incentivized/motivated by grants for academic studying and clean energy companies? Another thing I often look at is the track record of people, especially if they are making predictions about the future. I’ve found that it’s a good indicator of how they will act in the future.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  What arguments are they actually making? There is just declaration without any references. Nothing to argue against, besides blunt lies like: "Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04... The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. You should take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_...
Isinlor 7y ago
This is a list of 500 liars and useful idiots. "Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." Calibrating climate change response is difficult, counting papers and surveying small populations is not. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04... The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Please, also take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_...
lerno 7y ago
... and then the actual arguments included are basically things already convincingly refuted. But hey, repeat a lie enough times...

11 points by novalis78 7y ago

From Wikipedia: "Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made to law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies" I'll just let this stand for itself...

alecmg 7y ago
Does labeling them wholesale as "having ties to deniers and oil and gas" make their arguments irrelevant?
- Beltiras 7y ago
  It makes their arguments suspect. Money tends to have that effect.
  - ybalkind 7y ago
    There is money on both sides of the argument though. The following is from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-dangers-of-news-media-overplaying-climate-change/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-d... As climate scientist William Briggs observes: “Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda. “You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.” There are also innumerable “green technology” companies, from solar and wind energy manufacturers, to battery makers and electric car companies, to lithium miners and biofuel farmers, that benefit handsomely from climate alarmism, and donate freely to the groups that will advance their marketing shtick. There is arguably more money in green alarmism than there is in skepticism.
    - Beltiras 7y ago
      It took me a while to realize the conceit of this post. I took it seriously because you are absolutely right that there is money on both sides. The difference between the camps is that one has data supporting their argument while the other does not. Climate denial is supported by money and ignorance. Climate science is supported by a big grassroots efforts both by citizens and scientists AND the data. I hope in the long run this camp wins out because I would like my grandchildren to have a shot at correcting my generations mistakes. Here's Phil Plait tearing William Briggs apart [1]. If you can call him an authority on climate science, I can call the Bad Astronomer an authority on science discussion. [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-briggs/#.XZNUnh_nhhE http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-b...
      - Yetanfou 7y ago
        You use terms like climate denial and climate science as if they mean something. You also simply state that we are right and they are wrong as well as give an emphasized hint that the data supports your claims. If you read what these people (and many others with them) say you'd see that they also claim their position is staved by the data. They call for an opportunity to discuss these matters in public, without being shunned in the way you just did. If their ideas are as faulty as you seem to think they are your side would have nothing to lose by going into this discussion. This rhetoric is part of what makes the 'climate change' movement look like a religion. Blind discipline, a statement of fact which can not be discussed, shunning of those who dare to differ, making a clear us versus them distinction with terms like climate science versus climate denial. You can even buy off you sins by paying for climate compensation. Yes, the climate is changing as it has been doing for as long as there is a climate. Human activity has influence over the climate in many ways ranging from soot deposits on snow and ice fields (which warms them up) through local warming by direct emission to the emission of IR-active gases like CO₂ and CH₄. The role of CO₂ is disputable, it is not a strong 'greenhouse gas'. CH₄ is a strong greenhouse gas, as is water vapour. Condensed water (in the form of clouds) has the opposite effect by raising the planet's albedo (reflection coefficient). The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen since the end of the little ice age, partly due to human activity by burning fossil fuels, partly due to the increase in sea water temperature. How much of the rise is due to human activity is unclear, estimates range from 15 ppm (i.e. hardly anything) to nearly everything. The models used by the IPCC are incomplete (as all models are) and the predicted rise in global temperature turned out to be overstated by a large margin. In 1972 a group of scientists at Brown University decided the science was clear on the fact that (I quote) the present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing as the present pace and sent a letter to then-president Nixon to warn him of the consequences of a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind. They were right in that a new ice will come but they were not correct in their estimate on when that would happen - Nixon did not have much to worry over in that respect. There was no global public internet in 1972, there were no social media, there was no opportunity for celebrities to signal their social engagement and virtue by standing up and proclaiming that the time had come for all good men and women to act now or risk freezing in the impeding global climate catastrophe. The ice age scare largely was confined to a group of scientists with a few articles popping up here and there about increasing glacial masses and early winter snows. Had there been a global public internet in the early 70's and had Joan Baez, Sly and the Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell and all the others spoken up... who knows what this would have led to. Imagine a second Woodstock 'for the climate', the public chanting 'no snow no snow no snow' instead of their previous rain-obverse incantation. Just imagine. Also, don't treat this subject like a religion. It isn't. It is an important subject which should be subjected to all the rigours of the scientific method. That method does not tolerate dogma nor the shunning of differing voices. It is the observation which disproves your hypothesis you want to look for, not the opposite.
- DollarGuru 7y ago
  It certainly undermines their argument. Whether they are biased or not they are implicated in a conflict of interest.
  - tjansen 7y ago
    The other side argues that climate alarmists are often backed by organizations whose funding depends on the existence of a climate catastrophe. Without a looming catastrophe there would be less public funding and far fewer donations. I call it a draw.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      From personal observation only, the climate denial side seems to have fewer scientist in all, with less direct relationship to climate science on average, a more direct and pressing connection to their corresponding sources of bias, and with a greater proportion of those scientists who have that connection - and all those faults in a great majority. So, from my point of view, it doesn't seem like a draw when it comes to bad faith polluting each side of the conversation.
      - tjansen 7y ago
        I agree that there are fewer climate scientists, but I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment. Unless the employer is on the climate denial side, in which case the critical scientist would be automatically discredited by being employed by the wrong side.
        Oletros 7y ago
        > I would also expect that any climate scientist who is not also a climate alarmist would have no chance of employment Are you saying that almost every climate scientist is a climate alarmist?
        7y ago
- DanBC 7y ago
  Yes, pretty much. We have decades of experience with this. It's why scientists have to declare conflicts of interest: we know that it undermines their arguments.
- Onanymous 7y ago
  Yes. Because the major selling point of it was linked to who actually made those arguments: "prominent scientists, etc". In fact there are very few scientists in the list, and I have not found a single "prominent" one.

sawaruna 7y ago

>A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout Well let's see who this is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout > Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor. Berkhout started his career working for Shell. > In 2019, Berkhout founded the climate change denial organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).

ohduran 7y ago
Sounds a lot like Thomas Midgley Jr[1], inventor of leaded gasoline - followed by a ferocious PR campaign against banning it, and CFCs - same. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
- rudiv 7y ago
  Somewhat fitting that he was killed by his own invention (not tetraethyllead or freon). I remember hearing about him from Stephen Fry on QI.
  - ohduran 7y ago
    A Brief History of Nearly Everything goes over the story. An amazing, very recommended read.

airbreather 7y ago

Interesting how challenging science is framed as "denial" rather than "questioning".

Beltiras 7y ago
Many of the signatories are not climate scientists. Lead signatory is an engineer that worked for oil and gas his entire life.
- alecmg 7y ago
  I think that is actually a plus. Other scientists can see implications of zero-carbon laws to different aspects of economy and society.
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    I don't think economy or society will benefit in the long run from receding coastlines. The Greenland glacier is melting. From the bottom.
- airbreather 7y ago
  Often the best questions come from someone outside the field. Just because someone has a degree in a certain subject does not make them the only one that can ask questions about that subject. This is called "White coat syndrome".
  - Beltiras 7y ago
    They are however most often answered by someone within the field. These folks are saying they have an answer, not a question.
  - colinb 7y ago
    "often" is a weasel word here. How about "sometimes"? Sometimes good questions come from outside a field. Nevertheless, when I'm suffering from a serious medical condition, I prefer to see a medical doctor. When my central heating packs up, I call a licensed gas-fitter. Argument from authority seems like a bad plan. But arguing against someone _because_ they have authority seems worse.

martincollignon 7y ago

I'm astonished by the randomness of expertise among the signees. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse...

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

I can't say much about the arguments themselves as I'm not competent enough, but many people on the list are not scientists, and many of those who are specialize in fields very distant from climate change.

jerome-jh 7y ago

"500 scientists and professionals" so title is voluntarily misleading. Overall there are much fewer than 50% physical science doctors.

Beltiras 7y ago
500 also sounds like so many when in reality it's a very small number.

Gys 7y ago

The misleading title has some suggestion the letter is from the UN. But its a letter send to the UN. The original title is 'Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres'. Already in the first sentence the story weakens further by explaining the 500 include 'professionals' as well - which can be anybody with a job, basicly.

berbec 7y ago

I guess we need a Project Steve [1] for climate change. 1: https://ncse.ngo/project-steve https://ncse.ngo/project-steve

RickJWagner 7y ago

I wish we could stop attacking the character of the scientists and instead consider the merit of their arguments. I find it disturbing that so many people criticize some of the signers for ties to gas and oil, or to 'denier' groups. Yes, that just means they have had reason to study the issues. It does not mean they are evil or crazy. Does what they say make sense?

ryansmccoy 7y ago
This is an interesting point. I know nothing about climate science but do know a little about human behavior. I often had to figure out whether I thought a CEO was good at running a company or full of shit. So, the difficult part for me is figuring out what is true. One thing I often try to figure out who/what is incentivizing/motivating people to hold their viewpoint. While it's easy for people to see the oil/gas money, isn't the other side, and obviously, correct me if I’m wrong, also being incentivized/motivated by grants for academic studying and clean energy companies? Another thing I often look at is the track record of people, especially if they are making predictions about the future. I’ve found that it’s a good indicator of how they will act in the future.
Isinlor 7y ago
What arguments are they actually making? There is just declaration without any references. Nothing to argue against, besides blunt lies like: "Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04... The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. You should take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_...

Isinlor 7y ago

This is a list of 500 liars and useful idiots. "Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic." Calibrating climate change response is difficult, counting papers and surveying small populations is not. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04... The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686 The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Please, also take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_...

lerno 7y ago

... and then the actual arguments included are basically things already convincingly refuted. But hey, repeat a lie enough times...