4 ms·

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility

20 points by stephth 14y ago

temphn 14y ago
This is an actual email: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5718 http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5718 From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 ... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! ... Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED University of East Anglia
- MaysonL 14y ago
  to fill in the ... The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
- cpleppert 14y ago
  ....and they were included anyway
- guelo 14y ago
  Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.
raverbashing 14y ago
Appeal to authority anyone? Or maybe Appeal to the people? If you want a better chart for climate change, the hockey stick should do (or better ones of climate data if you have, of course) But all this is saying is "our team is bigger than the other team". Peer review? Great, who are the peers? Oh the same people that are in favor of climate change theories? Interesting...
- MaysonL 14y ago
  climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
  - maratd 14y ago
    > climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that. > We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex. > Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming. No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic, I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
      - maratd 14y ago
        > Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me. > I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming? The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot. It's global climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
steve19 14y ago
Uh, I have not met anyone who denies climate. As for people who deny climate change, I have found they generally question the effect humans have had on the climate and/or the extent to which we can alter the climate if we wanted and/or how much the climate has changed relative to other periods in recent and ancient history and/or the extent that unchecked climate change will have on the earth/humankind.
- guelo 14y ago
  All of them are so high minded? Tons of people say global warming is not happening and it is a liberal conspiracy to take over our lives and destroy our freedoms and 'murica fuck yea and blah blah blah.
  - abrown28 14y ago
    probably wouldn't say that if the liberals weren't using it as an excuse to take over more of our lives and destroy our freedoms.
Alaskan005 14y ago
This is dumb. I thought he was going to show a chart that showed that humans are responsible for it, not that most scientists agree. A few centuries ago they just asked the Pope, simpler process.:) They are two types of deniers: we have the earth is not warming type, "Look it snowed in Colorado, we're warming uh?" and two those that say it's a natural process and point to the charts where earth went through cycles on it's own over the millions of years. (Personally I buy the CO2 layer that act as a sheet acts on us during the night.)
jk4930 14y ago
And how many of those articles are true climate research and not from the bandwagon around? The whole crowd that does mitigation and adaption research aren't climate scientists but geologists, hydrologists, even social scientists. And it's often seen as necessary to get your topic X through is to frame it under "X under effects of climate change" or so. I did this once in 2005 when I published a paper on epidemiology and included some references to effects of climate change because the WHO promoted it at this time.
bmmayer1 14y ago
The credibility of dissenters has nothing to do with the size of their group, especially in matters of science. If there is one heretic among 20,000 in the orthodoxy, and that heretic has better evidence, then the heretic is more credible. Not that I doubt the confidence of a 20,000 strong wall of scientists, but I won't discount the credibility of dissenters just because there are fewer of them. That's intellectually dishonest.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fleitz 14y ago
Funny how peer reviewed journals by a vast majority who support global warming exclude opinions to the contrary, especially when the peers in those journals are willing to redefine what peer review means to keep papers they don't like out. It's really too bad the industrial revolution didn't start 200 years earlier.
lukifer 14y ago
Fact? Theory? Pfft. Science is a pipeline: a distillation process. Half-assed conjecture goes in one end, and a mostly-reliable consensus comes out the other. But for the pipeline to work, no conjecture should be dismissed without consideration, and no consensus should ever be immune from entering the pipeline yet again for re-examination. Is climate change happening? Definitely. Is human activity a major cause? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't mean that skeptics and dissenters should be vilified and excluded a priori, even if they're deluded, purchased, or flat-out wrong. The leap we should be taking is thinking probabilistically: we may lack the ability to model the climate with perfect accuracy, but given that the data we do have indicates that climate change is extremely likely to be human-related, what can we do to act on that likelihood while we continue to refine the science, including the dissenters in that process?
rpm4321 14y ago
I think where people get into trouble in this whole debate is by taking one of two binary positions: Climate Change is a fraud, or Climate Change will turn Earth into a Martian hellscape within a century. Both are absurd, and are simply for either PR or negotiating purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems to me that the most sensible solution would actually be out of the libertarian playbook: an ironclad 50-year tax holiday on all revenue generated from both the production of carbon-neutral energy and the manufacture of clean energy generating equipment. You would get a massive investment in clean energy R&D, especially by those who can afford it like Big Oil and OPEC, without the potentially massive drag on the economy that carbon caps or tax schemes would create. I think this seemingly obvious solution is ignored because free market solutions are anathema to the left, and because the right could give a rat's ass.
tagada 14y ago
There is some "climate deniers" ...? Huh, that's really interesting actually. I didn't think one could denied the whole climate. Anyway, the problem isn't if there is a global warming or not, but if it's normal or not. The earth is warming globally since 200 centuries, after the last glacial maximum. It's a natural process. Still, 20 years ago, we were afraid by the next, soon, glacial period and the global cooling ... Tons of documentaries tried to afraid people with that. You know, the first to sponsor Global Warming theories and the IPCC was Margaret Tatcher, when she wanted to convince to vote the budget for a nuclear plant. It's all about energy and money, that's it. Even geologists must eat. And it's so easy to have a proposal approved if it begins with "the effect on the climate change on [paste anything here]". Easy.
iterationx 14y ago
People who call their ideological adversaries "Deniers" have no credibility. Feel free to persuade the community with science and not propaganda.
NeonDark 14y ago
"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

20 points by stephth 14y ago

This is an actual email: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5718 http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5718 From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 ... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I [Phil Jones] will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! ... Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED University of East Anglia

MaysonL 14y ago
to fill in the ... The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
cpleppert 14y ago
....and they were included anyway
guelo 14y ago
Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

raverbashing 14y ago

Appeal to authority anyone? Or maybe Appeal to the people? If you want a better chart for climate change, the hockey stick should do (or better ones of climate data if you have, of course) But all this is saying is "our team is bigger than the other team". Peer review? Great, who are the peers? Oh the same people that are in favor of climate change theories? Interesting...

MaysonL 14y ago
climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
- maratd 14y ago
  > climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that. > We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex. > Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming. No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic, I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
    - maratd 14y ago
      > Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me. > I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming? The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot. It's global climate change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

steve19 14y ago

Uh, I have not met anyone who denies climate. As for people who deny climate change, I have found they generally question the effect humans have had on the climate and/or the extent to which we can alter the climate if we wanted and/or how much the climate has changed relative to other periods in recent and ancient history and/or the extent that unchecked climate change will have on the earth/humankind.

guelo 14y ago
All of them are so high minded? Tons of people say global warming is not happening and it is a liberal conspiracy to take over our lives and destroy our freedoms and 'murica fuck yea and blah blah blah.
- abrown28 14y ago
  probably wouldn't say that if the liberals weren't using it as an excuse to take over more of our lives and destroy our freedoms.

Alaskan005 14y ago

This is dumb. I thought he was going to show a chart that showed that humans are responsible for it, not that most scientists agree. A few centuries ago they just asked the Pope, simpler process.:) They are two types of deniers: we have the earth is not warming type, "Look it snowed in Colorado, we're warming uh?" and two those that say it's a natural process and point to the charts where earth went through cycles on it's own over the millions of years. (Personally I buy the CO2 layer that act as a sheet acts on us during the night.)

jk4930 14y ago

And how many of those articles are true climate research and not from the bandwagon around? The whole crowd that does mitigation and adaption research aren't climate scientists but geologists, hydrologists, even social scientists. And it's often seen as necessary to get your topic X through is to frame it under "X under effects of climate change" or so. I did this once in 2005 when I published a paper on epidemiology and included some references to effects of climate change because the WHO promoted it at this time.

bmmayer1 14y ago

The credibility of dissenters has nothing to do with the size of their group, especially in matters of science. If there is one heretic among 20,000 in the orthodoxy, and that heretic has better evidence, then the heretic is more credible. Not that I doubt the confidence of a 20,000 strong wall of scientists, but I won't discount the credibility of dissenters just because there are fewer of them. That's intellectually dishonest.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

fleitz 14y ago

Funny how peer reviewed journals by a vast majority who support global warming exclude opinions to the contrary, especially when the peers in those journals are willing to redefine what peer review means to keep papers they don't like out. It's really too bad the industrial revolution didn't start 200 years earlier.

lukifer 14y ago

Fact? Theory? Pfft. Science is a pipeline: a distillation process. Half-assed conjecture goes in one end, and a mostly-reliable consensus comes out the other. But for the pipeline to work, no conjecture should be dismissed without consideration, and no consensus should ever be immune from entering the pipeline yet again for re-examination. Is climate change happening? Definitely. Is human activity a major cause? Undoubtedly. But that doesn't mean that skeptics and dissenters should be vilified and excluded a priori, even if they're deluded, purchased, or flat-out wrong. The leap we should be taking is thinking probabilistically: we may lack the ability to model the climate with perfect accuracy, but given that the data we do have indicates that climate change is extremely likely to be human-related, what can we do to act on that likelihood while we continue to refine the science, including the dissenters in that process?

rpm4321 14y ago

I think where people get into trouble in this whole debate is by taking one of two binary positions: Climate Change is a fraud, or Climate Change will turn Earth into a Martian hellscape within a century. Both are absurd, and are simply for either PR or negotiating purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously. It seems to me that the most sensible solution would actually be out of the libertarian playbook: an ironclad 50-year tax holiday on all revenue generated from both the production of carbon-neutral energy and the manufacture of clean energy generating equipment. You would get a massive investment in clean energy R&D, especially by those who can afford it like Big Oil and OPEC, without the potentially massive drag on the economy that carbon caps or tax schemes would create. I think this seemingly obvious solution is ignored because free market solutions are anathema to the left, and because the right could give a rat's ass.

tagada 14y ago

There is some "climate deniers" ...? Huh, that's really interesting actually. I didn't think one could denied the whole climate. Anyway, the problem isn't if there is a global warming or not, but if it's normal or not. The earth is warming globally since 200 centuries, after the last glacial maximum. It's a natural process. Still, 20 years ago, we were afraid by the next, soon, glacial period and the global cooling ... Tons of documentaries tried to afraid people with that. You know, the first to sponsor Global Warming theories and the IPCC was Margaret Tatcher, when she wanted to convince to vote the budget for a nuclear plant. It's all about energy and money, that's it. Even geologists must eat. And it's so easy to have a proposal approved if it begins with "the effect on the climate change on [paste anything here]". Easy.

iterationx 14y ago

People who call their ideological adversaries "Deniers" have no credibility. Feel free to persuade the community with science and not propaganda.

NeonDark 14y ago

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."