3 ms·

If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make

If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make a prediction? Also, using the phrase "global warming denialist" distracts from your point. When some scientists thought neutrinos traveled faster than light, they weren't called "light speed denialists". Have some respect for alternate scientific opinions. The problem with GW predictions is that most of them are wrong and the ones that are correct aren't correct for the right reasons.

FD3SA 11y ago
As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued. Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life? It just doesn't seem plausible to me on an intuitive level. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work. In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this is all due to Al Gore and his "moment of genius" which instantly politicized the scientific process, thereby destroying any potential for real scientific progress through the feedback loop of empirical testing and model formation. If you disagreed with Al Gore's version of climate change, Al Gore's version of climate models, and Al Gore's version of climate science, you suddenly became a heretic "climate change denier". Alas, we humans really are terrible at science. 1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg 2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...
- hga 11y ago
  It happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth.... I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious global warming "scientist".
  - scarmig 11y ago
    I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. At this point, that should be worth at most an eye roll. But it bears re-iterating: never happened. Not true. And repeating it is dishonest.
    - hga 11y ago
      I guess it was just my imagination when I was coming of age starting in the late '60s.... Try again.
scarmig 11y ago
ESR is a global warming denialist. It's possible for people to publish hypotheses that don't support or that contradict climate change, but it's frankly playing it a bit too cute for you claim what he's doing at all approximates scientific discourse. Like, for real. He more or less explicitly lied when reviewing the stolen Climategate source code, very deliberately and consciously presenting commented out code in a way to deceive his audience and provide talking points for right wing media. And when called out on it, he refused to take it down or even acknowledge the critique. Unless you also think it's mean to call Rush Limbaugh a global warming denialist, calling ESR out on this is totally fair game. He's a hack. I wouldn't say the same thing of, say, Lindzen, but ESR is very committed to motivated, destroy-the-liberals reasoning, for the good of the Party.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  Precisely! I've know him since the early 80's. He went off the deep end on 2001/9/11.

FD3SA 11y ago

As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued. Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life? It just doesn't seem plausible to me on an intuitive level. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work. In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this is all due to Al Gore and his "moment of genius" which instantly politicized the scientific process, thereby destroying any potential for real scientific progress through the feedback loop of empirical testing and model formation. If you disagreed with Al Gore's version of climate change, Al Gore's version of climate models, and Al Gore's version of climate science, you suddenly became a heretic "climate change denier". Alas, we humans really are terrible at science. 1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg 2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...

hga 11y ago
It happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth.... I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious global warming "scientist".
- scarmig 11y ago
  I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. At this point, that should be worth at most an eye roll. But it bears re-iterating: never happened. Not true. And repeating it is dishonest.
  - hga 11y ago
    I guess it was just my imagination when I was coming of age starting in the late '60s.... Try again.

scarmig 11y ago

ESR is a global warming denialist. It's possible for people to publish hypotheses that don't support or that contradict climate change, but it's frankly playing it a bit too cute for you claim what he's doing at all approximates scientific discourse. Like, for real. He more or less explicitly lied when reviewing the stolen Climategate source code, very deliberately and consciously presenting commented out code in a way to deceive his audience and provide talking points for right wing media. And when called out on it, he refused to take it down or even acknowledge the critique. Unless you also think it's mean to call Rush Limbaugh a global warming denialist, calling ESR out on this is totally fair game. He's a hack. I wouldn't say the same thing of, say, Lindzen, but ESR is very committed to motivated, destroy-the-liberals reasoning, for the good of the Party.

DonHopkins 11y ago
Precisely! I've know him since the early 80's. He went off the deep end on 2001/9/11.