Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

And, currently, there is scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC. Your point? That we blindly follow the current orthodoxy, even in the face of reasonable disagreement?

You see, while it can be definitively proven the Earth is round, the same cannot be said of the causes, extent, or impact of AGCC -- or if man or CO2 even have a significant impact on the manner in which climate changes.

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is ty reasoning. It is obviously ty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is ty reasoning. Think hard.

[boutons_deux]

Scientists Solve 22 Million-Year-Old Climate Puzzle --"Paleoclimate Events Can Predict Earth's Future"

The modern link between high carbon dioxide levels and climate change didn't appear to hold true for a time interval about 22 million years ago;

but now a new study has found the link does indeed exist, settling a prehistoric puzzle, confirming the modern link

"Previous work reported a variety of results and conflicting data about carbon dioxide concentrations at the two intervals of time that we studied," he said.

"But tighter control on the age of our fossils helped us to address whether or not atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration corresponded to warming --

which itself is independently well-do ented in geochemical studies of marine fossils in ocean sediments."

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/11/scientists-solve-22-million-year-old-climate-puzzle-paleoclimate-events-can-predict-earths-future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed& utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetE arthBeyond+%28The+Daily+Galaxy+--Great+Discoveries+Channel%3A+Sci%2C+Space%2C+Tech. %29

[Yonivore]

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is ty reasoning. It is obviously ty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is ty reasoning. Think hard.

Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

That there is significant scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC, it is reasonable to believe the position with which you agree is wrong.

And, on spurraider21's puzzle analogy; he added a fifth piece to his four piece puzzle by whipping out the El Nino element to explain the "pause." My point being, there isn't a simple answer to what drives climate. In fact, there are scientists, much smarter than you or I, that have concluded all the factors involved in making up our global climate are currently beyond the capability of science to model or predict with any degree of accuracy. And, if I'm not mistaken, many of the model have, in fact, been wrong and the IPCC has had to adjust their predictions for the century.

Bottom line, the science isn't settled.

For instance; we've been led to believe Antarctic melting and the calving of huge ice sheets is due to AGCC. Well, today we have an article, from NASA, that forwards an alternative explanation for all the melting.

Hot News from the Antarctic Underground

In fact, there are all sorts of things that have been blamed on AGCC only to be refuted by science later; from the snows leaving Kilimanjaro to the decline in polar bears.

The skepticism is warranted. And, only more so that some governments are trying to criminalize such dissent.

[spurraider21]

Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

That there is significant scientific disagreement over the cause, extent, and impact of AGCC, it is reasonable to believe the position with which you agree is wrong.

And, on spurraider21's puzzle analogy; he added a fifth piece to his four piece puzzle by whipping out the El Nino element to explain the "pause." My point being, there isn't a simple answer to what drives climate. In fact, there are scientists, much smarter than you or I, that have concluded all the factors involved in making up our global climate are currently beyond the capability of science to model or predict with any degree of accuracy. And, if I'm not mistaken, many of the model have, in fact, been wrong and the IPCC has had to adjust their predictions for the century.

Bottom line, the science isn't settled.

For instance; we've been led to believe Antarctic melting and the calving of huge ice sheets is due to AGCC. Well, today we have an article, from NASA, that forwards an alternative explanation for all the melting.

Hot News from the Antarctic Underground

In fact, there are all sorts of things that have been blamed on AGCC only to be refuted by science later; from the snows leaving Kilimanjaro to the decline in polar bears.

The skepticism is warranted. And, only more so that some governments are trying to criminalize such dissent.

so how do you pick and choose when you decide a nasa article is credible?

[Yonivore]

so how do you pick and choose when you decide a nasa article is credible?

How do you? Are you suggesting this one isn't?

Is this article legitimate and does it tend to counter the earlier statements the melting was as a result of AGCC?

Just asking.

[spurraider21]

How do you? Are you suggesting this one isn't?

Is this article legitimate and does it tend to counter the earlier statements the melting was as a result of AGCC?

Just asking.

1) i don't pick and choose. If an article has been retracted or shown to be inaccurate/outdated by a future study, that would be it.
2) this article is legitimate. I don't think it counters it. The article states it contributed to earlier melting and could help explain the resulting instability we now observe. It doesn't rule out agw as a cause or trigger

[Yonivore]

1) i don't pick and choose. If an article has been retracted or shown to be inaccurate/outdated by a future study, that would be it.
2) this article is legitimate. I don't think it counters it. The article states it contributed to earlier melting and could help explain the resulting instability we now observe. It doesn't rule out agw as a cause or trigger

It doesn't rule it in either. As I said, it's an alternative explanation - - as in, alternative to AGCC causing the Antarctic to melt.

Will you at least admit your four piece puzzle analogy was an over-simplification of the issue. It's not as simple as determining the shape of the planet and there are a mul ude of factors that affect global climate -- not all of which can be accurately measured or judged.

[RandomGuy]

Since, you didn't really answer my question, I will have to assume you don't realize that the statement "science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"...

Is ty reasoning. It is obviously ty reasoning. So let's walk through it simply and concentrate on this one thing, we don't even need to play dueling graphs.

Tell me why this statement is ty reasoning. Think hard.

Help me out. I think the reasoning is sound.

[links, climate change bla bla bla, no answer to this request question].

Evasiveness, when asked a direct question makes you look dishonest.

Do you understand that?

Once more, is the statement:

"science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"

a logical one? Why or why not?

[Yonivore]

Evasiveness, when asked a direct question makes you look dishonest.

Do you understand that?

I don't remember the direct question.

Is this to what you're referring?

"You do realize this is ty reasoning, right?"

I thought that was rhetorical.

Once more, is the statement:

"science has been wrong in the past, so it we need to not believe them at all when it comes to this"

a logical one? Why or why not?

Oh, this one.

You weren't quoting me and I've never held that position.

And, no, it's not a logical statement.

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.

[spurraider21]

It doesn't rule it in either. As I said, it's an alternative explanation - - as in, alternative to AGCC causing the Antarctic to melt.

Will you at least admit your four piece puzzle analogy was an over-simplification of the issue. It's not as simple as determining the shape of the planet and there are a mul ude of factors that affect global climate -- not all of which can be accurately measured or judged.

I don't see why you make the assumption it's either/or. They don't seem to.

The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts

[Yonivore]

I don't see why you make the assumption it's either/or. They don't seem to.

I'm not suggesting it's "either/or" just that there may be more complexity to global climate than can be encapsulated by one theory. In fact, there's is a reasonable argument made that it is, at best, unclear whether or not man has any significant impact on climate or that a warmer planet is necessarily a bad thing.

The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts

Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

[RandomGuy]

I don't remember the direct question.

Is this to what you're referring?


I thought that was rhetorical.


Oh, this one.

You weren't quoting me and I've never held that position.

And, no, it's not a logical statement.

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.

we've lived through these Henny Penny sky-is-falling predictions before; on global cooling, global population, global droughts, etc... Maybe the "scientific" community has cried Wolf one to many times.

"they were wrong before, so they are wrong now", is the implication, a standard tack for denialism, and quackery of all sorts.

[RandomGuy]

What I said was reasonable... When you have significant scientific disagreement over something, it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

I currently find the position of AGCC Skeptics more reasonable that those of AGCC Proponents.

More failed reasoning.

If your assertion were valid, it should hold no matter what the "something" is.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [the earth being flat or spherical], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [evolution or creationism], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [cigarette smoking being beneficial or causing cancer], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

Your failure here, is in proving there is "significant scientific disagreement" over this, because it seems like you are attempting to paint a false equivalence here.

Muddy the waters. Lather, spin, repeat.

"A tiny minority of people who study topic X are more credible than the vast majority of experts in the field" would seem to require a pretty high bar of evidence.

When your "skeptics" are shown to pretty consistently cherry pick data in a dishonest way, that should cause anyone some pause.

Why do you post blogs from people who so obviously cherry-pick the data, over comprehensive analysis?

[RandomGuy]

The puzzle piece analogy was meant to demonstrate the separate importance of a fact/evidence from a theory/explanation with predictive capabilities. So if I form a theory that the puzzle image is a cat, i can probably predict that one of the remaining pieces will contain whiskers. That predictive capability had more value than a random collection of facts
Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

Ho-lee , Batman, that was some sophistic ery right there.

Are you trying to say we have 0.0004% of the climate puzzle? Our knowledge is that limited after decades of research, tens of thousands of climate papers, and the ac ulation of all of that into a coherent body of work from multiple lines of evidence from a variety of fields and disciplines all pointing to a general conclusion?

I might not know what the ultimate percentage is, but us only having .00004% of the climate puzzle, is stupid. That isn't how science works.

[Yonivore]

"they were wrong before, so they are wrong now", is the implication, a standard tack for denialism, and quackery of all sorts.

Nope, never inferred it and you putting it in quote is disingenuous. My assertion is is reasonable to believe they are wrong about AGCC was not predicated on being wrong in the past but on the contemporaneous beliefs of scientists who say they're wrong now.

If you're referring to my invoking previous errors, (i.e. global cooling, population-induced starvation, etc...), your premise only holds if it is the same scientists making the predictions of catastrophic AGCC that made those predictions. I believe some are the same but, because I don't know, I can't make that assertion.

[Yonivore]

More failed reasoning.

If your assertion were valid, it should hold no matter what the "something" is.

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [the earth being flat or spherical], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

Is there significant scientific disagreement over the shape of the planet?

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [evolution or creationism], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

Is there significant scientific disagreement over the evolution vs. creationism?

When you have significant scientific disagreement over [cigarette smoking being beneficial or causing cancer], it is reasonable to believe either side could be wrong.

Is there significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes?

Your failure here, is in proving there is "significant scientific disagreement" over this, because it seems like you are attempting to paint a false equivalence here.

Muddy the waters. Lather, spin, repeat.

"A tiny minority of people who study topic X are more credible than the vast majority of experts in the field" would seem to require a pretty high bar of evidence.

When your "skeptics" are shown to pretty consistently cherry pick data in a dishonest way, that should cause anyone some pause.

Why do you post blogs from people who so obviously cherry-pick the data, over comprehensive analysis?

Except the "vast majority of experts in the field" (that's how you quote someone), don't agree on AGCC.

The 97% consensus farce has been exposed as just that.

Truth be told, there are as many expert opinions on global climate science, its influences, its causes, and its components, as there are scientific disciplines; varying from man has little to no impact on climate to man is the main driver of climate.

[Yonivore]

Ho-lee , Batman, that was some sophistic ery right there.

Are you trying to say we have 0.0004% of the climate puzzle? Our knowledge is that limited after decades of research, tens of thousands of climate papers, and the ac ulation of all of that into a coherent body of work from multiple lines of evidence from a variety of fields and disciplines all pointing to a general conclusion?

If was an exaggerated point, RG. But, yes, I believe it's been asserted by scientists that not enough is known about the climate to be able to accurately predict the future.

I might not know what the ultimate percentage is, but us only having .00004% of the climate puzzle, is stupid. That isn't how science works.

Hey, it wasn't my analogy.

[spurraider21]

I'm not suggesting it's "either/or" just that there may be more complexity to global climate than can be encapsulated by one theory. In fact, there's is a reasonable argument made that it is, at best, unclear whether or not man has any significant impact on climate or that a warmer planet is necessarily a bad thing.


Except your four pieces are only four of a million-piece puzzle. Therefore, it would be impossible to predict what the finished puzzle would look like.

I don't think the theory has ever been that agw is the only thing affecting our climate.

We've been collecting puzzle pieces for a long time. When you have enough you go from a hypothesis to a theory. A vast majority of scientists on the subject seem to have a good idea of what the final picture is, and the every subsequent puzzle piece we've found has been able to fit into that picture

[RandomGuy]

If was an exaggerated point, RG. But, yes, I believe it's been asserted by scientists that not enough is known about the climate to be able to accurately predict the future.
Hey, it wasn't my analogy.

Science works by an ac ulation of information. The uncertainty, as time progresses, tends to dissolve, as less likely things fall away, and we are left with the most likely hypothesis. A collapsing field of potentiality.

We know the planet is warming.

Alternate causes as to why are few and none of them have, to date, adequately explained the trend, Wild Cobra's amateurish hand-waving aside.

Why do you put so much stock in "skeptics" who consistently show themselves to be dishonest?

[spurraider21]

Science works by an ac ulation of information. The uncertainty, as time progresses, tends to dissolve, as less likely things fall away, and we are left with the most likely hypothesis. A collapsing field of potentiality.

We know the planet is warming.

Alternate causes as to why are few and none of them have, to date, adequately explained the trend, Wild Cobra's amateurish hand-waving aside.

Why do you put so much stock in "skeptics" who consistently show themselves to be dishonest?

Because liberals are on the other side

[RandomGuy]

Is there significant scientific disagreement over the shape of the planet?


Is there significant scientific disagreement over the evolution vs. creationism?


Is there significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes?


Except the "vast majority of experts in the field" (that's how you quote someone), don't agree on AGCC.

The 97% consensus farce has been exposed as just that.

Truth be told, there are as many expert opinions on global climate science, its influences, its causes, and its components, as there are scientific disciplines; varying from man has little to no impact on climate to man is the main driver of climate.

You tell me. They are your weasel words. Your claim, your burden of proof, including defining terms.

Define "significant scientific disagreement"

[Yonivore]

You tell me. They are your weasel words. Your claim, your burden of proof, including defining terms.

Okay, I'll tell you.

There is no significant scientific disagreement over the shop of the planet.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over evolution vs. creationism.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes.

Define "significant scientific disagreement"

Judith Curry and any other scientist of her caliber that disagrees with the current orthodoxy on global climate is "significant scientific disagreement."

[RandomGuy]

Because liberals are on the other side

That's what boggles my mind, is how delusions like this can be maintained.

Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Everybody else: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Everybody else: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Everybody else: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change

[Yonivore]

That's what boggles my mind, is how delusions like this can be maintained.

Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: okaaay, such as?
Y: here is an article by a skeptic making a good point
Somebody in the Spurstalk Political Forum: that article uses flawed reasoning, and dishonestly presents data.
Y: but all the other skeptics use such good reasoning they are more credible than the scientists saying humans are driving climate change

There, fixed.

So, about this "vast majority of experts in the field," and the so-call "consensus" on global climate science.

A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging

[T]he debate over the hiatus/pause in global temperature increase was not invented by fossil fuel interests, but is a subject of genuine scientific disagreement (Medhaug, Stople, Fischer, & Knutti, 2017). Second, there is increasing expert debate regarding how much carbon dioxide can be emitted while keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C (Millar, et al., 2017a, 2017b; Peters, 2017; Rathi 2017). For climate scientists, there is no obvious consensus about questions such as these. On the other hand, Cook, Oreskes and others persists in messaging the minimalist fact that human influence on a changing climate is uncontroversial amongst scientists.

You've fallen just short of calling me a denier (and, frankly, I'm surprised you haven't) when all I've asserted is skepticism is reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I'll tell you.

There is no significant scientific disagreement over the shop of the planet.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over evolution vs. creationism.
There is no significant scientific disagreement over the benefits of smoking cigarettes.

Judith Curry and any other scientist of her caliber that disagrees with the current orthodoxy on global climate is "significant scientific disagreement."

Not really a working definition of "significant scientific disagreement".

She doesn't really disagree that humans are driving warming. You do understand that right?