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

[Yonivore]

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

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

I think her views are reasonable and consistent with what I've been trying to express here.

From an NPR Article:

"...she doesn't deny the basic principles of climate change.

"'If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,' she told the committee.

"But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.

"And she focuses on uncertainties and unknown unknowns far more than on the consensus of climate scientists, who say we know enough to be deeply worried.

"'I've been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties,' she told the committee."

Seems reasonable.

"Curry's dissent from this position is as much about the economics as about the science.

"'I have six nieces and nephews who have recently graduated from college,' she says. 'Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don't know if they're going to care and if this is going to matter?'

"Of course doing nothing to address climate change is actually doing a lot. Carbon dioxide levels are growing fast in the atmosphere and are destined to double or triple over pre-industrial levels. Curry acknowledges that.

"'I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,' Curry says. 'I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know.'

"Advocates for action say we shouldn't run that experiment on our planet. Curry's response?

"'Well, I think the experiment is going to happen whether people say we should run it or not. We're not going to convince China and India and other developing countries not to burn fossil fuels.'"

I commend the entire article to you; there's something there for both of us to ponder.

[Pavlov]

'I have six nieces and nephews who have recently graduated from college,' she says. 'Not easy finding jobs in this economy. Are we going to jeopardize their economic future, and we don't know if they're going to care and if this is going to matter?'

Did they go to college to become coal miners or something?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

in a field of thousands of scientists, yoni think finding a skeptic makes it so that there is a disagreement in the science. Typical.

[DarrinS]

in a field of thousands of scientists, yoni think finding a skeptic makes it so that there is a disagreement in the science. Typical.

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming

[RandomGuy]

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



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.

Fer s sake.

Is cherry picking data, by definition, an honest way to present data?
Yes or no.

If it helps:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...Cherry-Picking

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming

I don't know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that's 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,' Curry says. 'I just don't know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don't know.

Do I need to explain more to you?

Plus she apparently likes using ENSO peaks as starting points on her graphs like you do too. 1998! WOOHOO!

[Yonivore]

Fer s sake.

Is cherry picking data, by definition, an honest way to present data?
Yes or no.

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable or not?
Yes or no.

If it helps:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...Cherry-Picking

It doesn't. I know what cherry-picking is. But, why do you want to move the argument back to another topic?

It could be cherry-picking or, as I suspect, it is an honest attempt at demonstrating the how convoluted the AGCC proponent crowd has gotten with their never-ending data sets and explanations of why their models continue to fail to meet expectation. My use of the original information is still informed by my understanding of the issue from people such as Ms. Curry and others who continue to express legitimate skepticism over the current, prevailing climate orthodoxy.

[spurraider21]

Non-alarmist = skeptic

Thanks for confirming

So is every climate scientist who is not a skeptic or " luke warmer" an alarmist?

[RandomGuy]

Is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable or not?
Yes or no.


It doesn't. I know what cherry-picking is. But, why do you want to move the argument back to another topic?

It could be cherry-picking or, as I suspect, it is an honest attempt at demonstrating the how convoluted the AGCC proponent crowd has gotten with their never-ending data sets and explanations of why their models continue to fail to meet expectation. My use of the original information is still informed by my understanding of the issue from people such as Ms. Curry and others who continue to express legitimate skepticism over the current, prevailing climate orthodoxy.

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

You know why you can't or won't? Because you ing know the stupid ty article you posted did exactly that. You can't admit that there is even one stupid denier out there muddying up the water.

What I want, is to have a basis to evaluate evidence and arguments. You say you have an article with "a good point", and then it turns out to be a ty article, just like so much "skeptical" argument turns out to be when you dig into the details.

If you can't even admit cherry picking is ty way to construct arguments, I give up. You win. You are more dishonest than me, and if you are willing to do that and buy arguments based on that, then you can right off, and quit wasting my time.

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.

You know why you can't or won't? Because you ing know the stupid ty article you posted did exactly that. You can't admit that there is even one stupid denier out there muddying up the water.

What I want, is to have a basis to evaluate evidence and arguments. You say you have an article with "a good point", and then it turns out to be a ty article, just like so much "skeptical" argument turns out to be when you dig into the details.

If you can't even admit cherry picking is ty way to construct arguments, I give up. You win. You are more dishonest than me, and if you are willing to do that and buy arguments based on that, then you can right off, and quit wasting my time.

I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

By the way, do you believe Michael Mann "cherry-picked" his data to arrive at the famous hockey stick graph? Would that be logically flawed and dishonest?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure. Intentional cherry-picking is dishonest.


I just did.

Now, is Judith Curry's skepticism reasonable?

Well her using 1998 ENSO peaks as a justification for claiming the climate has paused in unreasonable. From a dimwit like Darrin it is one thing. From a climatologist it's inexcusable. They should know better and it speaks to a implicit bias. She also does forecasting for oilcos of course.

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

And, do you think Nobel Prize winning climate Oracle, Al Gore, cherry-picked any data to arrive at the cataclysmic predictions in his Inconvenient Truth movie?

[Yonivore]

Seriously?

You can't even agree that cherry-picking logically flawed and inherently dishonest? A simple yes or no is too much. Wow.

Do you believe the "Hide the Decline" emails, hacked from the University of East Anglia, demonstrate any dishonesty on the part of AGCC scientists?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you believe the "Hide the Decline" emails, hacked from the University of East Anglia, demonstrate any dishonesty on the part of AGCC scientists?

That was settled almost 6 years ago. You are clearly grasping for straws now.

But hey what specifically do you take issue with the emails? I await you quoting the telegraph article.

[spurraider21]

And, do you think Nobel Prize winning climate Oracle, Al Gore, cherry-picked any data to arrive at the cataclysmic predictions in his Inconvenient Truth movie?

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Many scientists you would call alarmist criticized his film.

[Yonivore]

Al Gore isn't a scientist. Many scientists you would call alarmist criticized his film.

Many didn't and he's a hero of the AGCC Alarmist crowd. Maybe they should denounce him as vociferously as they do skeptics.

[Pavlov]

I don't get the logic that since some heroes disagree, no one should even try to do anything about climate change ever.

[spurraider21]

I don't get the logic that since some heroes disagree, no one should even try to do anything about climate change ever.

Because liberals are on the other side

[Yonivore]

Because liberals are on the other side

Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.

[Pavlov]

Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.

What economic damage?

I'd like to see that quantified.

[spurraider21]

Or, it's because the economic consequences of the actions being suggested could be more damaging than any climate change that might or might not occur.

And instead of comparing the economic ramifications (political discussions) you choose to muddy the waters on the research (scientific discussion). The inability to separate the two, as i said, is the most concerning part of all this.

Ergo, my desire to avoid economically harmful policies demands that i also believe the underlying science must be false and the result of a global conspiracy

[boutons_deux]

"might or might not occur."

huge human and economic damage is going to occur, the 150-year long-trend trend is steady and worsening, not subject to reversal or even stabilizing.

BigCorp knows, the US military knows it, they are preparing for the disaster, the instability as Bs of people are faced with food, water shortages and the conflicts, war engendered.

[Yonivore]

And instead of comparing the economic ramifications (political discussions) you choose to muddy the waters on the research (scientific discussion). The inability to separate the two, as i said, is the most concerning part of all this.

Ergo, my desire to avoid economically harmful policies demands that i also believe the underlying science must be false and the result of a global conspiracy

Except we keep hearing the science is settled and that skeptics are deniers when, in fact, it's not and there is reasonable disagreement on what the state of our climate actually is. AGCC proponents don't want a reasonable debate on the science. They keep shouting down the opposition, threatening them, trying to criminalize dissent, etc...

AGCC Proponents have made the discussion political.

Here's the issue; AGCC proponents argue their conclusions on the state of our climate warrant the draconian economic re ation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords and that anyone who disagrees are heretic deniers. Skeptics simply argue there is not enough known about the climate, or of our contribution to it, or of future driving factors to warrant the kind of economic hardships pursuing an admittedly negligible benefit would cost.

[Pavlov]

Except we keep hearing the science is settled and that skeptics are deniers when, in fact, it's not and there is reasonable disagreement on what the state of our climate actually is. AGCC proponents don't want a reasonable debate on the science. They keep shouting down the opposition, threatening them, trying to criminalize dissent, etc...

AGCC Proponents have made the discussion political.

Here's the issue; AGCC proponents argue their conclusions on the state of our climate warrant the draconian economic re ation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords and that anyone who disagrees are heretic deniers. Skeptics simply argue there is not enough known about the climate, or of our contribution to it, or of future driving factors to warrant the kind of economic hardships pursuing an admittedly negligible benefit would cost.

What is the "economic re ation of the the Kyoto and Paris accords" projected to be if the US its end of the deal?

Give us some numbers since it's scary.