Politicspoliticsgwccgc

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 01:07 PM

Confessions of a Climate Change Denier

A few days ago I had a conversation with a very smart university professor of history and somehow the climate change subject came up. Almost instantly he responded to my thoughts by saying: “You must be one of those deniers who rejects the science consensus.”

This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it’s intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry.

When the liberals talk of ‎consensus, what consensus are they talking about? Of whom? About what? Here is John Kay of the‎ Financial Times on the so-called consensus:

Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has noted that too many environmentalists “ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”

Then he adds: “… there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.… The consensus was reached before the research was even begun…”

https://spectator.org/confessions-of-a-climate-change-denier/

18 replies, 357 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Confessions of a Climate Change Denier (Original post)
Dexter Morgan Mar 2017 OP
GordieG Mar 2017 #1
Dexter Morgan Mar 2017 #2
MeatSandwich Mar 2017 #4
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #5
Dexter Morgan Mar 2017 #7
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #11
Jack Burton Mar 2017 #13
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #14
Jack Burton Mar 2017 #16
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #17
Konservative Mar 2017 #3
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #6
Dexter Morgan Mar 2017 #9
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #10
Pennsylvania Mar 2017 #8
fncceo Mar 2017 #12
birthmark59 Mar 2017 #15
Dexter Morgan Mar 2017 #18

Response to Dexter Morgan (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 01:19 PM

1. Lindzen????!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GordieG (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 01:43 PM

2. Seems like a smart guy to me....But then again i am into facts not mob hysteria...

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.

He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's

Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called "climate alarmism."

Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden.

He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Lindzen is an ISI highly cited researcher, and his biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Awards_and_honors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:30 PM

4. Yeah, sounds like a real dumbass. (not)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 11:34 PM

5. Yeah, he's smart

Smart enough to take the corporate money, whether it's oil or tobacco money. He'll take it. Science be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:28 AM

7. What Science, a majority of scientists agree and computer models is not science....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 12:52 AM

11. The computer models play very little role except as projections

The physics has been known and published for ~150 years. There are thousands of papers. There are the temperature data sets. (Only the satellite data sets are models.)

If you want to discuss a topic, you should probably learn something about it. (Learning about the philosophy of science might help you, too.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 03:36 AM

13. Q: What's the difference between a scientist taking corporate money vs government money?

A: None

Anyone who cannot see that truth is naive and probably believes the global warming hoax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 03:46 AM

14. No, there's a large difference.

What the difference is is determined by the science. In the case of climate change and tobacco, that science says the government funded scientist is telling the truth. In both cases the corporations knew/know that the government scientists are right. Exxon's own studies decades ago, for instance, projected temperatures pretty damned accurately. Oh, and so did the government-funded scientists.

The soft sciences are quite a bit dicier. But that's a different topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 04:01 AM

16. Cool story bro.

The face of unbiased fact driven scientific integrity (and haute couture). Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 04:09 AM

17. I know it's difficult for you...

I wouldn't want to try to argue your fact-free side of the "argument." Then again, I wouldn't. I follow the evidence regardless of where it goes. In the case of climate change, the evidence says that the Earth is warming rapidly; that the warming is due to human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

All your political discomfort won't change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GordieG (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 02:32 PM

3. That was a great argument Gordie!

 

I especially like your use of the 'no evidence' gambit. Very edgy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 12:05 AM

6. Let me just deal with the part posted here

"This is the new form of intellectual bullying and it’s intentionally designed is to stop the conversation not advance it. In the academies it is a technique to close off scientific inquiry. "
No, it's an observation of fact.

"When the liberals talk of ‎consensus, what consensus are they talking about? Of whom? About what?"
Liberals don't enter into it. The consensus is scientific, not political. The consensus is demonstrated by the fact that very, very few reputably-published scientific papers point to anything other than anthropogenic causes for the current warming. There is a mountain of data from multiple disciplines supporting both the warming and the cause. Scientists have an obligation to follow the evidence, so there is a rather large scientific consensus that we are the cause. In fact, there isn't even another competing hypothesis at this point.

"Science is a matter of evidence, not what a majority of scientists think…. The notion of a monolithic “science,” meaning what scientists say, is pernicious and the notion of “scientific consensus” actively so. The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate. The route to truth is the pluralist expression of conflicting views in which, often not as quickly as we might like, good ideas drive out bad. There is no room in this process for any notion of “scientific consensus.”"
That is gibberish that can only be an attempt to deceive the unwary. In a very real sense all of science is consensus. The fact is that science doesn't prove things -is manifestly incapable of it, as a matter of fact. Science attempts to explain the natural world through a process. Any explanation no matter how well accepted can be overturned by a better explanation. The fact that the denialists haven't been able to accomplish that is based on evidence, not rhetoric or politics. There is simply no other explanation for the current warming that is consistent with the evidence.

As for transparency, there is plenty of it. Almost all of the temperature data sets, including the raw data, is available on line. Almost all (or perhaps) all of the methodology is readily available online (except curiously the UAH satellite data set the last time I checked). Anyone reading this can download the data and construct their own temperature graph.

"Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has noted that too many environmentalists “ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”"
Sloan is a dishonest hack who denied a link between tobacco and cancer in a Congressional proceeding. That doesn't make him wrong, but it should make one think hard about his credibility. However, he happens to be wrong, too -or at least misleading. Note that he uses the weasel word "many" and "environmentalists." Climatologists never forget the fact that the Earth and climate are dynamic. Environmentalists...beats me what they believe, nor do I care because they aren't relevant to the science, the evidence, or the consensus.

"Then he adds: “… there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.… The consensus was reached before the research was even begun…”"
That is a complete bald-faced lie as attested to by thousands of scientific papers published.

Science (non-climatological in nature) says that these facts will have no effect on you whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to birthmark59 (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:30 AM

9. LMAO that is some funny made up shit..


Science is now decided by mob rule....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 12:49 AM

10. Cool.

I shut you right the hell up! Wow!

You're not French by any chance, are you? I mean, Morgan isn't usually French...but hey, it's America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Original post)

Tue Mar 21, 2017, 10:30 AM

8. I'm not a denier I just don't care.

Let New York sink. I live here.....let it sink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Original post)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 03:19 AM

12. Just for the record ...

... I have never denied climate change. We've been experiencing a real and measurable warming of the climate for the past 50,000 years.

What I will deny however, is every penny I can to politicians who want to line their collective pockets and increase their grip on the public playing the 'science game'.

I have and will continue to vote against any politician that pimps for votes with prognostications or weather-related doom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fncceo (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 03:49 AM

15. Um, no.

"We've been experiencing a real and measurable warming of the climate for the past 50,000 years."
Or are you an Ice Age denier? That would be novel, I have to admit.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fncceo (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 22, 2017, 10:20 AM

18. I agree with you 100% no further comment needed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsgwccgc