Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The use of fakeexperts is often complemented by denigration of established experts andresearchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their workand cast doubt on their motivations.
I would quote where I've been called names etc. I wont do a google search and use what it shows to support my position because I've just gotten too much grief over it. So I use your sources to argue from.
Quote:
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge thedominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among thosethat support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Now you are saying that science has been measuring global ice for 1,000 years....I'm afraid that you will have to back that statement up.
Is this selectivity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
So why did you make the comparison then? Weather has been recorded a lot longer than you think....
That is one of his pet theories....He thinks that melting ice caused the Younger Dryas period, but there is no evidence for that or several other possible causes of that event. https://geosciencesocietysio.wordpre...r-dryas-event/
The cooling of the northern climate is widely accepted to be caused by fresh water addition interfering with the normal function of the north Atlantic. They are arguing over weather or not the Younger Dryas was caused by this, not weather or not it works.
Quote:
The fourth is thecreation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver.
Quote:
The fifth is theuse of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
An example of this in my opinion is drawing the conclusion that the mixing of fresh water into the north Atlantic will not cause large scale cooling. From the lack of consensuses about the origin of the Younger Dryas. They aren't talking about the mechanism not working. They are talking about other causes. The general consensus is the mechanism works.
The AGW crowd largely fits the definition of science deniers.
Berkeley has some interesting research on the hive mind theory which has been in the news the last few years. Very interesting theory and how group think affects politics, science, the workplace, and even extended families. Check it out when you have time.
Thank you I may look into it. I am consciously aware of somethings that most people aren't I can't google a term that crosses the group think. Normally I can connect with the info and pull key words that work. But I can't do that for crossing the group think. Normally no work to find what I want. But...
Feedback loops from water vapor would take days to disappear if the CO2 balance in the atmosphere returned to pre-industrial levels.
My read differs a bit but it is my opinion and I don't have anything to back it up. But Ocean water temperature drive atmospheric humidity levels. If my read is correct, and it may very well not be, then the soot input melted the permanent sea ice leading to a warming of the ocean water, leading to more water vapor in the air. This would be on a 100 year lag scale.
I'm not denying AGW I just have an alternative explanation for it.
Meanwhile "the pause" in warming where global surface temps have remained flat, has been ongoing for 17-19 years now, and people like him, the global warming alarmists, deny that fact.
To the CAGW alarmists, the warmists, the man-made global warming enthusiasts, etc... the definition of a "denier" is anyone who dares to disagree with their frantic, apocalyptic dooms-day predictions, that's all.
And they deny any other possible explanation. Or the possibility of one. It is human nature to see in others what is true about yourself. The loudest at saying you are a denier are the ones most guilty of being denier themselves.
The AGW crowd largely fits the definition of science deniers.
Of course, it's not surprising that you're trying to turn this around.
Apparently the article explicitly referring to climate change denial isn't enough for you.
1-- the oil industry and libertarian funding of climate denial isn't exactly on the same level as a global governmental conspiracy to impose a carbon tax and take over the world. It is a conspiracy, but it's not an implausible or new idea.
2-- AGW doesn't use fake experts because they have plenty of real experts. Go to nature or science, search for anthropogenic climate change and you will find papers involving thousands of actual scientists supporting the consensus. Al Gore does not claim to be an expert, journalists do not claim to be experts. There is no one on the AGW side like Cliff Harris, Randy Mann, Steve McIntyre or John Coleman.
3-- Selectivity. Once again, you can go to a legit science journal, search for AGW, and come up with hundreds of papers supporting it. There is no need to be selective because it is a consensus. Deniers are the ones focusing on the same papers over and over, interviewing the same people over and over, etc. It's usually Roy Spencer, but there are others. And surely you're not taking a discussion between random people on a public forum to be representative of the larger debate. Without going into what sanspeur, Ceist or I have personally said-- you must know that we're all bound to be making mistakes here, right?
4--The creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. Since we're not actually attacking a theory, I don't think this is ever likely to come up. Debunking junk science from Lindzen, Soon or Spencer isn't the same thing as taking minor oversights involving the models as a reason to believe that all climate science is garbage, emphasizing that a few people thought there was going to be an ice age, or asking why the models didn't predict that January 16th, 2010 was going to be cooler than average.
5-- The use of misrepresentation and fallacies. Oh really? Where?
My read differs a bit but it is my opinion and I don't have anything to back it up. But Ocean water temperature drive atmospheric humidity levels. If my read is correct, and it may very well not be, then the soot input melted the permanent sea ice leading to a warming of the ocean water, leading to more water vapor in the air. This would be on a 100 year lag scale.
Water vapor is a potent, but very short term driver... it cannot drive climate change on its own.
Soot from 100 years ago would have been covered with snow or washed away by the melting, which would have led to a re-cooling of the planet. The water vapor would then condense and return to the oceans.
For soot to cause climate change, you would need a steady and large amount of it being dumped onto the glaciers for a long time.
Republicans move from denial to despair on climate change.
For years, on global warming, Republicans pushed denial, at least until the water was up to their knees and most realized they looked ridiculous. Now they will sell despair and try to put Americans back to sleep. Their line will be something like, “Yeah, it may be happening, but we can’t do anything about it, so why worry?” But their marketing of despair reveals their fear: concern that Americans, having seen through their denial, won’t accept their fatalism either and will move even faster and further to shift from old energy sources to new ones in a race to save the planet. The Insiders: Republicans move from denial to despair on climate change - The Washington Post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
