Skepticgate: Revealing Climate Denialists for What They Are

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

Volcano. Why do you think the Sceptics and Deniers are in their death throes?

This is (supposed) to be an environmental related board. Now look how many Deniers have replied and how many supporters of the scientific consensus. Can you can imagine what it is like on a Denier board or even a neutral one? These people gain confidence from one anothers political position, its no good posting evidence.

Have you read the OP article? The whole point is that Deniers created a fictitious scandal which went viral to damage the political motivation to do anything at Copenhagen (that is why it was released then)

Now, the tables have turned, we have proof of a real scandal, one of their misinformers telling lies about his funding to congress. This is a bit like libel, and is most definitely criminal.

These people have deliberately distorted and lied without any morals for the past two decades, gaining media victory after victory due to distortion and scientific ignorance of the audience, allowing the media to claim 'free speech'. Well now they are caught, and you say, "keep this quiet?"

I have to say, we are acting like sheep to the slaughter. Scientific evidence is of limited use in politics. We need to use the full array of measures available such as the Media and soundbites such as ".....gate" . These dumbed down methods appeal to the 1/3 of society which vote off rhetoric and impressions, the 1/3 which is enough to stop action.

Have you no idea of the scale this has been happening?

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

Hi

I feel it to be quite insulting being called a denier just because I believe that climate change must logically be a result of both natural and human influenced causes .... I would accept sceptic, but then again I would be sceptical of anyone with fixed views and positions at the extreme of any argument or discussion.

I will too echo the position that all scientific scrutiny should be made from an initial sceptical viewpoint through the 'peer review' process ... perhaps in this field there is a current issue which possibly needs to be addressed ... with the level of funding into research being dependent on the actual existance of warming, is the review process being conducted on a purely neutral or sceptical basis ??

From a purely logical standpoint .... Would Turkeys actually vote for Christmas ?? .... well, probably not if they were as well educated as members of the scientific community !

HTH
Z

rhiwfield

grahamc2003 wrote: »

But your reasoning isn't scientific.

You are simply accepting the hypothesis of man made global warming, and requiring proof of the null hypothesis. While you are free to do that, it is not a position based on accepted scientific methods.

I'd say such a statement would be pretty arrogant even from those proper scientists at the forefront of climate science research.

Clever of you to have so much knowledge of my thought processes and prior research. Intellectual rigour is such fun!

cepheus

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I feel it to be quite insulting being called a denier just because I believe that climate change must logically be a result of both natural and human influenced causes .... I would accept sceptic, but then again I would be sceptical of anyone with fixed views and positions at the extreme of any argument or discussion.

I will too echo the position that all scientific scrutiny should be made from an initial sceptical viewpoint through the 'peer review' process ... perhaps in this field there is a current issue which possibly needs to be addressed ... with the level of funding into research being dependent on the actual existance of warming, is the review process being conducted on a purely neutral or sceptical basis ??

From a purely logical standpoint .... Would Turkeys actually vote for Christmas ?? .... well, probably not if they were as well educated as members of the scientific community !

HTH
Z

I also believe that climate change (even over the present 100 years a bit) must be partly a result of both natural causes, so do the IPCC, and every global warming scientist. Where do you get these ideas from?

Have you ever actually examined the global warming forcings from each of the sources? Do you know what greenhouse gases are non CO2 and their GW potential? do you know what man made effect causes almost as much global cooling as warming from Greenhouse gases? Come back when you have.

Incidentally scientists would get far more money, the more uncertain they were. It's called 'need for more research' at the end of the conclusions. Their financial masters in charge of research organisations don't like scientists concluding 'case closed!'

grahamc2003

rhiwfield wrote: »

Clever of you to have so much knowledge of my thought processes and prior research. Intellectual rigour is such fun!

I'm confused by your reply above. I didn't need any knowledge whatsoever of any prior research you have done before forming your views.

All I said was accepting the theory and demanding proof of the opposite in order to change your views is not a scientific (or even logical) position to take.

Of course, the media, politicians and even many junior climate scientists simply accept the situation and, for example, the climate models (on which much of the research is done), without question or scepticism, so you obviously aren't alone with your views.

Btw, all sceptics would very quickly stop being sceptical if there were anything approaching solid, convincing scientific evidence, derived by traditional scientific methods and checked by genuine distanced peer review. That's all the sceptics, including the most experienced, prize winning and senior climate scientists are asking - there is no need for any scientific proof of the climate theories.

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

I also believe that climate change (even over the present 100 years a bit) must be partly a result of both natural causes, so do the IPCC, and every global warming scientist. Where do you get these ideas from?

Have you ever actually examined the global warming forcings from each of the sources? Do you know what greenhouse gases are non CO2 and their GW potential? do you know what man made effect causes almost as much global cooling as warming from Greenhouse gases? Come back when you have.

Incidentally scientists would get far more money, the more uncertain they were. It's called 'need for more research' at the end of the conclusions. Their financial masters in charge of research organisations don't like scientists concluding 'case closed!'

Hi

I am actually one of the people who actually take a more neutral view on the issue and as such analyse much of the data available from my own readings, those of my local met station and from the Hadley centre on a very regular basis in order to set a baseline to track my own energy consumption relative to ambient conditions, and have done for many years ... I follow trends and anomalies and often have direct communication with contacts at the Met Office ... however, I do not go out of my way to either look for shadows on a grassy knoll or become abducted by aliens just because I once read a book or an article on the subject .....

Z

cepheus

Good for you, but I'm not sure what taking local measurements will tell you about world climate trends or even local ones unless you rely on historic data. Why not just use the 5 or 6 sets of global temperature data, including the satellite one at UAH analysed by sceptics. Sounds a lot more useful and easier to me.

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

Good for you, but I'm not sure what taking local measurements will tell you about world climate trends or even local ones unless you rely on historic data. Why not just use the 5 or 6 sets of global temperature data, including the satellite one at UAH. Sounds a lot more useful and easier to me.

Hi

Climate is but weather averaged over an extended period ..... long term weather data for a particular area is representative of climate. I'll continue to use the Hadley CET dataset to represent long term temperatures, and therefore climate, as they exist over a timescale which by far surpasses any other source, it is also, conveniently, more representative of the climate conditions which prevail where I live.

Of course, if you don't recognise the Hadley centre's data as being relevant, you will be dismissing a substantial contributor to your own data source and therefore questioning the very basis of your own ideology ......

I'll keep an open mind, continue to do my bit and definately not be swayed by zealotry from either end of the spectrum and as such am sure that I both reflect the position of, and remain, in the majority .....

Regards
Z

cepheus

zeupater wrote: »

Of course, if you don't recognise the Hadley centre's data as being relevant, you will be dismissing a substantial contributor to your own data source and therefore questioning the very basis of your own ideology Z

The HadCrut Is the Hadley data, global of course, as the first part of the acronym implies (the last bit stands for climate research unit) you know the place where all those corrupt scientists work.;) You can see how they manipulated the data by comparing it with the other charts, but beware one's by Hansen another corrupt scientist!

However, any geographically isolated area will be too erratic to deduce global climate trends, and it is difficult to see trends for noise even in the local data. Examining areas as large as the North Atlantic countries generates exaggerated anomolies. Only when you look at the rest of the world, in particular the Southern Hemisphere and the 70% which are the oceans can you see the forest for the trees.

zeupater

cepheus wrote: »

The HadCrut Is the Hadley data, global of course, as the first part of the acronym implies (the last bit stands for climate research unit) you know the place where all those corrupt scientists work.;) You can see how they manipulated the data by comparing it with the other charts, but beware one's by Hansen another corrupt scientist!

However, any geographically isolated area will be too erratic to deduce global climate trends, and it is difficult to see trends for noise even in the local data. Examining areas as large as the North Atlantic countries generates exaggerated anomolies. Only when you look at the rest of the world, in particular the Southern Hemisphere and the 70% which are the oceans can you see the forest for the trees.

Hi

I know that HadCrut is a Hadley data set, that's exactly the reason for the comment you referenced ..... they are also responsible for maintaining the CET dataset which is more relevant to what I use it for ..... for climatic trend I think that you will find that there's probably a close correlation to HadCrut over the short period that they co-exist ..... CET dataset however extends back for around 250 years more than HadCrut, well into the pre-industrialisation period ....

If you have any problems with the CET dataset being used as a long term representation of climate, or the accuracy of the dataset, I suggest that you take this up directly with the Hadley centre, I'm sure that they would appreciate their data being questioned by a believer for a change .... especially one who confuses their employees (the referenced 'corrupt scientists') who are part of the Met Office headquartered in Exeter, with those based at the totally different and separate CRU at the University of East Anglia and classifies them as being the same .....

Regards
Z

rhiwfield

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm confused by your reply above. I didn't need any knowledge whatsoever of any prior research you have done before forming your views.

All I said was accepting the theory and demanding proof of the opposite in order to change your views is not a scientific (or even logical) position to take.

Of course, the media, politicians and even many junior climate scientists simply accept the situation and, for example, the climate models (on which much of the research is done), without question or scepticism, so you obviously aren't alone with your views.

Btw, all sceptics would very quickly stop being sceptical if there were anything approaching solid, convincing scientific evidence, derived by traditional scientific methods and checked by genuine distanced peer review. That's all the sceptics, including the most experienced, prize winning and senior climate scientists are asking - there is no need for any scientific proof of the climate theories.

I suggest you read again your post. You say that I am "simply accepting" the hypothesis of man made global warming. My post however indicated that I was assigning probabilities, including that I thought there was a less than 50% chance (ie unlikely) that agw wasnt happening.

In a like fashion, I have assigned a 100% probability (a certainty) that the world is round(ish), not flat, and a strong probability (say 80%) that most holocaust deniers will not change their views irrespective of evidence.

My risk analysis on global warming was neither simple, nor was it an acceptance. Nor was it arrogant, illogical, unquestioning or lacking sceptism. It was a decision based on my interpretation of the data available. Nor will I accuse you of being simple, accepting, illogical or arrogant

But there is an intolerance about your thinking that worries me. Scientific advances are usually built step by step, orthodoxy being challenged and proving resolute or often evolving into new orthodoxy. The transition process can be sudden but is normally built on multiple research studies, peer reviewed papers, seminars, conferences. It is a process, and the current orthodoxy (now your null hypothesis) is that global warming is happening primarily attributable to human activity.

It appears that public perception follows the new climate change orthodoxy, and that the skeptics are in a minority, albeit vociferous. If AGW is to be disproven (or, in my view, more likely refined), that is the task of the scientific process.

Anyhow, I did write I couldnt be a***d, so no more posts on this thread, it reads like a rehash of polarised viewpoints.