25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists

submitted by sawboss from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]indianusjones 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (48 children)

Rebuttle here outlines that not one of these 25 are climatologists. The article claims their science is flawed also.

[–]sawboss[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thank you for sharing that link. I've never heard of the publication before, and would never have found it on my own. Constructive critique and thoughtful rebuttal is exactly what I'm hoping to get from SaidIt. Keep up the great work!

[–]indianusjones 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hi Sawboss,

You and I know each other from IRC of course. I hesitated to post but knew you would respond rationally in kind.

In the final analysis it's not about who can shout over whom--it's about reasoned positions backed by the best available knowlege.

R*ddit has become a shouting match over ideology. You've proven that we can get beyond talking points and assess the facts. I can see you feel the same way.

You and I may not agree on this one but if I see the science that global warming is not caused by human activity then I'm perfectly happy with that result. In the vernacular, "I don't give a shit about posturing, I care about the facts."

[–]sawboss[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You and I may not agree on this one

It's not even that we strongly disagree. I do believe that the climate changes. I am not convinced that those changes are driven by human activity to the extent that many other people seem to. Either way, it's a much lower priority for me than finding some way to avoid the coming civil war in America which is currently being fueled by fake news and social media.

[–]James_Kuhn3rd 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They've fully demonstrated the problem Judith Curry and others pointed out. Scientists use to focus on a particular area to study, geology, tidal physics, oceanography, meteorology etc.

In universities, entire PhD programs have been creeping up under the guise of environmental engineering or climatology. Instead of a hard science, it's really a soft science or I guess you could call it some type of data science.

They essentially aggregate data and do prediction modeling. Our chair often mocks them, but I think he's jealous they get massive funding and fast tracked grants.

Big money to be made if you got a green label on the things you study or work on though

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You make an excellent point.

It would be great if the general public understood this important distinction.

Data mining and modeling are not hard sciences. They're similar to social sciences.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

Climate scientist's questioning climate science is like being an atheist priest.

You shut up, if you want to keep your career.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

I'm curious about a couple of things:

First: do you think climate scientists are different from other professionals? Specifically: most professions tend to agree on a set of core "truths" which they then promote as the truth to non-experts. For example bridge engineers agree on how to build safe bridges, road engineers agree on how to build safe roads, airplane engineers agree on how to build safe planes. Do you think climate scientists are more inclined to lie?

Second: Who would you trust most about climate, someone who does not know climate science or someone who does? If you trust an non-expert more, why is that and would you also trust a non-expert to be the pilot on your next flight?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

My fiend, the best explanation to both of these questions are summarized by this video below.

The Crisis of Science

TLDR: The main issues are funding, and publishing.

If you investigate certain topics then you won't get funding.

If you submit certain researched subjects/results to be published, then controlled journals won't publish them.

If a scientist cannot continue to both publish and receive funding then that persons career is over.

The system is broken. The system encourages scientific results that the gatekeepers favor.

Edit:

Why did climate "scientists" stop calling it "man made global warming"?

Answer: Because the climate stopped warming, and their model predictions never came true.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (39 children)

I'm intimately familiar with academia including privately funded research. But you don't answer any of my questions. I didn't ask "why do you think climate scientist are lying" because that seems to be the question you're answering.

I asked you (rephrasing):

  1. do you think climate scientists are different from other experts i.e. do you think they lie more than say bridge engineers?

  2. Who would you trust more: someone who know nothing about climate science or someone who does?

What I'm implying is that climate deniers are very selective in who they "trust". They will happily cite people who have no relevant knowledge as if they were experts, just like flatearthers or antivaxer will trust some pseudo science airhead over actual experts.

Would any of those reality deniers denounce a flight safety engineer or an actual pilot when embarking on their next flight? Would you?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

do you think climate scientists are different from other experts i.e. do you think they lie more than say bridge engineers?

Yes. Climate Scientists deal almost exclusively with climate models. These models have a dismal prediction record, and exaggerate the severity of every prediction.
These models do not begin to approach predicting what happens in the real world.
The 80s and 90s predictions claimed the coasts would be flooded be feet of water, with multiple degrees of temp increase. It never happened, because the models are bogus.

the climate science community inexplicably stick to their dubious models. If their it model is proposed and it fails to predict an outcome, then a new theory/model that better fits the outcome should be hypothesized.
The climate science community instead doubles down on the theory, and predicts accelerated disaster scenes.

There are a handful of dissenting voices in their community, but they are made into pariahs and shunned. It is disgraceful.
Science is never "settled", and scientific voices should not be suppressed.

Who would you trust more: someone who know nothing about climate science or someone who does?

It's not about "trust".
The overwhelming majority of people are trustworthy on some level. I believe that most people act with good intentions. The same applies to all scientists.

It is about the scientific method.
When the scientific method is properly followed then human assumptions and biases are factored out, to the greatest extent.

If a theory/model accurately predicts an outcome, then it may be useful in the specific tested context. If it falls to predict the initial prediction, then it is discarded, and a new theory/model is created to replace it.

This is the common practice in most sciences communities.

This is not a common practice in the climate science community. There are many prominent climate scientists who have publicly made absurd predictions, that couldn't be farther from reality.
This would damage one's career in most scientific communities.
For whatever reason they retain their academic prominence.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

What I'm implying is that climate deniers are very selective in who they "trust". They will happily cite people who have no relevant knowledge as if they were experts, just like flatearthers or antivaxer will trust some pseudo science airhead over actual experts.

It's interesting that you're lump these folks together? Would you include 9/11 Truthers in this same category?

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

Would I include 9/11 truthers?

Well, first of all, you made (in your other answer) claims that climate scientists don't follow proper scientific methods, and their "models have a dismal prediction record". I don't know what you base that claim on other than "a handful of dissenting voices". So apparently "a handful of dissenting voices" have more weight to you than the entire scientific community. You're obviously not a climate scientist and I have a strong feeling that you're not a scientist in the first place. Therefore I would also assume that you don't even know how to evaluate the predictive performance of different models.

And that's exactly how antivaxers argue.

When you don't know what you're talking about it's easy to convince yourself that you actually do and that the subject is easy to understand see Dunning–Kruger effect.

Also: you still didn't answer my question: are climate scientists more prone to lying than other professionals?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

are climate scientists more prone to lying than other professionals?

No. Lying requires intent to deceive.

I do not believe climate scientists are maliciously trying to deceive.
In my opinion, it is a matter of the foundations selecting certain individuals who believe the things that the foundations support. If these groups are paying for their work, then they feel successful and believe that they are helping better society.
I would not fault them in any way for that.

In a similar way, I believe that most journalists are honest people with good intentions.

Journalists who report the wrong way don't get promoted, and remove themselves from the MSM system.

Journalists who rise in prominence are those who internalize the values of their institutions, and know how to report the story the right way.

I do not fault these individuals. They are products of the system that controls investment and exposure of their ideas.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You obviously don't know how science work, which is normal outside of scientific circles. But you go on to make scientific claims as if you do. And that is pretty problematic, like antivaxxers claiming to know "scientifically" that essential oils are better at curing diseases.

  1. There was a lot of scientific climate debate up through the 1980s and 1990s but it was essentially settled in early 2000s: current climate change is man made, and it threatening the planet. True there may be a few holdouts like the ones you mention but they don't represent the science, and it's strange that anyone would trust them over the entire community.

  2. You mentioned in an earlier response that the fact that these holdouts were shunned by the community was "a disgrace". No it's not, it's an emotional argument but there is little room for emotions in science. This is exactly how science is supposed to work. If a researcher makes outlandish or revolutionary claims they must be met with rigorous skepticism. That's the case also for valid claims. They must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If they stand up to the rigorous trials in the community they will survive. You have no idea how many crazy theories are fielded, most die before they leave the lab because they don't work. Some live a bit longer and a few survive to be the new truth.

    EDIT:

    As an example look at how the experiments with the Ion thruster and with Cold fusion were received by their respective scientific communities. Both were met with extreme skepticism, but the scientific community still investigated further. One was accepted the other not.

  3. There is a logic fallacy in your argument: you have made up your mind that those few "dissenting voices" are more trustworthy than the entire scientific community and then you move backwards to construct an explanation of the mechanism that leads to the community being wrong. Further the specific claims you make with regard to the mechanism do not logically lead to any specific conclusion, that is, there may be issues with how science work (which is very true) but there is no indication which direction it would move the conclusions. You claim that they would lead to overly alarmist predictions but if I look at the economic forces with a vested interest in climate research most of the powerful economic entities would rather undermine than support an climate change agenda. So in my analysis, your argument leads to the opposite conclusion: climate scientist have systematically under-reported the seriousness of climate change. Still we should look at the facts and we should overwhelmingly trust the scientific community over "a handful of dissenting voices".

In my view you have been ensnared by the old industry (fossil fuel industry, car makers) who see emerging sustainable technologies as serious threats and you are now promoting their agenda while the planet is dying.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I understand the sciences on an applied professional level.

For the better part of 30 years, I was in agreement with the man made climate change consensus; until I personally investigated the facts.

At that point (with great difficulty) I has the choice of changing my view, or accept intellectual dishonesty.

Through great effort, I chose the intellectually honest path. I'm sure you'd agree that It is much easier to go with the group think consensus on this issue.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support the man made climate change model.

The environmental weather is exactly what we should expect if we follow the long-term 1000 year historical trend.

The p-hacked models and graphs that say otherwise, are bogus.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

their "models have a dismal prediction record". I don't know what you base that claim on other than "a handful of dissenting voices". So apparently "a handful of dissenting voices" have more weight to you than the entire scientific community.

It's pretty simple to evaluate what's claimed, vs what actually occurs. Here's a great example of just that.

Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions.

They make a claim. The stated time passes. They are completely wrong, and nothing changes in any way. The media praises them for their failed prediction, and claim that they got it right..

It's truly mind blowing to see how the actual facts are ignored be the climate science community in this example.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

It's pretty simple

Exactly my point, no it's not and you don't know what you're talking about. Talking to you is like talking to an antivaxxer.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

It is easy to evaluate predictions that were made decades ago, and then compare these predictions with what occured in the real world; in the predicted time periods.
That is actually easy to do.

Watch the video in the link. Their predictions were completely wrong. The seas didn't rise above New York or DC, at all..