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 →

[–]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.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

until I personally investigated the facts

That's damn interesting. How did you do that?

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

Again, that's extremely interesting. How did you assess the models what were your findings. What data did you use, and what method did you use to analyze the data?

On a personal level I would also be very interested in what software you used in your analysis.

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

How did you do that?

I'd like to invite anyone interested in investigating these details to check the following:.

  • Pick a date and a range to evaluate. 1970, or 80, etc. 30 yrs, 40 yrs, etc.
  • Find a measurable factor to track:. sea level rise, temp, etc.
  • Find an original source document that can't be edited after the fact (newspaper, movie, book (revision, date publishing date is crucial).
  • Record the predicted factor: sea level rise, temp, etc.
  • Find current sources and document the actual factor: sea level rise, temp, etc.
  • Compare predicted vs. actual.
  • Done.

On a personal level I would also be very interested in what software you used in your analysis.

Fancy software like minitab or JMP to analyze the facts.

Simply review the historical record vs. predicted. It's basic arithmetic, with original sources.

One last note:. You may recall that man made climate change was one called man made global warming.

They changed the name, because the warming trend was bogus, and indefensible.

[–]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..

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

The video is essentially an antivax hoax just against climate research. Do you also promote antivaxxer or flatearth videos?

You know I trust the scientists in all three cases - and many others.

And you still didn't answer my question: are climate scientists different from other experts? Are truths they promote more wrong than the truths of other experts?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

The video is essentially an antivax hoax just against climate research.

I don't see the connection you are attempting to create.
Why are you attempting to convolude this issue, by introducing unrelated issues? Please explain what you mean by this statement?

are climate scientists different from other experts?

This is a completely different, and less interesting question.
I have already unambiguously answered your other question.
Interpret it as you will.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

I know you answered, and you apparently misunderstood my question. What I'm getting at (and where my questioning started) is this: are climate scientists in your mind different from other scientists? Are their findings less trustworthy than the findings by scientists in other fields?

The reason for my asking is this, you seem to argue that there is a social gate keeping process in the scientific community that forces scientists to report things that are not true. I agree, from years of personal experience, that there are mechanisms at play leading to such things from time to time.

But what have me wondering about your arguments is this: What you describe is a general mechanism not specific to climate science and one that in my experience is much more prevalent in fields closer related to industry (when you cooperate with industry there is a lot of pressure to report results that will sell products).

So, from a logic standpoint: either all scientists are corrupted (unknowingly or otherwise) and are all equally untrustworthy - or you specifically picked climate science as a particularly corrupt field (unknowingly by scientists) for some reason.

And therefore the question: does climate science, in your mind, differ from other sciences? If so why? If not, why do you specifically not trust climate science if it's just like any other science.

To add: your argument about gate keeping does in my mind point in the exact opposite direction: strong industry interests have systematically intimidated climate scientists into under reporting the seriousness of climate change.

It is, to me very clear that you have been tricked into promoting the agenda of a fossil fuel business alliance that feel seriously threatened by sustainable energy technologies. Some of the strongest opponents to global action against climate change are Saudi Arabia, Russia and US, the biggest oil producers.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It is, to me very clear that you have been tricked into promoting the agenda of a fossil fuel business alliance that feel seriously threatened by sustainable energy technologies.

You could not be more wrong. I'm completely in favor of renewable energy. Any, and all of it.

Renewable energy should be pursued for it's own axiomatic merits.

Bogus man made global warming science should have nothing at all to do with implementation of much needed renewable energy.

These topics are convoluted by the energy cartels.

[–]endopassing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Please answer my question: is it only climate science you distrust or is it all science? If it's only climate science, in what way does it differ from other sciences?