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 -  (31 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 -  (30 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 -  (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?