Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[Crick]

I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.

My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases.

Is that why you go after John Cook in your sig? How much input did John Cook have on AR1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?

 

[IanC]

I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.

My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases.

Is that why you go after John Cook in your sig? How much input did John Cook have on AR1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?

really? you consider me posting Cook's own words as 'going after' him? I should be so lucky when you are 'going after' me! much as I ask you to quote my statements, you always seem to find it more convenient just to make up shit that you imply I said.

John Cook is a perfect example of why I said, "My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases."

his peer reviewed paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience , was slipshod and undeniably flawed. I dont care to rehash the criticisms yet again. besides the ordinary media outlets fawning over yet another bogus 97% article, this one even had a presidential seal of approval as Obama tweeted it to his 30+ million followers.

the day after the paper was published no less. no sense in waiting to see if any problems appear because it is always better to get your side of the story out first. everyone reads the headlines, no one reads the correction buried on page 24 in small print.

 

[Crick]

You don't care to "rehash the criticisms" because you know as well as I do that the criticisms are complete crap. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here? Is that less "slipshod"?

And, in case you failed to realize this minor point, Cook et al's paper is not research about global warming. It is a goddamn survey on the opinions of climate scientists.

 

[IanC]

You don't care to "rehash the criticisms" because you know as well as I do that the criticisms are complete crap. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here? Is that less "slipshod"?

And, in case you failed to realize this minor point, Cook et al's paper is not research about global warming. It is a goddamn survey on the opinions of climate scientists.

I think one of the harshest criticisms of the paper was when the timestamps of the volunteer adjudicators was forced out and they found that one of them rated many hundreds of papers in less than one day. Not exactly diligent.

 

[Crick]

Then why has no one gone back and looked at them again? Surely that would have been a more sensible response than Legates insanity. You didn't answer my question. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?

 

[IanC]

Then why has no one gone back and looked at them again? Surely that would have been a more sensible response than Legates insanity. You didn't answer my question. Would you care to stand up for Legates work here?

I am not particularly knowledgeable on Legates criticisms. is he the one who looked at a representative sample and found that only a small percentage actually promoted the idea of CO2 theory?

 

[Crick]

I think he looked at a very large sample, perhaps the same papers that Cook looked at. He simply counted as supporting the IPCC position ONLY those papers that explicity stated "We support the IPCC's position". Not surprisingly, he came out with a very small level of support.

 

[IanC]

The majority of skeptics and lukewarmers agree with the low level mechanisms and general data. Warmers don't get to occupy that ground for themselves at our exclusion. Most polls with basic questions like 'has it warmed' or 'has mankind contributed to climate change' are nearly universally agreed upon. It is only when you get deeper into projection, predictions and catastrophe that the differences in the groups become pronounced.

 

[IanC]

There is a funny article over at WUWT that talks about the dearth of talented students going into the climate science field.

It ends with something like 'why would talented energetic and enthusiastic people choose a field where new ideas are met with ostracism and punishment'?

 

[Crick]

Gosh, I can't think of a more objective or better informed source for such opinions than WUWT.

 

[IanC]

It's a newspaper article quoting climate scientists. With a reference to a Nature article also saying the best and brightest are bypassing climate science.

 

[Crick]

And is this: "why would talented energetic and enthusiastic people choose a field where new ideas are met with ostracism and punishment'?" quoted from Nature?

 

[IanC]

Have you read the piece? Quote away, all I have is my phone and I couldn't be bothered.

 

[Crick]

All I have is an interest in climate science. This isn't it.

 

[IanC]

All I have is an interest in climate science. This isn't it.

All you are interest in is evidence that supports your personal view of climate science, is closer to the truth.

If you choose not to acknowledge that leaders in climate science are concerned that few of the most talented students are picking climate science, that is your right. I pointed to the news but you certainly don't have to read it.

 

[Crick]

I certainly don't have to think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW because it does not.

 

[SSDD]

I certainly don't have to think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of AGW because it does not.

The fact that the existing crop of climate scientists aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer does however....and the frequency to which their papers get withdrawn as the result of critique by what you call amaeteurs attests to the fact.

 

[Crick]

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science. There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign. Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population? There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.

 

[SSDD]

If the fossil fuel industry were to put hundreds of millions of dollars behind people, promising them more if they can only shake our confidence in theoretical physics, we'd see the same thing there.

There's nothing wrong with climate science. There IS something wrong with being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel disinformation campaign. Have you noted how the average intelligence of deniers like you is significantly lower than the that of the general population? There's a very good reason for that.

PS, you're a troll.

You might have an argument if climate science weren't funded at a rate of about 10 to 1 where skeptics are concerned...you talk about a hundred million as if it were a significant amount in the face of tens of billions being doled out to climate science from both government and environmentalist sources.

 

[mamooth]

The best and brightest doctors bypass doing abortions because of the threats, and now climate scientists are on the hit list. And the deniers here are proudly bragging about their success at being Stalinist thugs.

That's yet another reason why we oppose deniers. It's why anyone who cares about liberty is mandated to oppose deniers.