Should We Worry about Public Mistrust of Science Caused by Sloppy AGW Research?

[IanC]

I dont know about the rest of you but I am concerned that the public will reject all science and scientific authority based on the fiasco of 'climate science' and the exaggerated claims of doom we have heard for the last 20 years. This whole thing is going badly, with the CAGW alarmists becoming more strident even as their pipedreams are being demolished by reality.

I dont relish the thought of scientific breakthroughs being ignored by a disinterested public who simply state, "remember AGW?". It is really a shame that we dont seem to have a scientist with the stature of a Feynman to bring together the different disciplines and make sure the ethics of science are being followed. and of course, to take witchdoctors like Mann and Jones out to the woodshed for a good hiding.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

There have always been scientific quacks. And even legitimate scientists have spent large parts of their lives barking up the wrong tree.

Science keeps bringing us new toys, new amazing ways to kill each other, new ways to save lives for those who survive. Science has survived Mesmer, LaMark, Lysenko and legions of other quacks.

Fundamentally AGW is not about science at all, but is just a way to extract cash from the gullible.

 

[IanC]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

 

[skookerasbil]

Astute thread FTW............very compelling.The public has tired of the pronounced lack of accuracy in the AGW scientific community..................thats why there is zero actionable stuff going on in terms of public policy. No politician wants to touch it with a ten foot poll........a fact lost on the k00ks

 

[IanC]

no shit skooks. the public honestly thought there was solid science behind the doomsday scenarios. now that everything is falling apart people are distancing themselves as fast as they can. those damn voodoo climate scientists have spent much of the accumulated trust that science had in the bank.

 

[uscitizen]

I dont know about the rest of you but I am concerned that the public will reject all science and scientific authority based on the fiasco of 'climate science' and the exaggerated claims of doom we have heard for the last 20 years. This whole thing is going badly, with the CAGW alarmists becoming more strident even as their pipedreams are being demolished by reality.

I dont relish the thought of scientific breakthroughs being ignored by a disinterested public who simply state, "remember AGW?". It is really a shame that we dont seem to have a scientist with the stature of a Feynman to bring together the different disciplines and make sure the ethics of science are being followed. and of course, to take witchdoctors like Mann and Jones out to the woodshed for a good hiding.

Being totally wrong has not hurt the rwingers much.
Well from their point of view anyway

 

[Old Rocks]

What are we seeing today? Business as normal? Very strong La Nina, and all we get is a slightly cool winter. With huge amounts of snow. A series of precipitation events. And now the central USA is flooded, the southwest is burning up. And we have had a few tornados. In the same 12 months that Russia had a record heat wave that destroyed 40% of their grain crops. The same year that Pakistan's crops for the year were all but wiped out. The same 12 month period that saw 1/4 of the Australian continent flooded.

Surely nothing unusual going on, correct?

The bogus science is on the denier side. Otherwise they would have more scientists on their side. And at least a few scientific societies, a National Academy of Science, at least from Outer Slobovia. pushing their case.

Simple truth, the scientists are not confirming you fellows wishes as to the "way things oughter be", and so you reject them and lie about their honesty. Hell, it's only your children, and grandchildren, whose lives you are screwing up.

 

[Old Rocks]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

 

[wirebender]

Rocks, is there anything going on today with regard to climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variability? Is there anything even approaching the boundries of natural variability? Is there anything that can be accurately labeled unprecedented?

 

[Truthmatters]

Awww the power of right wing stupidity when mixed with corporate lies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sloppy is one thing, AGW is a downright fraud.

Data is manipulated to met predetermined conclusions that fail every lab test. The Organizations running the tests are on record that they use AGW for economic power ("...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. -- IPCC Official Policy)

Real scientists need to start standing up and challenging the Warmers and Decline Hiders if for nothing else, than out of respect the real hard scientific work that real scientists do every day.

 

[Truthmatters]

You really hate science when it doesnt do your partys bidding huh?

 

[IanC]

I suppose the politics is important as well but I am talking about the actual science. the public is going to learn more and more about how weak the actual science is behind CAGW and how exaggerated the certainties were and how different the reality is from the climate model projections. how badly is science's reputation already been hurt, and how much worse is it going to get? if climate science doesnt clean house by themselves someone will do it for them. and it aint gonna be pretty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You really hate science when it doesnt do your partys bidding huh?

I hate EnviroMarxists who manipulate data to do the will of their puppet masters dedicated to destroying the US economy.

You keep telling us India and China will soon have bigger economies, why don't you take your tree rings, faked sea rises and Decline Hiding on the road?

 

[RWatt]

I think if anything climate science will strengthen the public perception of science. Various events over coming years will strengthen the credibility of science.

Arctic sea ice decline for example - at some point there will be another "2007" drop in sea ice and eventually we'll have a summer with no sea ice in the arctic during summer. The public will be well reminded who was predicing such things would happen and who were claiming the arctic was recovering since 2007.

There will be impacts from the changes in the arctic, you don't wipe out a covering of sea ice that acts as an interface between the sea surface and atmosphere during the months of maximum insolation and expect nothing to change.

Atmospheric CO2 level will cross 400ppm within 5 years. As round numbers go this will prompt more than a few headlines waking people up to the fact that nothing has been done about CO2 (I imagine lots of people wrongly think CO2 emissions are being cut)

Global temperature will continue to rise over the coming decade and people will be reminded who predicted that and who were predicting global warming had ended.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Official Policy of the IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

 

[RWatt]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant

 

[RWatt]

I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.

No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Official Policy of the IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

Notice he isn't saying climate policy is designed to redistribute the world's wealth. He is saying that's a side effect.

And by redistribution of wealth he doesn't mean it in the classic case of Robin Hood/communism taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He means countries with large fossil fuel reserves (eg Saudi Arabia) will no longer be as wealthy if the world switches away from fossil fuel based energy systems. Instead countries that build the replacement energy systems (nuclear, renewable, etc) will gain the riches.

Of course none of this is at all surprising or controversial - it's obvious. The reason he raises it is because the existing order of fossil fuel wealth countries are highly resistant to this redistribution of wealth. That's the main difficulty of implementing climate policy - there will be winners and losers yet the losers must cooperate.

Of course the only reason the guy's words are ever quoted, including by you, is to wrongly imply that he is saying climate policy is to redistribute personal wealth from rich to poor as some kind of communist plot.