The real imminent threat facing our society is not a “climate crisis”. It’s a crisis in the competence of reasoning among a large swath of the current adult population.
Mike A: Note once again this is FP comment, not news, not science. If the post would post an article regarding a scientific peer reviewed article reflecting findings in support of the « comment » it might be worth something. Sounds like FP trying to boost sales by coddling O&G.
Going to Getugly: Do you think you know more about this issue than any of these people?:
— Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University:
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
– Tom Tripp, UN IPCC lead author: “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
Judith Curry, climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology :
“The madhouse that concerns me is the one that has been created by some climate scientists…. The madhouse is characterized by rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic view of climate change, enforcement of a politically motivated and manufactured consensus, attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates, activism and advocacy for their preferred policies, self-promotion … and public attacks on scientists who don’t support the consensus.”
Dr Curry elaborates:
“… I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide”.
— Dr. John Reid, Atmospheric Physicist , who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research:
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity… My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”
Lennart Bengtsson, former Director of Research at ECMWF and Director of the Max Planck Insitute for Meteorology:
“The science isn’t settled…More CO2 in the atmosphere leads undoubtedly to a warming of the earth surface. However, the extent and speed of this warming are still uncertain, because we cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences. Although the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th century, observations show only a moderate warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Thus, the warming is significantly smaller than predicted by most climate models. In addition, the warming in the last century was not uniform. Phases of manifest warming were followed by periods with no warming at all or even cooling.
“The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma….In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.”
Mike Hulme climate scientist from the University of East Anglia:
“It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course….The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production”.
Mike A: Do you actually have a name? Yes there are bona fide scientists who have decenting opinions. You’ve found 7 of them. You do not overturn a scientific consensus with 7. I really don’t understand why so many are so vocal about the prospect of developing an industry that is driven to lower pollution. That’s not fresh air coming out of your tail pipe or belching from a coal plant. At its most basic, anti-global warming measures are healthy measures; the weight of scientific opinion tells us they are essential for the future of mankind. The only motivation for climate warming deniers I can think of is: it’s difficult to get a man to believe a thing when his paycheque relies on him not believing it.
Going to Getugly: Why didn’t you answer my question Mike? It was very straightforward. I didn’t ask you to give me a circular argument to justify your need to dismiss the perspective of scientific experts who don’t affirm your attachment to the popular narrative.
I asked if you believe you know more about this issue than the sample of experts in the field which I provided . And by “this issue” I mean the science of climate change and the issues with the politicization of their field and within the climate change establishment that they are describing.
You also chose to deliberately deflect to a different subject, i.e. – “I really don’t understand why so many are so vocal about the prospect of developing an industry that is driven to lower pollution. That’s not fresh air coming out of your tail pipe or belching from a coal plant.”
Not only is that an attempt to draw attention away from your need to evade my question, it’s a total non sequitur.
This issue has nothing to do with “pollution”. It is about carbon dioxide and nothing else. And as you should know, carbon dioxide is a harmless. odourless. invisible, naturally occurring gas which all life depends upon and which you and I are breathing out at this moment.
So either you don’t know what this issue is about or you’re being deliberately deceptive because protecting your preferred conclusion is a higher priority to you than acknowledging truth.
Which is it?
Then you assert:
“At its most basic, anti-global warming measures are healthy measures; the weight of scientific opinion tells us they are essential for the future of mankind.”
This is more fallacious, circular argument: “At its most basic… my perception of this is infallibly correct because I say so!”
The reason you need to evade my question and to justify dismissing the expert scientific opinion I quoted is because you want to make assertions like that despite not knowing what you’re talking about.
If you can’t tell me why your perception of this subject should be regarded as superior to a single one of the experts in this field that I quoted… let alone all of them… then not only is your statement wrong, you are delusional to believe you’re qualified to make such definitive claims in the first place.
And finally you write:
“The only motivation for climate warming deniers I can think of is: it’s difficult to get a man to believe a thing when his paycheque relies on him not believing it.”
Yet more self-confirming circular reasoning.
This is a synopsis of your approach to thinking about this issue:
“I’m going to uncritically adopt a fashionable generic opinion that has been spoon-fed to the public as unquestionable absolute truth. If I’m confronted with information that threatens that conclusion… rather than using that information to update and broaden my perception of the issue… I will generate reasons to justify declaring it invalid and dismissing it. I will invent simplistic, self-confirming and malevolent motives for anyone who doesn’t affirm my preferred conclusion. And I will lie to myself and to others by pretending that the motivations I’ve invented are the “only” plausible explanation for demonstrating anything other than unquestioning conformity to the popular narrative.”
In my experience the form of reasoning you’ve demonstrated here is the standard relied upon by people who fervently embrace the catastrophic man-made climate change narrative.
The real imminent threat facing our society is not a “climate crisis”. It’s a crisis in the competence of reasoning and intellectual maturity among a large swath of the current adult population.
When you have adults who have never received specific instruction on the skills and disciplines required for effective reasoning and critical thinking… and who have never been instilled with the value of thinking for themselves… you end up with a population who lack the necessary tools to effectively parse and evaluate information that is projected at them. This means you have a population of adults without the ability to generate accurate interpretations and perceptions of the world out there on the other side of their skulls. Which in turn means they will reflexively internalize interpretations that are provided for them by external sources in order to make sense of the chaos of the objective world.
And so you end up with half the population who don’t distinguish between the abstract concept “climate crisis” which has been relentlessly projected into their heads and objective material reality.
#GreenParty #SJW #climatecrisis #TuckerCarlson #StefanMolyneux #ScottAdams #AndrewBolt #MaximeBernier #Greens #GretaThunberg #RebelMedia #manmadeclimatechange #JustinTrudeau #JohnStossel #IPCC #climatechangedenier #climatestrike #MarcMurano #TonyHeller #CBC #environment #NaomiKline #LionelLebron #studentclimatechangestrike #JordanPeterson #DavidSuzuki #100frolly #climatechange