I feel sure that there must be a disconnect between all of climate science and just the bit we hear about in the media and via the IPCC. At least, I hope so.
The Global Warming meme has been going for so long now that the big corporations are now on board. They have all worked out how to make money from it. So-called Green groups are using it as a justification for inflicting their rules upon the rest of us. A politician's vision of heaven must include a tax which is popular. Such things are as rare as hen's teeth.
The science is in disrepute, however. We know from the Climategate emails that even The Team say different things in private to what they say in public. Think: "We can't find the missing heat and it is a travesty that we can't," for instance. Much of the science seems to be justifying previous science. Scientists will not release results because they think that others will just try to find something wrong with it. (Phil Jones of UEA CRU 2005).
Contrary to AI's claim, the scientists were not "bombarded". First, the data and methods should be available because that is the rule they accepted when they published - certainly many reputable journals have that rule. You should not even have to ask for it. Having to resort to a Freedom of Information request to try and get the data is a serious indictment of those striving to withhold the data. Again, the Climategate emails have more details about how certain scientists tried to ignore these FOI requests - which is, of course, illegal. If that is not "inflicting damage on science and abusing public trust" I do not know what is.
As for the smug: "... what is today's theory is it the Sun, clouds, volcanoes, cosmic rays or yet another global conspiracy theory," I can only laugh. Yes, I am sorry, we do not know, but as you constantly point out we are not scientists let alone climate scientists. The problem is, I am fairly sure that climate scientists do not know either!
The idea that CO2 causes atmospheric warming is OK but it is no longer convincing when there is lots of CO2 but no warming. Dare I ask: What is today's theory is it the Sun, clouds, volcanoes, cosmic rays or yet another global conspiracy theory?
By the way, where are we on the Hockey Stick this week? Was MBH99 right or was there a Medieval Climate Anomaly as suggested by the IPCC? Surely they cannot both be correct? I suspect the IPCC has read some of the papers written by these people: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scien...
To be fair, I don't think it started with climate science. Corporations have been buying scientists for years. It would be nice if all scientists were incorruptible but sadly it isn't the case. Although I do think some in the climate field are outright frauds (James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones), I believe the majority of them sincerely believe man made CO2 is a problem. The confirmation bias that exists in the field is outrageous though.
"In 1995 we had a 50% confidence level that man is the main cause of global warming. Now it's 95%."
"There's been almost no warming since 1995."
"Yeah, whatever."
Yes. The mere fact that they trot out 75 scientists and claim that they represent 97% of all the scientists in the world shows that they are torturing the public trust.
They portray these 75 unidentified individuals as being unbiased, experts and having great integrity. This flies in the face of real science, yet they promote these ideologies as facts.
Joseph Goebbel,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
That is a classic example in betraying the public trust and is well imitated by those who, on this very site, put forth that they are the saviors of the earth and we are just a bunch of liars.
Nicely put. The only slight disagreement (not really a disagreement, more like a comment) I had is that scientific credibility has been taking a pounding from political agendas for some time now. Certainly government funding of science hasn't help keep politics out of it.
Antarctice is a perfect example of an alarmist who can't separate his far leftist politics from science. Like any cultists, he is absolutely sure of his opinion being true and no facts or evidence are going to get between him and his faith.
Definitely.
They are running around like chickens with no heads.
When nothing they predicted comes true they panic .
According to a denier blog, which sadly is all denier can ever present as evidence.
Most of the claims you make here are both often repeated by deniers and utter fiction
A: "ignore opposing evidence" what opposing evidence the nonsense denier put forward 170+ theories that denier can't back up with any hard evidence
B: "suppress publication of conflicting findings" goes back to A, it is not suppression to not publish work that is quite clearly not backed by evidence, why do you think most denier claims come through blogs.
C: "use personal denigration" Wow, after all the name calling and spite directed at Gore, Mann and Hanson, you can't be serious.
It is not "personal denigration" to point out that English Lords and weather men are not scientists, that would be fact. If you guys can gather so few real scientists, that is hardly our fault.
The science on AGW covers many different fields not just atmosphere but ice, oceans and solar physics each has it's own streams of research and many many scientists that read the research in each of these respective fields, there is no serious counter to that research but the nonsense that appears in denier blogs, which again I note is all you can present as evidence, sorry, but you make my point for me.
I'm sorry but the general opinion across the the science community is that deniers are idiots. Who seem hell bent on ignoring the real science and simply inventing any old theory to try and explain it away, the longer you keep doing this the sillier you look, that deniers don't have the wit to realise this say's it all really, what is today's theory is it the Sun, clouds, volcanoes, cosmic rays or yet another global conspiracy theory.
As for the statement "alarmist climate scientists" there is in fact no science group that dispute the evidence on AGW, that includes the geologists, meteorologists or any real field of science. Deniers try to pretend otherwise by inventing fake petitions, but they fool nobody and have been shown to be full of false names and non-scientists. I still find rather naive the idea many deniers seem to have that just a few like Hanson and Mann could fool all the other scientists in the field, to me this states as clearly as anything, that denier have no real understanding of the science going on here, there are now many thousands of scientific papers on AGW covering many aspects and spread across several decades, that is by any count not one or two or even a handful of scientists, but many many thousands.
Unlike the denier petition, all these scientists have real names and real affiliations to real organisations.
And finally this one
"In climate research it has become widespread and accepted practice to refuse to reveal methods and materials"
Again wow, so straight out lying now, there are just a couple documented cases of scientists refusing to supply deniers material, in these cases it was a matter of the scientists being bombarded, denier are not mentioning this, in their little blogs for obvious reason. but it is a tactic they have tried on many institutions. A rather childish one, so when at some point people get sick of them, deniers can bang their chests and say look they are trying to hide something. If you think you can claim something is wide spread based on 2-3 incidents out of many thousands of requests, then denier maths is as good as I have always thought it was.
Laughable, as always
No more so (or less so) than radical deniers who say to just ignore it all.
-----------------------
In climate research it has become widespread and accepted practice to refuse to reveal methods and materials, ignore opposing evidence, misrepresent findings, exaggerate confidence, suppress publication of conflicting findings and use personal denigration to discredit anyone who dares to raise questions about the latest and endless streams of claims and assertions. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/alarmist-climate-scientists-have-abused.html
-----------------------
