Yes, there is a disconnect in their heads, isn't there? Yesterday Kano asked a question about temperatures he thought were "believable". The only reason he thought they were believable was because they agreed with his political philosphy--the source of the temperatures had NOT changed.
If the data disagrees with their preconceptions well it's obviously socialist scientists cooking the books, but the moment they think it agrees with them they trot it out as evidence!
First, I say many true things that have not been pre-approved by "scientists". So there!
When it comes to the very limited sphere of climate science I do realise that all the data I know about has been produced by scientists - not necessarily by "climate scientists", though. Many scientists seem to be accepted as climate scientists if they produced some climate related results, whatever their qualifications, as long as their results fit the politically correct consensus. Conversely, some scientists with arguably some of the best climate science credentials in the history of the world can be ignored and be generally despised if they produce results that are not as PC. The logic of that has never been adequately explained to me.
You must also realise that not everyone is good all the time. Someone may be good all their lives apart from a 5 second spell when they murdered someone. Their good work still exists but they are now a murderer.
When you see things like this, from a scientist, you have to think that not all is right in the world of climate scientists:
'In the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the IPCC, the phrase “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” had been inserted , and that five separate statements to the contrary had been removed by a single author ...'
'Wigley and his colleagues published a rebuttal and we were denied a response since “we did not add anything significant to the discussion.” I assumed we had not done enough to sway an impartial editor. But in an e-mail, Dr. Wigley explained how he had engineered his rebuttal and suggested it be used as a template for others.'
.
30 years of research with a single goal in mind (proving that CO2 causes Global Warming) is what the original intention of the IP CC and its formation was and still is about. There's no doubt in anyone's mind that this is true, but when the science goes too far in their claims that CO2 warming is catastrophic, irreversible, or not part of the natural order of things based on an extreme environmental viewpoint, is being disingenuous to the science. There is and always have been extreme variations in the weather and history has shown that weather extremes happen more often when the climate cools and not when it warms.
"Absolute temperature" is another way extreme environmental climate scientists deceive all who are concerned. Making statements to the effect of "highest temperatures ever recorded" is simple "fear-mongering". In the past 4500 years there is evidence that shows 78 temperature shifts (climate changes) that are equal to or greater than our current 0.7C change in 130 years. The 40% increase of atmospheric CO2 does not cause 100% of the recent rise and is a "BOLD-FACED LIE" simply because that is impossible to prove. Measuring the "actual" temperature of the Planet is impossible. Temperature anomalies are deceiving simply because adequate measurements to quantify the "actual temperature of the Planet" absolutely can not be recorded.
" ... Absolute temperatures for the Earth's average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global) scales. ... " - Alarmists need to learn to understand what a "disclaimer" is before they make BOLD and MISLEADING statements as though they are FACTS about temperature anomalies.
Just as all the fossil fuel haters seem blissfully unaware that fossil fuels are the reasons we ahve been able to make the strides we have in technology and thus being able to measure the climate.
In fact, in the pharma industry, everytime you hear about the FDA recalling a drug, it is because the manufactures of the drug were performing phase 4 testing and found an issue with the drug and reported it.
As for the scientists, I do not hate them at all. I understand my job in the pharma industry and as a statistician, I would argue against people who said the drug I am working on is a miracle cure, as well as the people who would claim it kills others.
I don't hate the scientists, I am simply disappointed in them. The media has portrayed AGW as some apocalyptic nightmare. The sceintists should be as willing to stand up against those pretending AGW is more than it is as much as they stand up against people saying it is less than it is. Stay unbiased or stay out.
Unlike the pharma industry, the climate scientists do not have the ability to run double-blind trials and do teh randomization that would eliminate bias. Therefore, it becomes all that more critical for the climate scientists to police themselves and remain unbiased, but their actions are not in keeping with being unbiased.
The problem is that scientists' saying something that is true is not something that can be taken for granted. They are too frequently engaged in activism, exaggerating facts to push an agenda.
You do realize that climate scientist have said and still continue to say a number of things that are not true. But most climate scientist just blindly believe in the other guys work, because they do not know how climate works. For anyone to say the science is settled is either ignorant or unethical.
Not always, most comes from common sense like CO2 is still escalating, but global temperatures are not, Global sea ice extent is above average, northern hemisphere snow extent is slightly increasing, all things not predicted by climate change.
CO2 is supposed to cause a small warming, that causes water vapor to increase which will cause more warming, which is so obviously wrong because temperatures and water vapor drop as fast as they rise, so there cannnot be a positive feedback,
Although it may be on a more subconscious level-I hadn't thought about it in this way until you brought it up-I think true skeptics have a respect and appreciation for the scientific process and community. Therefore they don't 'despise' scientists-although all of us should have concerns about fraud and misrepresentation. That occurs in every field, unfortunately.
Sidebar: At this point I'm not sure how to describe bloggers on either side of the debate who have little to no scientific credential and simply regurgitate media reports and related research-with their opinions-to advance their agendas. I tend to give them very short shrift, using the blogs to follow links to the actual reports and research. Opinions of politicians who are in or pursuing office are absolutely the least credible to me. I don't care what their political affiliation is.
The fact that you parenthesized "skeptics" suggests that you were referring to the group of people who are subjugating the scientific inquiry to politics. Another group of 'skeptics' (another and slightly less parenthetical subgroup) might include people like myself, who do not have scientific credentials but are very interested in the subject. We might range from less than a high school knowledge of science and related subjects to professionals in other fields. On the skeptical side of the argument, aside from the partisan political orientation I am particularly wary of the obvious lapses of logic that so often occur and the lack of understanding of statistical probability. On the warmist (has anyone come up with a better label for this group?) side I am concerned about the misinterpretation of climate science (which appears to be driven in part by media sensationalism, another HUGE concern) that leads to assumptions of cataclysmic doom if drastic measures with little or no regard for geopolitical and economic consequences are not immediately undertaken. Thankfully, that is rarely the case with the regular warmist participants here-who are generally more interested in discussing the science and, as far as I can recall, have never suggested that we should abandon our infrastructure and live in trees, despite claims to the contrary.
I will note that while this forum remains, on the skeptical side, primarily oriented toward political ideology, the scientifically oriented skepticism seems to be improving somewhat. More links to actual debate are being provided and the quality of the questions is improving...although often tainted by the language that accompanies them. E.g. there is no real "label" for people like me in the debate, other than being frequently described as "Marxists," etc. Haw. I am more than a little tired of the name-calling.
Do Alarmists know that scientists don't think as a group? Group think is more appropriate to religions and politics.
I don't despise scientist, I despise fortune tellers.
Do "skeptics" realize that whenever they say anything that is true, that the reason that they have that information is thanks to the very scientists they despise?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
The reason that the data on this site is more accurate is because the true scientists of the world caught Phil Jones lying about the previous data collection. He even apologized for it. So you can say that when the greenies say anything true, which is seldom, they have the true scientists of the world to thank.
the so called skeptics aren't really skeptics because they already made up their minds
-No. Because most Skeptics don't have a "Clue" of what They're talking about- ANYway ! So HOW can They "realize" Anything- beyond That ?! ;)
