Yes, I read that article with interest this morning. Dr. Garth Paltridge is certainly qualified to speak on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Paltr...
Instead of addressing the question or the contents of the article, I see the attacks have already started.
Science is being used to advance agendas. Of course its credibility is going to take a hit. Just how much remains to be seen. Don't underestimate the instincts of the lay citizen or non-expert. That would be a serious flaw although in the back of my mind that's exactly what I'm hoping for.
Not among people with some knowledge of science and the physical universe.
Deniers and other members of the lunatic right are, however, ruining the credibility of conservatives and republicans.
=======
OM --
>>Instead of addressing the question or the contents of the article,<<
The question is laughable - and the "contents" even more so.
But, I'll address a couple:
>>In the mad scurry to find reasons for the pause, and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to simulate the pause,<<
This is stupid and childish.
>>How then is it that those of them involved in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can PUT THEIR HANDS ON THEIR HEARTS and maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades?<<
This is almost sad - as if the person making the statement may be mentally ill or suffering from some psychological condition.
I believe it is more of a media issue than science itself, with the media reporting on anything that will generate more revenue with the most sensational headlines and quotes they can. Revenue drives media to seek out the most activist scientists, just as it gives the most attention to people who walk into schools and malls with guns in the U.S. and start shooting people. If people want media attention: they sneak into mink farms and release animals in the night or spray paint on people wearing fur coats; they disrupt shipping lanes, they blow up buildings and kill people. They conduct acts of civil disobedience. They take off all their clothing in public. They self-immolate.
The list goes on and on. Put some of the activist scientists in there if you like-Hansen, for example-or semi-politicians like Gore and Monckton, or some of the media people themselves like Limbaugh or the former (haha) Dan Rather in the U.S. and you can see that a lot of what Marshall McLuan had to say about media being the message back in the late 60s is very true.
From everything I can see as objectively as I can, the bulk of the research and the conclusions reached by science itself aren't all that alarmist. Science has been saying that if we don't reduce our use of fossil fuels in another hundred years or so there is a high probability there are going to be environmental consequences that will be very costly to deal with, and we may be in the beginning stages of that now. I personally don't see that as 'alarmist' by the definition that is applied here. Anyway, it doesn't scare or get me into some sort of dithering lather. That apparently isn't the case with some people at the extremes of belief of disbelief for whatever reasons they choose to get all worked up about it.
So my reaction to your question is that no, the climate change pause is not ruining the credibility of science. It would seem that the majority of the population according to most polls accept that mankind is contributing to and accelerating the pace of climate change. But if you look at the polls in a little more depth (and I would like to see some more recent polling) and what is out there in the media (less objective) it is primarily at the fringes where people are freaking out one way or another. At the most subjective level, I don't personally know anyone who is as worked up about it as is so evident here or elsewhere in the media...but then I tend to associate with relatively calm people in real life and distance myself from emotional basket cases and the nasty sorts one especially encounters on line. Sometimes I wonder why I even come here to this forum any more, because it certainly isn't about science most of the time...I guess I like the mental exercise over coffee in the morning or something.
Your bringing up Sigmund Freud and comparing his theories about human behavior to climate science is interesting as well. He was an interesting guy but I don't think his theories are really equivalent to climate science-there really aren't 'laws' (well understood or not) about human behavior as there are in the physical sciences. But this category of Y/A seems to have a lot more connection with human psychological behavior than it does with science at this juncture. Maybe THAT'S what keeps bringing me back at this point.
These 2 quotes demonstrate that virtually everyone is aware that predictions can be capricious.
"PREDICTION IS VERY DIFFICULT,ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE FUTURE"> Niels Bohr.
"THE FUTURE AINT WHAT IT USED TO BE"> Yogi Berra.
So "science" itself probably hasn't suffered any lasting damage.
However those political activist individuals & organizations who failed to recognize the pause or nefariously tried to cover it up, have permanently lost all credibility and for them the future certainly aint what it used to be.
It should highlight the importance of using evidence instead of appealing to authority.
Junk science is real and prolific in our agenda and money driven world. It doesn't hurt to have a healthy skepticism.
No, i don't think so. Not science in general anyway. There is lots of really good science going on out there, unfortunately it's the junk science the grabs the headlines.
You could say the global warming 'pause' is ruining the credibility of 'climate science' but it never had much credibility to begin with.
Keep in mind, in large part these are the same people that were predicting we were going into another ice age back in the 1970's.
-----------------------
From your link.
"Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?"
Why would they need to swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet? What matters is that the can't swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are not wrecking the planet.
Madd Maxx
Since you have conceded that you have lost the argument by blocking anyone who can provide real answers, I will answer your question here.
Absolutely not.
And I consider being blocked by you to be a badge of honor.
When I was in school I was told NY state was covered by a glacier. It went away thousands of years ago. Must have been from those internal combustion engines that the Indians used. I believe we should explore other energy sources, and keep the air clean. Not believing the dogma. When there is a wildfire, tsunami, or natural disaster Pat Roberson says God did it because he is mad at us. Now its because we don't believe in global warming. I have my own brain. I reduce and recycle, because I don't want garbage everywhere.
What's really ruining the credibility is when they deny there is no pause.
No. Because our society has a way of making heroes out of inept fools and outright liars. Just look at Al Gore. He got a Nobel Prize for his propaganda, which has proven ridiculous. So the PR agents just give respectability to fraud and the masses believe it just like Goebbels said it would.
But to real scientists, we recognize this as pseudo-science. Only the scientists like Hansen, Mann, and Jones are deemed frauds.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/
this is being alarmist. Maybe you can show a connection with particle physics credibility too.
He's right that oceans are a big factor, but he's confusing long term climate, cycles and short term fluctuations while avoiding the total energy budget. He probably knows better but has either gone 'emeritus' or political.
James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones haven't exactly helped it either.
How many times do you have to be told "There is no pause in GW the only pause was in surface temps and GW IS DETERMINED BY COMBINING SUEFACE AND OCEAN TEMPS Get a life You are becoming simply a nuisance
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projection"?
