"Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson..." Truer words have never been written.
What I find most astonishing is not only the lack of self-awareness today's Leftists continue to practice and amplify, but also the complete absence of thought their own rules and actions will one day - perhaps very soon - be used against them, one hundred fold; *and they'll never see it coming*. As I witness (from afar) them being beaten into a bloody pulp while whining and crying with absolute shock on their faces, I'll give a resolute, heartfelt, shoulder shrug and say, "What'd you expect?" My only fear is that I may have eaten all the popcorn before the show starts.
Somewhere Marx is laughing himself silly while Orwell is saying, "Told you so."
That Michael Crichton article is a fascinating read. Nothing surprising, but very enlightening to see how history continues to repeat - and how people are largely oblivious to it.
Nice to know I am not alone. The word "unprecedented" is bandied about by broadcaster and huggers alike. Recently, here in NS, we had wildfires burning out of control and the climate brigades blame, you guessed it, climate change. Of course, to fit this narrative history must be ignored. In 1784 and 1792 this province lost three quarters of the forests to fires. In 1784 there was no rain in May, June and most of July. In other words a drought. But, as I said, ignore history because it doesn't jive with their climate assumption. Deniers are sometimes the best, especially where the weather is concerned. Incidentally all the so called wildfires were set by humans doing stupid things.
This is a strange one. You seem to be suggesting that the 97% figure is not accurate, but you don’t explain how you reached that conclusion. From what I read on the study’s finding (which you included a link to) the 97-98% is solid (or it was ten years ago when the study was done, it’s above 99% now), it’s hard to see how someone could read it any other way.
Besides this, a few more points worth considering…
- the study you highlighted has been replicated, with similar findings.
And as far as I know there hasn’t been any credible objections to its finding and no counter-evidence offered. You certainly didn’t allude to any in your post.
- are there any other aspects of life in which you would reject (or ‘deny’) expert consensus in this way? For example, if your car broke down and you decided to let 20,000 of the world’s pre-eminent mechanics independently perform inspections to diagnose the problem, then 99.9% of them confidently informed you that a coolant leak had caused the engine to overheat, would you reject their findings? Honestly, would you? And if so, why? To me, that would be pathological, and it’s even more pathological when the future of the planet’s life support systems are in question, isn’t it?
- have you considered Pascal’s Wager? His famous calculation was on the question of god and whether it makes logical sense to be christian, but the same logic surely applies to climate change. If we’re taking a wager, we have to consider the implications of being wrong. That is… IF the scientists turn out to be completely wrong and humans in fact have little effect on the climate and the whole ‘carbon neutral’ thing was a waste of money and time, THEN what’s the loss? We’ve switched to renewables for nothing? We’ve saved millions from early death from respiratory disease, saved millions of hectares from being strip-mined for coal or poisoned by oil spills, saved countless species and we improved quality of life globally … all for nothing?? However IF the climate science turns out to be correct, human activity is the main factor causing global temperature increases (as more than 99% of climate scientists agree) that will soon be beyond control, THEN we, the only lifeforms in the known Universe inhabiting the only planet we’ve observed which can sustain life at all, have irreversibly destroyed our life support systems.
To any rational person, there’s no question where to place your bet. In fact, even if there were just 1 percent of climate scientists sounding the alarm, the only reasonable choice is to take drastic action to reverse course right now. I sincerely wish that climate deniers are correct, we all do, but only a psychopath would make that bet.
Prominent military leadership have expressed the same blatantly obvious truth: when you're tasked with identifying and dealing with threats, as they are, you bet on the worst case scenario every time. You proceed as if the worst possible outcome is the one that will transpire. To do otherwise when so much is at stake is beyond insanity.
Cook et al counted every paper that said that humans have some contribution to global warming as a paper that said humans are the main cause. That's the problem with Cook's paper. It's not pathological at all to point that out and be skeptical of his findings.
I wasn’t saying it’s pathological to be skeptical of the findings. I was saying it would be pathological to have 20,000 mechanics diagnose your car’s problem, with almost complete consensus and to then disregard their diagnosis.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, maybe I’m reading this wrong or something.
From the abstract: “examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
To me, this means that the papers examined were identified by the keywords 'global climate change” and “global warming”. They weren’t selected based upon the position they took, but rather by whether those terms were mentioned in the abstract.
The studies which “express no position” cannot be counted because of the fact they expressed no opinion, and what we’re measuring here is the opinion of climate researchers. We aren’t measuring how many papers mention the term “climate change”. For example, I might be researching the effects of global climate change on the behavior of honey bees. The findings in my study would not give an opinion on the causes of climate change, because that’s not the subject of the study, my study is about bees. It would be useless to include ‘no opinion’ studies when the only thing we’re examining is opinions. Again, I might be reading that wrong, but that’s what I take from it.
The abstracts that "endorsed" AGW actually came from three different groups, which you'll find under Methodology.
They are:
1. Explicit endorsement with quantification - Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
2. Explicit endorsement without quantification - Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact.
3. Implicit endorsement - Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
All three of these were amalgamated under the heading "Endorse AGW" although Cook neglects to mention how much each contributes. I can very easily see #3 being a very popular position, especially since it doesn't even mention humans. I can also see #1 being a much less popular position among actual scientists (even if not the general public) because of the complexity of the climate system.
Okay, I’m trying to wrap my little brain around this. So, because #3 does not explicitly state that humans are the cause, that means the abstracts falling into this category may in fact posit some alternative source for the greenhouse gas emissions? Have I got that correct? I suppose that’s possible. For example there could be a segment of the climate science community who believe volcanic eruptions are the cause of the excess greenhouse gasses, and for reasons unknown, they’re keeping that information to themselves. It really does seem like a stretch though, doesn’t it?
The point is that Cook's 97% (that supposedly believe that humans are the main cause of global warming) consists of a considerable number of scientists (a majority?) who have not stated that at all.
The abstracts classed as ‘implicit’ are still pointing to increases in greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, aren’t they? It’s like if I said “he was killed with an artillery shell”. The implication there is quite obvious: it’s that he was killed by a person (A person who fired an artillery shell which exploded releasing shrapnel, which killed him). We wouldn’t assume that he was killed by an aggressive penguin, would we? I mean, is there any other posited explanation for the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases other than human activity? The activity of digging up billions of tons worth of carbon that was trapped over millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere within a single generation. Even without the scientific consensus (>99%), we would logically expect some devastating effects from that.
Ken, have you not heard? It's not CO2, it's space aliens. 😉
http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2017/06/aliens-cause-global-warming-by-michael.html?m=1
And "peer-reviewed" has been a problem for a while...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
As for that Guardian article, this guy did a great job of showing how corrupt the peer-review process has become:
https://www.thefp.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for
"Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson..." Truer words have never been written.
What I find most astonishing is not only the lack of self-awareness today's Leftists continue to practice and amplify, but also the complete absence of thought their own rules and actions will one day - perhaps very soon - be used against them, one hundred fold; *and they'll never see it coming*. As I witness (from afar) them being beaten into a bloody pulp while whining and crying with absolute shock on their faces, I'll give a resolute, heartfelt, shoulder shrug and say, "What'd you expect?" My only fear is that I may have eaten all the popcorn before the show starts.
Somewhere Marx is laughing himself silly while Orwell is saying, "Told you so."
Stay safe, Ken.
That Michael Crichton article is a fascinating read. Nothing surprising, but very enlightening to see how history continues to repeat - and how people are largely oblivious to it.
Indeed
Nice to know I am not alone. The word "unprecedented" is bandied about by broadcaster and huggers alike. Recently, here in NS, we had wildfires burning out of control and the climate brigades blame, you guessed it, climate change. Of course, to fit this narrative history must be ignored. In 1784 and 1792 this province lost three quarters of the forests to fires. In 1784 there was no rain in May, June and most of July. In other words a drought. But, as I said, ignore history because it doesn't jive with their climate assumption. Deniers are sometimes the best, especially where the weather is concerned. Incidentally all the so called wildfires were set by humans doing stupid things.
This is a strange one. You seem to be suggesting that the 97% figure is not accurate, but you don’t explain how you reached that conclusion. From what I read on the study’s finding (which you included a link to) the 97-98% is solid (or it was ten years ago when the study was done, it’s above 99% now), it’s hard to see how someone could read it any other way.
Besides this, a few more points worth considering…
- the study you highlighted has been replicated, with similar findings.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
http://theconsensusproject.com/
And as far as I know there hasn’t been any credible objections to its finding and no counter-evidence offered. You certainly didn’t allude to any in your post.
- are there any other aspects of life in which you would reject (or ‘deny’) expert consensus in this way? For example, if your car broke down and you decided to let 20,000 of the world’s pre-eminent mechanics independently perform inspections to diagnose the problem, then 99.9% of them confidently informed you that a coolant leak had caused the engine to overheat, would you reject their findings? Honestly, would you? And if so, why? To me, that would be pathological, and it’s even more pathological when the future of the planet’s life support systems are in question, isn’t it?
- have you considered Pascal’s Wager? His famous calculation was on the question of god and whether it makes logical sense to be christian, but the same logic surely applies to climate change. If we’re taking a wager, we have to consider the implications of being wrong. That is… IF the scientists turn out to be completely wrong and humans in fact have little effect on the climate and the whole ‘carbon neutral’ thing was a waste of money and time, THEN what’s the loss? We’ve switched to renewables for nothing? We’ve saved millions from early death from respiratory disease, saved millions of hectares from being strip-mined for coal or poisoned by oil spills, saved countless species and we improved quality of life globally … all for nothing?? However IF the climate science turns out to be correct, human activity is the main factor causing global temperature increases (as more than 99% of climate scientists agree) that will soon be beyond control, THEN we, the only lifeforms in the known Universe inhabiting the only planet we’ve observed which can sustain life at all, have irreversibly destroyed our life support systems.
To any rational person, there’s no question where to place your bet. In fact, even if there were just 1 percent of climate scientists sounding the alarm, the only reasonable choice is to take drastic action to reverse course right now. I sincerely wish that climate deniers are correct, we all do, but only a psychopath would make that bet.
Prominent military leadership have expressed the same blatantly obvious truth: when you're tasked with identifying and dealing with threats, as they are, you bet on the worst case scenario every time. You proceed as if the worst possible outcome is the one that will transpire. To do otherwise when so much is at stake is beyond insanity.
Cook et al counted every paper that said that humans have some contribution to global warming as a paper that said humans are the main cause. That's the problem with Cook's paper. It's not pathological at all to point that out and be skeptical of his findings.
I wasn’t saying it’s pathological to be skeptical of the findings. I was saying it would be pathological to have 20,000 mechanics diagnose your car’s problem, with almost complete consensus and to then disregard their diagnosis.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean, maybe I’m reading this wrong or something.
From the abstract: “examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
To me, this means that the papers examined were identified by the keywords 'global climate change” and “global warming”. They weren’t selected based upon the position they took, but rather by whether those terms were mentioned in the abstract.
The studies which “express no position” cannot be counted because of the fact they expressed no opinion, and what we’re measuring here is the opinion of climate researchers. We aren’t measuring how many papers mention the term “climate change”. For example, I might be researching the effects of global climate change on the behavior of honey bees. The findings in my study would not give an opinion on the causes of climate change, because that’s not the subject of the study, my study is about bees. It would be useless to include ‘no opinion’ studies when the only thing we’re examining is opinions. Again, I might be reading that wrong, but that’s what I take from it.
The abstracts that "endorsed" AGW actually came from three different groups, which you'll find under Methodology.
They are:
1. Explicit endorsement with quantification - Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
2. Explicit endorsement without quantification - Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact.
3. Implicit endorsement - Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
All three of these were amalgamated under the heading "Endorse AGW" although Cook neglects to mention how much each contributes. I can very easily see #3 being a very popular position, especially since it doesn't even mention humans. I can also see #1 being a much less popular position among actual scientists (even if not the general public) because of the complexity of the climate system.
Okay, I’m trying to wrap my little brain around this. So, because #3 does not explicitly state that humans are the cause, that means the abstracts falling into this category may in fact posit some alternative source for the greenhouse gas emissions? Have I got that correct? I suppose that’s possible. For example there could be a segment of the climate science community who believe volcanic eruptions are the cause of the excess greenhouse gasses, and for reasons unknown, they’re keeping that information to themselves. It really does seem like a stretch though, doesn’t it?
The point is that Cook's 97% (that supposedly believe that humans are the main cause of global warming) consists of a considerable number of scientists (a majority?) who have not stated that at all.
The abstracts classed as ‘implicit’ are still pointing to increases in greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, aren’t they? It’s like if I said “he was killed with an artillery shell”. The implication there is quite obvious: it’s that he was killed by a person (A person who fired an artillery shell which exploded releasing shrapnel, which killed him). We wouldn’t assume that he was killed by an aggressive penguin, would we? I mean, is there any other posited explanation for the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases other than human activity? The activity of digging up billions of tons worth of carbon that was trapped over millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere within a single generation. Even without the scientific consensus (>99%), we would logically expect some devastating effects from that.