Wrong. The "respected" journals are all owned by a small number of large corporations that hire and fire editors, and tell them what they can and cannot publish. Oh, their "quality standards" "mean something" all right: they mean subservience to the anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda campaign. You can see it in the sickening way authors of papers that disprove the CO2-controls-temperature narrative nevertheless feel obliged to genuflect to the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria agenda. Trying to affect science in order to match your policy desires is a seriously BAD idea.
This doesn't address the issues faced by humans. With humans, the issues include water distribution, sea rise, agricultural change, changes in temperature in major population centers, and the speed of change - which degrades the ability of human populations to respond. Noting long past temperature highs just doesn't answer for what is happening today either by cause or by ramifications. And, it also says nothing about where we're headed in any of the important dimensions.
". . . Proxy data from tree rings, shell middens, and pollen trapped in peat, fossilized remains, and oral and written historical records all show not only that global temperatures have been as warm as or warmer than today, but also that all of these warm periods have been a boon for life, including the expansion of human communities. Indeed, history shows these warmer periods contributed to the rise of agricultural societies, human civilizations with large permanent settlements (which have recently morphed into megalopolises), and modern nation-states."
The bottom line here is that open and serious review are what is required. This is exactly what Curry has said. It's consistent with what Kuhn says. The fact is that schlock closed reiew in backwater publications that have earned disrepute is how one sends ones ideas off to DIE. Every revolutionary from Aristotle to Einstein and beyond have had to stand up against the ideas of the day in full public exposure and defend their revolutionary ideas with evidence. Curry complains about universities? Galileo was in legal court where his opposition had the full right to physically torturie him to see if he really believed in his heresey. What won then and what wins today is evidence made public and openly reviewed by the strongest critics. And, the thing is that Curry's conviction that she is right (and her search for legitimacy) is at least as brittle as the confidence that pervades the full range of climate scinece that she is not right. Again, winning the consesus that Kuhn says is required for revolution does NOT happen through closed review in schlock journals - or the prepring servers. We HAVE found change through serious open review. That's how Curry has found issues. That's where science does advance. That's what we need to be encouraging. That's how we came to improved understanding of climate impact on storms, on ocean current change, on the fact that we didn't know enough about oceans as a heat repository, that tree rings don't work as a temperature proxy, that there have been methodological blunders, etc., etc. The UN process was hugely helpful here, as it forced current understanding to be fully public and available to be addressed. It clarified argument, exposed errors, promoted research in areas of inadequate evidence, provided a platform for dissent - it promoted advancement in understanding climate.
Our planet is NOT the planet that didn't have civilization or expansive human communities or agricultural advancement. Citing ancient advances while steadfastly ignoring the impact of the change being experienced today is a seriously bogus direction.
No, it's actually that planet. Stop makin' $#!+ up. He's not ignoring it, he's just not rubbing your nose in the fact that the change is beneficial.
Sure it does. Humans have always faced issues with natural climate change. In former times, we did not have the technology to respond, with the result that substantial fractions of the human species would be wiped out by the kind of natural climate change we have seen in the last 100 years. No, what degrades the ability of human populations to respond to natural climate change is depriving them of access to technology that relies on cheap, safe fossil fuel energy sources. Yes, actually, it does. Yes, actually, it does. Because once you can find a willingness to know that CO2 is plant food, and does not have any significant effect on the earth's surface temperature, you can start thinking about real climate change problems and their real solutions, not just stupid, hysterical, anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda.
Right. And it cannot occur in the current academic environment where corporate-appointed editors of elite peer-reviewed journals act as gatekeepers to suppress research that is not convenient to the journals' corporate owners. Schlock closed review -- otherwise known as "pal review" -- describes the peer-review system at the climate journals you claim are the sole legitimate authority on scientific merit in climatology. Against people like you. Right.
Pal review!!! I like that! In the cases I've objected to most strongly it isn't even "pal review" as nobody has a clue as to what or even whether any actual review took place. I've advocated for serious open review by organizations and individuals who have credibility. Even if you don't like the organization, knowing what actual review took place and what the results of the review were are important and informative features. Remember that I've been pointing to the UN process several times - an organization that is not a business, is broadly inclusive, and is very much open.
Keep throwing up smoke. All you're doing is exposing your lack of knowledge of the issues and your commitment to partisan hackery.
It has been the consistent practice of orthodox climate science to block the dissidents' presentation of evidence. "Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share." —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
