Here is Schneider's actual quote verbatim. Including the salient sentence that you everyone else always leaves out. "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Note that he is specifically saying that when the media pressures them [scientists] to offer up "scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have" that he is hoping they [scientists] will be both effective and honest when faced with this "double ethical bind" that the media is forcing on them. It's important that you understand the context of the interview in which this quote was taken. It was taken from a Discover magazine interview in 1989 in which Schneider was scolding the media for only asking about the "scary scenarios" and never letting the scientists talk about "any doubts we might have". Let me repeat this so that it is perfectly clear...Schneider was specifically expressing his discontent with the demand by media to "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have". Schnieder was NOT advocating that scientists "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have". He was expressing frustration that this is the only thing the media wants to hear. But because you and deniers have a penchant for not cross checking references and understanding the full context you got conned and duped.
So the gameplan is to ignore falsification, and continue to spew propaganda, right?? You guys are sad.
No one here has anything to do with it. This is what scientists do. What you want is for amateurs or people with no professional training, much less experts, to pretend to be experts and override the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists. You know, what you're doing. The denier's argument: I know global warming is a hoax!!! How? I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!
I also find interesting how when someone levels a claim of fraud against a scientists it often comes out that it was the accuser that was one trying to defraud.
All right — we realize that this is what scientists do. Your problem, however, is that you've let your infatuation with science overrule the part of your brain that is responsible for rational thought. When you were a kid, you went to some government school that told you all about the magic of the scientific method, and you ate it up because you were just a kid. The indoctrination worked. In reality, however, the way the scientific method works is this: You make some observations and come up with a theory. This theory predicts certain testable observations. In short we can say that if your theory is right, you will make certain observations. In logic we would write: T => O (where T is theory and O is observations). You then make those observations in the real world. Then you conclude that your theory is true. The problem is that: T => O O Therefore, T is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Science "works" through logical fallacies. You could have a theory that has been corroborated hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times and that theory could still be wrong. This is the reason that in arenas in which mistakes cannot be safely made (such as medicine) we adopt various protocols to ensure that error and bias are eliminated as much as possible. For example, we employ randomization, we use placebos, and we conduct double-blind tests where neither the doctor nor the patient knows who is really being given medicine and who is not. Even then, 20 percent of large scale randomized double-blind studies are wrong out of the box. In short, even if global warming research were carried out with the same rigor as medical studies are, there would still be a 20 percent chance that it was wrong. Global warming research, however, lacks the rigor that one might hope for. 1. There is no alternate Earth that we can study and make changes to so as to determine whether our theory is correct. 2. People involved in global warming research are not blinded. They know what changes they hope to see and are always at a risk of confirmation bias. 3. We must also concern ourselves with publication bias. Studies that find no statistically significant global warming are rarely published. 4. P-hacking is a concern. There is always the possibility that serendipitous inclusion or exclusion of certain data may cause the p-value of the study to cross the magic 0.05 threshold where simple adherence to the study design would show no statistically significant global warming. On top of that, pretty much any global warming skeptic (what you wrongly call "deniers") can point to dozens of failed predictions. For example, in March 2000, we were told that because of global warming, snowfall in the UK was a thing of the past. Nevertheless, a simple look at https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/unbelievable-snow-drifts-high-ten-12113140 shows that Scotland had record snowfall less than a year ago. Al Gore also assured us that the Arctic Sea would completely thaw. Well, it's still icy up there. Northern Siberia is still uninhabited and afflicted with permafrost. People are not flocking to Antarctica to live as eco-refugees from global warming. Below sea level places such as New Orleans are still inhabited and inhabitable. We were told that global temperatures would raise 3-9ºF by 2025, but so far they are only up 1ºF. We were told that 80% of the worlds species would be extinct by 1995 if we didn't halt global warming. Well, so far no mass extinctions. And Mt. Kilimanjaro still has a snowcap. In short, all your predictions are wrong, and you look like a fool.
And yet the Earth continues to warm. So which one of the many inaccuracies in this post would you like to tackle first?
Well, no, science depends on falsification. Actions and reviews are oriented to identifying ways in which the theory could be false. As for snowfall, lets remember that snowfall can be more significant in warmer weather (though obviously within the range of possible snowfall). The reason is that warmer air holds more moisture. So, in the UK with air temperature moderated by the Atlantic the moisture carried by 0 degree air is less than the moisture carried by 20 degree air. Thus, the 20 degree air can lay down more snow. Also, remember that where people choose to live is less of an indicator than is the behavior of glaciers and other such measurements. So, when we see the retreat of Greenland glaciers, THAT is significant. You CAN find predictions and other results that are not properly evaluated or do not have the results predicted in the specified time frame. But, that's not a valid method of judging what is correct. The lack of some specific result does not necessarily impugn the theory, especially for complex systems where a local affect may not perfectly match a global average predicted by the theory. NOBODY in science suggests this planet isn't warming. For you to propose that it isn't is just not very interesting.
Once again, you make a comment that makes you look like a fool. Who cares if the world is 1ºF warmer? First of all, that amount is so small that it could just be an instrument jiggle. It means nothing. Second, even if it is legit, what makes you think that humans are responsible for it? Third, even if humans are responsible, what makes you think that nonsense treaties such as the Paris accord would reverse it? Finally, why should I think that 1ºF is anything other than beneficial? https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/
I think what you need is a class in remedial reading comprehension. You said "For you to propose that [the earth isn't warming] is just not very interesting." Yet, anyone who reads my post can clearly see that I said that the Earth has warmed all of 1ºF, an amount that is probably beneficial to humankind. Perhaps fewer kids will freeze to death in Puno this year. I mean, c'mon. I breathe. I drive an IC vehicle. I even burn my trash. I am doing my part. Where's the global warming I have been promised?
Let me summarise “I don belef in dat dere globul warming cuz sum bloke in da pub sed so!” The IPCC reports are online and free to read Please get back to me when to have a scientifically based academically phrased rebuttal
Wow. You can post a meaningless picture. Try reading Ridiculously cold temps in the Northeast break records
OK, so you said 1 degree instead of what was predicted - that doesn't change the logic, and your issue isn't really predicated on a specific temp. Today, Australia has roads that are melting. So, I guess THOSE folks aren't freezing to death! Nobody has ever suggested that earth's temperature would increase in lock step for every region. The news is that is NOT how it will happen - there will be local differences that may even be enough to have areas that are cooling as Earth is warming as a whole. For example, the Atlantic current moves heat from the equator to the North Atlantic. If that current changes (which some believe climate change could alter) the North Atlantic region (including a good hunk of northeast America) could get a LOT colder - as Earth warms. (I mean this as only an example - I don't have an opinion about the Atlantic current).
That's all you've got? Pathetic. I googled the Australian situation and found Melbourne with hottest day in a decade. Now, I understand that to mean that Melbourne has been as hot as it is now about 10 years ago. In short, over the past 10 years, no global warming. Zero, zip, zilch, nothing. Of course, perhaps it's hotter a county over. As you said, just because Melbourne doesn't have global warming doesn't mean that Perth isn't having it. Fair enough. But think of the logic. In essence, your argument is: Just because we are seeing no global warming in Melbourne and in the New England states is no reason to assume that it's impossible that global warming is occurring. Therefore, global warming must be occurring. Seriously? That's your logic? I should try that logic on the payroll department. Dear Payroll Department, You must admit that it's not impossible that my boss doubled my salary. Accordingly, he must have doubled my salary. Update my paycheck accordingly. Sincerely yours, Z
Again, finding some place that isn't hotter than usual is a totally meaningless venture. The issue is EARTH warming. Not some city warming. The effects on a particular location may not match Earth's warming.
Temperatures go up and down for a number of reasons. There are several important cycles involved. One has to look at what's happening over time. Suggesting the 10 year high means that there has been no warming during that period is just not a valid approach. One has to look at what the 5 or 10 year running average is doing. One has to take care to know what the various cycles are doing as a high could be the confluence of more than one cycle or it could be a high that is coming at a time when such a confluence doesn't exist. And, one has to recognize that what's happening in one specific place is not necessarily a valid indicator of overall climate behavior even just for the region, let alone for Earth.
Once again, a braindead response from someone with zero reading comprehension skills. Sit down with your special ed teacher and have her walk you through the argument so that you can make a semi-coherent response. The argument is as follows: 1. The Earth has warmed all of 1ºF. 2. There is no reason to suppose that human activity is the cause of that 1ºF of warming. 3. There is no reason to suppose that the Earth will continue to warm. 4. There is no reason to suppose that agreements such as the Paris accord will slow down, stop, reverse, or do anything whatsoever. 5. There is no reason to assume that warming, if it continues, will be anything but beneficial for mankind. 6. All past doomsday predictions of alarmists have fallen far short of the mark. So to make a statement such as "Suggesting the 10 year high means that there has been no warming during that period is just not a valid approach" in no way refutes any of the above statements. The only thing this statement proves is that you have been unable to understand a very simple argument for several posts now. Similarly, any statement that contains the words "could be" such as "One has to take care to know what the various cycles are doing as a high could be the confluence of more than one cycle or it could be a high that is coming at a time when such a confluence doesn't exist" is idiotic. Such a statement proves nothing. I could just as easily say that the weather could be the result of Thor or could be alleviated by sacrificing a virgin to the volcano god. Such an argument is just a regurgitation of the already refuted claim: Since global warming could be happening, it definitely is happening. As I have already pointed out (along with a link) cold is 20 times more deadly than heat. Accordingly, any global warming that occurs will almost certainly be to humanity's benefit.
Climategate was a scandal for a reason, even if it was as quietly as possible swept under the rug. When there is clear proof of "scientists" manipulating data to produce a prescribed, predetermined result, when there are admissions of rigging the publishing and peer review process, when these same "scientists" refuse to release their methodology, etc... That isn't science. That is fraudsters taking advantage of people's ignorance and inability to see thru the fraud. Watch Lindzen's lecture. He uses their own data. The only place alarm exists is in the fraudulent computer models. Were it not such an effective tool to attack capitalism, the fraud would have died on the vine decades ago.
The Earth has warmed by 1.1C (or 2F) since the preindustrial era. http://berkeleyearth.org/2018-temperatures/ False. There is reason to believe this. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/ If you would like for me to engage in a brief overview of how scientists know this let me know. False. There is reason to believe the Earth will continue to warm. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/ If you would like for me to engage in a brief overview of how scientists know this let me know. This may be true. However, that does not mean that the Earth isn't warming or that humans aren't responsible. False. There is reason to believe that the warming will be net harmful to mankind. https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/ False. You will not find any doomsday predictions by the scientific consensus that were suppose to have happened by now and didn't. In fact, you won't even find any doomsday predictions at all in the IPCC AR5 report which is a good proxy for the consensus. The problem right now is that you are afflicted by a severe case the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. My recommendation is for you to take the plunge down the right side of Mount Stupid and start educating yourself on what science knows and what they don't know in regards to the climate. And drop the arrogant "I'm smarter than everyone else including the worlds leading experts" attitude.
It was not swept under the rug. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.g.../uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b https://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf https://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A09120086.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-preface.pdf There was no fraudulent manipulation of data in regards to climategate or any other false accusation. If there were you'd be able to easily identify which page or figure in the AR5 report was wrong, present a corrected version of it, and then link the inaccuracy to intention to mislead. But, in the nearly 10 years since climategate occurred no one has been able to do this. Why do you think this is? Like I said. No he doesn't. If you disagree point out what part of the video supports your position on this matter.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I said that the Earth had warmed all of 1ºF since the time of the previously referenced doomsday prediction. At any rate, I question your number because a simple google search showed "The Earth is generally regarded as having warmed about about 1° C (1.8° F) since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around 1750. In 2017, two professional papers generated much debate in both the popular press and professional literature about whether this figure is correct. Schurer, et al. argued the rise is 1.2° C (2.2° F) and Millar, et al. claimed the rise is 0.9° C (1.6° F)." So I question your cherry picking of numbers on the high side. IPCC is not a valid source. IPCC is not a valid source. Well, I'm glad that we agree on something. Again, IPCC is not a valid source. Your quotation of this document is akin to a Christian trying to prove Christianity by quoting the Bible. Get a real source. The fact that you say this merely demonstrates that you have no clue what you're talking about. Science does not advance by consensus — it's not a democracy. Simply because a bunch of scientists are in a global warming circle jerk does not make it right. I see no mention in anything that you've posted of the problems associated with these types of predictions. The problem of induction, selection bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, holistic underdetermination, and the problem of the priors are not considered by you. You probably haven't even heard of half of these things. You're like a bird claiming to be an expert on ornithology. That's pretty cheeky there, mate. I think the first thing you need to come to grips with is that science doesn't know anything. Science isn't even in the business of knowledge accumulation. The best that you could possibly claim about your climate models is that they are empirically sufficient, but even then I'd be very willing to argue against that claim. Anyway, your theory that skepticism about global warming claims is caused by scientific illiteracy has already been investigated and refuted. In fact, the more scientifically literate someone is, the more likely that person is to have polarized views. The fundamental problem is that scientists are not like normal people. From the same link above we find that 66 percent of scientists are either liberal or very liberal whereas only 25 percent of the population in general is. Even if I thought that global warming was a thing (I don't), I would still not favor government action to resolve the issue. Government involvement invariably makes things worse not better. Your fundamental problem is that you know eff all about economics. Might I recommend reading Economics in One Lesson? Maybe if you weren't so woefully ignorant about just about everything, you might have a more realistic view of the situation.
Climate Gate is a manufactured controversy.A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
