Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

What a load of Drivel. The volcano driven little Ice age is a little over 170 years in the rear view mirror you want it warmer. A rational assessment of current warming would be thank God.

 

See post #971, which includes a blog from the inveterate hack, Charles Rotter.............who is 0-324.

 

As you have been told many times, Charles is an administrator at WUWT. The author of #971 is Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu › about_us › meet_us



Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001. He is the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics. Roger’s research focuses on science, innovation and politics. In 2011 he began to write and research on the governance of sports organizations, including FIFA and the NCAA. Roger holds degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science, all from the University of Colorado. In 2012 Roger was awarded an honorary doctorate from Linköping University in Sweden and was also awarded the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America. Roger also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany in 2006 for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He is also author, co-author or co-editor of seven books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press (2007), The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell you About Global Warming (2010, Basic Books) and The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change (2014, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes). His most recent book is The Edge: The War Against Cheating and Corruption in the Cutthroat World of Elite Sports (Roaring Forties Press, 2016).

 

Judith Curry crushes "consensus" blather.

A bad recipe for science
Posted on November 17, 2023 by curryja | 1 comment
by Judith Curry

Politically-motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions

An essay with excerpts from my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk.

Continue reading →
". . . A critical strategy in the politicization of science is the manufacture of a scientific consensus on politically important topics, such as climate change and Covid-19. The UN climate consensus is used as an appeal to authority in the representation of scientific results as the basis for urgent policy making. In effect, the UN has adopted a “speaking consensus to power” approach that sees uncertainty and dissent as problematic and attempts to mediate these into a consensus. The consensus-to-power strategy reflects a specific vision of how politics deals with scientific uncertainties.

There is a key difference between a “scientific consensus” and a “consensus of scientists.” When there is true scientific certainty, such as the earth orbiting the sun, we don’t need to talk about consensus. By contrast, a “consensus of scientists” represents a deliberate expression of collective judgment by a group of scientists, often at the official request of a government.

Institutionalized consensus building promotes groupthink, acting to confirm the consensus in a self-reinforcing way. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has worked for the past 40 years to establish a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. As such, the IPCC consensus is a “manufactured consensus” arising from an intentional consensus building process. The IPCC consensus has become canonized socially through a political process, bypassing the long and complex scientific validation process as to whether the conclusions are actually true. . . .

Political and moral biases in a manufactured consensus can lead to widely accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions. A manufactured consensus hampers scientific progress because of the questions that do not get asked and the investigations that are not undertaken. Further, consensus enforcement interferes with the self-correcting nature of science via skepticism, which is a foundation of the scientific process. . . .

With regards to climate change, what is going on represents more than politically motivated consensus enforcement and cancel culture. Climate change has become a secular religion, rife with dogma, heretics and moral-tribal communities. The secular religion of climate change raises concerns that are far more fundamental than the risks of bad policy. At risk is the fundamental virtues of the Scientific Revolution and the freedom to question authority. . . . "

 

There is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that CO2 is a threat to life as we know it.

The above claims are all either false or misleading. As for the heading, some recent climate changes have been moderately rapid -- certainly nowhere near as rapid as the deglaciation ~12Kya -- but are not unprecedented in the least.

The first claim above is true, but offers no evidence that it is a problem. CO2 is broadly beneficial, as is warmer climate.

The second claim may be true, but is fully explained by the fact that in the 20th century, solar activity was also at the highest sustained level in several thousand years.

Third claim, as above. The fact that increased solar activity in the 20th century (to the highest sustained level in at least thousands of years, remember) has returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in at least 10,000 years is not only an entirely natural and expected result of natural climate cycles, but cause for celebration. Without the fertilization effect of the warmer climate on agricultural yields (increased CO2 also helps, of course), millions more people would be starving to death every year.

It seems that many anti-fossil-fuel hatemongers want millions more people to starve to death every year.

However, that viewpoint is unambiguously evil.

The fourth claim, above, is out of date, as it has been falsified by recent heavy precipitation in California and other Western states -- Al Gore's "rain bombs," which are somehow a problem caused by CO2 if they don't happen, but likewise a problem caused by CO2 when they do.

But it was warmer during the Holocene Optimum ~6000-8000 years ago. Conditions are more favorable for humanity when the climate is warmer -- we evolved in the tropics, remember -- which is why such periods were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically unacceptable.

Yes, greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are higher than they have been for millions of years. But there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that they have had any substantial effect on global surface temperature, or that they will be, on balance, harmful.

You may now consider yourself at least minimally educated on this topic.

 

Hint, you aren't helping your case by making reference to hobbyists.

 

The rubber band with which you routinely stretch credulity just snapped.

 

Well then I suppose you could help out the cause. But that would mean you'd have to stop breathing.

I wouldn't recommend it.

 

No. That is a good example of the kind of deceitful, anti-scientific trash that passes for argument among anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers, and is very successful in deceiving the naive.

It is true that the misnamed "greenhouse" effect (greenhouses work by blocking convective heat loss, not radiative heat loss) keeps our planet at a livable temperature. But almost all of that effect is due to water vapor, not CO2 or other artificial greenhouse gases, and above a very low level (<1% of the lowest-ever natural level) the effect of additional atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic, so the rate of increase is not alarming to any informed person, and it has made, and will make, the planet only slightly hotter, not "much, much" hotter. Claims to the contrary are based on assuming a very large, empirically unobserved, and physically implausible positive water vapor feedback.

Large water vapor feedback is a hypothetical effect that would have happened if CO2 had ever been entirely absent from the earth's atmosphere: the earth would have been frozen, and adding even a little CO2 would have had a very large warming effect by melting ice, releasing water vapor, and triggering the positive water vapor feedback that would melt all the ice except near the poles. But once that hypothetical effect has been triggered, adding more CO2 has almost no effect on surface temperature because water vapor and other natural greenhouse gases, including CO2, massively oversaturate the infrared absorption spectrum.

No, that is just more deceitful, anti-scientific trash. The fact that most observed warming is natural -- caused by the sun and various internal cyclical factors in the climate system -- does not in any way imply that the greenhouse effect is not real.

Trash lacking any evidence.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

This is another excellent analysis by Dr. Curry, and I highly recommend it.

 

800K years is a convenient cherry picked date. 150 million years ago CO2 concentration was 5 times higher than today, 10 times higher 400 million or so years ago when the earth was ice cold. What is more interesting, over 500 million years (to the extent we can measure it) there is almost a rough negative correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.

How do you or anyone else have a clue what the rate of sea level rise (or fall) was 200-300 years ago, let alone 3000 years? ANS: you/they don't.

2000 years is also a nice cherry pick. It excludes the Rome Warming Period but does include the Medieval Warming period which Mann and a very few others along with the IPCC completely ignored because it messed up Mann's hockey stick. The rise from the low point to the high point in the Roman warm period was pretty much as fast as our last 50 years. The Roman period did rise about 2-C hotter than we are today. Probably from all the hot CO2 coming out of the bloviating Roman Senators or the methane from cattle farts. The rise during the medieval warming period was less than ours the past 50 years but not by much, though its high temperature pretty much matches ours. What's the point?

What does a drought (or forest fire or hurricane or deluge or etc.) have to do with global warming? The Sahara desert has been cycling between desert and green foliage with rivers and lakes for thousands of centuries. It turned desert much quicker than normal about 9000-11,000 years ago. Methane from all the sheep and goats perhaps?

 

That comes perilously close to being a bad faith post.

". . . He previously served in the Environmental Studies Program and was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's Saïd Business School in the 2007–2008 academic year.[2]

A prolific writer, his interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and research on the governance of sports organizations, including FIFA and the NCAA. . . . .

Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist[3] in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was director of graduate studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the board of directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University[4][5] and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.[6] . . . ."
Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.



Roger A. Pielke Jr. (born November 2, 196 is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within ...

 

Hint, you aren't helping your case by implying that you really think an eminent polymath like Roger Pielke Jr. is a "hobbyist."

 

Some people just obdurately refuse to become even minimally educated...

 

Well done post. But you do realize I'm sure that facts and cites don't carry much weight in this debate.

 

You're going to get a headache banging your head against that wall!

 

Curry is one of the top climate scientists going.

However, looking at the forest instead of the trees, it's instructive to keep in mind what is really behind the global warming effort. This is the political attempt to destroy capitalism and institute a global totalitarian government. Essential to that process is the insistence that the party line be always followed explicitly. This also includes altering facts and science to match the agenda, to wit a German official who in the late 30s said scientists must assess the benefits to the Reich that their science brings.

The above does not include many serious climate scientists who are protagonists of global warming. However they subconsciously support the political aims but not consciously or deliberately.

 

Polymath. Don’t see that term often. Love it.

 

And an enforced consensus is a bit of an oxymoron.

Science is about measurement.
Measurement shows that it's worse now than during McCarthyism.

HOW AMERICAN COLLEGES GAVE BIRTH TO CANCEL CULTURE:
'“In 2010, FIRE saw 19 attempts to get professors punished. But then came an explosion. From 2014 to mid-2023, we know of more than 1,000 attempts to get professors fired, punished, or otherwise silenced. About two thirds of these attempts are successful, resulting in consequences from investigation to termination. But even unsuccessful attempts matter, because they are more than sufficient in chilling speech.'

'To give a sense of proportion, only three professors were fired or forced out of schools over something they said in the post-9/11 panic. The modern era of cancel culture (2014 to present), by contrast, has resulted in almost 200 professor terminations. That exceeds even the standard estimate of 100 professors terminated in the second Red Scare (1947 to 1957).'

'To gauge a better sense of the actual scale, FIRE surveyed college faculty and found that 16 percent of professors said they have either been disciplined or threatened with discipline for their speech, teaching, or academic research. Seven percent even said they have actually been investigated. And a whopping 29 percent said they’ve been pressured by administrators to avoid controversial research.'

'It’s especially alarming that cancel culture is concentrated in the most influential universities in the country. The top 10 of U.S News & World Report’s top-ranked colleges account for more than 10 percent of all cancellation attempts. The top 100 account for more than 40 percent. At the top 10 colleges, less than a quarter of cancellation attempts are launched by conservatives.”'

They are now left-wing propaganda and indoctrination centers with expulsion for heresy.

 

While it was only 16% who got disciplined or threatened, it was probably close to 90% to 100% of the professors who had a conservative leaning philosophy, although there is a slightly larger percentage in the scientific and engineering disciplines than in social and political science disciplines.

 

Yes. These censorious rat bastards need to be held to account. There is no legitimate reason for the US taxpayer to continue to fund illegitimate speech and thought control by egg-headed zealots.

 

And then it went down again, and temperatures rose even faster, making anyone pushing the solar theory look hopelessly deluded, someone to never take seriously on any topic.

Now, do what you always do. Wave those hands around wildly and try to make that awful reality go away.

No, it wasn't. You're pushing outright fabrications now. They get debunked, you push them again. We show the evidence, you say it's faked. Your cult tactics are old and boring.

So, how many people are you willing to kill to make yourself one dollar? Just wondering how you justify your genocide. How much of a pirce are you willing to make others pay for your own benefit? That is the entire point of denialism, after all.

 

A fine example of the infallibility of the "every conservative accusation is a confession" rule.

Also a fine example of how deniers can't argue the science, so they evade with crank political conspiracy theories.

Liberals talk hard science, conservatives talk about their feelings being hurt.

 

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. Temperatures rose fastest in the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods because the historically high solar activity coincided with the up-phases of the 60-year ocean circulation cycle. They were on a downtrend for six years before the dramatic and unexpected increase in solar activity this year:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/October2023/202310_Bar.png

These facts make anyone who denies the sun's effect on global surface temperature based on absurd and dishonest anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda look hopelessly deluded, someone to never take seriously on any topic.

Now, do what you always do. Wave those hands around wildly and try to make that awful reality go away.

It most certainly was. Every credible temperature reconstruction shows the Holocene Optimum was warmer than today:

"By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today."

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

You're pushing outright fabrications now. They get debunked, you push them again. We show the evidence, you say it's faked. Your cult tactics are old and boring.

The evidence is conclusive that cold kills an order of magnitude more people than heat; it would kill orders of magnitude more if not for cheap, safe, convenient and reliable fossil fuels; and CO2 fertilization of crops has already saved many thousands of people from starvation.

So, how many people are you willing to kill to make yourself feel virtuous? Just wondering how you justify your genocide. How much of a price are you willing to make others pay for your own anti-scientific absurdities? That is the entire point of climate nonscience, after all.