Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

@ Mathias
Please google “post-normal science” and you will find that the IPCC invented this term more or less. Scientists telling people that facts they cannot proof are true because
it is better and safer for mankind. And of course those pseudo-scientists determine the way we should handle those facts. Very strange understanding of science.
I was always astonished how few meteorologists and climatologists belong to those IPCC members. Mostly educationists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists, politicians and also Indian railway engineers use post-normal science to have people believe in their theories.

Post-normal science and the global climate change issue

EDxx, Germany

Airborne_Again wrote:

So the reason you don’t agree with the science is that you object to being part of a consensus?

Since when did science become politics, anyway?
Politics is about consensus and science is about definition.

So, yes, I have an issue when the fundamental science is still in play. Why you’re so heated about it is strange to me. What is your particular benefit in pressuring me to subscribe to your one-liner “man-made climate change”?

Why does it rub you the wrong way that I am still looking for more proof before I say, “yes I agree that the cause of what we’re observing on the earth at the moment, is being induced by carbon from human activity.”
When we reach 100% of people agreeing (probably regime style) will you then be satisfied?

How far will those in the consensus go to pressure those who aren’t to declare otherwise?
Honest question.

If someone is a skeptic, yet pays the carbon tax, fulfills the laws, and help offset their carbon footprint (anyway) will they be labeled a ‘denier’ and all of their beneficial activities labeled ‘hateful’ or ‘destructive’?

Last Edited by AF at 06 Oct 13:46

Buckerfan wrote:

67% of members of the American Meteorological Society believe that climate change is “largely or entirely” caused by humans

Well meteorology is weather, not climate. And it’s a piece in Forbes, so absolutely no bias there

But anyway, let’s dig a little deeper:

Of that society’s members,

- only 37% have a degree in meteorology. But even this doesn’t really help, as there isn’t any formal climatology coursework in a meteorology BA.

- Many are TV weathermen or high school science teachers. I have nothing against either, but there are many people I’d consult with on climate before them.

- Of the TV weathermen, they’re very aware of alienating the politically conservative element of their audience, so plenty of self-censorship.

- In fact, only 35% consider themselves experts in climatology. Something I’d have assumed would be something of a prerequisite?

- High probability to be older, white males – the demographic most likely to be sceptical of mainstream climate science in any event

Luckily AMS’s leadership team has explicitly endorsed the scientific community’s consensus that humans are unequivocally causing climate change.

https://slate.com/technology/2016/04/meteorologists-and-regular-people-still-arent-sure-humans-cause-climate-change.html

Buckerfan wrote:

Sure. But science is not driven by “consensus”.

No, it isn’t. Nor is everyone who disagrees with the IPCC a new Galileo.

That argument works both ways. What you’re really saying is that there is no such thing as “scientific knowedge”, ever.

(This can also serve as an answer to the question by @AF “Why does it rub you the wrong way”.)

BTW: I would really, really, really wish that the IPCC is wrong. But in my mind the evidence points in a very different direction.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I found this interesting……………

Late last month, a group of over 500 scientists and climate professionals sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations appealing for an open debate on climate change.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration stated. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they continued.

The declaration’s signers insisted that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable trend of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they noted. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.

United Kingdom

Archer-181 wrote:

a group of over 500 scientists

Hey, one of them is our old friend, fossil fuel corporation sponsored Richard Lindzen!

I wonder how many of the remainder are also picking up a few $$$ from Exxon, Shell etc?

Whatever. Let’s hear what the community says:

“Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low’.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading.

“Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.”

Here’s a bit more cherry-picking:

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount predicted by climate models.

Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead. I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct research on climate change and its impacts.

Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity. Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously claiming to be against that.

Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis:
Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change is a massive and urgent problem.

Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Università di Milano:
The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims.

Wow. Pretty damning stuff.

Last Edited by DavidJ at 06 Oct 19:19

There will always be vested interests in science, because everybody has to eat.

Loads of scientists live off research grants. These are handed out by organisations who want to sponsor a particular line of research. Some is driven by a need to make informed policy decisions. Some is driven by fashion. Some by political correctness (non PC research is very hard to get funding for). In many cases the source of the funds wants to see a particular outcome, and if that outcome is not delivered, no new grants will be made to the same people… If these scientists publish, they are not required to disclose that without the funding they and their family will starve – because it is obvious to everyone.

Loads of scientists are employed – full-time or part-time – by businesses. If they publish, they are supposed to disclose this source of income. Occassionally they don’t. If they do disclose, their work should not rank any lower than anyone else’s because, like the others, they have to eat.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’m one of them. Used to be a mighty struggle to get a grant for materials science as nobody believed it would have the economic impact we said it would. I turned my hand to materials for solar H2 generation and they just hand over the money with very little scrutiny

EIWT, Ireland

DavidJ wrote:

Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead. I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct research on climate change and its impacts.

Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity. Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously claiming to be against that.

Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis:
Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change is a massive and urgent problem.

David, do you have some link to this ? There ought to be more details. Just these three statements I can hardly believe refer to the same document.
One says it is wrong / insignificant / irrelevant – which I have trouble understanding. If what these people are writing is correct, then it is highly relevant and significant.
One says it has some element of truth in it, but is presented in a misleading way. And that may be the case.
One says tehre are direct lies in it…
Have these folks read the same document and where is the consensus now ? ;-)

...
EDM_, Germany

ch.ess wrote:

David, do you have some link to this

Link

ch.ess wrote:

One says it has some element of truth in it, but is presented in a misleading way.

That’s putting it charitably!

And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science

Peter wrote:

In many cases the source of the funds wants to see a particular outcome

Well, quite.

Last Edited by DavidJ at 06 Oct 21:25
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top