Point taken. I was wrong about this. What I recall from school was that Magellan or Columbus courageously undertook their trip despite the wide spread belief that the Earth was flat. Well, I was wrong, but I will take some comfort from this: Myth of the flat Earth Main article: Myth of the Flat Earth Beginning in the 19th century, a historical myth arose which held that the predominant cosmological doctrine during the Middle Ages was that the Earth was flat. An early proponent of this myth was the American writer Washington Irving, who maintained that Christopher Columbus had to overcome the opposition of churchmen to gain sponsorship for his voyage of exploration. Later significant advocates of this view were John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who used it as a major element in their advocacy of the thesis[138] that there was a long lasting and essential conflict between science and religion.[139] Subsequent studies of medieval science have shown that most scholars in the Middle Ages, including those read by Christopher Columbus, maintained that the Earth was spherical.[140] Some studies of the historical connections between science and religion have demonstrated that theories of their mutual antagonism ignore examples of their mutual support.[141][142] Ok, so I was still wrong, but at least according to Wikepedia (same source) the Chinese still largely persisted in believing in a flat Earth until the 17th Century. I'm going to pretend that is what I was referring to above. Or maybe I was channeling Irving. In any event, I will say it once again: I am not saying climate change doesn't exist or that it isn't man-made. I think it is ok to question things that one may be ignorant about, and if I was to simply say "I believe" without even questioning it, it would still have the same value: none. Because I am not in a position to know. All I can do is read and formulate opinions. But I'm not intending to provoke or poke anyone in the eye.
You may have been poking me, but I found the clip both hilarious and somewhat compelling (except the evolution thing.) The point that got me was the people relying upon studies and data without having read any of it themselves. I know that is not true for many of the posters here (like B-Bob specifically) or the scientists themselves. But, I am going to do some reading myself (for whatever that is worth) and sorry I am late to the party.
The disconnect between layman skeptics and scientists isn't the data but rather the math involved in generating the predictive climate models from the data. I don't know what your math and science background is but if it doesn't include how to set up systems of differential equations, fluid mechanics and thermodynamic cycles, reading up on it isn't going to make someone who is a skeptic to not being a skeptic. Many climate change skeptics don't have the tools to know what to be a skeptic on. Because of this they can be easily swayed by the online skeptic community with bogus propaganda.
Thanks. I'm sure that I don't have the necessary technical or scientific background to analyze the mathematics or the models themselves. But, I figure informing myself (even if I am left with just being swayed by the more persuasive or understandable authors as opposed to those who might actually be right) is better than nothing. I recall from a prior post that you are a graduate level (PHD potentially?) engineer so you are far better equipped than me, but I think you mentioned that this is also outside of your specialty. Are you relying on your faith in other scientists or have you done sufficient reading that you have developed your own beliefs? Just curiousity, not trying to be snarky.
In fact @jcf is relying on a third party secondary source's description about "what on earth happened"--not on Curry's explanation. I know a decent amount about Curry and know that she took early retirement from Georgia Tech to work on her consulting firm. The fact that she was tired of the academic bullshit re: climate politics probably also played a significant role in her decision to retire as well: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798
Let’s assume you’re correct; climate change is a complete myth. Do you still reject proposals that steer us toward renewable energy and away from coal/oil/fracking?
Really talking about the Out of Africa Migration. Wikipedia says 300,000 to 200,000 BCE. Humans reached Australia 65,000 to 50,000 BCE, which in my mind makes them "behaviorally modern" since they build sea going rafts with stone tools. Gotta give them props.
here's an interview with Curry's arch-nemesis Michael Mann, who says "So, once again, to be in a position to be fighting on the right side of a battle between good and evil – which frankly it is – is a privilege." Interesting stuff. https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/...ayBmA6DzlWUlD5Zx84TgajzUM7sfMe2_nPa7m0rq8i5hU
Thanks for the link. The part you quoted deserves some more context: ... It was the same players and the same motive and the same disingenuity. In the case of Climategate, there have now been the better part of a dozen investigations in the US and the UK, and they have all come to the conclusion there was no impropriety on the part of the scientists whose emails had been stolen. The only wrongdoing was the criminal theft of the emails in the first place. The science that we are doing is a threat to the world’s most powerful and wealthiest special interests. The most powerful and wealthiest special interest that has ever existed: the fossil fuel industry. They have used their immense resources to create fake scandals and to fund a global disinformation campaign aimed at vilifying the scientists, discrediting the science, and misleading the public and policymakers. Arguably, it is the most villainous act in the history of human civilisation, because it is about the short-term interests of a small number of plutocrats over the long-term welfare of this planet and the people who live on it. So, once again, to be in a position to be fighting on the right side of a battle between good and evil – which frankly it is – is a privilege.
What you are really saying is that you don't trust scientists and since you can never possibly understand the complexities of climate, you will forever go on being skeptical of climate science claims. In other words, you only trust what you know, but are unwilling / unable to know enough to overcome your skepticism. Ignorance is bliss huh?
Nope. Actually, what i am saying is that sometimes it is ok to admit ignorance on a subject and then go do your own reading on it to formulate your views even if is a technical matter outside of your expertise. I have learned a lot about Michael Mann, the hockey stick, the limitations with the tree ring analysis, etc over the last 24 hours. I expect to learn a lot more. I am not sure how much serious reading you have done on the subject. Or what your cognitive capabilities are. But, I think questioning and trying to learn are preferable to blindly picking a side and not accepting any information that deviates fromyour world view.
I wasn't convinced regarding global warming until i read how the models correctly predicted which parts of the atmosphere would warm and which parts would cool and the impact that would have on temperatures (nighttime temps would be mainly affected and they were) - that and other evidence is what convinced me. But there's a lot of psuedo science to lead one astray and the hard part is that the right throws a lot of junk out there to try to win the PR battle and a lot of folks fall for thinking they are being scientific and open-minded when they are not.
Good summary of William Nordhaus's work on why most climate policy goals that have been recommended would be ruinously inexpensive. Excerpt: William Nordhaus was a co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change. On the day of the Nobel announcement, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a special report1 advising the governments of the world on various steps necessary to limit cumulative global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The major media coverage treated the two events as complementary.2 In fact, they are incompatible. Although Nordhaus favors a carbon tax to slow climate change, his own model shows that the UN’s target would make humanity poorer than doing nothing at all about climate change. Indeed, we can use Nordhaus’s and other standard models to show that the now-championed 1.5°C target is ludicrously expensive, far more costly than the public has been led to believe. This is presumably why the new IPCC special report does not even attempt to justify its policy goals in a cost/benefit framework. Rather, it takes the 1.5°C target as a politically “given” constraint and then discusses the pros and cons of various mechanisms to achieve it. It is ironic that in the context of accusations that opponents of government intervention are “science deniers,” the latest UN report largely ignores the peer-reviewed publications in climate-change economics, including those of the man who just won the Nobel Prize in the field.3 *** Conclusion Both fans and critics of William Nordhaus’s computer model of the global economy and climate acknowledge that it is a crude approach that omits many crucial real-world considerations. Even so, it is surely significant that the work that won Nordhaus the Nobel Prize says quite plainly that the UN’s special report on climate change is full of proposals that are ludicrously expensive. In an interview after Nordhaus accepted his prize, he diplomatically handled the situation by saying that the 1.5°C target is impossible to achieve at this point.10 Yet we can go further. Nordhaus’s work shows that such an aggressive goal would make humanity much worse off than if we simply adapted to climate change with no government measures. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html
Decades ago before global warming started to have impact, the models predicted the following: 1. That doubling the CO2 level would raise the temp 2 degrees (true) 2. The stratosphere would cool (true) 3. Greater precipitation (true) 4. More winter and spring precipitation in the northern United States, and less for the Southwest (true) 5. Greater warming at night than day (true) 6. Greater warming in the Arctic and over land than over oceans (true) 7. A 6 cm sea level rise (true) 8. The jet stream would retreat poleward and meander more (true) There' more but this could be enough to start to convince you that climate scientists are not the evil quacks fighting against the wholesome fossil fuel industry you make it all out to be.
