I need help finding sites, papers, and other sources for skepticism on the dire predictions of climate scientists. Those of you who doubt climate change or it's predicted severity, can you share with me the information you find most convincing and well-researched?
The skepticism has little to with the actual data but rather the mathematical models that predict a 3-5 degree Celsius average global increase in the next century that use systems of partial differential equations and 99.9% of those skeptics don't even know what a partial differential equation is. Currently the Trump adminstration is using a quack physicist who has zero experience mathematically modeling the climate to purge all these models as being inaccurate with no evidence.
People who typically are climate change skeptics also look down on advanced education, PHDs but are suddenly the biggest science experts when it comes to the climate.
They are tied together. A climate scientist has the math education and experience. It's part of their jobs to model and understand these models.
Oh man I think I misunderstood you the first time- You mean the skeptics don't understand the math behind the models.
For a long time, I thought one of the best-informed true scientist skeptics was Richard A. Muller, of Berkeley. He wasn't a climate scientist, per se, but he brought some really interesting criticisms to the table, I thought, without denying the basic data. He's really changed his tune, overall, and thinks the data point to pretty obvious conclusions now. I think he still thinks people freak out too much about it, and I know he thinks that scientists lose credibility when they become political advocates of some kind. Here's his famous op-ed / column in 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html Recent podcast with him you might find interesting. https://www.sumologic.com/podcast/climate-science-data-richard-muller/ To me, (I'm a physicist who does not do climate anything), it looks like almost all serious people with know-how are only debating: how much temperature change will we really see, how fast, and how quickly can human communities adapt or adjust. There are also interesting conversations about how to artificially reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere (scrubbing). None of this answers your question, OP. Sorry about that. If you want a scientist's skeptical view, I know some people are fond of ... Judith Curry! Her arguments do not especially impress me, (or many other scientists), but she had the appropriate training to be involved in the conversation. But it seems to me she talks more about sociology, which she is not necessarily trained for. EDIT: To Curry's credit, I should say: the sociology of science is relevant in the process of science. I've seen that up close. Scientists are human and therefore can be tribal like other humans. But I believe there are good checks and balances and plenty of scientists are skeptical of consensus by nature. In the present case, I just don't believe social pressure or group think is in any way the driving force. The data trends and the underlying mechanisms are too straightforward, even if modeling future predictions is more difficult. cheers.
That's what I'm seeing too. What's weird is there's one group saying that the scientific community has been to careful and conservative in their estimates in order not to scare people too much, and then you have Muller saying that the community has been exaggerating in order to scare people. Interesting. It seems to me, the fact that he's pushing his own nuclear waste disposal solution should be considered a personal bias in favor of nuclear. Great post, thank you.
Great question Nolen but coming from someone who is surrounded by the climate change DGAF crowd daily I have really the answer that allows them disregard the responsibility to make change. Religion The one thing I hear more than anything about Climate Change is “well God is in control”. Basically the weather and climate is perceived as an act of God. With that fundamental aspect not changing ever, it makes the data completely irrelevant to even consider change. There’s also a secondary response I hear as well which is...well I won’t be here anyways. These are older people who are just plain selfish. The data doesn’t matter to them as well until you get to a generation that feels like the people in their lives they have a vested interest in their future will see the brunt of the consequences. It’s a misunderstanding that scientists really agree on anything that isn’t black and white science. The fact that 99% of scientists are all raising the red flag tells you all you need to know. It’s now the job of the communicators in our society (media, politicians, Hollywood, etc) to take the data and start plainly educating the general public with the most basically conveyed facts that even the dumbest most ignorant person alive cannot rebuke and then repeat repeat repeat.
@Cohete Rojo ? Care to chime in? You used to post on this topic in great detail, often making your own threads. I was hoping to hear from you. Care to share your top recommendations for reading? I promise I'm asking in good faith.
Thanks for the recommendation. Do I recall correctly that you were critical of IPCC reports in the past? Will I find some information and data from NASA and IPCC that counters the dire warnings of climate scientists? I thought IPCC sort of is the mainstream opinion of that community.
It's a misconception. IPCC report shows range of potentials of temp, sea level, "warning", ... You can nitpick to your liking.
I'm not critical of the science reports. I have nothing to say of the policy reports. I use the reports as a source. I'll summarize the topics of which I am skeptical and try to rank the topic: Oceanic influences -- The way I interpretted the IPCC's report is that there is low confidence with regards to whether global warming is changing the Walker circulation or whether the Walker circulation is changing the global temperature. The Walker circulation has a huge influence on El Nino/La Nina conditions in the Pacific; essentially the 800hPa winds create a huge west-bound wave of water, which is what creates La Ninas. Source of high skepticism. Particulate matter -- there exists some inability to measure either the direct on indirect effect of particulates (I think indirect, as in cloud effects). Source of low-to-mid skepticism. Carbon cycle -- there seems to be a real mystery as to how the carbon (CO2) cycle works. For instance, we have been exponentially increasing our CO2 output but the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does not increase as expected. Source of low skepticism. Water Vapor -- I can't remember what I said about this, if anything, but I find the lack of attention given to atmospheric water vapor very unusual. It is a very potent greenhouse gas. Source of low skepticism. That's just the science portion of it all. The policy portion is a different discussion. Even if one accepts the "mainstream" science consensus on climate change, is one necessarily accepting the "mainstream" consensus on the policy (whatever that is)? For instance, @Sweet Lou 4 2 (who frequently sites NASA and IPCC as part of the "Koch brother" conspiracy), believes global warming will devastate the world but is opposed to policy that would lower greenhouse gases because he believes the damage is already baked in. Correct me if I'm wrong.