On September 6, 2019 at 16:41, davidcasemore said...
There is no contrary evidence to this topic, just like there is no contrary evidence that we live on a globe. Get over it. This ship has sailed. The "contrary evidence" has been argued to death and ripped apart at the seams to the point that there is NO MORE POINT in examining it.
Trivialising the issue by comparing those who disagree with consensus alarmism to conspiracy theorists and cranks is precisely what Stephan Lewandowsky attempted to do with his "NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax" paper. It has since gone on to become something of a seminal work and case study1 on how left-wing bias has crept into social psychology: that "graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths".
In researching science (and climate science in particular), it quickly became apparent to me that my previous opinion of its being conducted by wholly honourable professionals was misplaced. Whether for financial gain, notoriety or both, the field is well stocked with its fair share of charlatans and tricksters, only here, if believed, it can lead research down blind alleys and even do serious harm. (For the present at least, I think I/we can be thankful that, unlike Lysenkoism, climate scepticism is not being met with gulags or a bullet in the back of the head.)
Notwithstanding the ethical issues surrounding its financing2, the abstract of Lewandowsky's Moon Landings paper (published in "Psychological Science" in 2013) says this:
"We…show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings above and beyond commitment to laissez-faire free markets. This provides confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science."
Upon actually reading of the paper though, which is recognised (even within its profession) as being replete with obfuscation and statistical techniques designed to obscure the study's true results, it becomes apparent that out of the 1145 participants, only 10 agreed that the moon landings were a hoax. Furthermore, 98.7% of participants, who thought that climate science was a hoax, did not think that the moon landings were a hoax: the complete opposite of what the paper's title was claiming. Perhaps even more disturbing though is that: "no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations."
It appears that in the realm of social psychology, those on the left outnumber those on the right by a ratio of about 10:1. This means that even if left and right biases were equal, there would be about ten times more research validating left-wing narratives than right. When "adding in the apparent double standards in the peer review process (where studies validating left-wing narratives seemed to be easier to publish) then the bias within the field could vastly exceed the ratio of 10:1. In other words, research was becoming an exercise in groupthink".
Parallels with this can be seen in climate science. After hearing that the Medieval Warming Period was causing the alarmist message to be diluted, a biased researcher seeking to find evidence of anthropogenic global warming produces a study overturning a swathe of previously accepted research. It is accepted (seemingly without question) not only by its reviewers but also by a political organisation seeking a realignment of world politics. When its authenticity/robustness is questioned, and independent verification demanded, not only is the request denied but those making the request are accused of being unqualified, not understanding the science, or even of being science deniers - which is laughable as some are more eminently more qualified than the researcher himself.
With the support of a UN body, further similar studies unsurprisingly produce similar results and are latched upon by a compliant MSM eager to promote the message of alarm. Little is heard, from those in mainstream science concerned at the quality of the science being produced and the lack of verification. With money now pouring into climate research, the incentive not to question increases exponentially, while those who continue to do so lose funding and have their livelihoods threatened3. Peer-review publications abound with new revelations of impending disaster. The BBC holds a seminar and determines, from a group of 'leading experts in the field', that contrary to its charter of impartiality, the sceptic viewpoint is no longer to be heard. And without any understanding of how it's to be achieved, the UK passes the 2008 Climate Change Act: enacting legally binding legislation to reduce CO2 emissions - still the only country in the world to do.
With such overwhelming coverage supporting the notion of anthropogenic climate change, it’s of little wonder so many members of the public unquestionably accept it. Rarely, however, have I encountered a mind so closed that not only is the door shut, it's bolted, locked and the keys thrown away. Such a denial of reason logic and evidence is the very definition of groupthink4.
To me, the claim there is no contrary evidence in climate science is akin to saying there is no contrary evidence in politics or the law, but Trump remains your President, and we now find ourselves battling Parliament for them to honour the referendum result of 2016.
The "science" of Mann’s graph has been shown to be shoddy (as to have others using similar methodologies). I thus find it staggering that someone with such conviction is happy to see such material, the author of which still refusing to submit it for verification, being used as evidence to support a drive for global political change as a 'cure' which could, in reality, quite easily be worse than the 'disease'.
Climategate showed collusion between a body of scientists to delete emails and withhold data, pressure being applied to alter results, pressure being applied to see peer review periodicals and editors suppress or delay publication of counter-evidence, pal review, and doubt and uncertainty with their methods. On the media front, exaggerations and distortions abound, with the BBC's darling nonagenarian being at the forefront of propaganda so blatant and easily refutable it beggars belief. Is one also aware of the determined resistance by the BBC to deny a pensioner the right to know who the 'leading experts in the field', at their aforementioned seminar, were - a publicly funded body refusing to allow the public knowledge of its editorial policy? Needless to say, it was eventually exposed as a sham, as those 'experts' were found to be nothing more than a collective of activists, advocates and business representatives with a vested interest in maintaining alarm. And while its outcome was to deny the likes of Lord Lawson a voice at the BBC, we now learn of a BBC meeting, which entertained representatives of the anarchist group Extinction Rebellion, to discuss its editorial coverage of the same.
Science doesn’t occur in a vacuum; it evolves with further research deepening one's understanding. After 30 years of 10 years to save the planet there is now increasing evidence that CO2 isn't the demon it' portrayed as being. Like Brexit though, where remoaner desperation continues to use the fear of the unknown and every trick at its disposal to thwart the democratic will of the people, so to have the alarmist calls become more strident and desperate. Nature is failing to play to play the IPCC game: to the extent that the US historical temperature record is being reinvented homogenised to suggest that 20th century warming was more significant than it actually was5.
Clearly one has faith in the prognostications of the purveyors of flaky science, a nonagenarian Malthusian, and a pig-tailed Swedish teenage with a personality disorder. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I would prefer to see clear evidence before jumping off the cliff. What there was didn't cut it, and what counter-evidence there now is (and continually being produced) suggests I was right to resist the temptation.