Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[Ravin]

Yeah I wonder if there is something extra crazy about batshit.

 

I figured it was invented by the buddies of some dude who went postal after too long working in a cave mining batshit.

[Guest]

Not to mention Alaskan indigenous communities facing the rock and the hard place of rising seas and a lack of options for moving their villages to higher ground:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/29/science/alaska-global-warming.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

Another interesting and complex issue, I saw this when it ran and was disappointed they didn't do better and more balanced reporting :(

 

They're blaming global warming but the issues at hand are actually more to do with building on a marshland, the permafrost, weight of structures fatigue over time, improper waste disposal, AND refusing to invest in infrastructure to overcome these things. Remember I have a legislator for a family member, we deal with rural infrastructure issues, both social and physical, regularly. I was glad to see it getting some national notice but unfortunately the reporting was pretty bad and had an angle that had a lot more to do with environmental pressure that the actual issues at hand.

 

Blaming changes in permafrost on climate change hasn't been borne out well either given that the frost has crept in regions even as it has shrunk in others and trying to utilize some modern technology, like heated structures, while refusing to sink those structures far enough down to avoid the frost heave and super saturated clay issues? Bigger problem than someone bottling and burning a natural gas or putting fuel in their snow machine.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Guest]

I figured it was invented by the buddies of some dude who went postal after too long working in a cave mining batshit.

I'm pretty sure it has to do with offgassing of guano and bacteria. Chickens can cause similar crazy. Maybe we should coin chickensh*t crazy?

 

I'm teaching handwriting while checking in on this thread - I keep hoping I don't let weird comments slip to my kids as I'm laughing about this thread.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[swimmermom3]

It's sad that so many here are unable to correctly interpret a straightforward scientific graph.

 

It's also sad that when you are shown the clear evidence that clouds are, by far, the dominant factor which impacts the temperature of the Earth that many simply cannot comprehend it.  The reason this data does not show up in the mainstream media is because it would be OBVIOUS to most individuals that CO2 has little relevance in this subject.

 

And most here have not grasped that if they cannot produce a measured graph that shows that the average cloud cover on Earth has not move around much (like it has), they cannot support their blind belief that CO2 is a problem for the climate.

 

Finally, it is sad that so many do not realize that measurements are the key to science.  When the measurements do not match the predictions, it is nearly always true that the predictions are wrong.  (The exception is when the measurements are extremely difficult to make.)

 

 

:svengo: :svengo: :svengo: Darn it, Reg!  Condescend much? And here I've been encouraging "my side" to play nice. Being Pollyanna sucks.

 

I have really been trying to behave myself.  Looking at some of your sources I am not sure how much YOU know about science.  Real science - conducted by real scientists from real schools.

 

But thank you for the excellent laugh.  I love the graph with NOAA and "Competent Scientist" on it. So professional.

 

[8circles]

Yup :p

 

Must be a side effect of Russian hacking, I'm sure that explains it.

Lol. I'm partial to "it was god's plan"

[Slartibartfast]

:svengo: :svengo: :svengo: Darn it, Reg!  Condescend much? And here I've been encouraging "my side" to play nice. Being Pollyanna sucks.

 

I have really been trying to behave myself.  Looking at some of your sources I am not sure how much YOU know about science.  Real science - conducted by real scientists from real schools.

 

But thank you for the excellent laugh.  I love the graph with NOAA and "Competent Scientist" on it. So professional.

That is what I was saying. :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

My apologies.

 

Still, I have put the facts in front of you.  If you want to dispute them, then you will need to explain how a non-insignificant amount of heat enters the ocean due to CO2 when all it can actually do is reduce the temperature drop of the top 1 micron of water by a mere 0.0005K.  That compares with clouds and sunlight which I have demonstrated can MASSIVELY outperform the CO2 to the point where it is a don't care.

I am going to link NASA kid's club since grown up NASA isn't working

 

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/climate-change-meaning/

 

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/menu/weather-and-climate/

 

Here is a game you can play

 

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/coral-bleaching/

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Ravin]

 

FWIW, I am not an advocate of the current-generation of wind turbines.  In short, I believe they do more harm than good.  But I am interested in KiteGen as they have an approach which really could make a difference.

 

 

What is the basis for your opinion that wind turbine electricity generation does more harm than good?

[Charlie]

:svengo: :svengo: :svengo: Darn it, Reg!  Condescend much? And here I've been encouraging "my side" to play nice. Being Pollyanna sucks.

 

I have really been trying to behave myself.  Looking at some of your sources I am not sure how much YOU know about science.  Real science - conducted by real scientists from real schools.

 

But thank you for the excellent laugh.  I love the graph with NOAA and "Competent Scientist" on it. So professional.

 

All science is suspect as it relies on math, and we know math makes people depressed. Depressed people can't be trusted because, you know, they're murderers and stuff.

 

[Paige]

What is the basis for your opinion that wind turbine electricity generation does more harm than good?

 

 

Probably the killing of endangered species as birds and bats fly into them.

[Slartibartfast]

Probably the killing of endangered species as birds and bats fly into them.

There are fancy ones now that look like trees.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/new-wind-turbine-looks-tree-coming-paris/

 

I do like them better than the giant doom blades. I was always a bit terrified of them due to being from a tornado prone state. :lol:

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

But all journalists are liars! So why would anyone in need of that list, look at the list ?

 

You can't reason with conspiracy theorists. The more you try to, the harder they dig in.

 

I think it's sad and unfair that you characterise an expectation that homeschoolers work hard to improve their media literacy, as a 'superior attitude' or a 'cheap shot'.

 

Sadie, all I've really been saying is that perhaps civility would work better in helping homeschoolers work hard to improve their media literacy.  However, I've since read several posts from the other side that have utilized numerous cheap shots and superior attitudes, so for now, all bets are off and I've thrown in the towel.

 

I am very grateful to Hornblower and Slarti for hanging in there and doing all of the research.  Their level of self-control is far greater than any I might have had. :tongue_smilie:

 

[Murphy101]

Wow. This thread's gone so far down the rabbit hole, it's just about to cause everyone to fall out the other side of the planet.

[swimmermom3]

All science is suspect as it relies on math, and we know math makes people depressed. Depressed people can't be trusted because, you know, they're murderers and stuff.

 

 

:lol: That may just require more Tito's.  Does vodka work with eggnog? Mathematically speaking, of course.

 

 

[Ravin]

[Note- people keep responding on this issue, so I am going to answer].

 

Nope.  Not true.  The baker could indeed decline to sell a cake with an objectionable message.

 

See here:  Adolph Hitler cake declined.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/-year-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WEm4DX2LUxg

 

 

Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.

 

Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, defended the supermarket. She said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.

 

"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.

So as long as the baker isn't Christian, it's ok. 

 

You are correct that I was merely repeating the argument from Hobby Lobby regarding the abortifacient nature of the declined types of birth control.

However, your Hobby Lobby analogy is off.  No one disallowed Hobby Lobby employees from buying whatever method they wanted with their paychecks.  These employees can spend their own money how they want.  Hobby Lobby just didn't want to spend its money on these few narrow types of birth control and the Court upheld this. 

 

I repeatedly agreed that a baker can decline to sell a cake with an objectionable message on it. What they cannot do is refuse to sell a cake they consider acceptable to someone because of what they think that person might do with the cake afterward it is no longer the property of the baker.

[Jane in NC]

All science is suspect as it relies on math, and we know math makes people depressed. Depressed people can't be trusted because, you know, they're murderers and stuff.

 

 

You have made my day.  Thank you.

 

(Such a graph was not readily available when I was in graduate school studying mathematics. Which should splain everything about me...)

 

 

[RegGuheert]

What is the basis for your opinion that wind turbine electricity generation does more harm than good?

 

With every technology available for generating electricity, there are two major costs: the materials and energy costs related to manufacture and installation and the ongoing costs of maintenance and fuel for operations.  Renewable solutions like photovoltaics and wind generators do not have an ongoing fuel cost, but they do have real costs for manufacture, installation and maintenance.  While wind turbines tend to have lower manufacturing and installation costs than photovoltaics, they have significantly higher operating and maintenance costs.  Those maintenance costs are one area where I think the crossover from being environmentally friendly to damaging occurs.

 

The extreme example to support my claim is the off-shore wind turbines Germany has installed in the North Sea.  I have read claims that the maintenance cost for those turbines are 100 TIMES the cost of the purchasing and installing the unit in the first place.  If that claim is anywhere near to being true, then certainly THOSE wind turbines will cause significantly more consumption of fossil fuels than almost any alternative.  (The ships that service those turbines do NOT run on batteries!)

 

I'm quite sure that land-based turbines do not have maintenance costs anywhere approaching that level, but it seems their costs are not insignificant.  Amazingly, many of the municipalities who purchased wind turbines in Germany are reporting that they cannot break even financially, even with significant subsidies.

 

There are also the reports of significant killings of birds and bats, including rare birds.  This video on Facebook by an environmentalist gives a bit of flavor of what can be found below wind turbines in Germany.  (Warning, that video is a bit gruesome.)

 

Then there's this:

 

 

I have seen calculations that Germany would need more than one wind turbine on each square kilometer of land in the entire country to meet their electricity demand with wind turbines.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Bluegoat]

But only those who cannot properly interpret the graph or its implications.

 

Oh, come on - you told us a diagram from the NOC showed the opposite of what the organization actually says about sea levels.  Why would anyone think you are really understanding the implications of any other data you are pulling off the internet?

[Ravin]

I have to admire your enthusiasm for someone with a geology degree from Arizona state being more compelling to you than Climatologists from Berkley University, NASA and NOAA.

 

It's interesting that you continue to link bad data from non-experts while insulting people on their ability to read graphs, extrapolate data, and reliance on "mainstream press" which quotes leading experts rather than fringe conspiracy theorists.

 

Dovetails nicely into the original topic of the thread, doesn't it?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:lol: That may just require more Tito's.  Does vodka work with eggnog? Mathematically speaking, of course.

 

 

 

Not very well.  And I have tried it.

 

Tito's with cranberry Sierra Mist?  Lovely.

[RegGuheert]

Oh, come on - you told us a diagram from the NOC showed the opposite of what the organization actually says about sea levels.  Why would anyone think you are really understanding the implications of any other data you are pulling off the internet?

 

There's the data and then there's the rhetoric.  The data does not show acceleration in sea level rise.  You claimed it does where you live, but you failed to provide the data.

 

[RegGuheert]

"Tone policing" is yet another logical fallacy.  Just saying.

[Ravin]

Again, you're arguing fallaciously with credentials as a stand in for taking apart the argument. Surely you can do better if you can't leave it alone :)

 

Credentials are important. The whole basis of determining quality of scientific research is by publication in peer-reviewed journals, so that research can be compared with other research to determine if multiple inquiries reach the same conclusions. Credentials therefore matter. Publishing to your own blog does not a legitimate science source make.

[swimmermom3]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

This was in that liberal rag, Scientific American.

 

"An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change"

 

More than 800 American earth scientists and energy experts holding and or pursuing PhD in relevant areas signed the letter.  The Chinese really have remarkable persuasive skills. :D

[Slartibartfast]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

This was in that liberal rag, Scientific American.

 

"An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change"

 

More than 800 American earth scientists and energy experts holding and or pursuing PhD in relevant areas signed the letter.  The Chinese really have remarkable persuasive skills. :D

Scientific American is so alarmist.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

Not very well.  And I have tried it.

 

Tito's with cranberry Sierra Mist?  Lovely.

 

No Sierra Mist here, darn. Oh well. Tito's can make many things better - including this thread. Trust me. I have journalism degree.

[Slartibartfast]

No Sierra Mist here, darn. Oh well. Tito's can make many things better - including this thread. Trust me. I have journalism degree.

 

That's what journalism degrees are for...booze.

[Minerva]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

This was in that liberal rag, Scientific American.

 

"An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change"

 

More than 800 American earth scientists and energy experts holding and or pursuing PhD in relevant areas signed the letter.  The Chinese really have remarkable persuasive skills. :D

 

I would like to add that it was 2,300 scientists (800 Americans) including twenty-two Nobel Prize winners. 

[Slartibartfast]

I would like to add that it was 2,300 scientists (800 Americans) including twenty-two Nobel Prize winners. 

 

Nobel Prize winners are alarmist.

That is what the Nobel Prize is for...being an alarmist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No Sierra Mist here, darn. Oh well. Tito's can make many things better - including this thread. Trust me. I have journalism degree.

 

We stockpile it at this time of year.  We may have a problem.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I would like to add that it was 2,300 scientists (800 Americans) including twenty-two Nobel Prize winners. 

 

Pffftttt...hippies.

[Ravin]

Another interesting and complex issue, I saw this when it ran and was disappointed they didn't do better and more balanced reporting :(

 

They're blaming global warming but the issues at hand are actually more to do with building on a marshland, the permafrost, weight of structures fatigue over time, improper waste disposal, AND refusing to invest in infrastructure to overcome these things. Remember I have a legislator for a family member, we deal with rural infrastructure issues, both social and physical, regularly. I was glad to see it getting some national notice but unfortunately the reporting was pretty bad and had an angle that had a lot more to do with environmental pressure that the actual issues at hand.

 

Blaming changes in permafrost on climate change hasn't been borne out well either given that the frost has crept in regions even as it has shrunk in others and trying to utilize some modern technology, like heated structures, while refusing to sink those structures far enough down to avoid the frost heave and super saturated clay issues? Bigger problem than someone bottling and burning a natural gas or putting fuel in their snow machine.

 

Personally I think the problem comes down to: The government insisted they situate the permanent villages where they in the first place are by putting the schools there, and now the government should pay to move them. 

 

Climate change does not mean "everything everywhere gets hotter". It means because average (median) temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans rise, there is more instability in the climate in general. That means things like bigger storms, permafrost melting in one place, freak ice storms where it didn't used to get that cold somewhere else, accelerated desertification, more floods, etc. 

[swimmermom3]

Scientific American is so alarmist.

 

Is that a logical fallacy, ad Eminem, or tone policing?  I've lost track.

 

[swimmermom3]

I would like to add that it was 2,300 scientists (800 Americans) including twenty-two Nobel Prize winners. 

 

So many ignorant, misguided souls who can't read graphs. I have underestimated the Chinese.

Edited December 9, 2016 by swimmermom3

[RegGuheert]

Scientific American is so alarmist.

 

They absolutely are.  In 2010 they attacked Dr. Judith Curry for leaving the fold.  That's not science.  It's a bullying tactic intended to silence critics.

[Bluegoat]

There's the data and then there's the rhetoric.  The data does not show acceleration in sea level rise.  You claimed it does where you live, but you failed to provide the data.

 

 

No. 

 

You posted a diagram which you claimed showed that global sea levels are not rising at levels that are alarming, nor is the rate of rising increasing.

 

You said any competent person should be able to read this.

 

I showed you that the organization that collected the data and made the diagram, on the contrary, says that the sea levels rising are significant throughout the 20th century and have showed marked increase since 1992.

 

I'm afraid I think that if I am going to decide who is more likely to be correct, its the scientists who actually made the diagram and collected the data, rather than a guy on the internet who quotes blogs for support.

 

That they have risen significantly where I live was simply an example or a comment on your initial very general claim that they were not rising.

[8circles]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

This was in that liberal rag, Scientific American.

 

"An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change"

 

More than 800 American earth scientists and energy experts holding and or pursuing PhD in relevant areas signed the letter. The Chinese really have remarkable persuasive skills. :D

This is FAKE NEWS. I'm not going to fall for that!!

[swimmermom3]

Personally I think the problem comes down to: The government insisted they situate the permanent villages where they in the first place are by putting the schools there, and now the government should pay to move them. 

 

Climate change does not mean "everything everywhere gets hotter". It means because average (median) temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans rise, there is more instability in the climate in general. That means things like bigger storms, permafrost melting in one place, freak ice storms where it didn't used to get that cold somewhere else, accelerated desertification, more floods, etc. 

 

If I remember basic hydrosphere lessons, when you have really dry areas, the water has to shift to another area, so there will be new areas with more rain or cold weather. Do I have this right in really elementary terms? I should probably go check Tarbuck's, but that's probably been discredited on this thread.

 

[8circles]

Is that a logical fallacy, ad Eminem, or tone policing? I've lost track.

 

I think we've achieved a hat trick.

[Ravin]

For the first time in this entire thread, I've actually caught up to the ....wait, there are six more replies.

[Ravin]

Okay, now I'm caught up.  :lurk5:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So many ignorant, misguided souls who can't read graphs. I have underestimated the Chinese.

 

And that's how you wind up in a land war in Asia!

[Guest]

Personally I think the problem comes down to: The government insisted they situate the permanent villages where they in the first place are by putting the schools there, and now the government should pay to move them.

 

Climate change does not mean "everything everywhere gets hotter". It means because average (median) temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans rise, there is more instability in the climate in general. That means things like bigger storms, permafrost melting in one place, freak ice storms where it didn't used to get that cold somewhere else, accelerated desertification, more floods, etc.

Excuse the lengthy, edited, rambling treatise below. I think you're missing some things but I have a lot to say and am going to try and explain. I disagree a bit and I agree on other points :)

 

The sites for the schools were selected primarily by the tribes and contracted out in private bid, only being moved if the site was completely unsuitable. The state will actually pay to move the school when the school is the building sinking, but most of the time it's not them, it's the crappy private residences with zero code adherence. But if you try to enforce code good luck, you're racist/bigoted/whatever for doing so. It's a *mess* and a longstanding one, and it isn't even uniformly a mess along the coastal plains or Yukon river delta. Some tribes and towns have managed it well and some haven't despite being along the same geographical area - in some cases only two or four miles up or down river.

 

It's one of those unreported inconvenient truths - some tribes are making it an issue and most have solved it with the help of their native corps and state grants and budget.

 

Back when my husband worked for DOT we went on inspection trips for the bridges that were state maintained or state load rated and posted - I tagged along since the charter was paid for and oftentimes the room was too, and we just paid my meals and any transport not already covered. Once in a lifetime experience and great for garnering on the ground perspective on the multiple villages we covered - two weeks and over twenty sites by boat, air, and occasionally road. It was shocking how utterly different a place like, say, McGrath or Nulato was from a neighboring town. And around the rim of Lake Iliamna we could *see* from standing vantage two and three different villages who had vastly different feels and quality of life based on who lived there and what their attitudes or community management was. It wasn't so much cultural or even regional differences, especially in the housing and location of it. Some were definitely abandoned due to a high water mark year or had been built better or worse. Anyway, that's neither here nor there but when you're actually going out to Kaktovik or Unalaska you get a different picture than a retrospective from miles away. More interesting is having friends who have lived longer term in a village or have family there and have moved, so they can contextualize best for those of us who don't have the breadth of experience to understand the rural and road system variability, let alone the native and non-native cultural differences (which vary further by tribe too).

 

Some people think it is global warming or mining or overfishing or a curse for Russian and American settlement, no doubt. I don't think any of those fully explains what we are seeing if if they are contributing factors in some cases. I appreciate the legiscritters, as we affectionately call them, tend to also be willing to listen to one another and the community in trying to come upright workable solutions, whatever the causes may be. When something doesn't work for a community it's long road before it gets to the side the NYT reported of 'no solution, sit and spin'. That's really not an accurate representation of how it went down. But of course there is the interviewee's side, the interviewer's spin, my own limited and biased perspective, the random reader's experiences and perspective, and truth. None of us have the market cornered on it and we all have some slice of that wedge, to be fair.

 

The entire rural village relocation thing is hard because you have a paucity of jobs for varying reasons (yes/no divides on mining, fish hatcheries, and even logging yield do not split neatly except by Repub/Dem divides, those are probably the most accurate and no community is homogeneously registered here that I can think of) which leads to a lot of the younger people leaving; massive issues with substance abuse, sexual abuse, and entrenched power that leads to a condoning or lack of reporting on that abuse, and with tribal and state money to fund and in some cases enable that previously mentioned unemployment; tribal and religious considerations for certain sites and just plain 'we have always done it this way' for others, regardless of whether there are students to attend or the homes are abandoned; and with the mix of public and private funding there comes a push and pull if a majority of the people involved, tribal and non-native residents alike, don't agree.

 

Simplified a bit - If your native corp wants to pay to fix the building and keep it but your non-native population is okay staying or going and the state is funding renovations only contingent on a full relocation of the site - who wins?

 

It's one of those weird Alaska issues that really affects people who live here and our state taxpayers, but is really not cut and dry. You kind of have to take it one town/settlement at a time in terms of finding a solution that works the best for the most people, and impasses are common. This is exacerbated when someone wants the state or tribe to pay to maintain a location but most of the tribe no longer lives in that site, or the students have fallen below the minimum level but they don't want distance education or tutors and lobby the state to pay to maintain the school for no pupils, or two of them, and fight any other accomodation that makes more sense on the balance sheet.

 

It would make your head spin and it is not an environmental issue primarily, just as it isn't an education issue, town issue, tribal rights issue, population size issue, public health issue, or even an economic/investment issue. It is in some ways all of these in varying degree, but I'd urge anyone looking at it from the outside to resist ANY attempt to oversimplify. And recognize my own interpretation is about as broad but true as I can make it, yet I have my own voice and biases and sympathies too, and am trying to be fair but cannot eliminate them and be entirely objective either (I am trying - I want to inform more than persuade on this).

 

Yet another crazy bunny trail on this thread and I haven't had lunch (it's almost dinner time), so I need to bow out of this detour - but I hope it as educational or helpful to anyone who wasn't aware of this issue or had only heard one simplified side, whatever it was. It's not an entitled native or crazy greenie or big {insert evil corporate interest here} or evil white man thing, or whatever spin you've heard or are inclined to be sympathetic to.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[ktgrok]

I would like to add that it was 2,300 scientists (800 Americans) including twenty-two Nobel Prize winners. 

 

Who obviously don't know how to read graphs or interpret data. Obviously. 

 

I'm still wondering if Reg wants "news" about the satanic sex slave ring run by the Clintons out of a pizza parlor to be given equal time and page space in his local newspaper as all other news. Or if maybe he's okay with the editor making a decision about "truth" in that case. Or is that censorship?

[Slartibartfast]

 

They absolutely are.  In 2010 they attacked Dr. Judith Curry for leaving the fold.  That's not science.  It's a bullying tactic intended to silence critics.

 

 Did you read the Scientific American article?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

Edited December 9, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[swimmermom3]

And that's how you wind up in a land war in Asia!

 

That is a sobering comment, Tito's not withstanding.

[swimmermom3]

And that's how you wind up in a land war in Asia!

 

dp

Edited December 9, 2016 by swimmermom3

[hornblower]

 ad Eminem

 

If we're adding Eminem, I love the way you lie seems apt. 

[Charlie]

Has anyone posted this yet?

 

This was in that liberal rag, Scientific American.

 

"An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change"

 

More than 800 American earth scientists and energy experts holding and or pursuing PhD in relevant areas signed the letter.  The Chinese really have remarkable persuasive skills. :D

 

I stopped trusting mainstream scientists once I found out they were conspiring to provide clean air and water. Damn commies.

[RegGuheert]

 Did you read the Scientific American article?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

 

No it's behind a paywall.

 

But I'll respond to the reply you originally made about her not being a skeptic.  I tend to agree in that I would call her a "lukewarmer", which I suppose I am also.

 

In any case, here is what she says about herself and about climate science:

 

 

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community and has resulted in political attacks on scientists on both sides of the debate.  A scientist’s ‘side’ is often defined by factors that are exogenous to the actual scientific debate. Scientific controversies surrounding evidence of climate change have become a proxy for political battles over whether and how to react to climate change. Therefore, ‘

winning’ a scientific debate means attaining a privileged position in political battle, hence providing motivation for defending the scientific consensus. The quality of both scientific and policy debate has suffered as a consequence.

 

A climate scientist making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt in the climate debate is categorized as a denier or a ‘merchant of doubt,’ whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a ‘climate heretic’ that has turned against my colleagues.

 

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates.  Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. As  a result, I have become very concerned about the integrity of climate science. In the last 5 years, I have published a series of papers that address the inadequacies that I see in how climate scientists address the issue of uncertainty, and provide ways forward for improved reasoning about the complex problems in climate science:

• Climate science and the uncertainty monster2

• Reasoning about climate uncertainty3

• Nullifying the climate null hypothesis4

• Climate science: no consensus on consensus

There are REAL issues with the "climate" of the climate science community.