Are climate scientists a self-selecting set of climate activists?

publius_lxxii · 2 days

If you want to claim that climate science has it wrong, you have a lot of work to do.

Actually, I tend to say that climate science still has a long way to go before they can make assertions about future climate with anywhere near the certainty that, in my experience, is regularly claimed.

This is not my job to fix, it is the job of those working in the field to be honest about what they know vs. what they believe, and appropriately distinguish between the two.

What is my job -- or at least a hobby I kind of enjoy from time to time -- is pointing out climate activism BS when I see it.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2 days

My interest in the science extends to distinguishing what is known vs. what is poorly understood, highly uncertain or outright conjecture. I have a fairly solid handle on that, and yes I do take swipes at activists and propagandists who mis-represent the state of the science in service to their political agenda.

This being a political sub-reddit and not a science sub-reddit, this seems a reasonable approach. And no, I don't jump on "skeptics" when they want to argue science because they're not the ones trying to economize carbon emissions and pointlessly blow trillions on what is, so far, a pretty weak case. Not unlike how you don't quite bring yourself to correct your comrades when they make unsupportable claims in service to alarmism.

If you just stuck to being honest instead of trying to spin crap all the time, I'd be a lot more interested in what you have to say.

publius_lxxii · 3 days

So... When an engineer or physicist or statistician points out a flaw in CAGW theory the first response is typically some variant of "not a climate scientist, who cares what they think."

It's always amusing how quickly this is forgotten when a scientist of any field says they support it.

At any rate, science and consensus are two different things. It really doesn't matter how many people line up to say they agree with something if it's wrong.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

Uh huh. I have long found that discussing things with those who prefer truthiness over actual truth is a waste of time. You and (un)SkS being excellent examples of the former.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

The authors at SkS do a fantastic job of summarizing peer-reviewed material and rebutting the endless, mindless "arguments" from so-called climate skeptics.

...they're not even friendly to the peer-reviewed literature. They rarely if ever extrapolate from the results and conclusions explicitly expressed in the literature they cite.

...a valuable educational resource for everyone discussing climate science...

Oh, right. Sometimes I forget you're a card carrying member of the Ministry, too.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

Umm... no. See, if someone is skeptical about CAGW and says so, then that's just being honest.

(un)skepticalscience is, as near as I can tell, not skeptical in the slightest about anything to do with CAGW theory. Their interactions with Pielke Sr. are a great demonstration of that.

Are you really unable to tell the difference or is this just more of the typical counters smarm?

youtubehead · 3 days

I find attitudes like that tiresome.

At my place of business (white collar office environment) I am involved in a lot of hiring. 20-somethings never fail to surprise me at just how clueless they are.

Did they put the slightest effort into learning something about the company and the position they're applying for in advance? Often no.

Did they come prepared with good questions and good ideas about what they could do to make a difference here (i.e., sell themselves)? Often no.

Are they willing to take an entry level job even if they have little to no relevant experience? Often no.

Do they think they should be paid a lot more than their skills / experience / education warrants? Often yes.

Do they understand that once they are hired, the way to get ahead - promotions, raises, etc -- is to work hard and NOT act like a whiny, entitled brat? WAY TOO OFTEN, No.

One thing I see a lot of is these kids who get a job, do it for 18-24 months, then move somewhere else, work another 18-24 months, then it's off again, over and over, usually with an eye always on that next position that might help them up the ladder a bit.

I'm sorry to say, but when I see a CV like that they are highly unlikely to even get an interview, and virtually all the managers I know feel the same way. Why? Because in my industry it takes 1-2 years before an employee has even learned enough to really be useful. All the time before that is an investment I am making in getting them to that point.

Generally speaking if someone repeatedly leaves after 18 months I am forced to assume it's because they weren't cutting it / learned nothing / have little dedication to the work. I have no intention of being someone's next pit stop on their way to whatever greatness they're imagining, and I'm not wasting a year and a half trying to get someone to the point of being useful if their resume tells me they're just going to quit as soon as I get them there.

I HAVE hired a number of 20-somethings, and I have right now a number of them working for me making $60-$85k. To a person they all started from the start and worked their way up to that over several years, proving they were willing to invest positive time, energy and effort along the way. The ones who didn't do that were gone after the usual 18-24 months.

tl:dr: if you want to get ahead then work at it.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

Whenever I see anything coming from (un)skepticalscience I am reminded once again of 1984 and the Ministry of Truth:

"...As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the newspeak sense of the word."

AlyssaMoore · 9 days

Why did you think you could pass this fantasy by me of all people?

This is the problem with these people. They engage in magical thinking, pretend as though it has some basis in reality, and then argue as though what they're saying is proven fact.

Every time I see these absurd comments about China and India, for example, it just highlights how absolutely devoid of honesty they are. We all know the reality, it's right there for everyone to look at. Whey they persist in pretending reality is different than it is, is beyond me.

DrJulianBashir · 9 days

It's okay Pluto, I'm not a planet either.

AlyssaMoore · 10 days

Not for everyone, but it it sure is for many, many hardcore activists.

Sunsettommy · 10 days

Depends on context but it is not hard to see how they would have felt threatened by the dude with the gun license. My experience with that sort of thing is its pretty obvious either way (threat vs. general conversation) so... maybe some cause for concern there... maybe.

The rest of them amount to nothing and all that stuff about many threats and yada yada yada is shown by the emails themselves to be complete BS. Total, unwarranted exaggeration. They should all be ashamed.

ShaneVICE · 13 days

Hi Shane, I'm a little late here and there's lots of comments to go through so perhaps this was already answered, but if you see this I'd love to hear your thoughts.

(BTW, I've watched several of your documentaries and they are all excellent - thanks for doing them).

I was just the other day watching the first NK one and I got wondering - do you think the NK authorities are aware of them? I started to worry about that wonderful girl from the tea house. Do you think her doing her job that day with you and then winding up in your video may have had ramifications for her? It seems like those NK guys are crazy enough to blame her somehow and toss her in the gulag.

Have you ever done any follow up on that or is this something you've wondered about too?

Note - not asking in an accusatory way. NK being fucked up is not your fault.

PTTGx2 · 16 days

Your argument here rings rather hollow, I must say, when considered in context with your previous staunch defence of Peter Gleick and his actions... back then the ends justified the means for you.

So really what we now see is that odious actions are fine with you as long as they're undertaken on behalf of a cause (the cause, in this case) you support.

You really are quite an unpleasant hypocrite.

PTTGx2 · 16 days

Imaginary death threats, it turns out. So not really comparable at all.

PTTGx2 · 16 days

And the Greenpeace guy saying we know where you live, and Hansen et. al talking about trials and punishments for "deniers", not to mention the use of "deniers" in the first place, and on and on. The examples are endless.

The disturbing thing about someone saying "such as" in relation to my original comment is it shows they've become so inured to disparaging people they disagree with in the worst possible way that the behavior has become normalized, they don't even notice anymore.

publius_lxxii · 16 days

The claim is BS and holds no water. I'm sure that there are a random handful of participants in the IPCC process that have ties to WWF or Greenpeace, just as I'm sure there are a handful of random participants who have ties to other interests from across the political spectrum.

Big Lie twice in one short post. You truly outdid yourself with this one.

publius_lxxii · 16 days

The IPCC's biggest flaw is that it plays up uncertainty, even where little uncertainty exists. Funny; if I were an eco-nazi hijacking a scientific organization, why would I play up the stuff we don't know about a major environmental problem?

Wow, it's rare to see the Big Lie used so brazenly these days.

publius_lxxii · 16 days

Same questions: do you have any problem with 1/3rd of the team involved in that having ties to WWF or Greenpeace? Would you have a problem if one third of them had ties to the oil and gas industry?

PTTGx2 · 16 days

It is an awful and stupid billboard, clearly a mistake. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to wallow in the kinds of tactics regularly employed by climate alarmists.

publius_lxxii · 16 days

You deny they create a Summary for Policymakers? Do you have any problem with 1/3rd of the team involved in that having ties to WWF or Greenpeace? Would you have a problem if one third of them had ties to the oil and gas industry?

Will_Power · 16 days

Ditto!

publius_lxxii · 17 days

FTA:

I found out that one third of the core writing team of the Summary for Policymakers in 2007 had connections with Greenpeace and WWF. Now I don’t claim this proves the report is false, but suppose that people found out that IPCC summary reports were written by people with connections to Exxon or Shell, would that be acceptable?

The IPCC is first of all a political organization. Most of the 31 members of the IPCC Secretary come from developing countries like Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or Cuba. These countries are mainly interested in having money transferred from the north to the south.

Will_Power · 17 days

And you've been provided with those examples far earlier in this thread. But you keep asking.

I can't help but notice that you have failed to answer any of my questions. I suppose I have only to assume you are an illiterate fool who understands nothing about anything. I mean, that's your logic so it must work in reverse, right?

Playing stupid, pointless irrelevant games is so much fun.

Will_Power · 17 days

Uh huh. Well, if we're going to play these sorts of moronic games, then first:

We're communicating in English here and I'm concerned that you don't have as firm a grasp on that as you might and, of course, we need to make sure we all understand what we're talking about here so if you could, please, go ahead and provide for me your interpretation of the rules, history and theory of language, written communication and grammar. We're going to need that, obviously.

Once we're all clear that you have a thorough grounding in language we'll be sure to move on to the next step: exploring your understanding of computer technology, the internet and social networking sites.

THEN, if you're able to demonstrate a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of all of the above -- IN YOUR OWN WORDS, NATCH -- THEN perhaps we'll move on to YOUR understanding of statistics. I mean, I assume if it's okay to insist on such from me you'll be happy to provide evidence of YOUR expertise in advance. Right?

What, this is all absurd? You don't say. I suppose you could just, you know, read the link I provided and, if you have anything intelligent to say about it then fire away. Your history does not lend itself to optimism on such a result, but I am a glass half full kind of person.

moirende

TROPHY CASE

moirende

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login