He Said/ She Said


Skeptic/denier Warmist/alarmist
Deniers are shills of the Left (USA) Skeptics are shills of the oil industry
CO2 is/may be a greenhouse gas CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Humans create CO2—effect unknown Humans are the main source of CO2
Warmists are leftists and socialists Deniers are right wing free market nuts
We need to study possible future direction We must act NOW and cut CO2 doing whatever it takes
Warmists hijacked the media and government Deniers are trying to hijack the media and government
Skeptics care about science Deniers care about science
Warmist claims are exaggerated and wrong Warmist arguments are the only rational ones
Climate scientists have the same degrees as meteorologists, etc Only climate scientists know about climate science
A degree does not endow the holder with special knowledge A degree and published research are the ONLY measures of valid climate scientists
Satellite pictures show Arctic ice is just fine Satellite pictures show Arctic ice is melting
50 years is to short a window for climate calculations 50 years is enough to pronounce the east coast blizzards as increasing
Climate and weather are not the same/Weather events taken individually do not prove climate change Weather isn’t climate but weather can prove climate change (even when very localized)
Weather is getting not more extreme Weather is getting more extreme and we are to blame

These are some of the claims I have found on various climate websites. It is a partial list. For now, I am not addressing the correctness of any of the claims. 

In trying to separate the hype from the fact, one finds very little useful data out there. I have found I if produce names of those who worked in climate science and now do not believe many of the warmist claims, there is always an ulterior motive for their defection rather than the science just did not make sense to them anymore. If I note that Al Gore’s film was actually the catalyst that pushed people into investigating and then rejecting AGW (as one commentor noted), I am told Al Gore is not a scientist. Many times I find the only definition for a climate scientist is one who agrees with AGW. The term “cherry picking” comes to mind, though I also see both sides abuse that term. Much of the AGW argument seems to be based on the argument from authority (the word “appropriate” was inserted at some point to allow people with advanced degrees to become authorities that had to be listened to. I am unable to find at what point, though prior to 1978, when I graduated college, the term was not included.) This is basically endorsement of scientific truth by popular vote. I have a problem with that. It also requires blind faith in your authority, since you have no possibility of understanding the issue. 

How does one sort this out? If we believe warmists, the only option is to go along with experts because they know best. Historically, this has not proved to be a certainty. Theories were rejected due to going against the “consensus” at the time, because one lacked the proper degree and sometimes just belief in hoaxes. Once commentor made a very astute observation on another thread: One solution to this is for researchers to keep plugging away at getting papers published and getting one’s idea accepted. It could be a long and painful process, but if skeptics are right, they need to persevere. That is what is happening, but it is a slow process.

What to do? In future posts, I will discuss the precautionary principle, the reality of trying to curb warming by basically wiping out industrialization and pushing it as the ONLY solution, fun with numbers and graphs, and what effect lack of transparency has on science. Also, after I slog through more sites, I will present my own totally unscientific look at conspiracy theories and AGW/skeptics. For entertainment only, of course.


8 comments on “He Said/ She Said

  1. Lazarus: I will not respond to the claim of false dichotomy. If one cannot compare only two sides in one discussion without you presuming the choices to be all inclusive, there is no point to this. If you do not understand this, so be it. I do NOT care about consensus, only evidence. Yes, people who claim to be really smart with PhDs can be wrong and have been wrong. There are lists of these errors available. Very smart people have been duped by other very smart people. From here on out, my position has been made clear and I am finished commenting. Your technique to badger and nitpick is very tiresome. I will not respond to it anymore.

    • Lazarus says:

      Don’t respond if you don’t want to, that is you right but if you think your list of two sides is any more valid than listing the two sides for and against a flat earth then sadly you have a crippling last of understanding when it comes to science and evidence.

  2. Lazarus says:

    The list above is a False Dichotomy.

    You have picked to opposing extremes, and I suspect you belong to one and assume everyone who does not think like you belongs to the other.

    But these two groups as extremes have a lot in common. They both only accept what they want to be true, both cherry pick data to make their case and both spin and distort information to reflect their agenda.

    So for example on one side you have people who believe that humans releasing certain gases cannot affect the environment or climate in any significant way and on the other hand we have the tree hugger types who believe that if any gas that can be harmful is released in the atmosphere, even in small amounts the whole planet is headed for disaster.

    But in between these two opposing views is the group that I believe I belong to. It is the rational people in the middle that use the best expert evidence to form a balanced view. It is in the middle that the science resides.

    Unfortunately for the group on the left the science overwhelmingly suggests most of their beliefs are misplaced and fortunately for those on the right the science supports their basic beliefs even if that group ignore the unknowns and always plump for the worst case scenario.

    I would suggest you would put people like me on the right but I just accept the science regardless of what side it leans. Much of what you have listed below can be determined empirically to a high degree of certainty. The question is do you know which they are the level of scientific certainty that supports them?

    • I am not making any argument so there is no False Dichotomy. I am listing arguments I have heard from both sides. The intent is to show that there are many opposing views, several of which are appear to be the same argument from both sides, with a different villain named. Thus, he said/she said. Of course there are views in-between.

      I use the terms “warmists” and “skeptics” as general terms. They are not all-inclusive. No more arguing semantics. There are ranges in beliefs on both sides and I am not going to type out a huge description each time I refer to a group. Otherwise, there is no point to trying to discuss this whole thing if all we do is argue about what makes each group.

      • Lazarus says:

        Of course it is a false dichotomy because you are claiming there are two sides. The reality – that you need to check apparently, is that there is the empirical evidence and you are just listing comments from two extreme groups who are trying to either dismiss the evidence or spin it to suit their own conformation bias and agenda.

        This topic is not one that can be argued based on belief and sides any more than if smoking can causes cancer or not. So there is no point in trying to discuss this whole thing if you falsely believe there are two groups.

        The correct, rational way to discuss this is to look at the evidence and decide if it strengthens or weakens the scientific theory and consensus. If we make that decision based partly on what we wish to be true then we have failed rational and critical thinking.

  3. Tony Duncan says:


    I think you are suggesting a ridiculous scenario. if temperatures started decreasing in any significate manner in the next ten years it would completely undermine any credibility int he idea of global warming and there would be no political possibility of manitaining any economically difficult policies that wer aimed at cutting CO2.
    While you asy global temps have not risen, they in fact have. Not by a lot, but they have not gone anywehre near levles before 1980 for over a decade. You can call it a stall, but with a solar minimum and other factors that are plausible impacting the lack of linnear increase in temp, it is by no means clear that there will not continue to be increases in temps int eh next few year.s especially when the next real el Niño makes itself felt.
    No one is advocating taxing anything into ruin. At least no one in any position to accomplish anything fo the sort. This sort of denier alarmism about the horrible consequences of moving economies to renewable resources makes me giggle.
    I am often amazed at how peoppel misunderstand the elasticity in the economy. there is SO much excess production in numeorus areas, that we even survived the loss fo trillions of dollars in imagined wealth becuase of the new math of the economic meltdown.
    if we do begin impelenting modest proposals to decrease fossil fuel emmissions, if the temps go back down. they will be removed faster than you can say “biggest scientific hoax in history”

  4. Skeptikal says:

    Bruce of Newcastle says:

    So lets wait another decade. If sceptics are right the global temperature trend should actually fall somewhat.

    The 60 year cycle is well known, but poorly understood. Waiting another decade is a sensible thing to do. Considering we’ve had no warming for well over a decade, this could indicate the peaking of a natural cycle in which case the temperatures would certainly be lower in a decade from what they are now.

    The alarmists don’t want to wait, incase temperatures do fall. It’s hard enough for them to sell “global warming” without any warming happening now for more than a decade… imagine how hard it would be to sell if the world actually started cooling. So they call for action now, acting like the world’s going to end if we don’t tax our economies into ruin immediately.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Sheri – The header has gone missing, but I like the table!

    Satellite pictures show Arctic ice is just fine

    I would personally say “Satellite pictures show global ice is just fine”. The CAGW fraterity harp on Arctic ice and almost never mention that globally sea ice cover is almost exactly on the average as I write this.

    Weather is getting not more extreme

    I agree most sceptics would say this, and there is data to support this case, especially on hurricane landfalls and tornado frequency in the US. But I think extreme events of some types are occurring more frequently with more intensity, but not because of CO2. The Moscow heat wave was due to jet stream blocking, as I think was the US heat wave this last summer. The Australian heat wave a few weeks ago was also classic blocking pattern with a big high pressure system in the Tasman Sea. Jet stream blocking occurs more often when the Sun is in a low activity state. We are in the deepest solar minimum for a couple of centuries right now, so increased extremes due to blocking would be a logical result.

    As to how to split between the respective claims the scientific way is to outline a predicted consequence and then experiment.

    The clearest example is of course the temperature record, where if dramatic global warming due to a feedback enhanced greenhouse effect is to occur then you would expect temprature to rise.

    It is arguably significant that it has not happened in the last decade and a half, but both sides ARE arguing fiercely over this. So lets wait another decade. If sceptics are right the global temperature trend should actually fall somewhat. If CAGW people are right they should rise. Bimodal test!

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s