Most of the information relevant to arguments about climate, as about many other things, is obtained at second, third, or fourth hand, with the result that what you believe depends largely on what sources of information you trust. People on either side of an argument can honestly believe that the evidence strongly supports their view since they trust different sources and different sources report different evidence. It is thus particularly interesting when on some point, even a fairly minor one, you can check a claim for yourself.
David, are you aware that 60 Climate Scientists signed a resolution to "go on strike" last year. They object to the "whitewashing" done in the IPCC reports and by the "Climate Moderates" who currently dominate the field.
They want the world to know that things are MUCH WORSE than the "Moderates" are saying.
Also last year a Climate Scientist, who was a buddhist, set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court. In protest of a ruling that weakened Biden's proposed Climate Legislation.
David, surveys of Climate Scientists show that 80% think warming will be over 2.5C. Over 60% think it will be 3.0C or HIGHER.
88% think they will see "catastrophic impacts" from Global Warming "in their lifetime".
65% say that Global warming has affected their choices about having kids and where to live.
Do you really think ANYONE with half a brain cares about this?
Do you really think you are "proving" anything other than that you have your head in the sand?
Here's a clue David that I understand the Climate System infinitely better than you. Last year I said there was going to be a "super El Nino" in 23', 24', 25'.
The new forecasts are for a MONSTER EL NINO by this Fall.
Last year I forecast the Ukraine War wouldn't stop until Putin has the land and has liquidated the Ukrainians.
The DOD has said that they expect the war to drag into 24'.
Last year I forecast that Global Agricultural failure was imminent and that 800 million to 1.2 billion people are going to starve to death over the next five years.
That's about to start happening.
The Climate Crisis is here David. You are just to blind to see it.
The claim is that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming. But that's not the case. It's 97% of *papers* written by climate scientists, which may indicate more or less agreement.
I've been enjoying your posts and promoting your substack, but it this really a battle worth having? I mean, right below this post is your comment, "My view, as I have mentioned before, is that climate change is real and probably in large part due to humans." So let's stop picking fights on this and focus on the impacts, which is where the real important discussion is to be had and could be had. IMO.
The comments on your 'Is it really 97%? Climate Falsehood Check' - are no doubt interesting but too esoteric for me.
So I pick up on another aspect of your post that I consider a much bigger indictment of fashionable Climate Alarmism. Your post begins with: "Most of the information relevant to arguments about climate, as about many other things, is obtained at second, third, or fourth hand, with the result that what you believe depends largely on what sources of information you trust." This is well said but still way too flattering to your average Joe (now in the billions) with an opinion on our 'Climate Emergency'.
By far the greater part of those billions will have zero interest in actually choosing their 'sources of information' - except in the most passive sense. The MSM across the Western world has taken the truth of this 'Climate Emergency' as axiomatic for three decades now. You would have to be unusually intellectually curious to go looking for other possible evidence-based narratives and very few people are made that way. You would have be to be a highly unusual type of contrarian (like (I'm guessing) you, me and the readers of your Substack) to not, over those decades, have absorbed the fashionable climate narrative by a kind of MSM osmosis. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
> That left me with a puzzle — was he a rogue or a fool?
It is not necessarily so simple. As Feynman remarked, it is very easy to fool oneself. Once one succeeds in this and proceeds for a while on that basis, it takes uncommon circumstances to force one into admitting the fact to oneself and either becoming a rogue or accepting that one has been a fool. Compare a completely non-politicized controversy: cold fusion. https://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud-ebook/dp/B006UF3X30 gives a good overview account, as well as several other examples of these phenomena.
"Tol, however, has published estimates of the cost of warming suggesting that it is negative at low levels and positive but not catastrophic at high levels" I think you got the negative and positive mixed up.
Richard Tol has a good interview with Alex Epstein here https://youtu.be/aqDEJBB0bfc , John Cook also has a really funny YouTube channel and from what I can tell also looking at his blog he fancies himself a expert on critical thinking and truth seeking and misinformation and such.
David, are you aware that 60 Climate Scientists signed a resolution to "go on strike" last year. They object to the "whitewashing" done in the IPCC reports and by the "Climate Moderates" who currently dominate the field.
They want the world to know that things are MUCH WORSE than the "Moderates" are saying.
Also last year a Climate Scientist, who was a buddhist, set himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court. In protest of a ruling that weakened Biden's proposed Climate Legislation.
David, surveys of Climate Scientists show that 80% think warming will be over 2.5C. Over 60% think it will be 3.0C or HIGHER.
88% think they will see "catastrophic impacts" from Global Warming "in their lifetime".
65% say that Global warming has affected their choices about having kids and where to live.
Do you really think ANYONE with half a brain cares about this?
Do you really think you are "proving" anything other than that you have your head in the sand?
Here's a clue David that I understand the Climate System infinitely better than you. Last year I said there was going to be a "super El Nino" in 23', 24', 25'.
The new forecasts are for a MONSTER EL NINO by this Fall.
Last year I forecast the Ukraine War wouldn't stop until Putin has the land and has liquidated the Ukrainians.
The DOD has said that they expect the war to drag into 24'.
Last year I forecast that Global Agricultural failure was imminent and that 800 million to 1.2 billion people are going to starve to death over the next five years.
That's about to start happening.
The Climate Crisis is here David. You are just to blind to see it.
The claim is that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming. But that's not the case. It's 97% of *papers* written by climate scientists, which may indicate more or less agreement.
I've been enjoying your posts and promoting your substack, but it this really a battle worth having? I mean, right below this post is your comment, "My view, as I have mentioned before, is that climate change is real and probably in large part due to humans." So let's stop picking fights on this and focus on the impacts, which is where the real important discussion is to be had and could be had. IMO.
Wow. I haven't been following this closely, but if this is true it seems like a bombshell, and changes my view of the whole subject.
The link to the datafile, given as
https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
is giving me a "file not found" now. Is there a more reliable link?
The comments on your 'Is it really 97%? Climate Falsehood Check' - are no doubt interesting but too esoteric for me.
So I pick up on another aspect of your post that I consider a much bigger indictment of fashionable Climate Alarmism. Your post begins with: "Most of the information relevant to arguments about climate, as about many other things, is obtained at second, third, or fourth hand, with the result that what you believe depends largely on what sources of information you trust." This is well said but still way too flattering to your average Joe (now in the billions) with an opinion on our 'Climate Emergency'.
By far the greater part of those billions will have zero interest in actually choosing their 'sources of information' - except in the most passive sense. The MSM across the Western world has taken the truth of this 'Climate Emergency' as axiomatic for three decades now. You would have to be unusually intellectually curious to go looking for other possible evidence-based narratives and very few people are made that way. You would have be to be a highly unusual type of contrarian (like (I'm guessing) you, me and the readers of your Substack) to not, over those decades, have absorbed the fashionable climate narrative by a kind of MSM osmosis. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
> That left me with a puzzle — was he a rogue or a fool?
It is not necessarily so simple. As Feynman remarked, it is very easy to fool oneself. Once one succeeds in this and proceeds for a while on that basis, it takes uncommon circumstances to force one into admitting the fact to oneself and either becoming a rogue or accepting that one has been a fool. Compare a completely non-politicized controversy: cold fusion. https://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud-ebook/dp/B006UF3X30 gives a good overview account, as well as several other examples of these phenomena.
"Tol, however, has published estimates of the cost of warming suggesting that it is negative at low levels and positive but not catastrophic at high levels" I think you got the negative and positive mixed up.
Richard Tol has a good interview with Alex Epstein here https://youtu.be/aqDEJBB0bfc , John Cook also has a really funny YouTube channel and from what I can tell also looking at his blog he fancies himself a expert on critical thinking and truth seeking and misinformation and such.