Reddit reviews Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics
We found 5 Reddit comments about Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Praeger
>We should be judging climate skeptics by the accuracy of their science, not their motives or employers
You can judge them by all of those. When it comes to accuracy this is what you find:
(1) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
(2) http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
When it comes to funding this is what you find:
(3) http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc
When you test "their predictions" and motives you get a book and...
(5) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
(6) http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html
>review the accuracy of the predictions made over time concerning climate change that were peer-reviewed as well...
There's a book on just that: https://www.amazon.com/Climatology-versus-Pseudoscience-Exposing-Predictions/dp/1440832013
And of course study after repeated study that continue to confirm predictions from global warming such as a recent finding concerning a shift in clouds, etc.
Climate science is based on evidence across multiple fields, confirmed by multiple fields, cross checked by multiple fields - that's not religion that's scientific consensus. Rejecting the evidence with no substantial, or credible evidence to support your rejection is what faith is all about - that's the religion.
> We are told to take the testimony by faith for both. They are the experts in the field after all.
No you're not. You can demand evidence. You can look for it yourself. You can ask a scientist for evidence.
> You're right. Oh my gosh. The pope shouldn't be taken at his word. You should DEMAND evidence before accepting a word he says. Oh, wait. How is that different here?
No one is demanding that you accept anything on faith. If you really want, you can take the time to find and understand the evidence.
> Nope, consensus mean nothing and is literally a fallacy if you rely on it. Appeal to authority. That is why I mentioned the pope.
You still don't understand the difference between an expert testimony on consensus and an appeal to authority fallacy. The difference is the expert has to and can show what he knows by demonstrating it and pointing to peer reviewed science that demonstrates what is known. That is not a fallacy.
> I have, have you?
I have and I can explain it. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the basics.
> Malthusians have been doing the same thing. Granted, I think they are honest for the most part just like chicken little. Just falling trap to confirmation bias and selection bias.
The properties and effects of Co2 as a greenhouse gas were discovered and predicted 150 years ago. . Simple physics and OLR budget models predicted and confirmed what we observe today. Scientists have looked at and accounted for all the data. There is no cherry picking going on except by deniers.
> First, complexity like climate requires cherry picking. The data literally has to be scrubbed, correct and all that. Second, cherry picking like sounding the alarm on hot days but really quiet or having a polar vortex when it is cold. Hot causes cold too after all.
No peer reviewed science literature cherry picks hot or cold days. All data is adjusted, is necessary, and scientifically justified to correct for inconsistencies introduced by instrument changes, moves, time of measurement changes, urbanization around instruments, etc. There is no conspiracy here. Further, the methodology and results for the adjustments are published in peer reviewed literature. If something is wrong, it will get caught and corrected. If someone thinks the methodology and results are wrong, they can publish an article to explain why. They only cherry picking here is deniers pointing to cold days and throwing snowballs in congress.
> Like appeal to authority?
I already explained this to you but you have failed to understand the context it is valid to cite experts and when it is not valid by citing people who boost their authority by citing credentials, titles, positions held, etc.
> Like those evil oil companies hiding the truth?
This has been demonstrated and isn't a conspiracy. Further it has no features of a conspiracy.
> Sure. But by how much. I warmed a pool by peeing in it. Did the temperature change enough to be significant or measurable?
You can read about it here and here
> So you can't think of another explanation? If I told you the inferred radiation on something decreased, you can only think that the object must be insulated?
This is confirmed by measuring the long wave radiation absorbing properties of all gases contained in our atmosphere with a spectrometer. If something else is insulating the atmosphere, please indicate what it is using reason and evidence and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.
> I will take your word on that and the people financially depended on it too.
> Wait, what am I saying. I need to see this simple measure demonstrated over time. I need proof.
>No, you have the proof of evidence. You are making the claim. Mine is a claim of agnosticism. I don't claim to know EITHER way, nor do I think anyone else does either. But like I said, heat output decreasing doesn't mean heating up. If there is less exhaust from my car, it doesn't mean the exhaust is blocked, maybe the car isn't on.
You can look it up here and follow the references if necessary. If the sun stays reletivilty constant and the decrease in outgoing radiation has occurred and we know GHGs absorb long wave radiation, and GHGs have increased, that is the proof. That's the published research. If you believe that is wrong or there is another explanation, please demonstrate it with reason and evidence.
> There is. I made it. Just because a group of experts says something is true, they have seen the evidence, doesn't make it true.
The evidence says it's true and it is there for you to look at it but you don't.
> Like polar vortexes? God, AGW caused that extreme cold.
It is apparent you don't understand what is being claimed and haven't read the research on it.
> No, you want me to change my mind without said evidence. Live by faith I will not do.
No one has or is asking you to believe with out evidence. The evidence has been pointed out to you in various levels of expertise with reference where the data and research is published. You're just being intentionally obtuse.
> I have and I know that I don't know and can't know for the time being.
Can't know because you refuse to accept evidence or look up the data and referred journal citations in the links already provided you.
> Only because I haven't bought your explanation. Have you, or is this only a one way street? I am the infidel that must repent? That doesn't sound like good faith at all. All you have said is these experts have said it is true and the numbers they provided prove it. That isn't very good evidence.
I used to be a denier because I didn't understand the science and was mislead by denier arguments. I actually looked at the peer reviewed research and made an effort to understand it and changed my mind. It is apparent after examining the denier arguments that they misinform, cherry pick data, engage in logical fallacies, and engage in conspiracies. I haven't seen you demonstrate a good faith effort to make even a basic understanding of the science and even dismiss everything I show you and demand proof when it is there for you to lookup and see how the science is done to demonstrate what is known about climate.
> No, only scientific consensus as science. It isn't, so I am actually defending it. You are the only denigrating it with appeal to authority as a tenant. rational thought and science is about personal discovery. Something I get told either can't be done, or I can't do it because I didn't come to the same airtight conclusions. THAT seems anti-science to me.
You don't understand what consensus means in a scientific context. You don't understand an appeal to authority. A consensus is about the reason and evidence as published in the peer reviewed literature. It's all there for you to consume. You don't appear to be about rational thought and personal discovery. I've only seen an anti-intellectual attitude and an unwillingness to engage in the scientific literature and repeated dismissals. You demand proof, but then you won't look at it or make any attempt to understand even the basics.
To watch, i'd recommend and inconvenient truth and Gore's update and the sequel for good basic info, most of the facts can be corroborated. Keep in mind the projections of what will happen are based on estimates and judgement and not always accurate. Just because scientists can get projections wrong doesn't mean the underlying facts are wrong, just that certain assumptions were incorrect. NASA's website also provides a good guide with references. To supplement:
McMann is one author you should check out. I've heard this is good but haven't read it. My field of study focuses more on policies to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, and how to finance those policies, rather than the hard science. I think if you search around in /r/science and /r/environment you'll find some good resources.
Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1440832013/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_FV6lDbCY5E68A