Peter wrote:
That should not be happening. Can you point to a particular post?
I know and you moderate very well. But you cannot be expected to observe every nuance. I will get some examples and PM you…
Michael_J wrote:
CLINTEL has written a letter to the IPCC after reviewing the last report (AR6). Interesting analysis and here
Thanks for posting this. Confirms a lot of things I’ve read elsewhere. Hopefully this letter is going to make the rounds on a wide basis and will not, like similar findings, be pooh-poohd by the current political climate discussion, which centers on society change rather than climate change.
It is my dead honest opinion that the whole climate affair divides people into two camps:
I also believe that most people are actually in the second camp, but due to the heat of the battle so to speak, they feel it is morally wrong not to take a stand. They have to show strength, faith, responsibility. And especially so if they for some reason are leaning to the left (sorry, I meant to the green 
)
This is nothing new or special. The exact same behavior is seen by religious “Darwin deniers”. It’s not that they don’t “believe” in Darwin’s theories, and not that they don’t think the whole biblical story is a little over the edge. It’s all about showing strength in their faith. The peculiar thing about this is it’s 100% unconscious behavior.
I’m firmly in the second camp. Probably unconsciously so for all know. Not because I believe this or that, but mainly to show faith in the scientific method? The idea of consensus is very far from a scientific method. It belongs firmly in the religious world. I don’t know, and wouldn’t know, it’s an unconscious behavior remember
That’s all there is as far as I’m concerned. Some say we should believe blindly in the “climate scientists”. Some say they know much better than us, they are the experts. We should shut up and listen. I say don’t listen to such nonsense. Real scientists reject consensus on the face of it. Instead, try actually reading what these scientists write. Look at the numbers, the graphs, their models. If they don’t make sense to you, you can be sure they make no sense to the climate scientists either. Science is all about making sense of things. Lots of the stuff they write makes perfect sense though.
But be aware, typically in highly empirical and statistical sciences more than 50% of all scientific papers are plain wrong. That’s a fact.
LeSving wrote:
those who look at this as any other highly empirical research, and like to see numbers, models and graphs rather than political nonsense based on ill fated consensus.
Given what I do for a living I firmly belong in this camp as well. The trouble is, that quite few scientists these days fall into the trap of backing each other up on politically correct research rather than making a stand as the guys with the letter do.
LeSving wrote:
Some say we should believe blindly in the “climate scientists”. Some say they know much better than us, they are the experts. We should shut up and listen. I say don’t listen to such nonsense. Real scientists reject consensus on the face of it. Instead, try actually reading what these scientists write. Look at the numbers, the graphs, their models.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
LeSving wrote:
If they don’t make sense to you, you can be sure they make no sense to the climate scientists either. Science is all about making sense of things. Lots of the stuff they write makes perfect sense though.
It needs to be added that even clear figures can be interpreted differently. It can make sense in different ways, depending what the scientist in question is trying to prove or disprove. The identical figures can produce diametrically opposite conclusions, both of which are “valid” in a way or the other.
That is one massive problem we don’t see only in Climate science but quite prominently in Covid as vell.
And I agree with you once more: This is where scientific research can turn into belief rather than knowledge or best guess. And in climatology, unfortunately quite a large share of scientists have decided to consensus rather than the rejection of it. It may well have to do with the lamentable fact that reserach funding quite often is funded depending on the desired result, not actually scientific work… rather some sort of justification of agendas.
CLINTEL has written a letter to the IPCC after reviewing the last report (AR6).
Thanks for posting, always good to hear a dissenting voice.
But I did some Googling and found quite a bit of criticism towards them. Mostly in blogs in Dutch regretfully. CLINTEL claims that they promote an open and scientific debate, free of politics and cherry picking, but that’s exactly what they don’t seem to be doing.
In English I found this: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
aart wrote:
but that’s exactly what they don’t seem to be doing.
Made me also wonder after reading as I just scrolled a bit through the listing of who are those 900 undersignees. Then a lot of people even don’t have any title. I’m not saying that you need to have any title to be proficient, but it’s unplausible to call them scientists.
The problem is not science or people discussing science. The problem is people who try to abuse science to try to trick others into doing what they want.
Science can tell me what happened in the past and can model what might happen in the future if we behave a certain way.
No science in the world can tell me whether I should want to live with the consequences of 3°C increase in global average temperature or rather with the consequences of trying to prevent such increase! This is my personal decision (that should be informed by what the scientific models predict as consequences for either choice). Aggregating the sum of personal choices to a plan for communities, societies and mankind is again not a scientific but a political process.
My sense is that lots of criticism and skepticism about climate science is not addressing climate science itself but rather climate scientists acting as influencers who want to make us beliefe we have no other choice than doing what they want.
Denying woman made climate change is a very stupid thing – not only because the data is pretty clear but also because mankind has changed landscapes, rivers, coastlines, mountains, etc. why should climate be the only thing womankind did not influence?
But it is at least an equally stupid thing to proclaim that trying to avoid climate change is the only option we have for the future. We have the option to accept and embrace climate change. It might not be the best option we have but it is a fully valid option!
Back to heat pumps briefly, I have a crude but interesting data point: an air sourced Calorex heat pump is defrosting the evaporator around 1/3 of the time, at 0C OAT. That pretty well trashes the COP.
Malibuflyer wrote:
My sense is that lots of criticism and skepticism about climate science is not addressing climate science itself but rather climate scientists acting as influencers who want to make us beliefe we have no other choice than doing what they want.
Yes and additionally to that any dissenting scientist will be discredited and, if in their power, stripped of funds. That is not how it is supposed to work.
Malibuflyer wrote:
But it is at least an equally stupid thing to proclaim that trying to avoid climate change is the only option we have for the future. We have the option to accept and embrace climate change. It might not be the best option we have but it is a fully valid option!
Which obviously by that crowd is being predicted to be an extremely bad choice, as the world as we know it is going to end… But as we all know prognosis are difficult, as they concern the future ;)
With the weight of science as it is, denying climate change is a stupid thing.
But whether man or woman kind is totally responsible is still very much the topic of debate.
There are however certain things we can do which will improve quality of life, and we can all agree to (or at least most of us) which I wrote about in a previous post.
On top of this as a mitigating measure the richer countries could lease forests in the Amazon, Indonesia etc at a sum greater than the gain made from deforestation for beef farming or palm oil. They could set aside much more land and sea areas for natural carbon capture by sea plants and trees.
But if you ask a scientist, what would happen if you stopped CO2 and other gases or brought them to zero, let alone net zero, how would that affect the future, none of them can or will give you an answer.
So how are you going to get, in any sort of worthwhile (from the environment activist point of view) timescale, countries and populations who rely on coal, oil etc just to exist to just give them up to may or may not save the planet at some time in the future?
There are more pressing problems that could be solved now without necessarily causing economic hardship to those people. Waste being one of them and pollution of air and rivers.
These are problems that can be solved now, without anywhere near the economic hit which hastening the demise of fossil fuels and domestic animals will cause.
Yet for some reason environmental activists would rather sit in the middle of a motorway to protest about CO2 from vehicles when a vehicle ticking over whilst waiting for the police to remove them is possibly producing more CO and CO2 and NOx than they would for the whole of the journey they are making. On top of that, they themselves are producing large amounts of methane to no useful purpose. At least the milk cow in the field produces milk as well as methane.
If climate activists, politicians, scientists want to activate nations, industries and the people who work in those industries the message needs to be much more personal, much more concise and much more demonstrable that the actions will work. A bunch of people sitting in Glasgow putting together some sort of fudge to satisfy those protesting outside is not going to hack it IMHO.
People need to see results if they are to change their way of life especially when it can mean financial hardship. Not a promise of a better life, possibly, for future generations. That’s like saying be good and you’ll go to heaven, otherwise you’ll burn in hell.
