Duty to Disclose | Climate Skeptic (via sawickipedia)

Rafer sez:
For all your bitching about corporatism, I find it astounding that you fall for this 100% corporatist climate change skepticism hogwash. The climate is changing. We are causing it. To interpret the data any other way is the scientific equivalent of doubting Darwin and evolution, because you don’t know the scientific definition of “Theory.”

(via rafer)

The point made here is w/r/t scientifically invalid data and the misconduct of scientists trying to pass it off as hard, scientifically valid data.  Ignoring inconvenient truths doesn’t help anyone’s cause.

Please read Judith Curry’s blog - so you are aware she is a scientist at GaTech who authored the scientific paper that theorizes climate warming is causing an increase in tropical storms so she’s a believer - she’s uber pissed off about the lack of scientific standards being followed by some and how the misconduct of folks like Mann are ultimately HURTING the climate change camps theory.  She is someone who scientifically believes in anthropogenic climate change and yet calls what happened w/ Mann, et al. wrong:

“I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues.  Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable?  I sure don’t. Can anyone defend “hide the decline”?”

My biases here are skeptical of any large rush to judgment.  As a professional cynic yourself, I would think you would get that.  Because it supports your philosophical believes you don’t care whether the basis for some of the science is bogus.  I can’t overlook that.

That being said, I support similar goals of more renewable energy and less production of CO2.  Because for whatever the reason - the world needs to move towards more renewable, less carbon-emitting based energy systems.  We just get there in different ways.

(via sawickipedia)

Rafer sez:
I’m not saying that every convinced climate change scientist is of high quality. I am saying that everyone spreading doubt works directly or indirectly for the Kochs. After 20+ years of proof, it is no longer a rush to judgement. The carbon parts per million in the atmosphere will pretty severely screw up our childrens’ lives. Not our grand childrens or great grandchildrens. Our kids, now, this century. Doubt and delay are just teaparty bullshit.

(via rafer)

The real science (from what I guess you would call good scientists) actually make the FUBAR case unequivocally at all.  And that’s where my skepticism shows up - there is a LOT of uncertainty in what is going to happen.  Good scientists seemingly universally agree that CO2 doubling likely results in an increase in global temperatures of 1 degree C to 6 degrees C. This isn’t being a mouth piece for Koch, et al - this is the real state of the serious, good science.

1 degree isn’t much of a near term issue.  6 degrees is a mess.  1 degree you slowly migrate to renewable. 6 degrees you drop everything and spend the farm.  Clearly you believe in the latter scenario.  I’m not yet bought into the later scenario like you and bad actors don’t make it any easier for me.

I am comfortable that I could be wrong for the right reasons and willing to live with myself and the consequences. And you’re comfortable being right for the wrong reasons.  But given the science as I understand, your certainty is more faith then what I believe the science tells us. Given the potential downside to being wrong, perhaps your position is ultimately more defensible.