«

»

Jan
21

Considering that most deniers are free market types who think that the whole 'global…

Considering that most deniers are free market types who think that the whole 'global heating' thing is a socialist conspiracy to keep them away from the shiny things, I too often wonder why no scientists are willing to step up and publish and receive all that oil company cash which is just waiting for 'real' evidence against AGW.

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

Why Don’t Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with). In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell…

29 comments

  1. John Poteet
    John Poteet says:

    Because they can't. Climate change science is based upon very basic physics. The physics of a computer chip are more complicated. 

  2. Brad Dunagan
    Brad Dunagan says:

    Considering that the earth is 8 billion years old and has experienced at least 6 ice ages without the help of mankind, I think it is reasonable to think that the hysterical mantra from the left that the sky is falling is reason enough to realize that it is all about money! Stop the bullshit! The earth cools and heats with no regard for person!

  3. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    Have you taken this to committee? Because if you are right and your thesis survives peer review, you will go down in the annals of history as the person who saved a tiny fraction of humanity from a little inconvenience. And the oil companies would shower you with millions, no billions of dollars. Just think, I could tell my grand-kids that I was there when the famous, um, business entrepreneur published his climate change paper.

    Maybe you could just debunk this series of videos that some random socialist made to debunk other, um, non-climate scientists who have theories. Surely that would prove to all us poor misguided Stalinists out here on the internet that we should follow your way to a future full of sunshine and lollipops for everyone instead of those crazy kooks who insist on stupid shit like observations and evidence.

    And then we could talk about the real world for a while.

    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

  4. David Strumfels
    David Strumfels says:

    Everyone stop taking potshots at each other.  Climate-skeptics do write papers and try get them into peer-review journals, but somehow they are all turned down. All of them (save one).  Now, there must some quality scientists among them, good enough to produce publishable work, so the reason must elsewhere.  And to accuse them of using ads and such — their only resort — isn't very honest, because the warmers do the precise same things.  Skeptic certainly do collect and put out a great deal of data, much which is compatible with NASA or the IPCC or other warming groups (this is probably because it's from those groups).  Check Google if you don't believe me.  Furthermore, few skeptics — none I've read about anyway — deny the official data or the scientific bases behind warming.  They do know there stuff.  Which makes their inability to get published in official journals even more mysterious.  Does anyone have any (non-demeaning) hypotheses for this>

  5. John Poteet
    John Poteet says:

    +David Strumfels Nope. You're simply full of shit. We've known that CO2 warms the atmosphere for 150 years. The first written hypothesis proposing possible anthropogenic global warming was written in 1896. Evidence that climate change was actually happening was confirmed in the first IPCC report in 1990. 

    Global warming is, without a doubt, happening, accelerating, and is caused by humans. 

    Your denial simply isn't worth regarding as anything better than the whining of a spoiled child. 

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  6. risa bear
    risa bear says:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

  7. Don Hignite Jr
    Don Hignite Jr says:

    Why should they the propaganda and useful idiots promoting this PONZI scheme continue to fail.. Maybe they are simply real scientist and not political scientist, and at most amused at all the absurdity, blizzards and stuck between icebergs on 12/25/2013 as these nuts were trying to prove YOUR point.. Ah today it is 9 degrees out and the landscape is covered with 12 inches of ice snow.. No need to publish a single thing, nature has published its report and it is freezing outside… 

  8. Brad Dunagan
    Brad Dunagan says:

    “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge."–MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, leading international expert on climate change.

  9. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    What does Wall Street and the federal reserve have to do with climate science? That is the only large scale ponzi I see happening.

    My point stands. If a 'real' scientist in the field were to step forward with actual science, the oil industry would reward them with riches beyond belief. The fact that no one has done so simply points out that either the belief that people are motivated by greed is wrong or there simply is no valid science that would stand scrutiny. I am amazed that people would attribute vast conspiracy, 30,000+ people, all in it and not one of them willing to sell out for the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that they would receive for proving AGW is not real. Since people are greedy, it leaves your thesis in the realm of fantasy.

    https://aattp.org/debunked-conservatives-claim-stuck-antarctic-ice-ship-proves-global-warming-hoax/

    This is devolving into ridiculousness. The link debunks the icebreaker story, but also frames the debate as conservatives vs. reality. Has it really come to that? Is the only way to maintain conservative values to retreat into a fantasy?

    "Oil, industrialization, and corporate hegemony, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge."– Every thinking human being in modern society

  10. John Smith
    John Smith says:

    Same reason they don't publish peer reviewed papers on the Easter bunny.

    1. klem says:

      Funny, the alarmists do.

  11. David Strumfels
    David Strumfels says:

    +Chris George Chris, just because you can concoct these scenarios doesn't grant them reality, or relevancy.  Many climate skeptics don't receive a dime from the oil industry or any organization connected to it (including NIPCC, which uses peer-accepted government data for their work).  Even if they do, I'm sure they believe in their work, just as anti-skeptics (can I use that word?) believe in theirs — while getting well paid from the government for it.  Look:  these attacks and innuendos and, frankly, smears, have just become a substitute for honest debate and argument.  You're treating us (I confess!) as though we're creationists or something truly pseudoscientific like that; but I know enough about both issues to see the differences.  Serious, scientifically trained skeptics (yes, we do exist) don't reject the basics and data of climate warming theory — we're not idiots!  A real, peer-reviewed paper or two on what they actually are saying should be published, so that debates, data, and reasoned arguments can then fly, and if the skeptic arguments cannot hold their own, then I personally will reject them too.  (Maybe we should bring in James Randi and see if he can debunk it!)  Besides, if their ideas have merit, peer-review published or not, in another 10-20 years they will be proved true, and you guys will be the discredited ones.  And no, I'm not a conservative troll (I'm quite liberally actually), and I don't believe in Stalinist theories or any nonsense like that.  Anyway, that stuff isn't relevant, and anyone using them should be excluded from the debate.  So should smearing and other personal attacks.  Ad hominem and belittlement isn't science and obscure the search for truth.  The way things are going just leads to Brad Dunagen's "'“Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.'–MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, leading international expert on climate change."  No better than the charges, made here without evidence about skeptics depending on big oil money.  Maybe some of it is even true, but we have to forget it.

  12. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    The part that is insane to me is that we attribute far more weight to possible economic and political motivations than we do to observations. Not every single thing that happens in the physical world is due to human agency. The only thing that the denial camp seems to exclude from this is AGW itself. Bizarre. It is like saying that the sun burns because people worship it.

    The media campaign against AGW has sucked up a couple of hundred million dollars over the past couple of decades. I am unsure of where, exactly, I stated that sceptics rely on oil money. I did state that if a real climate scientist were to come forward with some good science that disproved AGW that the oil companies would be happy to reward such a scientist with obscene gobs of cash, fame and a worldwide speaking tour. That this hasn't happened is puzzling, given what is at stake. If AGW is correct and we do nothing it is the end of our civilization and billions die. If AGW is wrong and we change out our energy source to something more sustainable, how many people die?

    As far as not scientifically studying the Easter Bunny, there is a difference between fantasy and the real world. If you cannot tell the difference, what is there to discuss?

    And my point still stands. Find a scientist to examine the data. Observations lead to theory which is either confirmed or denied by further observations. Any non-AGW theory needs to be testable and needs to supply an alternative cause for the observations. Anything less is simply the equivalent of jamming fingers in ears and wagging your tongue. It is mildly entertaining, but does nothing to advance your position.

  13. David Strumfels
    David Strumfels says:

    "And my point still stands. Find a scientist to examine the data. Observations lead to theory which is either confirmed or denied by further observations. Any non-AGW theory needs to be testable and needs to supply an alternative cause for the observations. Anything less is simply the equivalent of jamming fingers in ears and wagging your tongue. It is mildly entertaining, but does nothing to advance your position."

    Exactly my point — and at least one, the cyclic warming model — has been tested in three ways, succeeding all three times.  Maybe it will fail others, and end up discredited altogether, but the only way to find out is to publish at least one or two in peer-review papers on the subject, and let debate and discussion deal with the issue.  I think 10-20 years more data is needed resolve the debate pretty clearly, but we can start now.

    One does not, however, have to provide a cause for a non-AGW theory.  Newtown proved gravity though he never knew why it existed.  Alfred Wegener had a mountain of data for continental "drift", but had no plausible explanation for it. For this he was ignored and ridiculed by the scientific establishment of his day.  But he was right, and the discovery of plate tectonics in the '60s did discover the mechanism and see drift accepted.  And that no one yet understands global temperature cycles has nothing to do with whether they're real or not; if the evidence is strong enough, it has to be accepted.  So far, all that is known for sure is that it fits the known data much better, models the cooling periods in the 20'th century extremely well, and predicted the warming lull of 200X until now accurately.  This is something worth serious discussion, for it will make large differences in temperature predictions.

  14. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    Extraordinary claims, like stating that all of the climate scientists are wrong, require extraordinary explanations.

    Arguing about CO2 and surface temperature is a red herring. How did the cyclical theory do with the ocean temperature changes over the 200X period? It is the total system that counts. 

    Then there is ocean acidification. Basic high school chemistry, no mysteries, no convenient obfuscations, no indecipherable complexity.. More CO2 leads to more H2CO3 in the oceans, which leads to dead biota. No need to infer anything, no possibility of dodging, ducking, bobbing, weaving or inventing economic or political motivations. Burning hydrocarbons leads to acidification. Humans burn hydrocarbons. Human activity leads to acidification. Again, consensus among scientists from several different fields. I am interested to know if you are as sceptical about this.

    AGW is wrong and we act = more resilient world with less pollution, a small slice of privileged people don't get as many shiny things.
    AGW is wrong and we don't act = Dead oceans from acidification and hypoxia, a more brittle civilization with more complexity and less surplus energy to deal with challenges, but the small slice of privileged people get to enjoy a few more shiny things.
    AGW is right and we act = more resilient world with less pollution, a small slice of privileged people don't get as many shiny things.
    AGW is right and we don't act = disaster and the death of billions, but  the small slice of privileged people get to enjoy a few more shiny things for a little while.

    Inaction on carbon pollution has no good outcomes regardless of the validity of the scientific consensus around warming.  

  15. Gran Dan
    Gran Dan says:

    I can't help but wonder how many of the people who are denying science on the internet are being paid to do so.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/21/denial

    1. klem says:

      They aren’t being paid, a handful might be paid but the vast majority don’t receive a dime.

  16. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    And not to be pedantic, but there have been only five 'ices ages' since the earth formed 4.54 billion years ago, of which we are currently in the fifth.

  17. Scott McCarthy
    Scott McCarthy says:

    
    +Brad Dunagan   CO2 levels, since the advent of industrialization, have sky-rocketed compared to the cyclical variations over the aeons.   There can be no doubt as to whether or not we, as a people, are affecting change .. we are.  However, the degree to which we are contributing can be questioned.  It may be a hysteria, but only the vocal are heard.  Only the vocal generate awareness.  Only the vocal affect change.

    On another note … yes, this has been co-opted for $$$ and political points.  Unfortunate as that may be, would change not be for the better?

    +Don Hignite Jr Fail.  You are comparing local (micro-) climate conditions to GLOBAL climate conditions.  Not the same thing.  Just because you are freezing your ass off doesn't mean the global mean temperature hasn't risen.

    That small rise in ocean temperature has very drastic affect.  Think Katrina but bigger.

    +David Strumfels Yes, the skeptics do write papers.  However, the reason they don't get published is because the underlying "science" doesn't hold up to peer review.  If your paper doesn't have conclusions that are scientifically repeatable it won't pass peer-review and it doesn't get published.  THAT is why they don't get published.  Not the other way around.   (That's the above-board explanation.  It also doesn't help the cause when , not all, but many are funded by big oil. Just sayin'.)

  18. David Strumfels
    David Strumfels says:

    +Chris George
    "Extraordinary claims, like stating that all of the climate scientists are wrong, require extraordinary explanations."  You are abusing Sagan's famous line.  And what is the more extraordinary:  that climate scientists supporting warming are all wrong, or that they can accurately predict global temperatures accurately out to a century or more.  Sagan was also being rhetorical; as another (paraphrased) remark goes:  "The most beautiful and wondrous theory in the world can be utterly destroyed by a single, ugly fact.)  Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift is the best example I can think of as someone utterly shunned and rejected by the "scientific consensus", and ultimately exonerated by simple facts like magnetism in rocks, volcanic mid-ocean ridges, and all of the mountainous data Wegener personally collected.  Plate tectonics is now a fact completely supported by science, one which only a mad man would challenge.

    Sorry, but global warming falls far short of the scientific truth hood that Plate Tectonics, Evolution, and Atomic theory hold.  Of course, no intelligent person rejects warming's basic facts and science; that part does have a mountain and ore of data and reason to support it.  But as another sage hath said:  Truth dwells in the details.  And there are important details, never refuted but only ignored, presumably because they would throw a monkey wrench into the NASA/NOAA/IPCC beautiful and wondrous theory.

    But it has been this way all along. When warming first grew serious, the then accepted historic temperatures, especially the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, presented a serious challenge, because current warming looked insignificant by comparison or provided natural explanations for the warming.  Then Michael Mann came along with his Hockey Stick model and, presto, those two problems magically vanished.  When Mann was later discovered to be cherry picking data and using models that automatically produced the desired results (and was rewarded for doing so) many more measurements were made over the years, and the result was they kept approaching the shape of the original data (especially if you throw Mann's clearly invalid results out, which they won't do).  Now Mann et al couldn't have known they were wasting their time, because sufficient warming in the 80s and 90s happened to beat any model of the past.

    But now a new problem arose.  All this glorious warming of the previous two decades or so has appeared to come to a grinding halt — look at the data, it's plainly there, undeniable).  What do the warmers now do?  First, change the name to climate change (that's desperate); second, keep an ad campaign going about how this or that year in the last ten or so years is one of the hottest on record?  is this an example of the secure ~100% consensus of brilliant climatologists striving to save the world?  No, it is example of a fallacy and a folly so obvious an undergraduate in statistics would spot it in a second (can you?).  Throwing in ocean temperatures when land an air stop warming is a somewhat cleverer trick.  Anyone with any knowledge of the chemical properties of water can help you here — me, I'm so tired of defending myself against people like you that I just quitting now, while I'm ahead.

  19. John Smith
    John Smith says:

    CO2 was 8000ppm in the past.

  20. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    Living in a fantasy can never put you ahead. I see you totally avoided acidification. But quit, by all means. I seem to spend a lot of time using Google on behalf of people like you who have beliefs that cannot stand "ugly" facts. 

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

    Again, where is the science? Where is the plausible explanation of causation that requires further investigation.

    And since when does a science require 100% accuracy over centuries in order to be believed? Have you ever actually talked to an economist about theirs? And yet we continue the madness that economics rules even though economists cannot predict what will happen next week. 

  21. Gran Dan
    Gran Dan says:

    The data has been examined using other statistical methods. The "hockey stick" is still there.

  22. John Poteet
    John Poteet says:

    +David Strumfels You're in denial of basic physics. We know CO2 has a radiation absorption spectrum. We know adding CO2 to a clear vessel filled with "air" increases it's heat retention. These experiments have been performed millions of times since 1850. 

    To add hundreds of gigatons of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere is to warm that atmosphere until a new radiation equilibrium has been reached. It has to work that way barring some observed phenomena that counters the extra heat retention of the CO2. No such observations have been made. 

    You're acting like a petulant child denying the evidence of the mess that you've made when everybody else can see it. You're long past the point where you're just repeating denials of observed and established science over and over again. Most of those denials having been generated as bespoke propaganda from the fossil fuel industries. 

    You're undeserving of respect. In my eyes you're pushing poisonous memes every bit as harmful as holocaust denial, kiddy porn or chemical weapons recipes. Climate change promises to harm far more children than either of those threats. 

  23. Scott McCarthy
    Scott McCarthy says:

    +David Strumfels "… global warming falls far short of the scientific truth hood …"  Climate change was a theory.  Theories are not 100% accurate.  Never were.  Never will be.  They are, by definition, a "working model".  When facts come along which disrupt that model you change the model.  Actually, it's a perfect example of science at work.  

    The fact that a couple of decades of warming "has appeared to come to a grinding halt" doesn't not invalidate the model.  The model is magnitudes greater.  Example, because it's been unseasonably cold in SoCal, noone can say global warming/climate change it henceforth debunked.

    The ocean temperatures ARE the temperature change being discussed at the global level.  Remember >70% of the earth's surface is ocean; the equivalent of a planetary heatsink.  I don't get how air stops warming when Venus would argue differently. 

    +John Smith Where did you find that number.  CO2 levels have not broached 300ppm until recently; that's going back 800,000y.  IF you are citing anything before the current geologic era (Phanerozoic) that number is not relevant to the discussion as the Earth was a very different beast.

  24. Chris George
    Chris George says:

    +John Smith 

    CO2 may have reached 8000ppm in the past, but it was during a time when solar output was 4% less and the science used to estimate the 8000ppm number is still problematic.

    What was your point?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

  25. Marc Waterloo
    Marc Waterloo says:

    Pacific Decadal Oscillation

  26. Scott McCarthy
    Scott McCarthy says:

    +Chris George With your 4% reference, I now understand to whence your are referring.  That was well before the era of biological life; so, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

  27. klem says:

    “deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals,”

    Why would they? They aren’t the ones claiming future climate catastrophe, its the alarmists who are making all of the claims, its the alarmists who have to support those claims. All the deniers have to do is dispute the claims, which is easy and fun to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>