Comments on: Peter Gleick: Climate-change Deniers Versus the Scientific Societies of the World — Who Should we Listen to?

By: Darn it

Darn it — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:51:49 +0000

When did googling quotes become recognised as proof of one’s own beliefs? Why oh WHY wasn’t this ‘level of evidence’ considered acceptable when I was at university and then working as a researcher. Life would have been a lot easier. Thank goodness medicine requires a greater burden of proof!

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:11:27 +0000

Dano wants “evidence” from the naysayers…….
It’s the proponents of warming that have no evidence. The null hypothesis is that the warming has been with natural variation. The MWP was warmer.

There is no evidence that CO2 causes any discernable temperature increase; in fact, there’s lots of evidence that temperature variation occurs some 800+ years the same variations in CO2. (A slow warming ocean releaseing CO2.)
No evidence? Then the null hypothesis pertains.

By: Dano

Dano — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:12:42 +0000

We appreciate the deniers showing up here and sharing their cognitive dissonance. They don’t share scientific evidence for their views because there is none, so the hand-waving must suffice.

Best,

By: Erin Zinck

Erin Zinck — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:57:20 +0000

naysayers

By: Amy Earthfacts

Amy Earthfacts — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:47:46 +0000

I agree (somewhat) with David.

While plucking quotes out of scientific journals may be slightly better than quoting reporters on CNN, you are still simply plucking quotes (possibly out of context) without explaining or analysing what the quotes means.

In fact, the CNN reporters may be quoting those same journal articles.

By: Bob Armstrong

Bob Armstrong — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:52:30 +0000

Useful to have all these establishment sycophancies @ one convenient link .

My immediate reaction is to check Dr .Gleick’s background in physics because global temperature is basically a physics problem . I’m not too surprised that I can’t find it . Lacking a background in physics would explain why a “scientist” would be inclined to seek the certainty of authority rather than rely on one’s own understanding .

Other than the standard “climates always change” , I would point to Richard Lindzen’s excellent graphic, showing how small that change has been compared to daily and seasonal variation has been over the last century . It’s absurd to claim the barely a human JND as a cause of mass ecological changes .

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:38:30 +0000

Perhaps you should actually look at the world. Too much emphasis on reports on all sides and not enough on actually looking at the effects in front of us and the real reports of those actually LIVING through this. Reality is speaking to us loud and clear.

By: Denis Ables

Denis Ables — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:03:55 +0000

I’ve looked at the science Gleick, and having done that, it’s clear all the administrators at those sites you quote (and you) have not.

By: David Schnare

David Schnare — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:11:49 +0000

Peter:

You make the same mistake many make when thinking about science issues for which you have no first hand knowledge or into which you choose not to inquire deeply. You rely on “authorities” rather than look directly at the science.

You also demand to have an alternative theory before you discount an existing theory that has been falsified by data.

Your approach is not science, it is propaganda.

If you are going to attack folks like McIntyre and McKitrick (who publish in peer-reviewed journals) simply because they have falsified the work that various associations have championed, you have aimed at the wrong target. Aim at the science, not the scientists.

When you actually look at the slovenly science, you too will be a bit more skeptical. And, there’s quite a bit of falsification of the “settled science” going on.

Go ahead and do your homework. Look it up.

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.
Director
Center for Environmental Stewardship
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy