Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The least of our concerns is often what occupies the most public attention while the most important issues often get ignored.

Economic and political problems are short term and reversible. Climate change is cumulative and irreversible on human timescales.

Climate change, and other forms of environmental destruction is a pernicious threat in that it creeps up on us bit by bit so that we get used to the effects as they happen until one day we realise how much we have lost while we were worrying about petty things like trade disputes and sex scandals.

Humans are functionally incapable of assessing risk accurately in our day to day lives.

One of the greatest ever inventions was the vaccine, a technological breakthrough that untold saved anguish misery and death, but because we no longer have to worry about TB on a daily basis, people take for granted their peace of mind and have started to refuse vaccinations for their children which has caused a return of these diseases which had been almost eradicated.

We're also sleepwalking into a crisis in antibiotic resistance with most people hoping that scientists will find a new solution before they are personally infected with an incurable life altering/threatening illness.

Similarly with water shortages being projected for about a third of the worlds cities, but political paralysis until the issue becomes a crisis after which urgent remedial action is required (see capetown)

The political system is caught between an imperative to drive economic growth, often at the expense of public health and the environment, and an imperative to get re-elected by being seen to support popular policies.

I really thought the true agenda and the ultimate solution was going to be divulged there, but it was just something with CC inevitably shoehorned in to it.

Antibiotics resistance, courtesy of the medical profession, is something that we should seriously be concerned with, as we should with the Facebook intelligensia who promote chemtrails and water charge protests and urge other people to dispense with immunisations.

You'll generally find that they'll be the same people who'll swallow anything, like believing that they're causing the climate to change that 100% of scientists were questioned about.

And then turn around ask you what buying a bridge means!

It's happened!!

These are the sort of ideal candidates that the eco fascists and Brid Smith, Trocaire and her Emergency Climate Measures Bill supporters need to help implement their global socialist agenda.

https://www.trocaire.org/getinvolved/fossil-fuel-extraction

682 candidates specialising in virtue signalling have so far urged their TD to back the measure according to Trocaire.....

dense

Some uncomfortable reading for the radical green environmentalists.

Anyone like to check out the figures for global emissions, particularly the first list, which appears to total at 134%?

BTW, Ireland apparently accounts for 0.13% of the total ghg figure of 134% but is not even listed in co2 emissions.

But lets rush headlong into a shared, socialist, 16th century backward rustic existence powered by windmills by 2040 by all means, shouting all the way about capitalism and rectifying the ills of the world.

If 0.66% was a truly significant figure in another context, and it was, I'd really like to know what 0.13% would be described as.

dense

New study suggests that the MWP was not confined to Northern Hemisphere

https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-maps-medieval-warm-period-in-africa/

-"The vast majority of land sites in Africa showed a characteristic warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, in line with similar warming in Europe and North America. The situation in the coastal seas surrounding Africa, however, was different. Changes in the wind systems intensified the upward transport of deeper cooler water to the coasts, which resulted in a marked medieval cooling in the so-called ‘upwelling’ zones. Nevertheless, the areal extent of these narrow coastal sectors is rather small when compared to the total area of the African continent. The study was published in the journal Paleoceanography and is based on 44 study sites in and around Africa.


In the absence of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 variations, natural drivers have to be invoked to explain the observed medieval climate change. The most promising candidates are changes in solar activity as well as ocean cycles, which operate on times scales ranging from decades to millennia. The two new studies from Africa emphasize the great significance of natural climate variability on a global scale. A robust understanding of the natural ‘climatic heartbeat’ is essential. Ultimately, it will allow to better distinguishing between anthropogenic and natural contributions to modern climate change and will improve the predictive skill of climate models."

dense

Hiatus? What hiatus?

The 50 year one?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1931/to:1981/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1931/to:1981/trend

Akrasia

We are currently at record low global ice extent. Record low extent in the North, with 2nd lowest extend in Antarctica (beaten by 2017)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/02/sea-ice-tracking-low-in-both-hemispheres/

I suppose some 'skepics' might describe this as a 'recovery' in ice extent in Antarctica, but for serious people, this is more bad news for global climate change.

What do the weather experts on here think will happen to Irish weather when the Arctic becomes Ice free for half the year?

blanch152

Akrasia wrote: »

We are currently at record low global ice extent. Record low extent in the North, with 2nd lowest extend in Antarctica (beaten by 2017)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/02/sea-ice-tracking-low-in-both-hemispheres/

I suppose some 'skepics' might describe this as a 'recovery' in ice extent in Antarctica, but for serious people, this is more bad news for global climate change.

What do the weather experts on here think will happen to Irish weather when the Arctic becomes Ice free for half the year?

A good question. Irish summers recently have been poor, the blame has been put by some on a cold pool of water in the mid-Atlantic - is it melted ice? I

sryanbruen

blanch152 wrote: »

A good question. Irish summers recently have been poor, the blame has been put by some on a cold pool of water in the mid-Atlantic - is it melted ice? I

Think you might want to look at the IMTs in the Irish Weather Statistics thread for the 60s Summers, lol. Now they were very poor Summers! Or worse, 1912 is the worst Summer.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

We are currently at record low global ice extent. Record low extent in the North, with 2nd lowest extend in Antarctica (beaten by 2017)
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/02/sea-ice-tracking-low-in-both-hemispheres/

I suppose some 'skepics' might describe this as a 'recovery' in ice extent in Antarctica, but for serious people, this is more bad news for global climate change.

What do the weather experts on here think will happen to Irish weather when the Arctic becomes Ice free for half the year?

Ice-free for half the year? 6 months with no ice? Where did you hear that? Maybe a slight exaggeration there, no? At the current rate (-12.7% per decade) we could see an ice-free September in around 50 years, maybe 40 if it self-accelerates. That's for one month. I don't think anyone is suggesting we'll see it ice-free for 6.




The Barents Sea saw the lowest recovery this winter, but on the other hand, northeastern Canada and Greenland saw near-average recovery.

And the Antartctic has had a low blip after some above-average years, with the trend still slight upwards. Charts below for January extents up to 2018 as the Feb 2018 ones are not up yet)

Gaoth Laidir

Here's a long-term reconstruction of NH extent (solid) and area (dotted) since 1850, taken from here. Obviously of little real value as the last 39 years have had high-resolution daily measurements, compared to the sparse data before that. But note the vast disagreement between the black and red curves post 1979.

.
Time series of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent (solid line) and area (dotted) for 1890-2007, for the Met Office Hadley Centre datasets HadISST.2.1.0.0 (black), HadISST1.1 (red), and the NASA Team dataset (blue). Monthly average values are shown for a) January and b) July. Credit: Holly Titchner, UK Met Office

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

A good question. Irish summers recently have been poor, the blame has been put by some on a cold pool of water in the mid-Atlantic - is it melted ice? I

"Poor" in what anecdotal sense?

dense

What you need to know about IRENA and the published plans for a New World Order.

You may not have heard of IRENA, but you will.


http://www.irena.org/




From the well known climate expert Bianca Jagger's speech at the conference toward the establishment of an International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
April 10, 2008

Delivered in Berlin on 10 April, 2008:

Germany has shown great leadership and vision in spearheading the renewable energy revolution. We must grasp firmly the hand that is being offered to us and embark upon this revolution to prevent global climate disaster. I thank the German government for this opportunity, and Hermann Scheer for his outstanding work.

Also on behalf of the World Future Council, of which I am the Chair, I urge each of you support the establishment of IRENA as heralding a new world order, in which we can look forward to safe, affordable, secure and stable energy sources for all.

https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/dinner-speech-conference-toward-establishment-international-renewable-energy-agency-irena-bianca-jagger/



Roll on ten years and IRENA is being advocated to take charge of globally implementing and monitoring a new world order under the guise of "sustainability", with the stated.intention of capping economic growth.

http://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-a-social-contract/

Make IRENA the central organisation for global sus-
tainable energy policies (high ambition level): IRENA’s
mandate should be extended to encompass all
energy systems and low-carbon energy options,
including issues regarding system integration and
energy efficiency on the demand side. Step by step,
IRENA could then be developed further into an
International Sustainable Energy Agency (WBGU,
2004). The federal government should actively sup-
port turning IRENA into one of the central organisa-
tions for energy policy in the long-term, that can
effectively advance the global transformation of
energy systems.
> Use the G20 as the driving force for a sustainable glo-
bal energy and climate policy (high ambition level):
Considering the urgency of the global energy shift,
political willingness to act must significantly
increase, and political leaders must be mobilised. As
an alliance of the economically and politically lead-
ing industrialised and newly industrialising coun-
tries, which together cause approx. 80 % of global
greenhouse gas emissions, the G20 occupies a prom-
inent position.

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf


http://www.irena.org/

dense

Ship of fools, anyone? Alarmists attempting to explore the lack of summer ice. LOL.

Gaoth Laidir

I think talk of NWP is starting to take things out of the realms of reasonable debate there Dense.

dense

R

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I think talk of NWP is starting to take things out of the realms of reasonable debate there Dense.

But why? I'm just quoting what was said.

It may be unpalatable to consider, but those were the words used, weren't they?

A global, over-arching renewables organisation deciding upon individual countries economic growth, staffed by unelected eco activist NGO climate officers.

Seems like a push for a new order for the world from where I'm sitting.

And I'd say those who'd love the idea would simply deny the phrase was used, as has happened before when some people appeared not to have been able to hear the Professor saying our breath was damaging the Arctic.

You yourself have noticed that there is an agenda, what do you think it is?

Here's the thing, wouldn't you respect Gibbons and his ilk of "science communicators" more if they'd just come out and admit that the new world order ambitions that I've linked are exactly what they want because it is what (according to them) humanity deserves and requires?

Akrasia wrote: »

The least of our concerns is often what occupies the most public attention while the most important issues often get ignored.

Economic and political problems are short term and reversible. Climate change is cumulative and irreversible on human timescales.

Climate change, and other forms of environmental destruction is a pernicious threat in that it creeps up on us bit by bit so that we get used to the effects as they happen until one day we realise how much we have lost while we were worrying about petty things like trade disputes and sex scandals.

Humans are functionally incapable of assessing risk accurately in our day to day lives.

The political system is caught between an imperative to drive economic growth, often at the expense of public health and the environment, and an imperative to get re-elected by being seen to support popular policies.

-That seems to be a cry for a new world order, doesn't it?

I can't help that climate expert Bianca Jagger called it what it is.

Let's not deny what they all raised their glasses to after she finished her climate speech.

Gaoth Laidir

I prefer to leave the conspiracy theories to others.

Gaoth Laidir

While I fully support the idea of switching to renewable energy as much as possible (because it just makes sense and is there) I can't accept the hyperbole spouted in that speech by Jagger. Nonsense like this (quoting David Wasdell)

“If we go beyond the point where human intervention can no longer stabilise the system, then we precipitate unstoppable runaway climate change. That will set in motion a major extinction event comparable to the five other extinction crises that the earth has previously experienced.”

Like the death of the dinosaurs?

But then she continues with gems such as (emphasis mine)

As climate change kicks in, the tropical and subtropical countries of Africa, South Asia and Latin America will heat up more and more, with temperatures becoming increasingly intolerable. Droughts will affect large parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Melting glaciers will flood river valleys and then, when they have disappeared, unprecedented droughts will occur.

and my favourite

By the end of the century 182 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone could die of diseases directly attributable to climate change...

...Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue: it touches every part of our lives: peace, security, human rights, poverty, hunger, health, mass migration and economics...

These are the words of someone who has gone beyond the scientific interests and is on a self-serving ego trip.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ice-free for half the year? 6 months with no ice? Where did you hear that? Maybe a slight exaggeration there, no? At the current rate (-12.7% per decade) we could see an ice-free September in around 50 years, maybe 40 if it self-accelerates. That's for one month. I don't think anyone is suggesting we'll see it ice-free for 6.




The Barents Sea saw the lowest recovery this winter, but on the other hand, northeastern Canada and Greenland saw near-average recovery.

And the Antartctic has had a low blip after some above-average years, with the trend still slight upwards. Charts below for January extents up to 2018 as the Feb 2018 ones are not up yet)

In the early 80s summer extent was about 8 million km2, in 2012 it was about 3m km2

In recent years winter maximum ice extent has also started to decline more rapidly.

Given the chaotic nature of arctic ice it is possible that we could see an ice free summer on any year if the conditions come together just right. (Scientists consider less than 1m km2 ice extent as the threshold for ice free)

It is possible that it happens soon, it is inevitable that it happens eventually, and i asked what the implications are for our weather in Ireland. You and MT have both taken the 'nothing to see here' position so presumably you've both looked into this in detail.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

In the early 80s summer extent was about 8 million km2, in 2012 it was about 3m km2

In recent years winter maximum ice extent has also started to decline more rapidly.

Given the chaotic nature of arctic ice it is possible that we could see an ice free summer on any year if the conditions come together just right. (Scientists consider less than 1m km2 ice extent as the threshold for ice free)

It is possible that it happens soon, it is inevitable that it happens eventually, and i asked what the implications are for our weather in Ireland. You and MT have both taken the 'nothing to see here' position so presumably you've both looked into this in detail.

I don't know what that would mean for Ireland is the simple answer, but from climate projections to date there seem to be very little changes in store for Ireland up to 2100. In any case, it's all hypothetical as we won't see ice-free for 6 months.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

In the early 80s summer extent was about 8 million km2, in 2012 it was about 3m km2
.

Where are you getting the figures from? You seem to be expanding both ends for effect. The early 80s were more like 7-7.5 million and recent years more like 4.5-5 million. 2012 was a low that hasn't been repeated since.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Where are you getting the figures from? You seem to be expanding both ends for effect. The early 80s were more like 7-7.5 million and recent years more like 4.5-5 million. 2012 was a low that hasn't been repeated since.

I rounded the figures, and your dismissal of 2012 as an outlier is telling. Outliers can show what is possible when conditions are just right. In the 6 years since then, the underlying ice loss trend has continued, so if 2012 conditions are repeated, it is increasingly likely to result in a total collapse in arctic sea ice.

And given the positive feedbacks involved in the arctic ice loss is accelerating

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I don't know what that would mean for Ireland is the simple answer, but from climate projections to date there seem to be very little changes in store for Ireland up to 2100. In any case, it's all hypothetical as we won't see ice-free for 6 months.

You only seem to accept the projections when they suit you. Why do you trust these projections but not the IPCC projections?

The climate models have been underestimating arctic sea ice loss. Its one of the areas where the models are known to be lacking resolution we have insufficient understanding on the mechanisms that drive ice loss/gain

For this reason I don't really trust long term projections for Irish climate, in fact, all of the expert reports I have seen emphasise the uncertainty for future irish climate in a warmer world. We could be relatively unscathed, or we could see dramatic changes, and all bets are off if we see a significant change to the thermohaline circulation driven by extreme climate change in the Arctic

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I rounded the figures, and your dismissal of 2012 as an outlier is telling. Outliers can show what is possible when conditions are just right. In the 6 years since then, the underlying ice loss trend has continued, so if 2012 conditions are repeated, it is increasingly likely to result in a total collapse in. Arctic sea ice.

And given the positive feedbacks involved in the arctic ice loss is accelerating

I didn't say 2012 was an outlier (which has a specific definition in statistics), but in the 5 years since, the absolute minimum extents haven't gone below 4.0 million km2. Who's to say this year won't go below it but it looks like it will. It depends on local weather conditions.

2012: 3.19
2013: 5.05
2014: 5.03
2015: 4.43
2016: 4.14
2017: 4.64

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You only seem to accept the projections when they suit you. Why do you trust these projections but not the IPCC projections?

The climate models have been underestimating arctic sea ice loss. Its one of the areas where the models are known to be lacking resolution we have insufficient understanding on the mechanisms that drive ice loss/gain

For this reason I don't really trust long term projections for Irish climate, in fact, all of the expert reports I have seen emphasise the uncertainty for future irish climate in a warmer world. We could be relatively unscathed, or we could see dramatic changes, and all bets are off if we see a significant change to the thermohaline circulation driven by extreme climate change in the Arctic

I accept all projections for what they are, just best guesses. I said I don't know what will happen in our tiny corner of the world, no more than you or anyone else does, but as you're one for quoting projections ad lib then I quoted the Irish ones for you. Are you now rejecting them because they don't suit you? Double standards?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I accept all projections for what they are, just best guesses. I said I don't know what will happen in our tiny corner of the world, no more than you or anyone else does, but as you're one for quoting projections ad lib then I quoted the Irish ones for you. Are you now rejecting them because they do the suit you? Double standards?

I give weight to projections based on the confidence interval attached to them

If a projection is highly likely then i will trust it more than one that is contingent on other uncertain factors.
Fundamental physics are virtually certain that the planet will warm, the feedbacks are less certain and for individual locations, we cant know for sure what local factors will influence local conditions, but regionally, we can project scenarios that are likely based on an array of contingencies

(Like saying your house will burn down differently if the fire starts in the kitchen compared with the upstairs bedroom)

Not knowing for certain how a fire will burn your house doesn't mean you shouldn't take sensible precautions to prevent your house from catching fire.

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I prefer to leave the conspiracy theories to others.

No problem there, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but do you agree that the term "new world order" was used to herald the launch of the International Renewable Energy Agency?

https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/dinner-speech-conference-toward-establishment-international-renewable-energy-agency-irena-bianca-jagger/

BTW, Miss Jagger regularly steps out of her ivory tower and is taken very seriously by our leaders and last year was invited to enlighten them about her hobby horse at Brussels

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/170718-sustainable-finance-speech-bianca-jagger_en.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwju5dWPxK_ZAhWDC8AKHZphA1sQFggTMAM&usg=AOvVaw31PP_JJkLrO8i--GMH-nAa

Longing

485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.HOPkVqwO.dpbs

Akrasia

Longing wrote: »

485 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.HOPkVqwO.dpbs

Except they don't. Notrickszone is a terrible blog that routinely falsifies its stories and doctors graphs to deceive its readers. Its literally a fake news source

Snopes tackled a version of this story and they shamelessly continue to repeat and expand their deception.

https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

Except they don't. Notrickszone is a terrible blog that routinely falsifies its stories and doctors graphs to deceive its readers. Its literally a fake news source

Snopes tackled a version of this story and they shamelessly continue to repeat and expand their deception.

https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Perhaps you would like to defend the now well debunked 97% claim.

Kenneth Richard wrote:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/02/deconstruction-of-the-critical-youtube-response-to-our-400-skeptical-papers-compilation/

As an aside, if we were to look at the papers that Cook et al. (2013) used to concoct the 97% “consensus” document we would find that Cook and his colleagues actually classified papers (and magazine articles) about cooking stoves in Brazil, phone surveys, asthma-related ER visits in Montreal, TV coverage . . . as scientific papers “endorsing” the position that all or nearly all of the global warming occurring since 1950 has been human-caused (the “consensus” statement). Of course, none of the papers identified in the link below that were categorized as “endorsing” the clearly defined anthropogenic/post-1950 “consensus” statement actually used those specific words. And yet they were curiously counted anyway.

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
“The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.”

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to defend the now well debunked 97% claim.

I think I'll let the scientists themselves do that

Reply to Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming”
We thank JoséDuarte for his interest in our paper. The criticisms in his comment are 3-fold: (1) he claimed we
included an unknowable number of “non-climate scientists” in our survey; (2) the inclusion of impacts and mitigation researchers biases our results on the level of consensus upward; and (3) there is pressure to abide by the consensus, precluding any conclusions to be drawn from its existence. In response, we argue that the number of “non-climate scientists” in our survey is known to be small and their in- or exclusion does not change our conclusion that the level of consensus increases with
increasing expertise. With respect to point 2, we reiterate that we intended to survey the wider scientific field that works on climate change issues. This has actually led to a slightly lower level of consensus than if we had only surveyed physical climate scientists. Finally, Duarte’s characterization as if a scientific consensus is somehow enforced by nefarious means lacks
substantiation.

Survey respondents were asked for the number of years that a respondent had been professionally involved with climate change issues (Q7a) and for the number of climate-related articles written in the peer-reviewed literature (Q7b). Researchers from a nonclimate related field, who were admitted to our survey because they wrote an article with the keyword “global climate change” or “global warming”, would have answered zero to one or both questions, assuming they answered truthfully. The size of this group of “non-climate scientists” in our survey is 81 (∼4% of the respondents). If they were excluded from our survey, the level of concensus based on Q1 of our total group of respondents who expressed an opinionthat is, excluding the undetermined responses would remain the same: 84%. Duarte argues that inclusion of scientists with self-reported expertise in climate impacts (WG2) or mitigation (WG3) cause an inflationary bias for the level of consensus found. However, we consciously included these professionals in our survey setup.

In our article we describe how respondents were selected and that we surveyed “scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation.” This setup of surveying the wider scientific field of climate-related researchers enabled us to investigate in detail how the various views on climate science depend on different metrics related to expertise. Table S3 (SI) provides the consensus results for several subgroups, including those with self-declared WG1 expertise (physical climate scientists), WG2 and WG3. Those with WG1 expertise indeed reported a slightly lower consensus level than those with WG2 or WG3 expertise. However, the level of
consensus of those with WG1 expertise is slightly higher than that of the total group of respondents, since the latter also includes respondents who did not report any of the IPCC WG1, WG2, or WG3 expertise fields, of whom 78% agrees with the IPCC attribution statement. Moreover, the 88 signatories of public statements critical of climate sciencethe“uncon-vinced”exhibit a very low consensus level of 12%. So these latter two groups “bias” the consensus level in the opposite
direction and probably contributed to us finding a lower level of consensus than several other studies did.

Our main conclusion, that the level of consensus increases with increasing expertise in climate science, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change, is not affected by having included impacts and mitigation researchers, or other tangentially related
professionals. Duarte bases his claim that dissent in climate science is
oppressed on a few anecdotes and innuendo. He uses words such as “McCarthyite”, “smearing”, and “savaged”, but only mentions anecdotes that support his case, seemingly unaware of the many anecdotes in which self-proclaimed skeptics engage in such behavior toward mainstream scientists. A scientist who is skeptical of the anthropogenic causation of climate change may be called a “denier”; a scientist who is convinced that climate change is predominantly human-induced may be called an
“alarmist”. Judged by the examples he draws upon, his opinion appears strongly influenced by the skeptical blogosphere, which is rife with unsupported accusations of wrongdoing.

These sorts of anecdotes exemplify the polarized nature of the public debate on climate change, which is to an extent due to the “wicked” nature of the problem and the moral aspects
that it touches upon. Duarte’s claim that dissent is oppressed has a conspiratorial tone to it. As such it cannot be disproven, but it can be pointed out that it lacks real-world evidence.

Duarte describes how psychological driversfear of ostracismcould lead scientists to pay lip-service to the
consensus, even if they do not fully agree. However, making a Type I error (false positive or false alarm) is probably more damaging to a scientist’s reputation and credibility than making
a Type II error (false negative or missed opportunity).1,2 This causes a tendency toward scientific reticence rather than
exaggeration. This is exacerbated by widespread accusations of alarmism made against mainstream scientists. The opposite of what Duarte claims may be closer to the truth: scientists may
express themselves in an increasingly reticent manner in order to avoid being labeled alarmist or activist.

There is another important incentive in the other direction than Duarte describes. You do not become a famous scientist by confirming or repeating what everyone already knows. Rather, as Anderegg et al.3 wrote, “a scientist with a wealth of robust data from well-executed research would become famous by overturning a part of a consensus paradigm. Every young
scientist dreams of being the next Darwin or Galileo.”
Bart Verheggen*,†,‡,#
Bart Strengers†
Kees Vringer†
John Cook§,∥
Rob van Dorland⊥
Published: November 18, 2014

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es505183e&ved=2ahUKEwjrjZvFvLDZAhWBD8AKHYU1B20QFjAJegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2QiPTGRpg9dG9Qejs4BDZn

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Except they don't. Notrickszone is a terrible blog that routinely falsifies its stories and doctors graphs to deceive its readers. Its literally a fake news source

Snopes tackled a version of this story and they shamelessly continue to repeat and expand their deception.

https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Maybe you do, but I don't recall Snopes similarly reaching out to the scientists who dissociated themselves from Cook et al's consensus project paper and applying the same logic to debunk that "research", a study that's been debunked many times over.

Logic would dictate that Snopes has now indeed also joined the others who have already debunked Cook et al, applying the same criteria.

Nice one Snopes!!

Maintaining a set of double standards really seem to be a way of life for those pushing the virtuous pseudo science behind climate justice and a new world order.