02-17-2017, 03:36 PM
Pretty balanced attempt at presenting the state of the debate as it is today. This is picking apart a recent article in the Atlantic.
https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/climate-...al-denial/
https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/climate-...al-denial/
Quote:Ignoring scientific consensus is not necessarily bad. Ignoring the scientific consensus in the 1920s and 1930s meant not forcibly sterilizing millions of genetic inferiors as the eugenecist scientific consensus of the time recommended. Oddly the regime that did attempt to implement that consensus is one that is roundly condemned today. Moreover, despite the claims of “journalists†and “scientists†the NOAA manipulation seems fairly well proven. If NOAA and interested scientists want to dispute this then there is a very simple way to do so: release in to the public domain the data and programs used. Moreover if the results are “robust†they will be easily replicable using other datasets and similar manipulations that are clearly explicable. The fact that this sort of independent replication has not been performed suggests that NOAA were indeed manipulating the data in underhand fashions – a practice that is common on “climate science†and a definite no-no in other more reputable fields of scientific research.
The Atlantic would do its readers (and contributors come to think of it) a favor by clearly enunciating the following
Currently most popular journalism fails all but perhaps the first and fourth.
- the evidence that the climate is changing
- the evidence that this is due to humans (and specifically human caused CO2 emissions)
- the evidence that this will be catastrophic in a reasonable time frame (say 50 years or less)
- the proposed solutions
- how said solutions will resolve the problem
- how much they will cost
- what impacts they will have on the world
- why other solutions (coff Nuclear power coff) are inneffective