The Reef Ain't Dead

[AKA-None]

So is nasa considered a non biased source for any scientific research?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mann's hockey stick has been replicated over dozen times.

I had to wipe coffee off the screen after I read that one.
It's been totally discredited a lot more that a dozen times.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There are fossil fuel funded climate scientists. Many are associated with the Heartland Institute, CO2 Science, CO2 Coalition, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc..

https://climaterealityproject.org/bl...climate-action

They are well funded. (from Robert Brulle of Drexel University)

And I bet some of these fossil fuel funded climate scientists may even have a hand in casting aspersions on unequivocal statements of certainty such as this:

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Roman Warm Period was not warmer than today.



https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...gregory-rummo/

Originally Posted by StuM

I had to wipe coffee off the screen after I read that one.
It's [the Mann hockey stick] been totally discredited a lot more that a dozen times.

And we know who must be responsible for the discrediting. All those same Heartland-associated scientific experts who are, of course, 'anti-science'.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And, BTW, fossil fuels are not going away. I don't think anyone foresees a replacement for jet fuel for a good while. There are plenty of other fossil fuel replacements that are feasible and economical.

Hey, maybe you're right. Just not sure how the feasible and economical part of it will work out.

[GordMay]

Climate-change deniers like to compare themselves to great scientists, like Galileo or Darwin, who challenged the scientific orthodoxy of their times (the current orthodoxy being, of course, the belief that humans are altering Earth’s climate).
Skepticism, they (rightly) maintain, is central to science.
True skepticism, however, demands that one subject all sides of a scientific contention, or dispute, to equal scrutiny, and weigh the totality of evidence, without prejudice.
That should not be conflated with contrarianism or denialism, which is a kind of one-sided skepticism, that entails simply rejecting evidence that challenges one’s preconceptions.
Unfortunately, the term skeptic has, at times, been coopted by those who are not skeptics at all, but are instead contrarians or deniers, predisposed to the indiscriminate rejection of evidence supporting a human influence on climate, and it's implications for public policy (often the underlying objection).

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So is nasa considered a non biased source for any scientific research?

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/n...12-4?r=US&IR=T

Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency’s activist stance toward climate change.The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

Where's there's smoke, there's fire perhaps.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/n...12-4?r=US&IR=T
Where's there's smoke, there's fire perhaps.

But, are you suggesting that the thousands of scientists, and scientific papers that (generally) support the consensus that AGGs are driving CC, don't represent any "smoke" (& perhaps fire)?

The letter, from 49 former NASA employees (primarily engineers) expresses the unsubstantiated* OPINION* (belief) that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate, and
“... that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated ...
... * For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.”

* "GLOBAL WARMING FACTS VERSUS FAITH O N E A S T R O N A U T ’ S V I E W S”
➥ http://www.waltercunningham.com/factsfaith.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Hey, maybe you're right. Just not sure how the feasible and economical part of it will work out.

What do you call failing to fact check?

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...charge-electr/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/n...12-4?r=US&IR=T

Where's there's smoke, there's fire perhaps.

Just one of those signatories, a meteorologist, has any education or professional experience in atmospheric science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I had to wipe coffee off the screen after I read that one.
It's been totally discredited a lot more that a dozen times.

Did you bother to read the link? It lists and links to over 3 dozen studies. The original graph by Hubert Lamb show the MWP is based on anecdotal data from Central England.

Here is one of the latest hockey sticks:



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7


Meanwhile you present nothing to support your assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So is nasa considered a non biased source for any scientific research?

Yes. Nasa funds skeptics as well as those who acknowledge AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What do you call failing to fact check?

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...charge-electr/

Greenwashing

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Climate-change deniers like to compare themselves to great scientists, like Galileo or Darwin, who challenged the scientific orthodoxy of their times (the current orthodoxy being, of course, the belief that humans are altering Earth’s climate).
Skepticism, they (rightly) maintain, is central to science.
True skepticism, however, demands that one subject all sides of a scientific contention, or dispute, to equal scrutiny, and weigh the totality of evidence, without prejudice.
That should not be conflated with contrarianism or denialism, which is a kind of one-sided skepticism, that entails simply rejecting evidence that challenges one’s preconceptions.
Unfortunately, the term skeptic has, at times, been coopted by those who are not skeptics at all, but are instead contrarians or deniers, predisposed to the indiscriminate rejection of evidence supporting a human influence on climate, and it's implications for public policy (often the underlying objection).

Not an unfair, albeit broad-brush synopsis, except that the "implications for public policy" are also what drive many of the CC advocates who lump together all who express any sort of doubt that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. There are, however, some promising prospects for pragmatism, moderation, and therefore realism within the CC/environmental movement itself, although these too have been demonized by the dogma that plagues the issue. Maybe because it's much harder to attack the credentials, politics, and sources of funding of people like Michael Shellenberger who's recent book -- Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All -- "explores how and why so many of us came to see important but manageable environmental problems as the end of the world, and why the people who are the most apocalyptic about environmental problems tend to oppose the best and most obvious solutions to solving them."

Other such blasphemy includes Shellenberger's testimony before the US Congress in Jan. 2020 where he dared to admit that "I care about getting the facts and the science right. I believe scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our issue." (Emphasis mine).

Imagine that, a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist and long-time CC advocate who not only believes alarmism may have dubious scientific justification, but also recognizes that claiming otherwise in order to influence public policy is dishonest and therefore counter-productive. Sounds like one of these guys who actually understands the importance of credibility when it comes to science and public policy, and why ends are unattainable unless the means employed are in fact honest. But then it's always easier to misleadingly cite the science which favors personal positions, either ignore legitimate scientific uncertainties or label them as "anti-science," and of course blame the fossil fuel industry for distorting the message. Until, that is, your electric car runs out of juice and you require a fossil-fuel powered rescue.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Until, that is, your electric car runs out of juice and you require a fossil-fuel powered rescue.

That electric car you posted was plugged into a battery pack.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That electric car you posted was plugged into a battery pack.

A battery pack that was towed out to the electric car by a gas-powered one.