Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy's willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles.

"I detest words like ‘contrarian' and ‘denier,' " he said. "I'm a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,' I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate -- right here. The science is not settled."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

paneocon

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.

"There's a climate establishment," Dr. Christy said. "And I'm not in it."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Absolute Truth, Dogmatism Antithetical to Science

Marc Carlin bemoans the prevalence of what he calls "moral relativism" among the students here at MIT. He argues that a group of students so familiar with the natural sciences should instead embrace a doctrine which he attributes to these disciplines: that absolute, timeless truths exist, and that human reason, properly applied, can discover and apply these lofty principles.

I think Carlin misunderstands the character of science, and of morality. Unlike him, I am pleased to find that MIT students shy away from the notion that Absolute Truths exist and can be discovered. To me, this indicates that science is being taught and done well, and that students here are not indoctrinated with the misconceptions about science and moral judgment which Carlin exhibits.

Carlin claims that Absolute Truth "is essential" to science. It is not. In fact, the best science recognizes the basic uncertainty of human knowledge, and by this recognition frees itself from the dogmatic belief that once a problem appears to be solved, it is solved for good.

The scientific method insists upon questioning not only the objects and events that we find in the world, but also our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is, and the way we come to know things about it. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.

tech.mit.edu

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Plaintiffs' own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC's [2001] assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations. ...

"Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet's surface temperature toward a warming rate. ...

"Christy also agreed that climate is a nonlinear system, that is, that its responses to forcings may be disproportionate, and rapid
changes would be more difficult for human beings and other species to adapt to than more gradual changes."

www.columbia.edu

Some skeptic!

He agrees with the basic premises that you climate deniers reject: That human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels are causing the climate to change and rapid changes would cause difficulties for humans and other species.

#2 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

uh oh....

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-16 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

#2

I said I wouldn't post on these.....but then why does Dr. Christi claim he is not part of the "climate establishment"?

#4 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-16 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#2 | POSTED BY RCADE

I'm not arguing climate change only the way climate change proponents are treating science as a whole.

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not arguing climate change only the way climate change proponents are treating science as a whole.

If climate deniers had not poisoned the debate, people who believe the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change could be more nuanced in how we explain the scientific process.

But when you're neck deep in a flood of idiocy, it's tough to have the patience to dole out the truth one spoonful at a time.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"If climate deniers had not poisoned the debate"

Yes pointing out fraud and incorrect data is a crime against humanity?

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

Environmentalist Alton Byers said the panel's credibility had been damaged. ‘They've done sloppy work,' he said. ‘We need better research on the ground, not unreliable predictions derived from computer models.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

#7 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes pointing out fraud and incorrect data is a crime against humanity?

That's less than 1% of what climate deniers do. The rest is spreading junk science claims and false information through big energy-funded groups like the Heartland Institute and denier blogs.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#8 | POSTED BY RCADE

Do you deny the existence of junk science claims and false information through big liberal donor groups groups like NextGen Climate Action and climate change blogs like Paul Kingsnorth.

Hank Paulson, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer walk into a bar and agree on this one thing
Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, average annual losses grow to $7.3 billion."

In the Midwest, farmers in states like Missouri and Illinois could face "up to a 15% likely average yield loss in the next 5 to 25 years, and up to a 73% likely average yield loss by the end of the century."

fortune.com

#9 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The rest is spreading junk science claims and false information"

Like the science that has failed to produce anything remotely resembling what actually happens?

Sorry, but i always find it rather funny that those silly junk science deniers were far closer to accurate then the godlike global warming prophets.

But seriously Rcade, the majority of the so called skeptics or deniers is based on admitting incomplete data and questioning method. Again what happened is a few outspoken types are used to generalize everyone. To me it's not any different then assuming anyone who is an alarmist(he he) is the same as the world class idiot former vice president peddling absolutely false science and lies.
The reality is somewhere in between the two extremes. And assuming that opposing views are the worst of the spectrum does not benefit anyone.

#10 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-16 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't dispute that data is not pure on either side of this debate but I see no winners when science is impinged upon by concluding that it is settled.

We might still think the earth flat if not for Ferdinand Magellan ignoring the thinking of the time.

Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.
Albert Einstein

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Paneocon: There's nothing at your fortune.com link about junk science or false information. Your link even explains that the effort is non-partisan:

"The project is scrupulously nonpartisan. Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was treasury secretary in the administration of George W. Bush. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and founder of Bloomberg L.P., was a Democrat, then a Republican, then an independent. Steyer, the retired founder of Farallon Capital Management LLC, is a lifelong Democrat whose political organization NextGen Climate Action has pledged to spend $100 million this year to mobilize voters in at least seven states on issues related to climate change."

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The reality is somewhere in between the two extremes.

The reality is inches from the scientific consensus view and miles from the climate deniers, many of whom are paid by big energy companies to lie and obfuscate.

People like you treat this like an issue on which reasonable minds disagree, but only the crackpot fringe disagrees with the theory that human activities are causing significant changes to the climate.

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I see no winners when science is impinged upon by concluding that it is settled.

You and the climate denier crackpots are the ones who talk about things being "settled" or "not settled" all the time, because you don't want to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus and take action.

You'd rather wait and see, which if the consensus view is correct would be catastrophic to our way of life on this planet.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

There's nothing at your fortune.com link about junk science or false information.
#12 | POSTED BY RCADE

If NextGen Climate Action prediction is not hyperbole then what is it?
"Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, average annual losses grow to $7.3 billion."

We have heard predictions of rising sea level before. PA should be beach front property if the climate predictors of the last decade were listened to.

#16 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-07-16 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms by $2 billion to $3.5 billion.

Katrina cost $125 billion in damage. The top 10 costliest storms were $9 billion or more. Calling the above quote hyperbole shows you don't know much about storm cost estimates. The figure NextGen predicted is a conservative one.

#19 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-16 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

What if in the enc the skeptics were proven right and we had listened to those who said global warming was real? We'd be stuck with all those solar panels and wind turbines cranking out electricity for our homes, work places, cars, etc. What would we do then with all the fossil fuels left in the ground? So, considering the dire consequences of listening to those who tell us global warming is real I think we should ignore them and take a chance that the deniers are right and just hope for the best. At least the billionaires who own fossil fuel production will be happy and that is what is important, right Paneocon?
Because, in truth, that is what this argument is all about because there really isn't and doubt among scientists except those paid by the oil producers.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-16 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rewind a few hundred years ago to the flat earth denierz...science is only absolute once a thoery is proven as law...a few hundred years is not that long ago...

#24 | Posted by mutant at 2014-07-16 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

What? A scientist in disagreement with a consensus ?? In disagreement with Al ---- Gore?!? Oh the horror! Have faith fellow believers. Science will prevail and deny this evil bastage future grant money....then he'll be sorry.

Very sorry indeed.

#25 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-07-17 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

I disagree with the consensus that there's a God, does that make me a anti science denier?

#26 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-07-17 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

If repeatable and verifiable experiments conducted by objective investigators from all different parts of the world (who then published their results for public and individual scrutiny)using objective criteria proved God exists, then yes you would be an anti-science denier.

Your entire analogy is dishonest.

#27 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-17 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If repeatable and verifiable experiments "

Let me know when the Climatologists get to this point.

#28 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-07-17 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

A question for those that believe the current science on climate change as man caused.

If the United States today, shutdown every coal burning power plant and banned all vehicles that burn fossil fuels, would this reverse so called, Global Warming/Climate Change?

#29 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-07-17 12:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing can reverse climate change, but it can be mitigated.

The longer we wait the worse it's going to be.

#30 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-07-17 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Katrina cost $125 billion in damage. The top 10 costliest storms were $9 billion or more. Calling the above quote hyperbole shows you don't know much about storm cost estimates. The figure NextGen predicted is a conservative one.

#19 | POSTED BY RCADE

Katrina was so costly because the area it hit was so built up.

There were 2 storms that hit much earlier in the 20th century that had they hit in 2006, they would have been costlier than Katrina.

You are buying WAY too much into the hype and you should know better.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-17 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by Daniel

Your understanding of the issue is childish, at best.

.

#32 | Posted by Dave at 2014-07-17 09:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

The global warming crowd is now in a quagmire of their own making. The "global warming" terminology has been quietly replaced with the "climate change" terminology since anyone with 2 working synapses now knows we're not in a warming phase. In fact, it appears that "global cooling" will now take center stage in the future. A budding kindergarten student realizes "climate change" is taking place since there is scientific evidence it's been in place for eons. Yet, the dwindling band of histrionic/hysterical pushers of man induced significant influence on climate on our universe push forward----continuing to reveal that this isn't about science but instead a different agenda. They would have been further ahead if they had just admitted that the science is unsettled and that just the abrogation of pollution and other adverse environmental affects on our earth is a desired end in itself.

#33 | Posted by matsop at 2014-07-18 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#33 | Posted by matsop

Lotta stupid crammed into that little screed.

.

#34 | Posted by Dave at 2014-07-18 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort