The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

That was my next consideration; what are the ramifications of lowered free O2 concentrations? Presumably fires would be slightly less sustainable. Everything would oxidize (burn) a little more slowly.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Lying requires 2 things; the facts to be incorrect, and the intention to mislead. Do you think Crichton's intention was to mislead? If so, what do you posit as a motive considering he was already a very wealthy person independent of any oil ties, or any other apparent interests that would motivate deception?

Occam's Razor suggests that the testimony given was given in good faith, since any other conclusion requires extra theories as to why he would mislead.

It wasn't Crichton's idea to testify before congress, but was instead asked by politicians to do so. If any mistake was made, it was having a non-climate scientist appear to testify. If I were brought before congress to testify, I'd give my understanding of things from my perspective too.

So, it seems unlikely that Crichton's intention was to mislead, which still leaves the question of the facts. I'd ask what specifically did he state as fact that has been proven to be incorrect? If you're going to call someone a liar, it's on you to be specific about what the lie was, or we can ignore the accusation and be suspect of any future accusations.

Ultimately, Crichton wasn't even accused of lying under oath, and no charges were ever leveled against him. Googling the subject returns zero results.

Should we apply the same rules of condemnation to Gore for the many untruths told in "An Inconvenient Truth"? He gave specific facts and timelines which we now know to be false. False prophecy if you will.

BTW- I'm not willing to call Gore a liar and I wouldn't delight in his demise. Being wrong isn't sufficient justification for hatred. Nothing is.

He spoke as an 'expert scientist',without respecting Richard Feynman's admonition to all scientists, that they do everything in their power to prove themselves wrong before ever opening their mouth.He made no attempt to vet his information.Crichton's been convicted of crimes against humanity in the court of popular opinion.He could have declined the invitation to testify,claiming non-command of pertinent data.
Only Crichton knows his motive.Each week I look for a copy of his book.
If he weren't so stupid,he might have realized the ramifications of potential influence in misleading federal policymakers in matters which may define the future of the entire planet.I don't give him a pass.I'll dig out the indictment.
As to Gore,the only criticism I've read so far,is that he exaggerated.And the individual who labeled him thanked him for it.Scientists finally figured out that Americans require some level of drama or attention-getting device in order to shift their attention.

[freebeard]

redpoint5 — Fine by me. Everything around me that's not painted is rusting.

Via S0:
Scientists struggle to access Africa's historical climate data
Better climate predictions require Africa’s weather agencies to open their archives. But commercial concerns and a lack of trust are holding them back.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03202-2

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

He spoke as an 'expert scientist',without respecting Richard Feynman's admonition to all scientists, that they do everything in their power to prove themselves wrong before ever opening their mouth.He made no attempt to vet his information.Crichton's been convicted of crimes against humanity in the court of popular opinion.He could have declined the invitation to testify,claiming non-command of pertinent data.
Only Crichton knows his motive.Each week I look for a copy of his book.
If he weren't so stupid,he might have realized the ramifications of potential influence in misleading federal policymakers in matters which may define the future of the entire planet.I don't give him a pass.I'll dig out the indictment.
As to Gore,the only criticism I've read so far,is that he exaggerated.And the individual who labeled him thanked him for it.Scientists finally figured out that Americans require some level of drama or attention-getting device in order to shift their attention.

When I get time I'm going to listen to the testimony (and one day read his book) so that I'm prepared to consider your specific accusations of deceit.

So far as I can tell, Crichton is acting in good faith in the same manner that Bjorn Lomborg is. That is to say, trying to shift attention to problem areas most likely to benefit humanity, and to find the appropriate level of concern. As an aside, it's often pretty easy to tell when someone is speaking from conviction, or when they are speaking to mislead. There is no indication from either person that they are speaking with the intent to mislead. Again, I'd ask for tell-tale signs that they are attempting to mislead, other than they disagree with your held position.

A disagreement about what level of concern people should have surrounding various issues is frustrating, but isn't an indication of malfeasance.

Let's imagine for a moment that the most extreme alarmist positions on global warming never come to pass, not because their prescription for the problem was followed, but because the problem was not as intractable as they imagined. Should those people be condemned for inciting undue worry and financial hardship?

I have seen no evidence that "the court of popular opinion" has convicted Crichton of anything except writing compelling stories and directing/producing some entertaining movies. Popular opinion doesn't consist of some small group of extremists, rather it encompasses all people.

Finally, I wouldn't even go so far as to call AOC a liar, as my best assessment of her is that she's embellishing the underlying beliefs she holds, similarly to how Trump operates. As you point out, squishing the facts to create a sense of urgency from the public. The second part of Crichton's quote is "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.". My modification of that would be whenever you hear that you must quickly surrender freedom to avoid catastrophe, to reach for your levers of resistance, because your individuality is under assault.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It was retracted in nature, it wasn't made obsolete or superceded. So it was at least junk science and incompetence, at worse possibly fraud. It was described as systemic errors in data collection and inconsistencies in testing methods.
Retracted in nature is bad. You are not going to spin this one into less than what it is.

So the study is going to have to be completely redone. Which means the results would be completely different.
To assign an order of magnitude to the error would be pure speculation.

If man made global warming is settled science then how come these reports get made obsolete and replaced?

Thanks.Finally some insight into your comment.If published in NATURE,the article would have been screened before being accepted for publication,peer-reviewed by an expert jury of colleagues in the same field of study,who might ask for clarifications or additional material,etc.,before it ever made it to publication.It's surprising that is wasn't thrown out early in it's genesis if it were so flawed.If it were a university paper,it would appear that no one was minding the store.Not a good reflection on the school.
Typically,thousands of scientists are involved in the IPCC reports,from every field of study,in overlapping teams.
Was the Ocean report of the IPCC predicated upon a single submission? That would seem improbable.Or was this something just handled internally at NATURE?
As to settled science,the only scientists whom are not onboard with climate science are petroleum geologists.When the numerical models are run backwards and forwards,the output match the observed conditions.That's all they could ask for.Sensors improve,computers get faster,and models become more comprehensive,but since 1995,the models have been working out,with correct predictions.
It was taking 4-years to put an IPCC report together,and two years before publication,new submissions were locked out,so historically,what did make it to publication could easily be obsolete,as it was at least 2-years out of date.
Not a perfect situation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You said from 11,000 years ago till 1850.
The report clearly says 1850 to 1900.
If it already started changing by 1850 why use 1850 to 1900 as base line for preindustrial climate?

If the climate didnt change from from 9,000bc to 1850 why not use 1,200ad to 1,800ad?
Or any date from 1850 as far back as the data will allow?

1850 coincides with pre-industrial Earth.It's handy.You wouldn't expect to,and would not see any change before 1850,so why waste paper.
We don't include carburetors in studies involving electronic fuel injection,why include pre-coal-fired steam? This is when anthropogenic carbon dioxide really took off.We turned a corner.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That report was based on junk science that was retraced in nature.
But the believers still cling to it. Sad.

Researchers are directly measuring ocean warming.The heat is being transported to the ice,accelerating the melt.
Mountain glaciers are going away.Sea-ice is going away.Land-borne glaciers are accelerating into the ocean raising sea-level as ice shelves that buttress them disintegrate.These are all directly observed phenomena.It would be more miraculous not to be impressed with a first-order reality experience such as this.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

...levers of resistance..

Can you say 'euphemism'? I knew you could.

1850 coincides with pre-industrial Earth.It's handy.You wouldn't expect to,and would not see any change before 1850,so why waste paper.

Princes Mononke was set in medieval Japan.

Princess Mononoke is set in the late Muromachi period (approximately 1336 to 1573) of Japan with fantasy elements. The story follows the young Emishi prince A****aka's* involvement in a struggle between the gods of a forest and the humans who consume its resources. The term "Mononoke" (物の怪) or もののけ is not a name, but a Japanese word for a spirit or monster: supernatural, shape-shifting beings.

No more fictional than some of the argumentation flying about.


*Ecomodder or vBulletin (or Google) is stifling Wikipedia's speech.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That was my next consideration; what are the ramifications of lowered free O2 concentrations? Presumably fires would be slightly less sustainable. Everything would oxidize (burn) a little more slowly.

Wait 'til marketers get a hold of that.We'll have every kind of advertisement for 'slow-burning'.'Might improve my breakfast toast.BBQ.

[NeilBlanchard]

If you watch this you might learn something about carbon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P3K7lfUz7k