Author Topic: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.  (Read 31403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #275 on: August 10, 2023, 11:29:22 am »
Their opinion does matter because the problem and, as a consequence, the proposed solutions for citizens lie outside the climate region.

If we are going to mess with climate/geoengineering
I sure would like to have some physics, geologist's experience aboard.

And above all, please let the economists evaluate if a policy is sensible.
I find it sensible that S&P drops the ESG scores from their evaluations
Debt ratings, not ESG scores, are the basis for financial risks.

It is their task to show to us all that the myth of cheap renewable energy is not true. Since the former chancellor Gerhard Schröder in 2000 decided to phase out nuclear power in Germany and go all in on wind/solar, the energy prices have gone up.


Why would their professional opinion matter when they are not professionals in the field of climate science?

They are entitled to an opinion, but being a cardiologist doesn't mean you have the chops to opine accurately on climate science, and your opinion is not more relevant than any other educated person that can understand basic scientific principles.

These types of think tanks push these surveys and studies all of the time because they sound authoritative, but they're really not.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 11:54:36 am by RAPo »
 
The following users thanked this post: bookaboo

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #276 on: August 10, 2023, 11:54:29 am »
That group is playing up to in their own opinions as being a 'group of scientists, scholars & professionals ....' is doesn't matter a damm if they are Medical Researchers, Theology Scholars and Professional Floor sweepers!

They are no more or less entitled to being heard as primarily non experts in the field as 1500 other humans living on this small rock.
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 
The following users thanked this post: RAPo

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #277 on: August 10, 2023, 01:10:47 pm »
Their opinion does matter because the problem and, as a consequence, the proposed solutions for citizens lie outside the climate region.

If we are going to mess with climate/geoengineering
I sure would like to have some physics, geologist's experience aboard.

And above all, please let the economists evaluate if a policy is sensible.
I find it sensible that S&P drops the ESG scores from their evaluations
Debt ratings, not ESG scores, are the basis for financial risks.

It is their task to show to us all that the myth of cheap renewable energy is not true. Since the former chancellor Gerhard Schröder in 2000 decided to phase out nuclear power in Germany and go all in on wind/solar, the energy prices have gone up.

That's conflating solution with problem.

Science can tell us if something is or is likely to occur. Politics tells us how we're going to resolve that (or not). For science we need knowledgeable people, which is generally those doing it for real all the time. For politics it's whoever we've elected, and they will (or should) take into account the various other fields that are affected, so utilising geologists or whatever.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #278 on: August 10, 2023, 01:19:56 pm »
If she or he has a good idea that works, why not.

Not specifically about climate but as a comment in general, shouldn't those versed in the arts be given a bit more credibility that those that think they have an opinion? In other words, are we happy that, say, a geologist might come on here and tell us where we're going wrong with PCB layout as an equal to those laying out PCBs as a job?

Fine, if they have that idea it's great. But the chance of them having a valid idea is low so they have a higher hurdle to jump to prove it. Whether or not that's fair is beside the point, because if you don't have that hurdle then you just get drowned in complete rubbish that anyone with a clue would see is stupid straight off. You need filters, and being a professional is one of them.

For a reasonable example, take a look at Treez threads and figure whether he is likely to have a ground-breaking idea. I suspect not, but you're welcome to spend the time listening to anything he happens to rattle off and give those ideas all the attention he thinks they deserve.

(Edit: having written that it occurs to me that Treez is actually (apparently) a professional, so... hmmm...  :-//)
 

Online RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #279 on: August 10, 2023, 01:44:18 pm »
That's conflating solution with problem.

if the urgency is that high we should look for solutions,not problems.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #280 on: August 10, 2023, 02:47:41 pm »
That's conflating solution with problem.

if the urgency is that high we should look for solutions,not problems.

Indeed. But urgency doesn't suddenly impart previously hidden knowledge or skills - using the right people for the job is even more important when gut reactions get a free pass.
 

Offline Sredni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 746
  • Country: aq
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #281 on: August 10, 2023, 04:44:23 pm »

About the 1500 scientists from around the world...

From https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

https://youtu.be/3n3Hq7XSBjA

What are you trying to say?
Are only the lefty parties in the Netherlands right about what is happening with the climate?
Is the statement about scepticism about how we are tackling the climate situation bad because it is from a right-wing party?


No, it's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of science vs. political groups funded by corporations with vested interests. These 'influencing groups' are using a facade of scientific plausibility to basically just shill for billionaires. Not that much different from those doctors that a few decades ago were 'convinced' that cigarettes were not that bad for your lungs.

Quote
Are you saying only climate scientists may have a say? Is expertise from other sciences not allowed?

Well, when it comes to climate science, it would help to heed the warnings of... climate scientists, yes.
Just like when I suspect I might have an inflamed appendix, I very much prefer to hear the opinion of a medical doctor, and not a biologist, or a botanist. Go figure.

Quote
What exactly is wrong with "have connections to libertarian free-market groups"?

The Latins said "cui prodest?", so since ancient times it was clear that it is always better to ask who is going to gain from this? I would add, "nihil novi sub solem". Rich/powerful people trying to influence the masses in order to retain their wealth/power.
And yes, in this case there is a slant toward the right, because in general billionaires, in a capitalistic market, tend to lean towards the right. So they are the ones who have to money to fund think tanks that will churn out these constructed news and disseminate them to the press (and to the newspapers/news station/media outlets they own or control).  I am pretty sure one can find examples of these sort of behavior founded by left parties or left leaning billionaires, and that does not make them any better than the ones funded by the right. They just defend their own interests, and that's not science.

To make an example of a left leaning individual, not a group, that might be considered an 'influencer': during the pandemic Bill Maher has always been pushing for removing lock downs and go back to normal. On his show, he invited several guests, doctors, researchers that agreed with him on this. At first I thought... "look at Bill, he pushes for the lifting of restrictions on public assemblies because he wants to earn money with his gigs in Vegas and around the US..."
But I was wrong. The real reason, I believe, came out during an interview with Jimmy Kimmel in one of his podcasts: apparently Maher had bought a considerable portion of shares in a baseball team and was LOSING a lot of money because of the lockdowns. No wonder he was inviting 'experts' sharing his view that lockdowns were bad, and useless. Can we say that his was an impartial view? I don't think so.

Quote
Can you imagine that free-market groups can develop better ideas for climate adaptation (if needed) than the government?
In order to pay for the climate plans, you need money, and money comes from economic growth, or are you propagating more and more state debts?

So, now you are shifting from science to politics and to how to implement solution to a problem. But these climate deniers group (who have a vested interest in keeping up with the pollution) are saying the the problem does not exist and therefore no solution is needed. Again, cui prodest?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 04:54:12 pm by Sredni »
All instruments lie. Usually on the bench.
 

Offline Miti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1405
  • Country: ca
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #282 on: August 10, 2023, 04:49:49 pm »
Why would their professional opinion matter when they are not professionals in the field of climate science?

Good question! Following this logic, the vaccinologists and virusologists should have been allowed to have a saying in the Covid management. However, only those who sang in tune with Fauci and Trudeau were allowed to speak. The others (see Byram Bridle, Robert Malone and many, many others) were fired and deplatformed from the intelligence agencies sites renamed to social media. 
Moreover, the “climate scientists “ are most likely the first to be targeted by certain groups of financial interests. And you know, money talk. Who pays for the study gets the results that he expects.
Fear does not stop death, it stops life.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #283 on: August 10, 2023, 04:55:11 pm »
Who pays for the study gets the results that he expects.
Pollsters have interesting language that they use to interact with clients to avoid saying what they are really mean, which is essentially "what answer do you want?". The questions will be worded to achieve the goal. When pollsters approach I usually respond, unless I'm busy. Its interesting to listen to the tortured wording of many of the questions, which are being read verbatim from a cue card.
 

Online RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #284 on: August 10, 2023, 05:10:13 pm »
I would love to hear the answers from the OP.
I'm questioning because there are a lot intensions not spoken out.

It is best to quote the whole expression not only "cui prodest" but cui prodest scelus is fecit, (for whom the crime advances, he has done it). And that aptly describes the case with politicians and the scientists saying the climate is in urgent state of repair, but unwilling to look at nuclear energy.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 05:16:20 pm by RAPo »
 

Online IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 12539
  • Country: us
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #285 on: August 10, 2023, 05:13:22 pm »
One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people?

Suppose it is established that humans have been affecting the climate by their activities. The question becomes, is the damage already done? What is the predicted harm in the future as things stand? If actions might be possible to reduce future harm, what is the cost of those actions, and what other harms do the proposed actions create? If the cost and harms of proposed actions are great, are they socially justified?

For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes perfectly serviceable petrol vehicles more than about 10 17 years old (8 for diesels) to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control.

Science does not exist in the abstract. Actions have very real impacts on people, and the human impact always needs to be considered.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 09:12:22 pm by IanB »
 
The following users thanked this post: RAPo

Offline Miti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1405
  • Country: ca
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #286 on: August 10, 2023, 05:31:20 pm »
One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people?

Yes they can, they do it and they’re very proud of it. They are called politicians.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 06:39:10 pm by Miti »
Fear does not stop death, it stops life.
 

Offline PlainName

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7509
  • Country: va
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #287 on: August 10, 2023, 05:59:32 pm »
Quote
For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes all perfectly serviceable internal combustion vehicles more than about 10 years old to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped). This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where there next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control.

That's the political solution.

Quote
Science does not exist in the abstract. Actions have very real impacts on people, and the human impact always needs to be considered.

Yes, and the effects of possible solutions should be determined. But they are just recognising effects, not saying that those solutions should or should not be used. It is still the politicians that decide to go one way or another based on many competing things, not the scientists.

(edit: removed example that would just detract from the principle)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 06:01:55 pm by PlainName »
 

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #288 on: August 10, 2023, 06:39:54 pm »
This is very unscientific reasoning.

Group think, afraid of losing a job, or just other financial interests can make people do strange things.

You have one report with multiple claims it could be that people agree on the individual claims and not on the end conclusion.

Right now 1500 scholars from all over the world signed a petition that there is no emergency situation regarding climate and strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.

And exactly what kind of consensus we are talking about? Did you read "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" from Dennis Bray on an earlier version of the IPCC report? Science does not have sweeping statements, but carefully worded exact statements.

I agree entirely that we should be discussing the contents of that IPCC report as representative of the scientific consensus rather than media reports.  So with that in mind I ask again, where in that IPCC report is there any claim that is not supported by scientific research?

The consensus view that we are talking about is that expressed in the IPCC reports. In answer to your second question, no.

The IPCC reports include input from a large number of expert reviewers.  Anyone who is suitably qualified can apply to be an expert reviewer, even if they are sceptics, even if they are well known sceptics.  If any of those reviewers had spotted an error and had credible evidence to support them, then the error would have been corrected.

If any of those 1500 scholars had anything to contribute to the IPCC reports that they could back up with evidence, then I assume that they would have applied to be expert reviewers.  The opportunity was there.  If they didn't apply, then I think that speaks for itself.  In a petition you can just state that you disagree, without the nuisance of actually having to provide any credible evidence to support that view.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 07:04:57 pm by cbutlera »
 

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #289 on: August 10, 2023, 06:54:48 pm »
One really can't consider environmental science without considering the human dimension, or what is the impact on people?

Suppose it is established that humans have been affecting the climate by their activities. The question becomes, is the damage already done?

Some damage has been done (e.g. dead corals due to acidification of the ocean, loss of some biodiversity and species) but it's generally accepted that the damage at this point is mostly reversible.  The majority of climate change damage due to high CO2 can be reversed in the long term, which is one reason the IPCC goes on about "1.5C plus overshoot".  They model a ~2C situation lasting less than 5 years then cooling to 1.5C over next 10-15 years as being an achievable target, more achievable than 1.5C on its own.  This is expected to lead to minimal long term damage (e.g. land loss due to flooding) though there will still be negative impacts.

What is the predicted harm in the future as things stand? If actions might be possible to reduce future harm, what is the cost of those actions, and what other harms do the proposed actions create? If the cost and harms of proposed actions are great, are they socially justified?

A better question is what is the impact of doing nothing?  Adapting to climate change and reducing carbon emissions is possible, even if we cannot hit net zero by 2050, if we can substantially reduce carbon emissions then it will almost certainly have a benefit.  This can be done, by investing more into renewables and less into fossil fuels, better insulation in homes, carbon taxation for heavy industry, forcing aviation to use synfuels, and so on.   The cost of no action is significant:  large crop failures,  extreme weather,  flooding,  positive feedback loops (some of which may not be reversible.)

For example, certain politicians in London have decided that air pollution caused by human activities is a harm. To reduce this harm, they have decided to introduce a ULEV zone within Greater London which causes all perfectly serviceable internal combustion vehicles more than about 10 years old to be taken out of service (sold or scrapped).

No, every petrol vehicle made after 2004 can be used in the expanded ULEZ zone.  Only diesels made before 2015 may not comply.  These vehicles can be adapted, by adding an SCR system, and this is done for some heavier vehicles but the majority of these polluting diesels will just leave London and go elsewhere in the country.  They aren't being scrapped, they're just not being used in London any more.

ULEZ is a good idea: London has dense traffic levels,  with roads built for much smaller levels of traffic passing directly outside people's homes.  It is estimated that the air pollution in London kills upwards of 7,000 per year directly, and roughly 7% of all childhood asthma events are directly triggered by high air pollution.  There are notably higher rates of childhood asthma in general in London and other big cities (in other words, you are more likely to develop it as a child if you live in London).

This introduces a new harm of greatly increasing costs for people who can least afford it (lower income families are those who will be operating older vehicles). Due to the legislation, older vehicles have lost their resale value, and newer vehicles have become much more expensive because of artificially increased demand. People who are already struggling to figure out where their next meal is coming from are suddenly made to spend money they do not have to cope with legislation outside their control.

Agreed, it is a problem to solve so that the adaptation to climate change and air pollution doesn't impact the poorest.  It is a difficult problem to solve for sure.  However I'd argue that the health harms of allowing these vehicles to operate outweighs being able to own a polluting vehicle, and cheap second-hand alternatives are available, as well as a scrappage scheme that might help a bit, but it's going to need to increase if a ULEZ-like scheme applies to the rest of the country eventually (it's only a matter of time in my opinion).
« Last Edit: August 10, 2023, 06:56:40 pm by tom66 »
 

Online RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #290 on: August 10, 2023, 07:25:08 pm »

The consensus view that we are talking about is that expressed in the IPCC reports. In answer to your second question, no.

The IPCC reports include input from a large number of expert reviewers.  Anyone who is suitably qualified can apply to be an expert reviewer, even if they are sceptics, even if they are well known sceptics.  If any of those reviewers had spotted an error and had credible evidence to support them, then the error would have been corrected.

If any of those 1500 scholars had anything to contribute to the IPCC reports that they could back up with evidence, then I assume that they would have applied to be expert reviewers.  The opportunity was there.  If they didn't apply, then I think that speaks for itself.  In a petition, you can just state that you disagree, without the nuisance of actually having to provide any credible evidence to support that view.
Did you check all the names, read their work? Do you really think a noble Prize nominee would make a statement so lightly?

Would you be an expert reviewer with the context displayed in red if you think the wrong turn is choosen?
 

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #291 on: August 10, 2023, 08:11:35 pm »
...
The IPCC reports include input from a large number of expert reviewers.  Anyone who is suitably qualified can apply to be an expert reviewer, even if they are sceptics, even if they are well known sceptics.  If any of those reviewers had spotted an error and had credible evidence to support them, then the error would have been corrected.

If any of those 1500 scholars had anything to contribute to the IPCC reports that they could back up with evidence, then I assume that they would have applied to be expert reviewers.  The opportunity was there.  If they didn't apply, then I think that speaks for itself.  In a petition, you can just state that you disagree, without the nuisance of actually having to provide any credible evidence to support that view.
Did you check all the names, read their work? Do you really think a noble Prize nominee would make a statement so lightly?

Would you be an expert reviewer with the context displayed in red if you think the wrong turn is choosen?

So what if they are Nobel prize nominees, that doesn't give them a free pass.  They still have to back up what they claim with evidence.  Merely signing a petition only shows what someone's opinion is.  It does not represent scientifically relevant evidence.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the context displayed in red, which refers to review editors.  I was talking about expert reviewers.

I wonder how many of those 1500 names appear among the list of Expert Reviewers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.  If their names don't appear, then why not?  Too busy perhaps, or not suitably qualified, or couldn't be bothered, or perhaps they knew that they didn't have credible supporting evidence.
 

Online RAPo

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 858
  • Country: nl
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #292 on: August 11, 2023, 12:51:23 pm »
So what if they are Nobel prize nominees, that doesn't give them a free pass.  They still have to back up what they claim with evidence.  Merely signing a petition only shows what someone's opinion is.  It does not represent scientifically relevant evidence.
Agreed no free pass, but they are less likely to sign this petition if they don't have info that corroborates their claim, the scientific community can be harsh.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the context displayed in red, which refers to review editors.  I was talking about expert reviewers.
.
The expert reviewers have no say in the outline of the report and the review editors (not the expert reviewers) advise the lead editors if there is a controversial issue.
If I was an expert reviewer with a somewhat controversial opinion  I would like to state my opinion in full, not via the review editors.

I wonder how many of those 1500 names appear among the list of Expert Reviewers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.  If their names don't appear, then why not?  Too busy perhaps, or not suitably qualified, or couldn't be bothered, or perhaps they knew that they didn't have credible supporting evidence.
Well, if you have some time, you can do a crosscheck on both documents.
For the situation in the Netherlands one -not a scientist- stated: from all the 140 people in the Netherlands 140 where male, A totally unimportant statement.
He also argued that only 3 signees are still working, one is dead, and the others have a pension. That could be a reason: free of ties from their employer, they feel the freedom to speak up.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7858
  • Country: au
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #293 on: August 11, 2023, 10:46:06 pm »
So what if they are Nobel prize nominees, that doesn't give them a free pass.  They still have to back up what they claim with evidence.  Merely signing a petition only shows what someone's opinion is.  It does not represent scientifically relevant evidence.
Agreed no free pass, but they are less likely to sign this petition if they don't have info that corroborates their claim, the scientific community can be harsh.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the context displayed in red, which refers to review editors.  I was talking about expert reviewers.
.
The expert reviewers have no say in the outline of the report and the review editors (not the expert reviewers) advise the lead editors if there is a controversial issue.
If I was an expert reviewer with a somewhat controversial opinion  I would like to state my opinion in full, not via the review editors.

I wonder how many of those 1500 names appear among the list of Expert Reviewers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.  If their names don't appear, then why not?  Too busy perhaps, or not suitably qualified, or couldn't be bothered, or perhaps they knew that they didn't have credible supporting evidence.
Well, if you have some time, you can do a crosscheck on both documents.
For the situation in the Netherlands one -not a scientist- stated: from all the 140 people in the Netherlands 140 where male, A totally unimportant statement.
He also argued that only 3 signees are still working, one is dead, and the others have a pension. That could be a reason: free of ties from their employer, they feel the freedom to speak up.

If the dead one could speak up, that is a much more earth-shattering event than any difference of opinion on climate science ;D
 

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #294 on: August 12, 2023, 12:09:09 am »
...
The expert reviewers have no say in the outline of the report and the review editors (not the expert reviewers) advise the lead editors if there is a controversial issue.
If I was an expert reviewer with a somewhat controversial opinion  I would like to state my opinion in full, not via the review editors.

You can't possibly expect every unfiltered comment from every expert reviewer to appear in the final assessment reports.  The comments they make still go on to the record and are available on request.  There is also nothing to stop them from being published independently.

I wonder how many of those 1500 names appear among the list of Expert Reviewers of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.  If their names don't appear, then why not?  Too busy perhaps, or not suitably qualified, or couldn't be bothered, or perhaps they knew that they didn't have credible supporting evidence.
Well, if you have some time, you can do a crosscheck on both documents.
For the situation in the Netherlands one -not a scientist- stated: from all the 140 people in the Netherlands 140 where male, A totally unimportant statement.
He also argued that only 3 signees are still working, one is dead, and the others have a pension. That could be a reason: free of ties from their employer, they feel the freedom to speak up.

There are plenty of climate scientists working for fossil fuel companies or AGW sceptical lobbying organisations who wouldn't be fearing for their jobs for expressing AGW sceptical opinions.  There are a number of scientists who are already well known as AGW sceptics so would have nothing to fear either.  I searched for a couple of dozen of the names from the CO2 Coalition website (which this thread was supposed to be about) before I got bored, but I found none that were listed as expert reviewers.  Why do so many of these AGW sceptics choose not to engage with the IPCC report process, but then spend so much time loudly complaining that the IPCC reports do not represent the current scientific consensus?  I think the answer is obvious.

Edit: Fixed spelling error.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 07:39:16 am by cbutlera »
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #295 on: August 12, 2023, 12:17:07 am »
Please stop conflating 'skeptics' with actual peer reviewed 'Scientists' they are nothing like equivalent and just because you have an opposing view doesn't get you some sort of free ticket onto an expert review anything!

The answer is indeed 'obvious'  :palm:
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 

Offline cbutlera

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #296 on: August 12, 2023, 12:41:52 am »
Please stop conflating 'skeptics' with actual peer reviewed 'Scientists' they are nothing like equivalent and just because you have an opposing view doesn't get you some sort of free ticket onto an expert review anything!

The answer is indeed 'obvious'  :palm:

You are right I missed out one word, I should have said AGW sceptical scientists in my last sentence rather than just AGW sceptics.  The word sceptic in the context of AGW implies scientific scepticism, but there is no doubt that some of those who claim this title are in fact pseudosceptics, so the clarification is useful.

When the IPCC calls for expert reviewers, anyone who has a suitable qualification can register.  Here is an archived copy of the online registration form.  The form ends with a self declaration of that suitable qualification.  The barrier to participation doesn't look insurmountable to me.

Edit: added sentence on pseudoscepticism.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 07:44:14 am by cbutlera »
 

Offline beanflying

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7375
  • Country: au
  • Toys so very many Toys.
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #297 on: August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am »
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed. Demanding or ambit claims that the other person is wrong 'for reasons' is complete  :bullshit:
Coffee, Food, R/C and electronics nerd in no particular order. Also CNC wannabe, 3D printer and Laser Cutter Junkie and just don't mention my TEA addiction....
 
The following users thanked this post: nctnico, snarkysparky

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #298 on: August 12, 2023, 11:08:46 am »
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!
Science is founded on skepticism. Science is not a thing, its a process, and constant skepticism is a critically important part of that process. All knowledge is contingent, and needs to be constantly doubted and reevaluated. We never have a whole picture. Advancement occurs when we realise that and keep questioning to tease out more of how the world works.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
« Reply #299 on: August 12, 2023, 11:29:07 am »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Quote
Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contain errors or cannot be replicated.[6]

If you believe that practically 100% of scientists can agree on anything then I've got a bridge to sell you. Let alone a topic as vastly complex as the climate.
Now, I'm not saying it's not true, that's not my point at all, we certainly do seem have some sort of impact, and it's very possible that we are the main cause of it. But it's very clear that there is not only vested interests at stake here, but vast pressure on scientists to, let's say, not rock the boat here. We saw this in spades plain as day during covid, and to think it can't happen here would be foolish. Quite a few scientists in the field have actually admitted it happens.
Fear is the biggest human persudader and motivator, faer of losing your job, fear of losing or not getting funding, fear of losing your reputation etc.
Name another complex scientific field like this where practically 100% agree, it never happens. yet we are supposed to think that practically 100% agree on this?
Something doesn't smell right...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2023, 11:31:18 am by EEVblog »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf