
Climate Realism Against Alarmism - vixen99
https://defyccc.com/scientists/
======
airbreather
I notice that once again one of the comments to the article raises the issue
of glacier melt and automatically leaps to the conclusion it is caused by
elevated CO2, when much evidence indicates it is due to soot -
://www.scientificamerican.com/article/subcontinental-smut-himalayas/#

The plague of humans is causing a lot of problems for the planet, but it is
essential to use good science to understand the real cause of problems so
appropriate efforts can be made to minimise impact and not waste even more
resources.

Most things are not as simple as they may seem in the case of such complex
systems, so undounded dogma that prevents good questioning science isn't going
to help.

~~~
eesmith
The only mention of "melting" in the comments is "the rate of both polar and
ice sheet melting is worse than predicted." This was in the context of giving
an example of a prediction that Gore made.

The comment says nothing about CO2 vs. soot. If anything, soot may be the
reason for the increased rate.

You pointed to a SciAm article from 2009 concerning the Himalayas.

I'll respond with a 2014 Guardian piece titled "Climate impact of black carbon
severely overestimated, says study"
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/climate-
impact-of-black-carbon-severely-overestimated-says-study)

Or this 2016 piece from the Earth Institute, citing research from 2013
[http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-
effects...](http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-
black-carbon/)

> a 2013 study estimated black carbon’s effect to be 1.1 watts per square
> meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56
> watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest
> contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in
> the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it
> is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it
> returns to earth with rain or snow.

This appears to be a well-studied topic in climate research. It therefore
makes no sense to point out a possible mistake or incomplete comment by a
random someone from the internet as the basis for a call for "good scienc",
nor does it justify accusations of "undounded [sic] dogma".

~~~
airbreather
The Gaurdian, lol. I will take SciAm over them any day.

Plus, it is not just soot, it is dark particulates in general and it is not
causing global warming but very local warming nucleation sites on the ice that
start the melt.

I make my point again, the complexities are immense and can rarely be boiled
down to an article written for general consumption by mass media.

~~~
eesmith
It's not like the Guardian article didn't link to the primary literature,
which is www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140925/ncomms6065/abs/ncomms6065.html .
All you're doing is making an ad hominem argument.

You originally said there was "much evidence indicates it is due to soot". The
SciAm article asks "Is Soot the Culprit Behind Melting Himalayan Glaciers?"

Now you've changed your mind and said "dark particulates in general", but
provided no references, nor explained how that is different than soot/black
carbon. That's changing the goalposts. You wasted my time by making an
argument you don't actually mean.

Since you think it "can rarely be boiled down to an article written for
general consumption by mass media", why did you reach to an outdated SciAm
article as justification, and not something in the recent primary literature?

It's even much less likely to be boiled down to an HN comment.

In any case, you still incorrectly summarized the glacier melt comment.

------
vixen99
The roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate alarmism should
give pause for thought to those who simply label those who question received
opinion on climate as ignorant of 'the settled science' or 'in the pay of the
fossil fuel businesses'.

~~~
eesmith
There is a direct parallel with how creationists have created lists of
scientists who actively question evolution.

One response was Project Steve -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)
a list of scientists with the first name Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, Esteban,
etc., all of whom support evolution.

This list is far longer than any list of scientists that creationists have put
out.

Similarly, the "roll call of scientists" who support the current rather
pessimistic view of the human-caused effects on global climate, is far larger
than the list given there.

Continuing the parallel, those opposed to evolution say that its supporters
treat it as a "religion". I note Ivar Giaever says that of climate change, at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever)
.

As another parallelism, many of the scientists who support creationism/are
against evolution aren't from a background which is closely connected to
evolutionary biology. (Eg, a physicist instead of a biologist or
paleontologist.) That's "many", not "all".

Going down the list, Giaever started in superconductivity, and then went into
biophysics. He now is an adviser for The Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute received funding from Exxon, a fossil fuel business.

Robert Laughlin, condensed matter physics.

Frederick Seitz, solid state physics. He was founding chair of the George C.
Marshall Institute, which received funding from Exxon-Mobil. Before getting
CO2, he was one of the so-called "merchants of doubt" about the harmfulness of
tobacco smoke.

Richard Lindzen, a bona fide climate scientist. You know that because they
wrote "an atmospheric physicist" instead of a generic "physicist" like the
previous scientists.

Fred Singer, another atmospheric scientist. Who "has been a paid consultant
for many years for ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and Unocal" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer)
.

It's boring now, so I'll jump down the list to John Coleman, a weathercaster
trained a journalist who, among other things, claims "the polar ice is
increasing, not melting away" \- an incorrect statement. He has never done any
research in climate change.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercast...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_\(news_weathercaster\)#Views_on_global_warming)

Now, of course it isn't required that people be trained in field X to provide
useful input or counter-point to that field. My point instead is that if the
criteria for a "roll call of scientists who've actively questioned climate
alarmism" is so broad as to include people who have never done any scientific
research in the field, or in the case of Coleman, never having done any
scientific research at all, then you need to have a similarly inclusive
definition when coming up with people who support "climate alarmism."

It is a much larger number. Just like Project Steve.

