
The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science - denzil_correa
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/
======
taylodl
_" These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions
of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science,"_

The energy companies denying anthropomorphic climate change have much larger
budgets and a vested interest in convincing everyone everything is fine,
there's no need to change anything, so they can continue on with their current
business model. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - after all the global
climate change advocates have done a pretty good job of convincing everyone
the climate is changing but what they haven't done is looked at whether the
change will be net positive or net negative. The confirmation bias here is
they appear to be only looking for the negative since it's assumed change is
bad.

Finally, the author of this article forgot to mention one anecdote not
supporting his claim - the link between smoking and cancer. The omission leads
me to believe he has his own agenda he's pushing, or to be polite, has his own
confirmation bias.

~~~
Justsignedup
He makes an excellent point in the beginning, to gain some trust, then follows
the exact formula he describes.

~~~
tim333
I'm not sure which "exact same formula" you are referring to but my take was
he agrees the possible outcomes cover a

"huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is
hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the 'probability density
functions' of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end."

And he opposes people who will only countenance an extreme position, either
being alarmist or denying everything.

He doesn't really seem to deviate much from that position throughout the
article. I have a lot of sympathy for this - the probabilities density
functions clustering towards the lower end isn't the most snappy of slogans
but seems to be the truth unlike more extreme viewpoints.

------
mikeash
This article follows a common tactic of focusing on nutcases on the extremist
fringe of global warming "believers," and attempting to use false equivalence
to make climate change deniers look reasonable by comparison.

Of course there are nutcases on the "believers" side just as there are on the
"deniers" side. The difference is that the nutcases on the "deniers" side are
actually mainstream in the political world. On the "believers" side, the
fringe is ignored or tolerated, while the mainstream talk is measured and
based on fact. On the "deniers" side there's nothing _but_ fringe.

------
coldcode
The worse problem these days is knowing what articles or even research to
believe, because it is so damn easy to write anything on the internet that
recognizing BS or truth is becoming almost impossible. When the web appeared
many of us thought that truth would be easier to see, but in reality it just
meant that the noise was more easily generated.

~~~
MCRed
You can tell truth by looking at the tactics.

The global warming proponents changed the name of the movement to "Climate
Change" because, as the earth got cooler despite rising CO2 levels after the
end of the recent solar maxima, it was undeniable that the plant wasn't
warming. But you can't deny the climate is changing!

In fact, look at their use of the word "denier". Calling your opponents
names-- and all the other demonization tactics you see in this thread-- tells
you that they know their position is completely political and not scientific.

If the science was on their side, they wouldn't need to call people names (And
censor those who disagree, which on this site means down voting into
invisibility.)

Notice how this article barely made the front page, while the most spurious
pro-global warming article makes it to the top 10. (not to mention anything
about Basic Income or other pro-marxist propaganda.)

~~~
Daishiman
Yes, the stuff that doesn't fit your political agenda and with which most
people disagree with is purposely hidden because of some conspiracy.

Or you should consider your position to be blidingly, obviously wrong in the
face or evidence.

------
Daishiman
This article is a fucking damage to science.

------
MCRed
First it was called "Global Warming", then when the planet cooled after the
end of the local solar cycle they started calling it "Climate Change" \--
because you can't deny the climate changes. And anyone who disagrees with AGW
is labeled a "denier".

I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-- they
just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy.

Demonizing a substance created by your very breath easily leads to pretty much
the ultimate in tyrannical power.

~~~
jacobolus
That’s a load of crap.

International organizations call it “climate change” because the effects are
much broader than increased temperature, but also include changes to air and
ocean currents, precipitation levels, sea level rise, and a rise in average
global temperatures isn’t uniform over the globe.

The term “climate change” has been in use by scientists since the 50s, and the
term “global warming” was introduced in Broeker’s 1975 paper “Climatic Change:
Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
[http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwar...](http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf)

Both terms have been in wide use since that time. No one has abandoned the
term “global warming”, which is still an apt description of the fundamental
change.

~~~
MCRed
Sigh. Yeah, sure. You want to do an analysis of newspaper headlines over the
past 30 years? You think they will agree with you? Cause I know they won't.

Also, calling people denier is proof positive of my point. The down vote
brigades are just icing on the cake.

You guys don't care about science, you reject the scientific method
completely, and you rely on propaganda, demonization and silencing your
critics.

If the science was on your side, why the need for such dishonesty?

~~~
waterlesscloud
I think there was a shift in the term news people used, and I think it
happened as the topic became more politicized. That's worth making note of,
since it likely is a technique intended to shape opinion. Someone somewhere
decided Climate Change was more marketable.

But the news media isn't scientists, and from what I've found, they used
Climate Change a long time ago, well before the media did.

