Go

Start

@MrOoijer: Thank you for your comments on the climate change documents I referenced. I found your evaluation very helpful.

You questioned my use of the word rebuttal. I agree that the referenced documents are part of a scientific debate, but isn't rebuttal an essential element of debate? The documents present reasoning and evidence intended to counter other reasoning and evidence. Don't they therefore constitute a rebuttal, even though you find them unpersuasive?

ng,ng

Good morning, Tall Mike. Greetings from your neighbor.

Hi, eyeman. How are you doing?

Pretty well, thanks. Another Medium just bit the dust. See you at the Y one of these days?

Maybe. Mostly we go in the evening now.

Good to know. Will try to stop by sometime to say hello. Bed is calling me - seeya around the campus soon, I hope.

Done. no guesses.

Done, one guess

Goodnight and pleasant dreams.

:-)

++JeffysMom.

that was easy :-)

@TallMike - you called ot a rebuttal of "the science is settled". That means agreement among scientist about the major causes physical laws that cause global warming: man made greenhouse gasses. There is also agreement about the present rate iof warming: it is easy to calculate that it is 2.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. Then there are the theoretical constnts called TCR and ECS that are much more difficult to estimate because we have insufficient historical measurements of aerosols. The IPCC in its latest report does not even give a best estimate because there is no way yeet to reconcile all the different estimates. But that does not mean thta it is warming less than we observe.

Anyway the article you mentioned is of dubious quality. There are some obvious errors that were not corrected by the editors. The quality of the journal is so poor thta Elseveier will stop publishing it by the end of this year.

It is sad to see how the quality of Elseveier journals has eroded over the years. I worked there in the 1980's as IT manager within the Biomedical division.

done

I never noticed the Medium trick. 12.

@MrOoijer, I agree with you that there are several indications that the documents I mentioned are imperfect. However, to me they still have value as an alternative viewpoint. Personally I find IPCC reports to be surprisingly imperfect, considering the money, time and effort that goes into developing them.

I continue to have little confidence in climate change predictions supposedly derived from the science as they continue to be remarkably aligned with some long established political agendas. The history of science is so riddled with complete nonsense promoted by wealth, political influence and even religion, that a large dose of skepticism can be very useful in the long run.

TallMike you forgot to leave out that most of the useful skepticism over climate science is funded by the extraction industry lobby. Much like the smoking causing cancer science skepticism was funded by the tobacco lobby.

I should read my post before hitting enter. forgot to leave out makes no sense. I hope you understand what I meant.

TallMike how did you access the ScienceDirect article? I have access through Cornell, do you have a similar access or are you a subscriber to ScienceDirect? Just curious.

done

To clarify, my recent use of the word skepticism relates to a personal attitude or state of mind which questions everything, even that which is considered unquestionably true by everyone else. When I said that a large dose of skepticism can be very useful, I was talking about your personal skepticism (or lack thereof), which is an inherent characteristic of you as an individual. (It hardly needs to be said that your personal characteristics are unlikely to be funded by political lobbies.)

Skepticism facilitates objective examination of alternative observations, reasoning and conclusions. Skepticism is a powerful weapon against all forms of bad science including biased studies, faked or manipulated data, incompetence, propaganda and mass delusion.

Skeptical people are often despised or sometimes even feared by others who stand to profit from bad science or politically motivated misrepresentation. Even the general populations of many present day democratic countries actively suppress skepticism by expressing revulsion towards people who question whatever is widely called "the truth." To be labelled a "denier" (of anything) is to be declared a social outcast. No wonder what used to be called healthy skepticism is on the decline - although it is still effective among those of us who continue to practice it.