Matrix Games Forums

This discussion has been interesting and, to the extent that contrary views are mocked, a little disappointing. This Forum is comprised of good men (and a few women) who are smart and thoughtful. A majority seem to ascribe to the science and cause of anthropogenic global warming, taken from the comments thus far. That group is, as I noted yesterday, smart and passionate.

Interested in learning more, I did a Google search last night for leading scientists who are skeptics of global warming. I found a website that listed 10 leading scientists who ascribe to the theory and five who are skeptics. I don't know anything about the organization, but the presentation of information was interesting and seemed impartial: https://thebestschools.org/features/top ... cientists/

Given the disdain expressed in here yesterday for skepticism on this issue, but knowing that nearly all of you are inherently fair-minded, I thought you might be interested in reading about a few apparently well-regarded skeptics. I don't present this info to change your mind or to persuade regarding the issue (no doubt proponents would poke holes in the arguments made by these skeptics), but only to present you with enough information that you will see that those who are skeptics are not necessarily kooks.

I'll post the summaries in just a few minutes, either as five separate summaries or, if I can do it, as one.

Lennart Bengtsson

John R. Christy

Judith Curry

Richard Lindzen

Nir Shaviv

ORIGINAL: spence

danlogman +++1

danlogman has posted thoughts that many on the board share, but naming particular political figures and movements takes this discussion out of the realm of genteel discussion and into the realm of political sniping. There should be no attacks on the individuals espousing a view, but refutation of the claims they make is welcome. It's the same as a coach/teacher talking to a student - criticize the behavior but not the child/individual. They have the right to exist.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: spence

danlogman +++1

danlogman has posted thoughts that many on the board share, but naming particular political figures and movements takes this discussion out of the realm of genteel discussion and into the realm of political sniping. There should be no attacks on the individuals espousing a view, but refutation of the claims they make is welcome. It's the same as a coach/teacher talking to a student - criticize the behavior but not the child/individual. They have the right to exist.

warspite1

Global Warming? There is a far bigger issue in play here. MBF, spence, BBfanboy... why can no one spell danlongman's name?

The only remaining things I have to say is that an overwhelming weight of evidence is not "group think", and that scientists are not immune to the perils of motivated reasoning.

The suppression of contrary views, especially through extreme means, is repugnant. Group-think is not inaccurate in terms of what's going on in the scientific world.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: spence

danlogman +++1

danlogman has posted thoughts that many on the board share, but naming particular political figures and movements takes this discussion out of the realm of genteel discussion and into the realm of political sniping. There should be no attacks on the individuals espousing a view, but refutation of the claims they make is welcome. It's the same as a coach/teacher talking to a student - criticize the behavior but not the child/individual. They have the right to exist.

+1

One could make a snipe that these climate sceptic scientists receiving strong pressure, they feel is also political in nature, from their collegues or "activists" would not describe it coming from the political right, classical conservatives or even Trump supporters.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The suppression of contrary views, especially through extreme means, is repugnant. Group-think is not inaccurate in terms of what's going on in the scientific world.

Marxist tendencies in Western science has been a problem for over a century now.

Hogwash. In 1991 the alarmists claimed Malibu, CA would be underwater by 2000 if GW wasn't stopped.

Didn't happen.

Also, google "Climategate emails" to see how the alarmists conspired-and were caught-fudging the data to fit their flawed hypothesis.

America colonisation ‘cooled Earth's climate’

Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate.

That's the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.

The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.

This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.

It's a cooling period often referred to in the history books as the "Little Ice Age" - a time when winters in Europe would see the Thames in London regularly freeze over.

"The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO₂ and global surface air temperatures," Alexander Koch and colleagues write in their paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9118307261


No mention of Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empires path of total destruction all over Eurasia. [8|]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: spence

danlogman +++1

danlogman has posted thoughts that many on the board share, but naming particular political figures and movements takes this discussion out of the realm of genteel discussion and into the realm of political sniping. There should be no attacks on the individuals espousing a view, but refutation of the claims they make is welcome. It's the same as a coach/teacher talking to a student - criticize the behavior but not the child/individual. They have the right to exist.

warspite1

Global Warming? There is a far bigger issue in play here. MBF, spence, BBfanboy... why can no one spell danlongman's name?

[:D] Guilty of being lazy - I just responded to spence without going back to look at the OPs name. My apologies to danlongman !

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy




danlogman has posted thoughts that many on the board share, but naming particular political figures and movements takes this discussion out of the realm of genteel discussion and into the realm of political sniping. There should be no attacks on the individuals espousing a view, but refutation of the claims they make is welcome. It's the same as a coach/teacher talking to a student - criticize the behavior but not the child/individual. They have the right to exist.

warspite1

Global Warming? There is a far bigger issue in play here. MBF, spence, BBfanboy... why can no one spell danlongman's name?

[:D] Guilty of being lazy - I just responded to spence without going back to look at the OPs name. My apologies to danlongman !

warspite1

Excellent. That has resolved that - now all we need to do is fix the outstanding issue of global warming/climate change/plastic pollution and we're done. What do you reckon? Have that wrapped up in an hour or so and then time for a cheeky pint or two?

I'm disturbed by the turn for the political that this thread has taken. Science (reputable science that is) tries very hard to stick to verifiable, repeatable conclusions that are supported by facts and not influenced by politics. Although such pressure has always been present (ask Galileo and Copernicus).

There is always 'noise' and single data points that are not necessarily indicative of larger trends. There are always conclusions that can be (and frequently are) taken out of context by the media (such as omitting assumptions and caveats).

I do not regard group think as an adequate explanation for the preponderance of world wide studies.

If I was going to continue this discussion (and I'm not), I would ask the skeptics what evidence they would regard as conclusive. [8|]

Terrific. Let's roll our eyes at smart people who, in good faith, express a contrary viewpoint. After all, the consensus viewpoint is unassailable and the consequences of not following along too great. We must suppress all contrary thought so we can move forward and solve the problem. All aboard!

This would make a plot for a good novel. Wait, it's already been done. Michael Crichton, a best-selling novelist, climate skeptic, and Harvard graduate, wrote State of Fear about 12 years ago.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Terrific. Let's roll our eyes at smart people who, in good faith, express a contrary viewpoint. After all, the consensus viewpoint is unassailable and the consequences of not following along too great. We must suppress all contrary thought so we can move forward and solve the problem. All aboard!

This would make a plot for a good novel. Wait, it's already been done. Michael Crichton, a best-selling novelist, climate skeptic, and Harvard graduate, wrote State of Fear about 12 years ago.

I am not for suppression of contrary views; my point is that scientific studies should be challenged on their scientific merits, e.g., methodology, assumptions, data, and use of statistics, etc. Please do not take my words out of context.
Thank you.

Plastic pollution is far more apparent than "climate change" and is a serious threat to Marine life. As a diver I have seen it first hand. One gloom and doom estimate says "At current rates plastic is expected to outweigh all the fish in the sea by 2050".

[/quote]

Excellent. That has resolved that - now all we need to do is fix the outstanding issue of global warming/climate change/plastic pollution and we're done. What do you reckon? Have that wrapped up in an hour or so and then time for a cheeky pint or two?

[/quote]