Weather and Climate change

[Dill]

(07-26-2019, 08:39 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's a massive backpedal.  Your own words speak for themself.  Why would you ask for Forbes and WSJ links if you knew better? And, um, Forbes generally comes down on your side of the debate, so again you've been caught pretending.

I wouldn't, and didn't.  Apparently my words do not speak for themselves, so to recap: In post #44 I write: 

So one hurdle to OUR education is YOUR inability to identify the primary "debunkers" of the anthropogenic thesis. 

This being a response to your heretofore unwillingness to cite studies on the subject. Primary DEBUNKERS would be people who can actually challenge climate science on scientific grounds. Not journalists, novelists, and economists, who do not do that research.

I state also "We should expect to find some some climate change skeptics in the US, GB, China, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and to read their 'research' in Forbes and the Wall Street Journal. "  That is, we should EXPECT to find the extraction interest represented in the journalism of the WSJ--e.g., "refutations" of what they call "climate alarmism,"and climate change skeptics in the countries listedl.  Notice that "research" was in quotation marks. That means I am questioning the face value of such research as research. I am not looking for more journalistic representations of it.

That is why my next statement is: "Could you perhaps link us to the REAL climate science?" As in NOT WSJ articles, or any magazine articles for that matter. And I am not asking for a top ten list of celebrity skeptics' names. Might as well have included Rick Perry and Donald Trump. I am asking for studies of the sort just provided by Beaker in post # 60.

If you follow this request with a lot of links from the WSJ with comments about how I could find these for myself and I should know the WSJ regularly has articles on "climate alarmism," then you have not understood the  request. If you ask why I would ask for Forbes and WSJ links, when I am clearly not, then you have misunderstood the request.

If I have just said we can expect to find skeptical journalists and people representing the countries listed, then I am not looking for just-names of celebrities who are skeptics. If you think so then you have misunderstood the request. And yes, I "predictably" dismiss your list of skeptics, since they add nothing substantive to this discussion.  There has never been a question about whether there are skeptics; the question is about their credentials, the quality of their research, and how it fits with existing research (e.g. are their results "settled" yet or merely reported?).

I close then with two points to more accurately frame the debate on this thread.

1. there is a "culture war" currently raging over climate change. Most of those driving the war are not themselves scientists, but people who recognize different stakes: one side sees higher taxes and other costs if the AGW thesis is put into policy; the other side sees now as the time to act to prevent future crises. This debate is subject to the same polarization as other political divides in the US, such as those over immigration, abortion, and healthcare. The same techniques used in previous debates are deployed here (e.g., the tobacco companies deployment of "scientists" and "studies" to fog debate over the correlation between smoking and cancer with "alternative facts"). That is why it is so easy to find politicians funded by extraction who challenge the AGB thesis. Journalists can have valuable things to say about this cultural aspect of the debate, as they research the history extraction industry funding of climate change skepticism and popularize the findings of scientific research. Skeptical journalists can do the same for their side if they uncover funding skulduggery or misrepresentation of research.

The debate on this thread is part of this culture war. It is a battle over the framing global warming for voters, mostly non-scientists, some of whom have difficulty sorting out sources and nature of authority on this issue.

2. the foundation of the above debate rests upon one in the science community and their ongoing research. Here debate is minimal over the skeptical theses that drive #1.  That is why it is so hard to find climate scientists who challenge the AGB thesis, though they may argue over how to measure it. But this debate is hard for the public to follow, and that will include most of us posting here.