Global warming denial: litmus test?

[Robb]

I always enjoy these. :D

Can you believe global warming is a hoax and still be a progressive?

And no, there's no room for nuance -- for the purpose of this poll, two choices. :)

[Kaleva]

1. Can one be a progressive if they have litmus tests for others?

[Robb]

2. Oooooo...!

Very nice. :D

[LARED]

3. I am really shocked that so far

by two to one people believe being a progressive can be defined by a single belief.

[Kingofalldems]

4. If you believe it's a hoax you would have to believe that thousands of scientists

are lying.

[FBaggins]

6. Exactly

It's possible that they're wrong... but hard to believe that they're all lying about it.

[alc]

9. or you can believe that about a dozen people

who control the official temperature records are making invalid adjustments, and 1000s of scientists who's work depends on those records are working with incorrect data. The adjustments can be incorrect but not dishonest.

It's fine to say that if 1000s of scientists are ok with the records then you are ok with it. That works if you are looking at things politically, but not scientifically. I want the specifics published so other scientists (even skeptics and adversaries) can reproduce the results and everyone can know exactly what adjustments are being made. I think the adjustments are being made in good faith, not fraud, but they still need critical review (from Harry's comment file it looks like even CRU doesn't understand the adjustments they are making).

The official thermometer records are done by CRU and NASA - their leading scientists seem biased to me and may be making adjustments which they honestly believe are correct but which may not be. Only a small number of people are involved. They have not released specifics of their adjustments so the 1000s of other scientists cannot independently check them. They say their records are correct because they agree closely with each other.

The other 2 official temperature records are from satellites (UAH & RSS). Those are calibrated with CRU and NASA, so they depend whether or not CRU and NASA's are valid.

Others who publish temperature records also use CRU and NASA as their "validation".

So nobody has to be lying (even Hansen and Jones) for 1000s of scientists to be wrong. And they are likely only wrong about the timeline, not the results. If actual increase last century was .5 instead of .7 degrees, we have longer than we think. If the actual was .9 we have less time. We really need to have the adjustments reviewed by others.

[The Doctor.]

12. Uh, yeah.

Then you'd have to believe that there was no review of the data (which there is), that your own eyes and ears are lying to you when you see the dramatic changes actually happening now, and you'd have to look at how predictions from modeling are happening decades sooner than expected and not think that meant that they were using optimistic and very conservative models.

In short, you'd have to be a moron.

[notesdev]

10. Or maybe just a handful with the rest a political puppet show

Since those alleged 'thousands of scientists' don't exist.

And never mind the actual thousands of scientists who say its bunk.

[Sal Minella]

15. Whatever you're getting paid,

I hope you think it's worth it.

[20score]

26. The science is settled. Come up with one peer reviewed study to prove me wrong.

If you can't do that, you might as well stick to celebrity gossip.

On edit: Your profile shows that you consider yourself an A game debater. Well then, come on and twist reality for me. Give me all the pro-pollution, pro-fossil fuel burning talking points you have.

[geek_sabre]

29. a big part of the scandal is that the peer review system is corrupted nt

[20score]

30. Really? Where has the peer reviewed system gone wrong? You'll have to elaborate.

[geek_sabre]

31. for starters

After a mildly critical article was printed in Climate Research, Michael Mann writes:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

When another article is published in Geophysical Research Letters, he writes:

It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL."

To which Tom Wigley, another CRU scientist responds:

"If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

Saiers did end up being ousted, after which Wigley says:

"The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

In addition to choosing like-minded colleagues to rubber-stamp and review their work, there's this from Paul Jones

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

While it is entirely possible that the emails are merely a reflection of cocky scientists who think they have more influence than they actually do, it warrants investigation.

[certainot]

32. the energy industry has high paid trolls trying to obstruct and sabotage research and i

and i suspect there are a lot of climate scientists who recognize that and just want to get on with the work we need to find out where we're going before it's too late and their families are doomed too- so they say to these motherfuckers - fuck off assholes...

[20score]

33. These is your evidence? Thousands of pilfered emails, not one of them

contradicting global warming and the science behind it, and that's your evidence that the scientific method doesn't work?

I truly am laughing out loud!

[FBaggins]

5. No room for nuance?

Of course there's room.

What if GW is real but not as significant as feared?

What if it's real but not caused by man?

What if it ISN'T real but the scientists who study it are simply wrong (and in no way perpetuating a "hoax" ?

[alc]

17. what if it's real and man made but

* 1/3 of it is caused by CO2
* 1/3 of it is caused by deforestation
* 1/3 of it is caused by urbanization

Peer-reviewed papers find that deforestation and urbanization do have significant components of the warming we've seen. And CRU, NASA, IPCC, and others do not dispute these papers. I used 1/3 each for simplicity but over 1/2 of the warming is possibly caused by man, but by land use not CO2. What if we work really hard to get rid of CO2, then are told that we have an even bigger job left because we didn't fix land use so we're still screwed? How well do you think that new will be accepted?

AGW supporters should want as much accuracy in the science as possible, just like skeptics. Fixing things will take a long series of steps no matter what the cause. Any inaccuracies found will make the next step that much harder.

[Kingofalldems]

7. The people who claim hoax are freepers

[WeDidIt]

8. Noi room for hoax believers as progressives

but certainly room for them as Democrats.

Not all Democrats are progressives.

I'd even hazard a guess and say that progressives aren't even a majority of the Democratic Party.

[Robb]

11. Using "progressives" was indeed deliberate. nt

[JVS]

13. I don't think it's a hoax, but I'd have to hear a person's explanation of a supposed hoax in order..

to determine if they are progressive. For example, if someone says it is a conspiracy by commodities traders to set up a carbon emissions market and make out like bandits, I would be able to file that person into the progressive category.

[tjwash]

14. So we aren't alowed in the club if we don't answer the way we are supposed to?

:eyes:

[endless october]

16. i don't believe it's a hoax.

however, i don't support cap and trade as a solution. i think cap and trade is a scam.

end the war now and use the money to build nuclear, wind, solar, and other renewables. build them like the interstate highway system. then tear down the coal plants.

that's how you solve it.

[caraher]

18. Can you be gullible and ignorant and still be a progressive?

I think that's the same poll... ;)

I'm inclined to say yes, actually, since I think any ordinary test of how to label one's beliefs (apart from cases where they are stipulated by definition, like atheist/agnostic/believer) has to allow some wiggle room regarding both how much of the "canon" one subscribes to as well as how they come to believe those things.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Stupid Poll.... Can a scientist be a NAZI?

and still be a progressive?

[slackmaster]

20. I disagree with your statement that there's no room for nuance

There is some middle ground between "Human activity is accelerating a natural warming cycle" and "Anthropgenic global warming is going to turn Earth into another Venus."

[HughMoran]

21. This is kind of a "baby", "bathwater" question

With all the problems we have and varying backgrounds and perspectives, I don't see how a litmus test is helpful, unless it asks if you're going to vote for a Democrat or Republican.

[Odin2005]

22. No, and you are a sucker for Big Oil lies as well.

[NecklyTyler]

23. It is a false choice

Global warming is real, and it is caused by humans

[philly_bob]

24. Caveat: By 'global warming' I include climate change. /nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. Shouldn't this poll have a "global warming deniers are dingbats" option?

:shrug:

[optimator]

27. how about "I don't care" as an option

because fighting pollution is more important to me

[20score]

28. Too subjective and there are no absolutes. But for the most part, people who reject

science can be progressive - they're just wrong. Same with the progressives who dismiss over-population and even the few that reject evolution. But at a certain point, if they reject all science they don't happen to like, they're not a progressive.