DISSENSION: Bullying doesn’t work


All who have been called “science deniers” or “climate deniers” should be proud of the label. Such a label shows they will not be intimidated by bullies.

This week’s editorial is just another example of bullying from climate change devotees. Not only does it insult an enormous portion of the American people, it is based in half-truths and clever manipulations of data.

Let’s address the incredibly insulting claim that, somehow, Donald Trump “turned his supporters against science.” The editorial offered no proof of this except to push the fallacy that man-made climate change is scientific fact and that anyone who is a skeptic denies science.

In fact, the argument that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming is a fallacy.

The studies that came up with that number arrived there by dubious means, at best. The most recent study done by John Cook, who runs skepticalscience.com, claimed by surveying published scientific papers he confirmed 97 percent of scientists agreed climate change is man-made, according to Forbes.

The problem is when his study was challenged, it was found that only 1.6 percent of the scientific papers Cook surveyed stated that humans were responsible for at least 50 percent of global warming. Cook’s study required the papers he surveyed to state humans are responsible for at least 50 percent to be considered an “explicit endorsement,” according to Forbes.

The fact of the matter is man-made climate change is not scientific fact. It is irresponsible for an organization like Scroll that, as the editorial claims, believes “in fighting for truth” to continue to push an inaccurate claim.

Renowned atmospheric physicist, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and anthropomorphic climate change skeptic, S. Fred Singer, believes the number of skeptical, qualified scientists is around 40 percent, according to the National Association of Scholars.

“I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause,” Singer told NAS in an interview.“If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.”

Singer founded the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. It was responsible for publishing Climate Change Reconsidered, an 880-page report on scientific research that disputes models of man-made global warming, according to NAS.

It is true the earth has warmed over the last 150 years, with no significant change in the last 15 years. It has warmed a grand total 0.8 degrees Celsius, according to Forbes.

That amount of warming is hardly anything to worry about, especially for the president of the United States. Even if it is man-made, Singer said he believes it could be beneficial instead of harmful.

“My reading of the work of leading economists is that a modest warming would increase GNP and raise the standard of living of much of the world’s population,” he told NAS. “Conversely, expending huge sums to ‘combat climate change’ would slow economic growth, diminish standards of living and increase poverty — in addition to being completely ineffective and wasting resources.”

Scientific consensus is a myth; climate change is not “the great issue of our time,” and bullying will not work.



'DISSENSION: Bullying doesn’t work' have 4 comments

  1. January 31, 2017 @ 8:27 pm Jeff Green

    Opinion is the proper term for this column.

    Bullying? Does this mean there are bruised feelings in this. This is an emotionally aggressive in a lot of discussions.

    Is the author listening to the science?

    Global warming is just as true as gravity is. We don’t know everything about gravity and yet its true. Green house gas warming is very well understood and is clearly proven true. Some life extinctions in the past are from ghg warming and a great deal of life was wiped out.

    To follow in the footsteps of climate denial should all of society follow the author, is the path of social stupidity. We will be responsible for the destruction of our own climate that supports our lives now. Life will get tougher to live under thinking of Mike Price if we all took this on faithfull in the author’s view.

    Refusal to look at mainstream science is not a sign of intelligent consideration. It is just a bias that doesn’t allow the author to be able to accept the truth of climate science.

    https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

    Reply

  2. January 31, 2017 @ 8:42 pm Jeff Green

    Our author relies on Fred Singer as his authority and yet Mr Singer also denied harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke. It is sad that our author does not accept facts or check for what counter arguments would be. I cannot make our author accept the reality of global warming. He has to come to terms with that in his own way. Maybe never, taking this to his grave. Mountains of data have been gathered on global warming, and the data shows we are a warming world, we will have destructive impacts from the warming, and most impacts are negative, with very few positive impacts.

    Again this is a sad case for arguing against the reality of global warming. We put the co2 in the atmosphere which is a proven warming agent

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Second-hand_smoke

    According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[52]

    52 Biello, David and Pavlus, John. “Even Skeptics Admit Global Warming is Real”, Scientific American, March 18, 2008.

    Reply

  3. January 31, 2017 @ 8:52 pm Jeff Green

    Consensus vs expertise in climate science has a graph showing skill of climate expertise vs consensus on human caused global warming. The peer reviewed paper writing frequency group shows 97% consensus or greater. It is clear in the data of opinion of scientists they see human climate change to be true. This is not one paper but multiple papers on science opinion.

    Humans effect the climate. It is now up to us to live within the boundaries of reality of living on earth.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta

    Reply

  4. February 1, 2017 @ 4:46 pm Ryan Sargeant

    In attempting to argue against a climate change consensus, Price illustrates why arguments against the consensus are problematic.

    Price cites two sources. The first was a Forbes article written by Alex Epstein who has made a career as a champion of fossil fuels. There is a wealth of social science research exploring the scientific consensus on climate change that Price could have explored. He didn’t. He found an article that confirmed his believe structure written by an author who caters to audiences that like to have their beliefs confirmed.

    Price’s other source is S Fred Singer. After leaving the research community in the 1980s to begin his career as a professional lobbyist, Singer has, at different times, championed the claim that CFCs don’t deplete the ozone layer, acid rain isn’t a problem that merits regulation, second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer, and now – climate change isn’t a problem. Singer has established a variety of lobby organizations with impressive-sounding names that contribute nothing to the body of scientific evidence. Singer’s organizations don’t collect data, they don’t present at research conferences, and they don’t submit their ideas for peer-review. They aren’t science. Singer efforts to distort science are effective, well documented, and damaging.

    Price’s arguments are not uniquely bad. The problem with arguing against a scientific consensus is that you have to dig deep to find an actual expert that supports your views, then you have to justify why that expert is relevant when compared to a longer pool of equally qualified experts who disagree. Price did neither.

    Reply


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright 2015 BYU-I Scroll