How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[jeremyrh]

Something for the “97% confidence” crowd: 🤣

You might want to consider where you fall on that curve, relative to say an MIT climate scientist.

[Peter McLennan]

That is just not true. Nobody denies science and statistics. We "deny" how it is (mis)used for political gain. Neither "science" nor statistics can be decision makers.

What?  Nobody denies science or statistics? Isn't that exactly what you guys keep doing?  What happened to "Climate change is a hoax!".  "The climate is always changing" ?

And, while we're at it, who precisely is using it for "political gain"? And how?  What are they gaining?  What do they stand to gain?

[Alan Klein]

What a bizarre statement.

Why is it bizarre?  They're all biased as well.  So news is slanted to fit their political viewpoints.  Nothing bizarre or new about that. 

[Alan Klein]

What?  Nobody denies science or statistics? Isn't that exactly what you guys keep doing?  What happened to "Climate change is a hoax!".  "The climate is always changing" ?

And, while we're at it, who precisely is using it for "political gain"? And how?  What are they gaining?  What do they stand to gain?

For the same reason the left claims racism or sexism when there may not be any there.  It's a way of dividing the public to secure votes and power. For industry, those in the renewable portion gain from government spending money on it or mandating new regulations that support it.  Billions and billions of dollars are being spent.  People are getting filthy rich.   

[faberryman]

For the same reason the left claims racism or sexism when there may not be any there.  It's a way of dividing the public to secure votes and power. For industry, those in the renewable portion gain from government spending money on it or mandating new regulations that support it.  Billions and billions of dollars are being spent.  People are getting filthy rich.

So the climate scientists are conspiring with the renewable energy industry. What exactly do the climate scientists get out of the conspiracy?  Which pizza parlor basement is the headquarters for this conspiracy?

[Alan Klein]

So the climate scientists are conspiring with the renewable energy industry. What exactly do the climate scientists get out of the conspiracy?  Which pizza parlor basement is the headquarters for this conspiracy?

Their jobs.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What exactly do the climate scientists get...

Grants, funds, positions, being published, symposiums, academic advancement. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You might want to consider where you fall on that curve...

If you read my posts so far, I said several times this:

[Alan Goldhammer]

Why is it bizarre?  They're all biased as well.  So news is slanted to fit their political viewpoints.  Nothing bizarre or new about that.

As are all of your posts.  Why should be believe you instead of FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, InfoWars,  (the list can go on for a long time).  One has to study issues and get a conceptual understanding of the problem (this is why we all went to college, at least in theory).  There is a huge literature on climate change and various news sources try to interpret it.  Some are more successful than others.

[faberryman]

...(this is why we all went to college, at least in theory)...

I wouldn't assume everybody went to college. Some of the arguments don't seem to be very nuanced.

[Peter McLennan]

Grants, funds, positions, being published, symposiums, academic advancement.

So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?

Bit of a reach, I’d say. Nice try, though.

[Peter McLennan]

People are getting filthy rich.

So it’s better for people to get filthy rich by digging one-time-use stuff out of the ground and burning it to keep the lights on?  As opposed to getting filthy rich by figuring out ways to make that same energy from endlessly renewable, natural sources?

[jeremyrh]

So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?

Bit of a reach, I’d say. Nice try, though.

You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!

Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?

First, there is no 97%, but about a third. Second, it doesn't work in such direct, devious ways you suggest. It is more subtle. Scientists are human, and humans respond to incentives. So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.

[jeremyrh]

First, there is no 97%, but about a third.

Wrong, as Bernard explained. I'm wondering if you understand what's written and choose to ignore it, or if you just don't understand it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths...

Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.

[jeremyrh]

Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.

There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for you when you write up your reasoned rebuttal.  Not holding my breath.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!

Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?

Well, Royal Dutch Shell made a video documentary in 1991 (I've shared the link before), and it is pretty frank about the impact of fossil-fuel on our climate:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.

What do you mean with "inaccurate results"?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Wrong, as Bernard explained. I'm wondering if you understand what's written and choose to ignore it, or if you just don't understand it?

Bernard is an ordained priest in the new church, so not to be trusted 

I posted earlier (months earlier) in some other climate threads a link to the "97%" debunking article. I can not be bothered to look it up again. Those researchers who did not take a position on the human influence were counted into the 97% as if they supported it. And many other points that debunk the "97%" nonsense. Besides, having an almost 100% consensus on unproven theories is simply antithetical to science. "Trust me, it is more complicated than that," as the chart I posted says.