> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008
This is a good example of how the fossil fuel companies create the impression of uncertainty by finding any possible cause for doubt, exaggerating it, and then claiming it discredits entire careers or even the field. I’ve heard that claim from many people over the years but when you look at it you realize how weak it is. That was not in a peer-reviewed publican, or even a single claim:
In 1988, he was speaking casually with a reporter who asked him to speculate about what would happen 40 years later if CO2 doubled. The reporter put that anecdote in the book.
In 2001, the reporter gave an interview to Salon and briefly mentioned the conversation but misremembered the timing and left out the most important claim about doubling CO2 entirely.
This seems like an excellent distraction from the fact that the actual scientific consensus has been consistent since the 1980s and the publications like IPCC forecasts have proven quite accurate.
The reason, of course, is that scientists have already been doing what you’re asking for. Those papers and reports represent enormous amounts of time spent creating and critically reviewing experiments, models, data, and thinking of new ways to cross check them. It would a career-making move to find a significant flaw, and the idea that there’s some perfectly hermetic conspiracy is laughable if you’ve ever been around a group of scientists.
Now, contrast that with the deniers who promote those talking points. They get lavish funding from a range of industries (some got their start on behalf of the tobacco companies) and they’ve played games which are familiar to anyone who has dealt with creationists where they toss out various theories and move on to new ones as the old ones are disproven. While scientists have been converging on the truth from a variety of independent sources, the deniers have been all over the map and wrong in many different directions. If there are concerns about openness and reputation, the double standard is quite striking.
LOL! You literally just linked to the exact thing that I referred to! Did you miss it? I said that Hansen was dumb enough to repeat his prediction, but bump the timeline to 2028! You literally just linked to Hansen saying that!
In 1998, he was wrong about 2008. But he doubled-down and said it'll be underwater in 2028. I criticized him for 1998 and you just linked me to him repeating it for 2028!
> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008. I don't want Hansen stripped of any credentials or anything like that. But it's reasonable for me to ask that he make a public statement acknowledging his error.
There is a bell curve distribution of views on any subject. You can always find the most extreme case if you want to. It sounds like James Hansen is one of the most extreme cases on one side. You can also find extreme cases on the other side who were proven wrong.
I notice that you aren't interested in them making statements acknowledging their errors. I wonder why.
> publish all data and source code for all climatology papers.
These are scientists doing their research. They come to their conclusions. If all their data, source code, etc. were made open, people who don't want to acknowledge climate change will cherrypick and find a few inevitable errors and claim they disprove the consensus of scientists, akin to the way you picked James Hanson above. If you want to believe the scientists are involved in some kind of collusion, you will, whether or not they open all those aspects their research. Very simply, it isn't worth the trouble and that's why it's not being done.
> Some code once leaked from the Climate Research Unit and it included hardcoded values and a comment that their person was to "hide the decline."
Yes, there are dishonest scientists on all sides of any question that has a large number of scientists involved, just as is true in any field. Finding one of them should not be new information. You should predict it, and when it happens, say "Yep, just as I predicted!".
What you definitely shouldn't do is cherrypick it and pretend it proves anything, or pay any attention to anyone who does so.
It doesn't invalidate the position that that scientist's dishonest research appeared to be supporting, which is also supported by the overwhelming majority of honest scientists.
> Both of these points are imminently reasonable and if you make any excuses or push back in the slightest, then I am absolutely justified to retain my skepticism.
Go right ahead! I will not reply further in this subthread.
acdha|1 year ago
This is a good example of how the fossil fuel companies create the impression of uncertainty by finding any possible cause for doubt, exaggerating it, and then claiming it discredits entire careers or even the field. I’ve heard that claim from many people over the years but when you look at it you realize how weak it is. That was not in a peer-reviewed publican, or even a single claim:
In 1988, he was speaking casually with a reporter who asked him to speculate about what would happen 40 years later if CO2 doubled. The reporter put that anecdote in the book.
In 2001, the reporter gave an interview to Salon and briefly mentioned the conversation but misremembered the timing and left out the most important claim about doubling CO2 entirely.
https://skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-ab...
This seems like an excellent distraction from the fact that the actual scientific consensus has been consistent since the 1980s and the publications like IPCC forecasts have proven quite accurate.
The reason, of course, is that scientists have already been doing what you’re asking for. Those papers and reports represent enormous amounts of time spent creating and critically reviewing experiments, models, data, and thinking of new ways to cross check them. It would a career-making move to find a significant flaw, and the idea that there’s some perfectly hermetic conspiracy is laughable if you’ve ever been around a group of scientists.
Now, contrast that with the deniers who promote those talking points. They get lavish funding from a range of industries (some got their start on behalf of the tobacco companies) and they’ve played games which are familiar to anyone who has dealt with creationists where they toss out various theories and move on to new ones as the old ones are disproven. While scientists have been converging on the truth from a variety of independent sources, the deniers have been all over the map and wrong in many different directions. If there are concerns about openness and reputation, the double standard is quite striking.
tosbalok3|1 year ago
LOL! You literally just linked to the exact thing that I referred to! Did you miss it? I said that Hansen was dumb enough to repeat his prediction, but bump the timeline to 2028! You literally just linked to Hansen saying that!
In 1998, he was wrong about 2008. But he doubled-down and said it'll be underwater in 2028. I criticized him for 1998 and you just linked me to him repeating it for 2028!
Why are your beliefs based on errors like this?
garyrob|1 year ago
There is a bell curve distribution of views on any subject. You can always find the most extreme case if you want to. It sounds like James Hansen is one of the most extreme cases on one side. You can also find extreme cases on the other side who were proven wrong.
I notice that you aren't interested in them making statements acknowledging their errors. I wonder why.
> publish all data and source code for all climatology papers.
These are scientists doing their research. They come to their conclusions. If all their data, source code, etc. were made open, people who don't want to acknowledge climate change will cherrypick and find a few inevitable errors and claim they disprove the consensus of scientists, akin to the way you picked James Hanson above. If you want to believe the scientists are involved in some kind of collusion, you will, whether or not they open all those aspects their research. Very simply, it isn't worth the trouble and that's why it's not being done.
> Some code once leaked from the Climate Research Unit and it included hardcoded values and a comment that their person was to "hide the decline."
Yes, there are dishonest scientists on all sides of any question that has a large number of scientists involved, just as is true in any field. Finding one of them should not be new information. You should predict it, and when it happens, say "Yep, just as I predicted!".
What you definitely shouldn't do is cherrypick it and pretend it proves anything, or pay any attention to anyone who does so.
It doesn't invalidate the position that that scientist's dishonest research appeared to be supporting, which is also supported by the overwhelming majority of honest scientists.
> Both of these points are imminently reasonable and if you make any excuses or push back in the slightest, then I am absolutely justified to retain my skepticism.
Go right ahead! I will not reply further in this subthread.
tosbalok3|1 year ago
[deleted]