[mistermann]

I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the supremely confident masses who are absolutely sure climate change is precisely as the scientists say, and that anyone that disagress in the slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change.

I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the unthinking hordes who insist we must do something now, and no we will not think while we are doing this. Dissension is explicitly not allowed.

Oh, is that not exaaaaaaaaaaaactly what the message is? Of course not, but there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good.

Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

[E6300]

If you get diagnosed with cancer, would you go to med school and wait until you graduate and can fully understand the diagnosis and how the prescribed treatment was arrived at by your doctor before you follow it, or would you follow the treatment as closely as possible as soon as possible?

Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change. But as far as anyone can tell no one has a more accurate picture. "This theory may be imperfect [not even 'is imperfect'; we just don't know] so we should disregard it completely" is a Nirvana fallacy.

[mistermann]

> Perhaps climate scientists don't know with completely precision everything there is to know about climate change.

Don't be surprised when people don't trust you if you don't disclose that fact.

[E6300]

What do you mean? Does anyone believe that a given scientific theory explains exactly and totally a phenomenon? If they do, that's their problem. Science doesn't claim to have perfect answers. Until we find Laplace's demon, the best we can say is "theory A is better supported by evidence than theory B". If we have nothing better than A, is there any reason not to treat it as true?

[mistermann]

The current popular mainstream politically correct stance is that "the science is in and the time for debate is over." That is a fact, and if scientists find it efficient to go about it that way (rather than correct that somewhat incorrect stance), then there will be a small portion of people who will dig their feet in against those sorts of dishonest tactics. And furthermore, some of these people will write convincing rebuttals (after all, there is a completely science based disagreement with the status quo opinion) that voters who want to not believe will typically interpret as "the scientists are lying to us!".

Until the scientific community comes clean, as well as "polices" the outspoken public advocates, the climate change cause will always have this Achilles heel - I am not pointing it out to win an argument, I am pointing it out in the hopes that they fix the problem, as I believe the theory is mostly correct.

[E6300]

So a scientist's job is not just to do science, but to, as you put it, police the general public's view of his discipline?

[mistermann]

A scientist can do whatever he/she wants, whether they ok with various people twisting their statements into half truths while remaining silent on the sidelines.

Society as a whole can decide how they want to approach convincing their fellow citizens to act in a certain manner.

Look down your nose at me all you want, but we all have to live with the consequences of how the chosen path plays out. The way it has played out on planet Earth, 2017 A.D. is that Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. I hope everyone enjoys the ride they helped create.

[yongjik]

"Doc, will I die of liver cancer if I keep drinking?"

"Yes, science is very certain on that. You will die."

"So, you know everything there is to know about livers or cancers, with complete precision?"

"What? Of course not, why would anyone even think that?"

"Hah, I thought so, now I won't trust you!"

[mistermann]

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter.

Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to.

[yongjik]

That's like saying you decided to stop trusting doctors about cancers, because you saw a TV reporter talking about chemotherapy and it was clear he didn't know anything about cancer.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest", because I think the mainstream media's position is roughly "If we don't cut out fossil fuel we'll be in deep shit pretty soon (say, before 2100, probably sooner)", and it is a statement I think >90% of climate scientists would agree on.

(Actually, I think many would argue we're in deep shit now. E.g., massive reef death in Australia.)

[mistermann]

I disagree.

My observation is that the scientific community is making assertions of what is more or less the current understanding of the state of global warming to the best of their knowledge. Advocates and opportunists are taking this and converting it to something like "98% percent of scientists agree that global warming is 100% caused by man and we are absolutely doomed if we do not do something right now." (obviously I am being somewhat hyperbolic.)

So the scientists are observing this and thinking to themselves "What these people are saying is not technically true, but it seems like most likely an effective approach to invoke action amongst the general public, so we'll just keep our mouths shut." It may very well turn out that this is in fact the most pragmatic approach.

What I am saying is, it may turn out that this isn't the most pragmatic approach. Addressing climate change costs money, and lots of it. People generally don't like spending money unless there is a very obvious and more or less immediate benefit. Now imagine a convincing leader comes along who validates this distrust, and can point to legitimate cracks in these assertions (actually, I don't think Trump even had to do this, but don't underestimate the power of YouTube propaganda videos)....you might just find yourself with a president that you never would have imagined could have been elected.

It's interesting in a thread where we're generally talking about the nature of public conversation, where I am actually mostly on the side of believing that man-made climate change is a real thing, but my sense is that most people think (or speak as if at least) I am completely incorrect in the things I say, that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on some of the specifics. It's really quite an extraordinary claim. (iirc, this is one of the big reasons Joel Spolsky quit blogging, he found that he had to qualify every single sentence with multiple sentences of disclaimers, as too many people refused to discuss in an intellectually honest way, always nitpicking individual statements while completely ignoring the spirit of the discussion. Likely putting words in his mouth somewhat, but you get the idea.)

[Chris2048]

You don't need to know everything about livers and cancers. There is a lot to know that is irrelevant to alcoholism.

Also, the doc was technically wrong. He should of said "high probability", not "Yes, science is very certain".

[DonHopkins]

Says the guy who brings bullshit to a discussion about calling bullshit.

[mistermann]

Oh, which bullshit was that?

[DonHopkins]

You claimed that Judith Curry was "not allowed to speak", for example.

Here's something she allowed herself to speak:

"Once we get over this little bump of activism, if the Trump administration will put us on a slightly reassuring and saner footing, that will allow all this to die down," she said. "We can always hope." -Judith Curry

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Good luck with that long term plan that depends on Trump putting us on a saner footing!

Are you really sure she isn't allowed to speak? She's on FOX News an awful lot.

And is it really true that people blink when they're lying? Starting at 3:00 I counted Judith Curry blinking 85 times in 60 seconds during this recent Tucker Carson interview on FOX News. At that rate, she must have blinked 387 times during that 4:33 minute interview! Forget about the Butterfly Effect: her eyelash fluttering itself could affect global climate patterns!

https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw?t=3m0s

[mistermann]

If you literally interpret me, the police should have been called because not being allowed to utter a single word anywhere would be a major human rights abuse.

I could say to you: why are you talking about mammal excrement? Oh, "of course" I shouldn't have used that interpretation of the word, right?

Will you extend the same courtesy to me?

[ranit]

> Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

Fair point. Could you find a link where he "deliberately causes outrage" to the opposite camp that "take themselves also too seriously" completely denying the same science theory. I am genuinely curious, because up until recently I also had similar opinion about him (a humorist author approach). Now, I kind of doubt this.

[mistermann]

Much of what he has written in the last maybe 3 or 4 weeks I find....distasteful? I absolutely love a good troll, I think he used to be that, but in my opinion he has changed into something less appealing.

I still read him though because I think he continues to raise interesting points (if not always valid) and observations, but I (as someone mostly on "his side" of the political spectrum) often find what he writes a bit repulsive.

[DonHopkins]

>"I absolutely love a good troll" -misterman

You're not a good troll.

[DonHopkins]

>I'm no [...], but [...]. [1]

Also, don't forget that Trump is a reality TV show host, and part of his schtick is to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way too seriously.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/I'm_not_prejudiced,_but...

[yongjik]

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak.

Name one.

[mistermann]

Judith Curry

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist!

I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the scientific community admits to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0

I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.

[DonHopkins]

You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress.

Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak.

Do you have any better examples of scientists who were not allowed to speak -- perhaps a scientist who hasn't actually testified in front of Congress on live national television, written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, boasts of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments?

Or is that all you've got?

[mistermann]

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking.

Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to behave in one way or another? Please note that I am not asking you if that is the case here (that would be my next question), at this point I am simply asking if you are willing to admit that it is a legitimate phenomenon?

[DonHopkins]

You should have made an argument that was literally true in the first place, instead of preemptively disclaiming your argument in the next paragraph.

Don't move the goalposts. Explain and defend your original argument by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking", and listing the names of highly trained scientists who are not allowed to "speak" because they don't support the party line.

[mistermann]

The mainstream assertion is that the scientific community is in 98% comprehensive (!) agreement on the matter of climate change, and the time for discussion is over.

My assertion is that this is an untrue statement.

PS: Why didn't you answer my question?

[Chris2048]

> by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking"

conventions already exist.

If I say "99% of cats prefer whiskers", this needn't mean that of a worldwide population of 12,000 cats, exactly 11,880 prefer whiskers. It's understood as a statistical statement.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you not to speak, it is understood you are not being allowed to speak, despite the fact that you are still able to do so. "not allowed" can conventionally mean "influenced in speaking freely".

In this case, whatever the standard of "not allowed" is, we don't need a formal definition when we have the actual example to hand; The implication here is no due respect is given to the scientist because they have an opposing view, marginalising opposition (e.g other scientists will not be keen to get the same treatment, and so less likely to speak up).

You have the rose to smell, there's no need to argue it's name.

[DonHopkins]

People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry

Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-Sc...

[mistermann]

Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community?

Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

[DonHopkins]

Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments? None of that counts as speech?

First, define "speech", then list the names of highly trained scientists who aren't allowed to speak because they don't fully support the party line.

[mistermann]

Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify where it is we disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas within the scientific community?

Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed. The idea that disagreements occur in professional environments I don't think is very controversial on HN, but what I seem to be hearing today is that HN believes that these disagreements do not occur in the field of science. There is certainly a very long history of disagreement in science, it is one of the primary strengths of the scientific method. And yet now, it has disappeared? That would certainly appear to be the case, all I'm saying is, I doubt that is the actual reality.

[Chris2048]

> my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status

Is the implication that there is good reason to feel either might have been true? Is the same true of other scientists considering joining her position?

[dandrick]

So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.

[mistermann]

> So why do people trust the dissenting scientists?

That's a great question. At least for myself, I don't immediately trust her (why would I without reading a substantial part of her work) - it is that when someone asks obviously informed questions, and answers are refused, I assume the person being asked the question is lying.

In the youtube video, the senator is very clearing presenting himself as being far more informed on the topic than he is. He is (perhaps unknowingly) being dishonest, so I trust her more.

[DonHopkins]

Since you're so adept at deciding who to trust and judging people's honesty by watching their facial expressions and body language on television, what do you have to say about Judith Curry blinking continuously at 85 blinks per minute during this FOX News interview?

https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw

Do you trust what this guy says about blinking and lying?

https://youtu.be/HiTbd4Mc3kk

Have you ever read and listened to the words she's actually written and said? Or did you only listen to Tucker Carlson's leading questions and slanted innuendo while interviewing her on FOX News? And how much do you think they're paying her to come on the show and stare into the camera and lie while blinking at 85 BPM?

She directly contradicts your claims (and her own) in her own words: "Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734 -- you're the one who's incorrectly claiming that she was somehow "silenced".

The late great Stephen Schneider said: "So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable." -Stephen Schneider https://thinkprogress.org/interview-with-scientist-stephen-s...

So show us your evidence. Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced, or retract your false claim and conspiracy theory. But there is no doubt: Judith Curry is most certainly not one of those silenced scientists you hypothesize.

And remember what Stephen Schneider also said: "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." -Steven Schneider http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...

[Chris2048]

> Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced

"hear, hear, tell us what it sounded like, this tree that fell in the woods while no one was around!"

[yongjik]

So, what you really mean is:

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're being crazy is just too stressful.

Yeah, I can sympathize with the last part, but I must tell it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[mistermann]

How do we know that there aren't plenty more dissenters who have been bullied into silence? (Judith's words, not mine.)

[DonHopkins]

Is this the source of "Judith's words, not mine" that you're parroting?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#cite_note-...

http://julesandjames.blogspot.nl/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.h...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

James Annan (2010-11-06). Where's the beef, Curry?. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “She's really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. Here on the no-feedback climate sensitivity, for example. Gryposaurus took her to task here on aerosols and D&A (based partly on comments from Gavin) and found her response lacking. Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that "they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC." Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an "anecdote", even though one single case serves to refutes her claim. Well, I don't think I got quite such a rapturous response as Eric did, with my attempts to improve the AR4 drafts, but I certainly didn't get trampled and discredited either - merely made to feel mildly unwelcome, which I find tends to happen when I criticise people outside the IPCC too. But they did change the report in various ways. While I'm not an unalloyed fan of the IPCC process, my experience is not what she describes it as. So make that two anecdotes. Maybe I'm an "insider" too, in her book :-) If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I'm not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”

In her own words:

"Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry, October 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm, http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734

[DonHopkins]

Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of more scientists who you claim were bullied and "not allowed to speak". Science is evidence based: give us some evidence.

Or are you refusing to define your terms and provide any evidence, because you claim without any evidence that these theoretical silent scientists actually exist, but cannot be measured or counted, like undetectable dark matter in white lab coats?

That's not very scientific of you. (Or of Judith Curry, whose words you claim to quote. If she really promotes unscientific "silent scientist" conspiracy theories like that, then no wonder her colleagues are so critical of her! Calling bullshit isn't censorship, and she's anything but silent herself. So please link to your source where Judith Curry actually said those words that you quote.)

As un-silent, outspoken, widely published and nationally televised as Judith Curry is, she's said "I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever" [1]. So Judith Curry's case is actually evidence that dissenting scientists (and even ones who "literally say" ridiculous things like you quoted her saying) are NOT bullied into silence.

"Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place." [2]

"Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile, Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,

"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."

"Criticisms of outreach communication: Laundry list: Curry's contrarian-leaning "public outreach" public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.".

"...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field's basic terminology," said Coby Beck. Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",

"Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources: "In a 2010 comment she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."

"Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science: Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause.". (It goes on and on... see [2].)

"We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately," [Stanford University's Stephen H.] Schneider [3] said. "It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." [1]

So do you have any examples better than Judith Curry?

[1] The Judith Curry Phenomenon: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht... Discussion: http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734

[2] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

[mistermann]

> Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak"

Of course I meant she is not allowed to speak, quite literally. What else could it possibly mean after all, right?

So, in the spirit of this discussion, I will have to concede that what I was trying to articulate is absolutely 100% incorrect as it is based on a false premise, that she is literally not allowed to speak. Indeed, she is on camera numerous times speaking, which proves absolutely that I am wrong.

You win Don Hopkins. Congratulations.

[DonHopkins]

Nobody knows their names, because they're not allowed to speak.