On Climate Heretics

[Ben]

I thought this was a great blog post by climate scientist Judith Curry:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/climate-heretic-to-be-or-not-to-be/?utm_content=buffer81f12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#more-22571

[Hawkmoon]

Very good. I had already seen Pielke's op-ed. The other two were also good.

Being a non-scientist, I still have to resort to framing the issue in terms I can comprehend. Somewhere around 900 A.D. the Vikings settled on Greenland. They didn't name it "Green"land because it was, like, white. For almost 500 years, they had an agrarian (i.e. "farming") society on ... Greenland. Around 1450 A.D. they abandoned Greenland because ... it got too cold.

So, when it gets too hot to farm on Greenland, then I'll talk to you about global warming climate change.

[MillCreek]

I have to look more into this concept of a 'climate lukewarmer'.

[MechAg94]

Very good. I had already seen Pielke's op-ed. The other two were also good.

Being a non-scientist, I still have to resort to framing the issue in terms I can comprehend. Somewhere around 900 A.D. the Vikings settled on Greenland. They didn't name it "Green"land because it was, like, white. For almost 500 years, they had an agrarian (i.e. "farming") society on ... Greenland. Around 1450 A.D. they abandoned Greenland because ... it got too cold.

So, when it gets too hot to farm on Greenland, then I'll talk to you about global warming climate change.

And I believe research has shown that this warming was not just local, but was in fact a global average increase.  There were at least a couple of warm periods in the last 2000 or so years.  Many of the graphs used to support global warming in the past such as the famous hockey stick graph averaged those event out to make the current warming look more serious. 

[230RN]

^

many of the graphs used to support global warming in the past such as the famous hockey stick graph averaged those event out to make the current warming look more serious.

I love it when scientists take outlying data, call it obviously experimental error, and eliminate it from the published data.

It's obvious to me that the mean voltage in your household outlet is zero volts:



Those wild and crazy excursions to plus and minus 170 volts are merely experimental error and can be eliminated from your published paper.

Terry

Pic credit in Properties

[Hawkmoon]

I love it when scientists take outlying data, call it obviously experimental error, and eliminate it from the published data.

Or they just leave the outlying data outlying. So there was an inconvenient warm spell from around 900 to 1450 AD? We'll just start the graph at 1500 or 1600. Voila! It's getting warmer.

[MechAg94]

Regardless of the quality of the data/research, there is a lot of good research going on (against AGW as well as for it).  Much of the bad research appears to be mostly scientist who KNOW!! what they should find and fudge things to insure the results match their expectations. 

However, the biggest crime is what OP was about.  The political and social campaign to silence and ostracize everyone that isn't a true believer in Climate Change as a imminent World Catastrophe.  A couple of the examples in article were not even "deniers", but people who questioned whether certain aspects or claims were not true.  If they question any part of it in any way, they are labeled as an enemy.