Crap. We found it at the same time. I missed it because it didn't come from a specific department but an interdisciplinary one. Still, that PhD is quite tangential to the question at hand here. I'll give it half a point. In other words at most one out of the seven people quoted as "climate scientists" actually have any related credentials.
The difference between me/my credentials and your "climate scientists balk..." is that I make no claim to being a climatologist nor do I say that anyone should listen to me because I'm a PhD expert climate scientist. I'm NOT white-coating myself. In particular, I'm NOT offering up my supposedly scientific disagreement [with real experts] as a climate scientist. Nor do I offer my scientific agreement as a climate scientist. When I explain things, I don't say you should believe it because I have a PhD in physics but because you should follow the logical deductions yourself. However because my dissertation was very related, I am able to explain/understand the science in much more detail than (so far) any one else has demonstrated here. However, that does not mean that I can or will pass myself off as a climate science expert or that others have referenced to me as such. And if anyone starts quoting me as such I'll ask them to cease and desist. It would contradict my doctorate oath.
Now, I have repeatedly asked or even insisted that people go and look at the science [itself] in detail. It speaks for itself. I have also provided multiple sources. I know of a few former skeptics here who actually did go and study it. They are no longer skeptics. The science is undeniable when actually taking the time to understand it. It's somewhat sad to me that not everybody [who expresses doubt or "skepticism"] has done this because that is what skepticism is about. Looking at the evidence(!!!!!)
I'm particular disheartened by the continued denialist(*) posts. After proudly claiming that the ERE forum comprises some of the smartest people on the internet, it's jarring to see someone insisting that e.g. the Planck's Law (a fundamental result of modern physics) is a lie. That's about as dumb [to any first year science student anyway] as claiming that Newton's laws are lies but unfortunately not everybody is at the freshman science level. I now make this claim [of the smartest people on the internet] with some caveats
(*)The difference between skeptics and denialists (which as I found out is a technical term, so I will use those from now on) is that the former will actually consider evidence that runs contrary to their position and revise their position if the evidence shows them to be wrong, like normal reasonable grown-ups. Conversely, denialists will ignore the evidence whenever it's convenient and repeat their assertions often without backing them up.
When denialism contradicts established scientific fact or tries to divert attention from scientific fact (red herrings), it's misinformation. Misinformation is dangerous because it hurts people. It is therefore provocative. Mainly because I actually give a shit about people here. The problem is that apparently only a minority is capable(**) of not being fooled by the standard set of informal fallacies that makes up the denialist's tool bag. If everybody knew the scientific basis and if everybody was familiar with black hat graph manipulation, it would be funny... like the scientific analogy of watching slapstick comedy. Like watch this silly manipulation, he didn't include half the data in order to change his conclusion, funny huh?
(**) Pardon the phrasing here. I don't mean to be arrogant or imply that "I'm so smart and everybody else is so dumb". It's just that the problem is that spotting this stuff is part of the base training of a scientists. In particular, it's the kind of stuff we [scientists] all try very very hard to AVOID. Thus we become hypersensitive towards catching ourselves making these kind of mistakes. So now we see the denial engine continuously making these "mistakes" thus confusing other people. That's hard to take. I'd imagine it's like being a medical doctor and watching another MD using their skill to try to make other people sick (after all who knows better?). This "training" does not come easy and it's not natural but it's there. This is why this is very easy for scientists and very hard for almost everybody else who haven't deliberately tried practicing it. It's not unlike how a slapshot is very easy to a pro NHL player while being practically impossible to a layman and yet not that hard for an amateur hockey player. I guess I had hoped that everybody expressing doubts about slapshots would have picked up a hockey stick and practiced a bit rather than insisting that slapshots are impossible because they don't make sense. So far only a few have metaphorically done so but they can perform a slapshot now.
I started a recent thread on the Fundamentals of Stupidity
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5824. I know we disagreed on that but I found it helpful for this thread.
1) People who read misinformation, believe in it, and keep it to themselves. They hurt themselves and are therefore "helpless".
2) People who read misinformation, believe in it, and spread it to others. They hurt themselves and others and are therefore "stupid".
3) People who benefit by deliberately spreading misinformation to others. They help themselves and hurt others and are therefore "bandits".
(Again, I'm looking at the pragmatic action from my perspective ... which would be the scientific perspective. If anyone doesn't "believe in science" (and I know these people exist), I can only say "God help you", figuratively and literally. You're asking for a miracle. Also, I don't mean this as some kind of personal judgement but rather a way of seeing a certain behavior within a certain context, specifically climate change.)
Thankfully, I do not think we have any "bandits" in this thread, but unfortunately we do have a fair amount of "stupid" posts and also some "helpless" ones.
Now one of the rules of stupidity is that "you can't fix stupid" and that one should therefore avoid it at all times. I've kinda accepted that. However, I think it's still important to help the "helpless". People who don't have the scientific background. People who don't know what a CO2 absorption spectrum is or how to look it up. People who are easily fooled by manipulated graphs. People who don't see the entire physical picture and don't know what they might miss (believe in crackpot explanations). In particular, I've received PMs that this "debate" has been helpful from people who otherwise don't comment, so I keep participating even though I really think this thread does suck big time.
So this is why this matters to me. Because a "helpless" person might easily decide that "there's still a debate and scientists don't really know anything" and then after accumulating their 3% SWR, they'll go and screw up their ERE/FIRE by buying a condo on the Boston/Houston water front or farmland in state X or timberland in state Y. Everything looks great now but then in 2050 their condo walls are knocked in by a storm surge, or alternatively and possibly more likely, in 2025 everybody finally gets it and water front RE drops like a rock. There are many more quite predictable impacts than this example.
It would be totally irresponsible of me (and you guys) to ignore or spread doubt or uncertainty about forecasts that are very well known. Indeed, it's one of those "unknown knowns", that is "something you don't know but which others do". That kind of ignorance, in my book, is inexcusable when the subject both has a high personal impact/risk factor and influence how your actions/choices influence the rest of the world e.g. voting and politics.
In particular ... yes, when anyone deliberately seeks to increase other people---"my people"---'s ignorance I feel compelled to counter it by showing how they're being manipulated.
Like if someone kept insisting that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that obesity doesn't increase your risk of diabetes. It's just bloody irresponsible to say this when practically all the experts say otherwise. It could of course be a deliberate trade off. Many people like cookies and sedentary comfort so much that they don't mind the high risk of being on meds starting at age 45-60. However, if people are helpless and being misinformed, it's NOT a deliberate trade off. It's simply evil.
