One of the easiest things to do is to go along to get along. This is true in so many areas of life, including knowledge of science topics.
If you don’t have an in-depth knowledge of a particular area of science, the “easiest thing” kicks in rather effortlessly.
Alternatively, if you have a depth of knowledge on a particular science topic, things can get a whole lot harder, especially if you challenge the prevailing view on that topic.
We find ourselves in this situation today not only with disputes regarding the COVID-19 origin and strategies to counteract the virus but with the pre-pandemic hot topic of climate change.
Presently, the ramp-up of the climate crisis is waiting in the wings for the exit of the malicious microbe. As the spotlight turns from virus hysteria, the beam will shine back on climate angst and its attendant tactics like childish name-calling.
Negative nomenclature like “climate denier” will continue against challengers to the consensus crisis status of climate change.
Regardless, just because someone challenges the status quo doesn’t mean they deny reality such as climate change. This is a straw-man argument.
In my 40-year professional career, which included attending numerous American Meteorological Society and Air & Waste Management Association meetings, I have never met an atmospheric scientist who has serious reservations about the consensus view of climate change and is also a climate denier or climate change denier.
“Denier” is juvenile, insulting, pejorative jargon typically disgorged by those on the political/ideological left. And worse, “denier” is reminiscent of “Holocaust denier.”
The term continues to be used to disparage those who question the supposedly unassailable certainty of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Credentialed atmospheric science practitioners who dare to challenge the “settled science” of climate change know of the reality of such chutzpa. This cheekiness has its consequences. Reality bites.
No challenger wants to get blacklisted or deplatformed or lose an opportunity for good grant money or miss a chance for an advanced degree or end his science career.
These dire consequences are the reality of today’s atmosphere and must be factored into the research, evaluation, and publication of climate change matter.
Such consequences make up the sharp edge of the sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads of those who might consider a different horizon for humans comforted by a combination of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable resources.
From the Left’s view, the way to defeat those who have a different perspective is to call them names and blacklist them.
The only reason this strategy succeeds is because those in control, usually leftists themselves, allow such negativity to happen so that their “truth” is accepted at all costs.
Apparently, the fate of civilization depends on adherence to leftists with an imbued insight of the future of Earth’s atmosphere that is overly burdened by the emissions of modern living.
Certainly, human activity has an impact on the environment, but not all of it is bad. And most of the bad can be mitigated with reasonable action — an action that can be informed by disparate perspectives.
Silencing, intimidating, or otherwise discouraging alternative viewpoints will harm the understanding of the atmospheric environment and will slow, if not prevent, effective and efficient solutions to authentic climate change challenges.
Anthony J. Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist, is the author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).
The freedom to think and express one’s self depends largely these day’s on willingness to be denied opportunity. And I invoke the word “denied” here because it is appropriate and grimly ironic in the context of the global warming issue. A “climate denier,” like any so-labeled denier is someone who stubbornly adheres to a side of an argument, not just against overwhelming stated evidence to the contrary, but against that person’s own inner voice and conviction. For myself, I do not deny climate change, I REJECT the tenants of human-caused climate change. There are many ways I can justify my position, but I’ll rely here on just one: it is the oceans, not the atmosphere, which is the dominant force of climate behavior, in response to solar energy input. Atmospheric conditions, like water vapor, certainly play a role, and we can also delve into the molecular physics about carbon dioxide. In the end, there is simply no way that AGW proponents are on the side of truth in the science of climate change. Obviously, this is all about politics and funding. This is where our freedom crumbles.
It has been reported that several qualified virologists questioned the government’s plan for mitigating the Wuhan virus . They were bought off with lucrative grants. Silence. Same with global warming. Go with the cash flow or throw your PhD in a drawer.
Looking at the silly sign…yes, I don’t deny there is an earth. And yes, I think freely all the time. That makes me anti agenda but I couldn’t care less about global warming. The earth will do what its gotta do to survive and man only gets in the way with his arrogance.
It has become crystal clear that the individuals and organizations pushing climate change as an existential threat to the planet are vacuous brained, venal liars. Science has nothing to do with their position, it’s just another card they play with zero understanding. All of these brain needy, mindless robots should be completely ignored and when recognized treated with utter contempt.
AND… vote them out of office.
Then have the new administration really drain the swamp. [and not just a few small ‘gators.
Their sign reading Thinkers not Deniers its the ironic fact that those two are not thinkers but allow someone else to dot their thinking for them
I watch the weather channel daily, and in the interest of ratings, they focus on population. East coast, west coast, Florida. They actually use ‘number of people affected’ as a parameter for identifying a storm. Population concentration increases ground temperature: urban heat island effect. Cement, shingles, pavement replacing vegetation. We don’t hear much about satellite temperature data, it doesn’t pay, it’s a wet blanket on the climate drama.
I have a PhD in Atmospheric Fluid Dynamics from McGill University. I am getting increasingly frustrated by the lack of any actual science that backs up this “problem”.
So please answer the following simple, basic, scientific question:
What, exactly, is being measured? And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?
I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?
So show me a map of the earth’s surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error.
Then do the same thing in (say) 1900.
If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions.
Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it.
I have posted this hundreds of times, and not one respondent even tries to answer these basic, fundamental questions.
I am now retired, but I just can’t help challenging this BS.
Try Google Scholar – literally dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on each of the questions you raised.
It is called research – you would think a scientist such as yourself would know what that means.
Hey Drewski – Much of this article is about you and people like you, who choose to insult and apply sarcasm to denigrate people who are not aligned with your thinking. There are many better ways to conduct research than to resort to Google. If you are inclined to bean-count the studies on this topic, then you have clearly abandoned science in favor or blindly trusting the popular consensus. This is not science at all.
That’s a riot. Drewski telling a PhD in Atmospheric Fluid Dynamics that she needs educate herself by Googling. What a maroon!
Agree. In so many ways, true science has gone the way of the dodo. If they actually allowed scientific research to work as it should, 90% of this nonsense would vanish in an instant.
Helen:
Exactly. If you can’t measure, you can’t manage. CC is a unitless metric so impossible to measure. Therefore, impossible to determine whether we are helping or hindering. If a measurable metric like earth’s temperature is used the whole thing falls apart. Too many examples in history where CO2 correlation to temp is far below 0.5. Today, the models are proving out to be nowhere near reality and CO2 is approaching saturation (possibly already if Happer proves out to be correct) and the IPCC positive feedback theory dies. The question is, how much $$ will be have sent down the drain before it is recognized.
Helen,
A fraction of the land area of the earth is instrumented to measure near-surface temperature. The measurements are not uniformly distributed. Many of the measuring instruments are affected by UHI. Many of the instruments have not been regularly checked for calibration. Many of the instrument readings are “adjusted” because they are believed to be in error. The US CRN demonstrates that we have the technology to measure temperatures accurately, but its scope is limited to the US. “Adjustments” have reduced prior temperature measurements to make it appear that near-surface temperatures are rising faster.
Sea surface temperature measurements are now taken by instruments on floats and buoys, but those measurements are “adjusted” using shipboard measurements, rather than the other way around.
Nobody “knows” the contribution of human activity because it cannot be measured directly. Some assert that the human contribution exceeds 100%; and, that the natural variation which marked earth’s history has ceased. Again, no measurements.
Sea level is measured by both tide gauges and by a series of satellites, each of which produces different results. The satellite measurements are approximately twice the tide gauge measurements and the discrepancy has not been resolved.
The climate models fail to reproduce historical changes and are progressively falsifying themselves.
Climate science is the “science” of data that aren’t and models that don’t.