National Geographic "The War On Science"

Right, and why we should not waste time arguing with denialists.

Unfortunately this also means that Democracy is stymied. All we can do is act according to our personal ethics, and enjoy our advantage in the marketplace.

 

What is the definition of a "denier"? At what point does someone become a "denier"?

If one accepts that the global climate is generally warming, and some if not most of the warming is anthropogenic, is that individual still a "denier"?

If one has no faith in climate model projections, is that individual considered a "denier"? How can you be a "denier" about events and scenarios that haven't happened yet?

 

^^ Are you questioning your faith ? That is a good first step into the emergence of rational thought.

To answer your question: deniers have selective hearing and attention to data and expertise.
If you choose to accept the opinions of a couple of weathermen over the combined scientific expertise of every major scientific body in the western world, you are a denialist.

 

Not really. Just wondering if you consider me a "denier" if I don't trust climate model projections.

I've used weather prediction (NWP) models on essentially a daily basis as an operational meteorologist in the National Weather Service. Does that give me any "expertise" in evaluating climate models given they're derived from NWP models?

 

'Trust' is like 'Faith.'
Neither has a reasonable place in science.

Uncertainty is part of science, and can usually be quantified.
To answer your question, a user of a model is a technician. I consider you a highly trained technician. That is not a bad thing at all, but you are not what I deem an expert in the science of Climate change.

 

Okay, in my opinion, climate model uncertainty is so great, that the skill with all climate parameters is essentially zero decades out.

 

^^ Publish in a top tier, peer reviewed journal your analysis of CO2 sensitivity.

 

So do you think that practicing engineers who don't publish in top tier, peer reviewed journals are just techncians and don't have any real expertise in engineering?

 

I discount their opinions regarding the science of Climate Change.
I respect their opinions in their fields of Engineering, just as I respect your opinions about weather.
I'm aware of the uncertainty of modeling CO2 and other GHG sensitivity -- I read about it from experts all the time. The science of GHG however is rather clear cut and not in dispute amongst experts.

In the specific case of the science of Climate Change, you are not in the same league. That you have trouble accepting this is a denialist attitude. If you publish a better model that is accepted by the community of experts in Climate science, my hat comes off. If you publish an analysis of current models that changes the currently accepted uncertainty of those models, hat is off.

 

So you think that meteorology is as different from climate science as engineering is? You are aware that the fundamentals of meteorology (e.g., atmospheric physics and dynamics) are also fundamental to climate science, right? Both are atmospheric sciences. Climate is just weather averaged over a long period of time. Actually I would argue that meteorology is a fundamental science in climate science.

All of the catastrophic scenarios of AGW are based on climate model projections. Even the IPCC says that no clear trends are apparent from climate warming so far, other than more heat waves and fewer cold waves. No clear trends in droughts, floods, local severe wx, extratropical storms, tropical storms, changes in upper air flow configuration and blocking, or changes in climate variability (AR5).

At least I know now that I've been put in the "denier" category. Won't have to wonder any longer.

 

Imagine what would world be like if the laws of physics were decided by simple majority vote

 

Sagebrush,

IIRC, there are something like 42 discrete climate models currently being used in the climate science community.

There have been what, thousands if not tens of thousands of papers published on AGW, so a very large majority of authors (climate scientists) have not developed their own model either, and only use models that are currently in existence. NWS mets use NWP models that have been developed by model development groups. However, we (NWS mets) get to see how well those models perform on essentially a daily basis. Not only that, but our performance evaluations are based on how well our weather forecasts verify vis a vis the NWP models.

So expertise in climate science (or atmospheric science in general) isn't necessarily tied to the development of a model.

 

Weather is not the same as climate.

 

Weather and climate are inexorably linked.

 

so are the trees and forest; but can you see one behind the trees?

 

I agree.
I was answering your question whether your use of a model on a daily basis to predict the weather makes you an expert in the science of Climate change. It does not.

Now, if you had a PhD in atmospheric science and could lay a claim to peer reviewed, tier 1 publications in Climate science, you would be an expert in the field and someone of whom I would value your opinion.

 

And ... ?
Let me give an example: I am a physician, effectively a technician of biology in general and human biology specifically.

If I was so foolish as to voice an opinion on the x-ray diffraction studies of DNA that lead to the understanding of the double helix structure, I would expect rational people to ignore me. If psychologists voiced an opinion based on their work in cognition, I would ignore them. And if Spidey came hear to give the 'truth' based on his reading of the bible ... well, you already know how I answer that.

 

Says who? Why doesn't extensive experience in the performance of NWP models, which are fundamentally the same as climate models (Climate Models | WMO), qualify me as someone who can offer an informed opinion without being labeled "denier"?