That's a risk many are not willing to take.

Maybe.

Some of them just wound up there because they were the only people in the department with the Fortran chops to get the models working.

Yeah, this is almost entirely wrong. I'm sure there is slightly more public funding available in the Earth sciences because of the urgency of climate change, but not much- NSF funds for Earth science projects have been pretty steady for the last 20 years [0] and before that too. If climate change simply didn't exist, researchers would just get grants to work on the plethora of other important Earth science issues- human water usage, the ozone layer, ocean acidification, forest fires, coral bleaching, agricultural runoff, glacier retreat. There was no shortage of important Earth science problems- why on Earth would researchers go to such (impossible) lengths to fabricate one? The idea that international researchers have created some conspiracy to increase funding in their field is bizarre and incoherent and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science funding works. It also doesn't explain the international consensus on climate change- how has every major scientific organization and metereological society agreed upon it, when all of them have completely different funding situations? And if they have, well then surely they would have realized that this plan has not drastically increased their public funding in 20 years and given up on it by now! But in all seriousness, this idea is just insulting to the scientists and the fact that it's popular amongst American conservatives is pretty telling of how scientifically ignorant that ideology is.

[0] https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/CJS%20NSF%2015hc.jp...

Understanding climate change requires high degrees of expertise, the collection of large amounts of data, the use of large mathematical models, and the cooperation of a large number of scientists. A large number of scientists work very hard to track the state of climate change, and their assessment is that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" [0].

> If ACC doesn't exist, the academic lobby will fight for their prestige ang grants)

Please see the list of scientific bodies and their statements on climate change [1]. The idea that a large majority of all scientists with knowledge pertaining to climate science in the world would be corrupted, falsify results, and make false statements over many years to fund further studies seems exceedingly unlikely.

> And so I ask: Who should be trusted, why, and how, given the limited number of hours in the day available to people who aren't directly involved in climatology as their day job?

You should trust what 97% (or more) of all climate scientists agree upon. Arguing that a group of experts of a domain should be trusted is not logically fallacious.

[0] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Keep in mind that I never even mentioned deception, that was something you just set up and knocked down on your own. I have no doubt that most climatologists are doing exactly what they should be doing and aren't Saturday morning cartoon villains,

But if there's a more meta issue involved, such as bad data, I argue that it'll never see the light of day given the political incentives.

(In other words, the politicians are the villains, not the scientists running the data)

> But if there's a more meta issue involved, such as bad data, I argue that it'll never see the light of day given the political incentives.

This is why single studies alone should not be the basis for large changes in policy. The current consensus in climate science is based on a large number of studies from different universities, science bodies, countries, using different sources of data, using different methods, and over a period of time. All of these factors makes it likely that the consensus is something which we should believe, and which should guide our policies.

> Keep in mind that I never even mentioned deception, that was something you just set up and knocked down on your own.

You stated that scientists have a profit motive for fudging their numbers, which if they did would be deceptive behavior.

It would be better for "the academic lobby" to peddle the idea that climate science is unsettled, which would create more of a need for grants to study the issue.

I subscribe to 'Science' magazine which is one of the most respected publications among scientists (along with 'Nature' magazine). The consensus among scientists is settled: ACC is real. ACC deniers do not get published in respected science magazines because their peers do not respect their results.

Scientific results should be settled by the peer group of scientists, not by politicians or the general public (see vaccine conspiracies for example).

And it's not like this is some conspiracy theory. Unspoken social consequences don't require people getting together and stroking their goatees cartoon-villain style.

The "consensus among scientists", looking at the psychology thing, can and has been wrong, so holding the concept up as if it makes error impossible doesn't seem to wash.

You might as well give up now if your entire view of reality has been up-ended as you claim...

* Both are experts in their field

* Both have prestigious journals

* Both are supposed to have a peer review process that prevents bogosity from being published and accepted.

Yet in one field, the peer review process, the ultimate guard that's supposed to prevent junk science from being published, failed. Is failing. Repeatedly. For a long time. It's not one failure, it's a chain of systemic failures.

That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not anywhere near the same insane degree).

Politization occurs almost only in the US.

Are you accusing the scientists of being politized?

Do you have any argument for your claims of not reprodicibility in climate science?

Do you have any argument for doubting the data that has been used for more than 40 years?

Do you have any argument apart of your political views?

Are you saying that climatology is immune to bunk being published despite peer review?

Your post is a lot of whataboutism that doesn't answer the questions posed.

When some of the ones talking about the irreproducibility can give any proof that climate science has the same problem, perhaps we can start to talk.

Judith Curry doesn't disagree with AGW, she disagrees with the scale predicted. That would mean less immediate, strict action, but action nevertheless.

Freeman Dyson isn't a climatologist, he also says himself "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." He also believes in AGW.

It's good to have sceptics, and in particular being sceptical about the scale of AGW is very reasonable. The IPCC predictions actually have a wide variance for these reasons. These scientists don't really speak against the moderate action currently proposed, they aren't backing for Trump's position.

Yes, Dyson's rhetoric on climate moved a bit towards "alarmist" side, but he still doesn't believe in catastrophic consequences:

"The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide … is to make the planet greener, [by] feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds [and] increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism

Climate change denialism is no different from AIDS denialism.

"Climate change denialism" - what's this? Is there any scientist out there who thinks that Earth's climate is stable in the long run?

The parent post gave an example of a case where some credentialed scientists continued to dispute the HIV-AIDS link well after the balance of evidence was against them.

Many people would say there was a "consensus" on the HIV-AIDS link despite the continued skepticism of some scientists, and that this scenario has parallels with climate science.

Can you offer a counter example, where a holdout group of scientists who disagreed with consensus in their field were proved right?

Call it "climate science denialism" if you prefer. It's no different from AIDS denialism.

Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa in 1999-2008, listened to the denialists' views about the AIDS outbreak. He had an AIDS advisory panel staffed with consensus critics -- just like Trump and Pruitt are doing. The estimated number of premature deaths due to Mbeki's counterproductive actions is around 300,000.

here you go

What do you see as the paradigm shift that turns climate science on its head and proves the consensus wrong?

Good thing, isn't?

Here's one example:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/scientific-consensus-almo...

I trust majority in science because it is rarely wrong. I'd need a bit more than "majorities have been wrong before!" to switch sides.

The CAGW builds upon following argument: increased concentration of CO2 reduces the EM radiation's emission in frequencies that CO2 absorbs, ergo the surface temperature should rise in order to keep Earth's thermodynamic balance.

Increased temperature clearly affects the formation of clouds which have both positive and negative effects: they deflect incoming solar radiation, but also deflect surface radiation. The net effect is unclear, unfortunately.

I'm also quite puzzled by apparent lag between CO2 and temperatures in Vostok ice core data. Contrary to CAGW, temperature rises first, and CO2 follows.

My layman understanding is quite limited, of course, that's why eventually I go to the scientists for their expertise. I don't believe that all opponents of CAGW theory are shills; some of them are very respected people: Lindzen, Spencer, etc. My only conclusion is that science is not settled and CAGW is still an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Cloud formation is not related to CO2. CO2 is the primary factor driving the greenhouse effect. In fact research is beginning to show that a warmer planet may have lower cloud cover [1][2]. There is no cloud controversy, you are literally making that up.

[1] https://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,... [2]https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/question.jsp

Have you read your links?

"One of the biggest questions in climate sensitivity has been the role of low-level cloud cover. Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase cloud cover, which would slow it down.

But a new study published in the July 24 issue of Science is clearing the haze. A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean — both from satellites and from the human eye — over the past 50 years and combined that with climate models. They found that low-level clouds tend to dissipate as the ocean warms — which means a warmer world could well have less cloud cover. "That would create positive feedback, a reinforcing cycle that continues to warm the climate," says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and the lead author of the Science study."

That's one study that recorded the cloud data for subset of Earth.

Read about clouds feedback issue here, it's very pro-CO2-CAGW site: https://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.ht...

"A group of researchers from the University of Miami and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography studied cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean"

Study from your first link recorded cloud cover data over subset of Earth's atmosphere. It doesn't say anything about whether clouds feedback is positive, or negative. Local data is not very useful evidence, global data would be preferable.

Here is an explanation of what is cloud feedback: increase of temperature has effects on cloud formation. If feedback from changes in cloud formation is positive, it will lead to even more warming. Negative feedback would mean that changed cloud formation actually reduces warming.

Your first statement is proving my point, CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, causing warming on average. Human activity is the cause of historically high CO2 levels.

  cloud data of the northeast Pacific Ocean — both from satellites and from the human eye

So, basically, yes, they are all bought and paid for, or, they simply have no credentials or knowledge of the field in question.

Lindzen retired only in 2013. I don't see how this makes his opinion about CAGW less valuable, especially given the fact that he was skeptical about CAGW hypothesis for a long time.

"Judith Curry also used to be a scientist and quit her academic job; presumably being a shill pays WAY better." - where's the proof that she is a "shill"?

Roy Spencer is a renowned scientist in my book: "Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center."

Again, where is the proof that he is oil industry's shill?

Does it automatically make CAGW hypothesis wrong? Does it make their skills and knowledge in climate science less valuable?

I was speaking specifically of Spencer, and, yes, it calls into question everything he professes.

"Shills" is an insult, not an argument.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critica...

The process seems fairly simple. Oceans absorb a high proportion of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. This changes the pH levels of oceans, which then alters the environment that marine animals live in, causing a necessity to adapt. You could perform water pH experiments to prove the effects on marine life if you needed to convince yourself (though I wouldn't want to promote animal testing if there was another way to reach clarity on this).

Why climate scientists won't have grants if there is no climate change?

Climate doesn't need to be studied?

> Both sides are, ultimately, dirty, due to politicization if nothing else

Please, give me examples of climate scientists dirty by politization.

> For bonus points, do any of the answers to those questions not boil down to the genetic or appeal to authority fallacies?

Well, if you think that Theory of Evolution is appeal to authority, yes.

When the big majority of a field have consensus, you have to look at the motives and arguments of the minority dissenting, not saying that the majority appeals to authority

Of the data we have, climate change being human caused is MUCH more preferable. The alternative is that the climate is changing and we aren't responsible.

[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

Anyone who has passed a freshman physics class is equipped to (with significant effort) verify Newton's law of gravitation.

Any middle school student with a stopwatch and a tower can drop things off and determine that there are laws describing the ways that unsupported objects move downward.

Everyone who ever lived has been in a position to independently observe many of the properties of gravitation without needing to trust even a single statement or datapoint provided by another person.

In order to even understand the theory of ACC, much less test it, requires a person to first have a ton of education and then to navigate a substantial amount of academic literature.

You assume that so-called "freshmen physics" is a legitimate source of material and that middle school students are being taught legitimate science to begin with, when it could all be part of a pro-science agenda put forth by academic science thumpers promoting self-interested concepts of scientific ideology so that these people can continue to be employed and earn upwards of $40,000 per year as science propagandists. Let's not ignore the fact there's a lot of money at stake on these issues here, and for the involved parties getting you to believe in concepts like middle school science of freshmen physics are entirely based on a monetary incentive, despite what the evidence may show and even against contradictory evidence.

Also you assume that gravitation is proven beyond a theory or a concept, which is demonstrating your pro-gravity bias. The understanding of so-called "gravity" is based on nothing more than a theory, but general relativity and quantum theory are entirely incompatible with one another which basically debunks the entire thing as many leading scientists would agree, but again this assumes that any of the so-called "science" or the basis of any of this is even legitimate in the first place.

Finally, and this is very important, all of this completely disregards what religions might say too, and we need to hear each of the arguments of each individual religion and belief system and what their opinions and thoughts are on so-called "gravity", which, by the way, is not even mentioned in any holy books or writings whatsoever. That "gravity" is left out of every religious teaching entirely is very telling, and it demonstrates that from a theological standpoint that "gravity" has absolutely no basis in truth whatsoever, otherwise it obviously would be a subject of these belief systems and written about endlessly if it were a real thing. Can you really dispute or discount the words of supreme beings, let alone every God and belief system?

"The academic lobby"? Christ. If ACC doesn't exist why wouldn't they just go and get grants to study something else?

I would say that AGW theory has not yet met that standard.

1) Describe a difficulty or gap in scientific knowledge, a "general problem", clearly defined, and show that the problem needs to be addressed.

2) Formulate a hypothesis, a "tentative theory", addressing the general problem, stated as clearly as possible in the language of science, which is mathematics.

3) Try to invalidate the tentative theory, and apply a certain scientific ethic described by Richard Feynman in his famous essay "Cargo Cult Science"[2]

I'm not sure the "general problem" has even been established. From 1880 to 2015 the Earth's temperature has gone from 288 K to 288.8 K, a 0.3% increase. So first of all you need to prove that the Earth system is not able to keep the climate stable.

Then you need to prove that recent increases in temperature are fundamentally different from past increases in the same system, i.e. the current interglacial period of the last 10,000 years. Again, this is not conclusive at all.

Then you need to prove that CO2 plays a huge part in the recent temperature changes. Correlation does not imply causation. Two independent variables can both increase and you have not proven that they are causally linked (beyond the first-order effects of course). All we have so far are computer models which, so far, are no more than best-fit lines on observed data.

In order for a computer model to be a good enough piece of evidence to favor dropping the null hypothesis and accepting the basis of the model, you would have to leave the model alone and see how well it predicts climate going forward. So far the models have not done well predicting actual climate [3].

QED.

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/23499288/Lord-Monckton-Caugh...

[2] http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

[3] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/173948/

Based on my best understanding climate scientists have pretty well proven that CO2 plays a huge part in the recent temperature changes. Perhaps an actual climate scientist lurking on the forum could weigh in.

[1]https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/0...

As shorthand in the following I will say that everyone, on this issue, can be classified as an "agnostic", an "alarmist", or a "denier", and I will trust you not to take those labels to insinuate anything about who is right or wrong (I myself am mostly in the alarmist camp).

IMO, the alarmists win A LOT of points (maybe not quite the whole game) for having a coherent, universally accepted, physics-based theory of the temperature of planets which correctly predicts observations from a variety of planets and requires radiative forcing from greenhouse gases in order to do it, while the deniers (as far as I can tell) do not propose an alternative theory or even generally agree on which part of the alarmists' chain of inference is broken. In, fact, until I see such a theory presented by the deniers (why are the planets we know the temperatures that they are, and what is the relationship between those temperatures and atmospheric GHG concentrations?), I really think the only sane stances to take are that of the alarmist or that of the agnostic.

Now, if you doubt that people can agree on the current surface temperatures and atmospheric compositions of Venus, Earth, the moon, and Mars, and are unwilling to spend the time to convince yourself that they do, then you're likely doomed to agnosticism. Same deal if you doubt that we can agree on the amount of CO2 we're emitting as a species on an annual basis.

Even then, you'll have to remain agnostic unless (1) you're willing to accept an appeal to authority or (2) you're willing to spend tens (but probably not hundreds) of hours understanding the basic theory of ACC, which holds that a doubling of the earth's CO2 concentration will result in an increase of 3C (plus or minus 1.5C) in the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

If you want to spend those tens of hours, you could start with this article[1] or this video lecture[2] or the wikipedia articles on "Planetary Equilibrium Temperature", "Radiative Forcing", and "Climate Sensitivity". The trick to not spending more than tens of hours is to remain laser-focused on understanding what those three terms mean, how they're related, and how one can try to measure climate sensitivity. In particular, a lot of discussions about prehistoric climate, on feedback mechanisms, and on the specific effects of global warming on specific regions of the globe will lead you astray if you let them.

If you don't have even a few hours to dig in on climate science, all I can say is that appeals to authority become a lot less unpalatable when the authorities appealed to are sufficiently numerous. Even if you think it not unlikely that NASA, NOAA, the EPA (all of whom are definitively, officially in the alarmist camp according to their websites) are in conspiracy with faculty at dozens or hundreds of universities, what about the 197 nations that were engaged in negotiating the recent Paris Climate Accord, or the 84 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol?

Lastly, just out of curiosity, in what form do you tend to see the genetic fallacy applied for or against ACC? I'm not sure I've encountered it.

Generally, a saying that because group X funded the study, or that person X that has Y beliefs did the study, that it's automatically invalid (without even trying to actually examine the claims in the paper).

You can see examples of that in this very thread. A variant of adhom, basically.