Some of you are misinterpreting my intention behind presenting the two groups of sources. I did not present the groups as some form of proof through consensus. I don’t need to use that as an argument when I have the science on my side.
I presented the groups to illustrate the obvious ideological bias, lack of expertise and questionable history in one group versus the neutrality, diversity, reputable history and expertise of the other group. People on the fence always say, “I hear one thing from one source and another from a second source; I don’t know which to believe”. That is the topic of this thread. To me, I don’t know how you could look at those two groups and remain undecided on which is more credible and more trustworthy.
That doesn’t mean you need to agree with everything said by group 1 or reject everything from group 2.
What that does mean is that it is necessary to be much more skeptical about the accuracy of information presented by group 2, which is obviously ideological driven and has proven to habitually misunderstand the science. So when CATO says the “pause” disproves the theory, you do a bit of digging and realize it’s nonsense. Or when WUWT posts an article saying that NOAA is lying, you do a bit of digging and realize it’s because the author
doesn’t understand how baselines on temperature anomalies work (just one of oh-so-many examples).
But for most “skeptics” this is reversed. When NASA or NOAA says that when you account for ENSO events, temperature trends match model predictions, “skeptics” categorically reject it. When GWPF says either “it’s changed before” or “climate sensitivity is over estimated”, which besides being silly and widely debunked, are also
incompatible arguments, “skeptics” accept it without a moment’s hesitation.
Rationally, this is absurd. However, “skeptics” aren’t looking for what’s rational, they are looking for what fits their belief system – “I want small government and low taxes and agreeing with climate sciences means I have to go against that” (although even that last leap is not true). That is the reason why all climate change “skeptic” groups are right-wing. It’s not a coincidence.
It’s an attempt to force or filter the science to fit their preconceived opinion on the matter.
Sure, there are unscientific assertions from left-wing sources like Greenpeace and Huffington Post. But I stick to referencing peer-reviewed papers from reputable journals, respected scientific institutions or blogs written by published scientists actively working in the field of climate science. That’s because this is not a left-wing versus right-wing debate. Is NASA left-wing? Is the Royal Society left-wing? Is the National Academy of Sciences left-wing? No, they are neutral scientific institutions. This is a debate between the science versus a misunderstanding of the science stemming from cognitive dissonance. Places like NOAA do the former, places like CATO do the latter.
If you want to remain agnostic on the issue, fine. But that doesn’t excuse you from ignoring (or flat-out rejecting) the very best science and evidence we have, coming from the most respected scientific institutions in the world while, at the same time, accepting dubious claims from obviously biased and ideologically driven sources. If you call yourself a “skeptic”, then be one.
swall, I don’t work in the field of climatology. I feel it’s an important issue and so I put in the effort to understand it as well as I can.
![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
