It is interesting how various people are treated in public discourse. Certain propaganda techniques are used to either advance careers or destroy people and minimize their exposure. Since most science is funded by the National Science Foundation, that is where the agenda is set. If a scientist wants to be funded, that scientist had better conform to the current paradigm.
In other words, science in general is corrupt. But readers here already knew this. I have come across two terms that grate like fingernails on a blackboard: “debunk” and “deny.” Both are used as a wave-of-dismissal technique for anyone outside the NSA-funded paradigm, better defined as a “groupthink mindset,” or GTMS (they love their acronyms!). To assert that the current GTMS on climate change is overstated, especially with use of observational evidence, is not science. It is denial! Using the Google to locate anyone skeptical about GTMS usually results a cascade of links on how that person has been debunked.
“Debunked” in my mind produces a SCREECH! It is not an advance of knowledge or method for analysis of information. Rather, it is a form of argumentation that is fallacious and in need of a name. I choose to call it the “patronizing condescension fallacy,” or PCF.
This is all by way of introduction. Judith Curry runs the blog Climate Etc., and who is a climate denier who has been debunked. In other words, she is a scientist who resides outside GTMS. The Rational Wiki page on her is a steaming pile of arrogance and condescension.
I was linked to her in reading Patrick J. Michaels’ work on climate change. He refers to climate change as a mere “lukewarming” that is not an emergency, and is probably even beneficial.
He notes that Curry, like himself, stopped applying for and accepting NSF money. This introduced freedom and independence from GTMS into their work, and brought down the hoards of nattering nabobs who immediately began chanting denial and debunk in their faces.
Ah well, as Michaels like to say, quoting Kurt Vonnegut, so it goes.
I spend a few hours yesterday reading not the Judith Curry blog, but rather the links … that is most of what she does, scouring the landscape for scientific papers and articles that either support or debunk the GTMS regarding climate change. I urge readers to give it a look, and start your own journey among the works of many serious scientists.
I am quoting but one paper as an example. Here is the abstract from the paper titled Impacts of exposure to ambient temperature on burden of disease: a systematic review of epidemiological evidence:
Ambient temperature is an important determinant of mortality and morbidity, making it necessary to assess temperature-related burden of disease (BD) for the planning of public health policies and adaptive responses. To systematically review existing epidemiological evidence on temperature-related BD, we searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) on 1 September 2018. We identified 97 studies from 56 counties for this review, of which 75 reported the fraction or number of health outcomes (include deaths and diseases) attributable to temperature, and 22 reported disability-adjusted life years (include years of life lost and years lost due to disability) related to temperature. Non-optimum temperatures (i.e., heat and cold) were responsible for > 2.5% of mortality in all included high-income countries/regions, and > 3.0% of mortality in all included middle-income countries. Cold was mostly reported to be the primary source of mortality burden from non-optimum temperatures, but the relative role of three different temperature exposures (i.e., heat, cold, and temperature variability) in affecting morbidity and mortality remains unclear so far. Under the warming climate scenario, almost all projections assuming no population adaptation suggested future increase in heat-related but decrease in cold-related BD. However, some studies emphasized the great uncertainty in future pattern of temperature-related BD, largely depending on the scenarios of climate, population adaptation, and demography. We also identified important discrepancies and limitations in current research methodologies employed to measure temperature exposures and model temperature-health relationship, and calculate the past and project future temperature-related BD. Overall, exposure to non-optimum ambient temperatures has become and will continue to be a considerable contributor to the global and national BD, but future research is still needed to develop a stronger methodological framework for assessing and comparing temperature-related BD across different settings.
That’s pretty much how it works with scientific papers, written for others in the field. Such language is inaccessible to most Americans, unable to process and comprehend a large volume of words. I took a shot at it, and here is what I came up with:
More people die from cold weather than hot weather, and there is no evidence that a warming climate is causing any increase in heat-related deaths. But we are still working on it, so please don’t call us deniers! Give us some more money and we will find that evidence for you.
The Curry blog is a refreshing journey for any yet to be convinced that the GTMS is anything more than professional hogwash. Give it a few hours, and go there frequently to stay on top of things. As Michaels notes, “… it is worth reading regularly even if you must put up with the fact that it is a strong attractor for wonks.”