On Facebook I post climate change/global warming (whatever you wish to call it) articles from time to time for three principle reasons:
1. Having worked with climate scientists on a number of occasions, I have a vested interest on how climate change affects cultures, living and dead, and what the existant environment was for any given culture/civilization, living and dead.
2. I tend to post the “skeptical” side of the climate change argument; due to past research and experience, I tend to agree with the premise set forth by this side (of course, not all archaeologists agree with this sentiment which is to be expected; that’s how science is supposed to work).
3. There maybe those who have an interest in the debate due to its high political profile, but have formed no opinion either way. These articles may inspire them to take a closer look at both sides of the argument (yes, BOTH sides; again, that’s how science is supposed to work) with an open mind to make informed decisions on the subject.
A brief tangential commentary.
Twice above I made the statement “that’s how science is supposed to work.” Normally, that is true. Scientists have different ideas, different schools of thought, formulating different hypothesis that require data gathering and testing for validation through the scientific method. However, it’s increasingly apparently that proponents of CAGW don’t see it that way.
In the last few decades proponents of CAGW have taken it upon themselves to denigrate, ridicule, condemn, belittle, and/or dismiss out of hand everything dissenting skeptics say or publish. Further, dissenting climatologists risk suppression of their work, rejection of grant funding, rejection of paper and/or periodical/journal publications, and more.
Some CAGW alarmists call us “non-scientists” and some say that our skepticism doesn’t fit the mold of scientific methodology and inquiry (a point that had arisen some time ago in a discussion I had with two colleagues that I’ve worked with, one a paleoclimatologist [same as Mann] and the other a geophysicist; the point elicited laughter from both of them).
CAGW alarmist ridicule of dissenting skeptics is often accompanied by such terminology as “denier,” invoking the Holocaust or “heretic,” invoking the Inquisition. Some say we are diseased and need treatment; others say we have committed crimes against humanity and should be tried, jailed, and even executed.
Perhaps I should be offended by such accusations and proclamations, of having my integrity as a professional archaeologist (albeit, retired) called into question for having a dissenting opinion, but I’m not. If anything, I’m amused that CAGW alarmists have stooped to the level of witch hunts to silence dissent. They’ve only succeeded in making fools of themselves. People who use such tactics to silence dissent and utilize ridiculous terms such as “heretic” and/or “denier” deserve to be ignored. These people do not merit a response of any kind.