Actually, there were people that thought that. They were quickly ostracized. Some lost jobs. They were belittled and demeaned because they dared to challenge. Take the dissenters out of the equation and you do get consensus...sort of.
No, dissenters per se were never ostracized simply because they dissented. Incompetent scientists may have been dismissed and demeaned by their peers for good reason however. Besides there is no dissent possible with reading thermometers and measuring tree rings and analyzing ice cores Our data on GW comes from multiple sources. Surely you are not saying they ALL wrong or unreliable. From NOAA... I hope that unlike pspr you are able to trust NOAA. "Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the distant past. For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium. Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years."
That's the guy who also said this pause has to last at least 30 to 40 years more to mean the long-term warming trend is over.
That's like saying there is no chance of error in those analysis. I've seen people read all kinds of data inaccurately, at least regarding temps, humidity, pressure, and rawin plots. I'm sure errors may be present in rings. I stated possibilities in prior posts, but I don't think you actually read some of them. You just refuse to accept it because it challenges your belief. We've had that discussion, though. I won't change your mind. I'm not trying to, actually. Just explaining my purposes for skepticism. I'm not sure why you are at odds with me. I don't dispute warming, or the possibility of man's contribution. I do think, however, that there are unanswered questions. Anyway, as a true believer yourself, answer the following. Quesiton 1. How do you think I would have been treated if I presented this true event? I was doing quality control on a rawin trace. The original person who drew the trace showed a powerful inversion, a very significant event in the atmosphere. When I analyzed his work, I determined by surface ob that he launched during a thunderstorm. What I found was that the balloon encountered icing and descended into the warmer layers rather than rising into increasing temps with altitude...an inversion. When I said these kind of errors might be fairly common, would the climate scientists have told me to get lost? Since I was dealing with meteorology, I expect so. What do you think? Question two, which I asked in a prior post. Why didn't you go to work for NOAA? Your degree qualified you to work in climatology. Do you know this shit, or just post it (copy/paste)? I won't continue this discussion unless I think you actually read this post and responded to my 2 questions.
I thought Dunning-Kruger effect was more related to the overconfidence in ones knowledge of abilities in early stages of learning vs the skepticism of the more knowledgeable due to their understanding of the subject's complexity. The assumption seems to be that since most tasks are complex (perhaps infinitely so), knowledge just brings up more questions than answers which begets a kind of skepticism. The intelligent design and age of the Earth arguments seem to be less about overconfidence than just sheer lack of information altogether. It seems like people who have strong beliefs in either subject have done 0 research altogether. Your "pissed off" response (rightfully so) seems to be more in response to their rejection of evidence than their overconfidence.
I confess, I am too contentious sometimes and get a little bull-doggy and just keep attacking whatever is nearest. But please know I very much appreciate your perspective and viewpoint as you are at least reasonable and sane. It's so hard to find rational and objective GW skeptics. You are rare. First question: I suspect many if not most climatologists cut their teeth on meteorology and know that there are all sorts of reasons any particular reading may be wrong. But climate is different than weather. The small details needed for weather are much less important to the climatologist. While your observation of that error may be important to the next day's forecast, any error like that is just buried under the huge mass of the data that goes into long term climate change modeling. It is this sheer volume data that gives it the credibility. Since any any random error is just as likely to go one way vs the other, it all averages out to a reliable record. To answer your second question. My environmental science degree was a very general one and frankly was not really rigorous enough in any one area. My lack of advanced math was a big weakness. My degree was good for one thing, going for a post-grad so I could actually be marketable. I should have been more disciplined and I have some regrets about it all. I'm very happy with what I do now but sometimes wonder. I suspect there are few among us who have no regrets about choices they made. And yes, I know most of this shit. But I learn as I go also. I copy and paste some to make it easier for all.
Thanks for your answer. I respect your passion regarding the issue. Myself, I had hoped to pursue a career in meteorology when I left the Navy, but circumstances changed in such a way that the cost of pursuing it outweighed my desire at the time. Also, the technology was changing so fast that the jobs I was interested in pursuing were literally vanishing before my eyes. Very disappointing, to say the least. Anyway, I decided to pursue other interests (including trading and music, though trading came some years later). Till next time...
You do know that futurecurrents is in the climate business. He installs air conditioning units. That's why he promotes global warming and ignores inconvenient facts.