In truth, we are a huckster nation, controlled by those who value profit and power above all. Congress, Scotus, the political parties do the work of the corporations and special interests most of the time and to create the perception that we are still a democratic republic, make promises (at election time) that appeal to the artificially divided nation … a nation deliberately divided to prevent any action being taken against the inequity of wealth. By stirring the emotions and creating two angry pseudo-tribes that are unable to work with each other, the powerful have quietly seized control of the nation. By creating a false dichotomy and incessantly pitting the “conservatives” against the “progressives”, a calm, critical thinking, moderate coalition cannot form and take back the democratic republic to best serve its people.
Bravo @superposition, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The most interesting thing is how so many voted against their best interests. Hats off the corporate owned media for doing an excellent job of dividing and conquering.
No one has claimed 97% of scientists support AGW. That figure was for climate scientists, a rather smaller and more intimately knowledgeable group.
.
However, here is a more recent study: (Citation on next post)
.
_My search found 24,210 articles by 69,406 authors. In my judgment, only five articles rejected AGW: Avakyan (2013a,2013b), Gervais (2014), Happer (2014), and Hug (2013). These represent a proportion of 1 article in 4,842 or 0.021%. With regard to the authors, 4 reject AGW: 1 in 17,352 or 0.0058%. _
.
Of course, what matters is not only how many articles reject AGW but also the quality of the evidence presented and the influence of those articles on science. The latter we can judge from the number of citations. As of January 2016, excluding self-citations, the five rejecting articles have been cited a total of once. The only possible conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence against AGW.
.
In the three historical examples with which I began—continental drift, meteorite impact, and global warming—decades passed without evidence sufficient to cause scientists to spurn their long-held beliefs. In contrast, today a massive amount of peer-reviewed evidence, thousands of articles written by tens of thousands of authors, supports AGW and there is no persuasive evidence against it. If such evidence existed, we would already know about it and not have to conduct a needle-in-the-haystack search in a vain attempt to find it.
.
Science can speak no more clearly: AGW is true. To further delay action to prevent global warming is to force science to bow to ideology and politics.
James Lawrence Powell has a PhD from MIT in Geochemistryand is a former college president, museum director, and 12-year member of the U.S. National Science Board appointed first by President Reagan and then by President G. H. W. Bush. He is the author of several books. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for him.
.
Now a clarification about that the fact that Powell found that 99.99% of authors did not reject AGW. His statistics are based on a survey of scientists publishing in a very specific time period. So it by no means includes all scientists.
.
But, and this is important, the selection of articles was made by searching a database for papers with subjects of “global warming” OR “global climate change” OR “climate change.” So only articles whose authors indicate those are a topic for the paper are found. That includes people like Will Happer, who is not a climate scientist.
.
It is also important to note that Powell deliberately did not try to measure how many endorsed AGW. Instead, he showed, very effectively that there is virtually no rejection of AGW in those 24,000 articles.
.
Which is why the deniers can never support their claims against AGW. The science is against them..
But of course the liar deniers will claim it is a conspiracy, with no evidence, and a complete lack of understanding of how science is actually done in the real world. Science is a cut-throat competition for funding. Non climate scientists would object to the kind of BS the deniers claim happens. But in fact, most scientists do support the conclusions about AGW.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
.
The AGU includes geologist, geophysicists, atmospheric and space (environment) scientists.
Still cannot do the math. Cook’s study of 11944 papers over 21 years found only 84 papers rejecting AGW. That’s 0.7%In other words, the more rigorous study confirms the same point. There has been no significant evidence against AGW.
.
(and oh please do quote me the 7 (count them 7) deniers who claim their papers were misrepresented). If you still can’t do the math that 7 is 12 times less than the 0.7%
.
And I do love that you are quoting Cook in that first paragraph. While Cook is doubtless correct, he misses the point. Powell could only identify 5 papers that clearly rejected AGW. Even if he missed 10 or 20 times that number, it is still a ridiculously small number out of the total, and remains insignificant. There is no credible evidence against AGW.
.
Still cannot cite anything to back up your scurrilous lies can you? Just lie and lie and lie and lie.
.
And still you show the usual ignorance as to how scientific research is funded and done. Your statements are worthless, absolutely worthless.
.
You have absolutely no provable evidence of a conspiracy. (Checked under your bed for Reds lately?)
1) Rising Carbon levels in atmosphere and ocean. But the ratio of C14 to C12 is falling, which means that the Carbon is mainly from burning of fossil fuels, whose carbon was deposited so long ago that C14 in them has depleted due short isotope life span.
.
2 CO2 causes tropopause to rise higher, but stratopause to go lower. Predicted in 1957. Solar heating effects would cause both levels to rise.
.
3 Ocean acidification has increased because of increased ocean intake of CO2.
.
4 Global average surface air temperature has increased. (So has globally averaged near surface ocean temperature.)
.
5 Arctic temperatures are rising even faster than global.
.
6 Night-time temperatures rising faster than day-time (Can’t blame the sun for that!)
.
7 Rise in Global averaged sea level (some (~20%) is due to pumping ground water out, but most is due to warming of the oceans and melting of ice.)
.
8 Globally averaged loss of ice mass. Which translates to a lower albedo, hence less sunlight reflected back to space.
.
9 Satellite observations of infrared emitted by upper atmosphere show a decline, which is due to Greenhouse gases’ increased trapping of the radiation.
.
10 increase in globally averaged sea level.
.
11 No increase in solar output (beyond the normal variations due to solar cycle, which amount to about +/- 1 part in 1,000. Might even be a small (smaller than the above) decrease.
So scientists add “global warming” terminology in unrelated studies just to qualify for grants, so the “number” of research papers is meaningless.
.
Explain why the government funds only climate change ideology and denies grants to skeptics.
.
Oh, no, of course you never claimed there was a conspiracy. Liar! You may or may not have used the word, but many of your posts are like the above. So your claim is worthless.
.
Because, as I have pointed out numerous times, in order to perpetrate what you claim, would require that not only climate scientists, but all other scientists competing for government funding would go along with your stupid ideas. Sorry, liar, the real world of science does not work that way. You lose.
.
And BTW, the second statement is demonstrably false. I have reported here before about certain skeptics’ research that was funded by the government. (and I know it was because they acknowledge the funding source.)
.
Those two comments (and several others you have made) are exactly what Martens has dinged you about. You cannot, or worse, will not distinguish between opinion and fact. It’s opinion (or in your case, scurrilous lies) unless you can actually provide evidence.
[Powell] makes many of the same errors that contrarian critics make: ignoring the papers self-rated by the original authors; and making unwarranted assumptions about what the “no-position” abstracts and papers mean.
.
I did incorrectly credit that statement to Cook, because I found it on the skepticalscience web site. (An updated version of the one you cite.) The author, Andy Skuce, however, is one of the Cook et al 2013 authors.
.
But again, you want to argue about the “consensus” numbers, which I do not. They no longer have any interest.The point is that there is an insignificant amount of published scientific, peer-reviewed research against AGW. And as the article by Skuce points out:
.
We received self-ratings on 2141 papers, among which 39 (1.8%) were self-rated as rejecting AGW. Of the 1189 authors who responded, 28 (2.4%) wrote papers that rejected AGW to some degree or other. The dissenters are but a small percentage of the many thousands of scientists working on climate change.
.
The phrase self-rating means that the authors of the papers rated their belief.
.
Again, there is no significant evidence against AGW. If there were, more scientists would be against it, whether they are climate scientists or not. (wait before you leap with your previous dumb comment about belief. There’s more.)
But as usual, you fail to understand that the past changes took longer periods, but even so, life forms died. You want temperatures in the dinosaur era? Well, you’ll get a big sea level rise, etc. Now, genius, how are our food crops going to survive? You know, those plants that we have spent several thousand years cultivating, but which do not grow everywhere. Rice might do okay, but wheat? Do you want to find out?
.
The amount of change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1959 is the same as the change that took place from low to high in the glacial cycles of the past few hundred thousand years. It will mean higher temperatures in the end. Fact, not opinion. Higher CO2 levels mean warmer temps.
Explain how in the past the earth was warmer than it is today 65% of the time – before SUVs or carbon emissions.
.
LOL! Ask me something hard!
.
CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere have varied considerably due to natural causes. It is known that weathering of rock contributes to depletion of CO2, so the creation of new mountains like the Himalayas is associated with a depletion of CO2. That leads to cold cycles. But of course that all occurred over geologic timescales not 50 years.
,
Huge, really huge volcanic eruptions lasting thousands of years have put CO2 into the atmosphere more than once. If they also put sulfur dioxide, the temperature may fall, despite CO2. But because of the CO2, it did not get as cold as it could have.
.
So, natural variations happen. And not everything that was alive survives. All of that period was before humans could be affected. Not so now. It’s not about the amount of change, but the rate. You people always miss that point. You can survive a 200 foot drop in height if you are on a roller coaster, but not if you simply jump from 200 feet. Rate, dummies, Rate!
YOU don’t know whether there is AGW or not. You are putting your trust into climate scientists that you agree with. You are merely appealing to a higher authority. And the TRUTH is, YOU don’t know whether he’s honest or not.
.
Well, I certainly know from your writings that you are not honest. And since you can never, ever cite any kind of real evidence against AGW, there is absolutely no reason to trust what you say.
.
But as for your statement, it has some truth, but it still misrepresents the situation. A certain Christian poster here is always citing her bible as the ultimate truth. She accepts absolutely no evidence against it. That’s her higher authority. And all the theologians she may (if she were to do so) who support the bible as authority do so only on belief.
.
I am considering the “miraculous” elements of the bible here. I know that there is some actual history described in the bible. How do I know this? Because of independent evidence. Evidence “found on or in the ground” as it were.
.
Now you have accused me (quite falsely) of being like her. In fact, it happens that I have a good knowledge of meteorolgy and yes, even of climate science. I took a graduate course on the Physics of Climate, using the book by Peixoto. As part of my work on atmospheric turbulence effects, I learned a great deal about the inner workings of the US Navy’s COAMPs weather prediction code. There are differences of course between the workings of Climate models and Weather models, but the physics of the atmosphere is the same.
.
I can and do read technical articles on the subject in the peer reviewed journals. I can, as it were, do the math … and the physics. So when I make a judgement on the matter, it is an informed judgement. Since I have never received money for climate modeling, I have no financial gain to realize, unlike th
If I place trust in the writings of the vast majority of climate scientists, it is because I understand far better than do you or most of your foolish deniers that peer review does mean something. I know that, as I have stated before, that no collusion of the type you so fervently believe in (but have no proof of) exists in a group that has to compete for funds.
.
Everyone wants to be Einstein. They want to be the man or woman who found some truth that everyone else did not. So when they look at the work of someone else, they are looking for errors, omissions, misrepresentations and dubious evidence. Sometimes reviewers miss things, but a more extended readership usually catches them. And those readers are usually in competition for funds. So it behooves them to make sure that errors are pointed out. It is part of the self-regulation of the system that depends of self-interest.
.
If the majority of scientists have accepted AGW, it is because they have examined the evidence put forth by proponents and found it convincing. You and the deniers? Nothing credible.
.
Most importantly though is that the majority of the evidence I cited does not come from people who would identify themselves as climate scientists!!! So you argument is pure BS, as usual.
I’m not a scientist, but I know a lot of scientists, in various fields, and I have noticed that they all agree that climate change is real and important. So for as they are concerned, it’s not a question worth debate at this point. One of them is the husband of my niece. He works on geo-morphology, and in particular beaches and sand dunes, and when he mentions climate change, from time to time, he just takes it for a given that it’s real and important. Another is the daughter of a close friend: she’s a biologist and she works on diseases spread by insects in Africa, and she says the only way to explain the changes they are seeing in the spread of diseases is that it’s because the ranges of insects are changing because of climate change. I can go on, but the point is clear. The fact of climate change has simply been accepted by just about every scientist in every field where it makes a difference, because without it you can’t understand what’s going on. Science is made up of a large number of interconnected arguments which work all together. And all of these interconnected parts of science agree. At this point there is no longer any fruitful debate.
FLAreader over 7 years ago
How?
Kilrwat Premium Member over 7 years ago
News flash for “Henry”: the difference between real news and fake news is that real news issues retractions when they get it wrong.
Flash Gordon over 7 years ago
Fake news has been going on since people began speaking.
That was tens of thousands of years ago.
“Noog not father of his kids, I, Thog, father of his kids”
“Not so. I, Noog, father of Thog’s kids.”
“Noog and Thog no got truth. I Grogg father of their kids.”
superposition over 7 years ago
Real news is the objective,denotative description of events with no bias in the reporting. No conclusions are drawn.
.
Opinion is the biased or connotative interpretation of news, conclusions are drawn.
.
Fake news , like fables or parables are descriptions of imaginary events, often used to illustrate a bias … fiction.
phredturner over 7 years ago
It’s just an escalation in the propoganda war that has been going on for eternity.. Just faster technolgy in the hands of the warriors
superposition over 7 years ago
In truth, we are a huckster nation, controlled by those who value profit and power above all. Congress, Scotus, the political parties do the work of the corporations and special interests most of the time and to create the perception that we are still a democratic republic, make promises (at election time) that appeal to the artificially divided nation … a nation deliberately divided to prevent any action being taken against the inequity of wealth. By stirring the emotions and creating two angry pseudo-tribes that are unable to work with each other, the powerful have quietly seized control of the nation. By creating a false dichotomy and incessantly pitting the “conservatives” against the “progressives”, a calm, critical thinking, moderate coalition cannot form and take back the democratic republic to best serve its people.
ForALaugh Premium Member over 7 years ago
Bravo @superposition, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The most interesting thing is how so many voted against their best interests. Hats off the corporate owned media for doing an excellent job of dividing and conquering.
oneoldhat over 7 years ago
so nick thinks cnn is a winner
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
No one has claimed 97% of scientists support AGW. That figure was for climate scientists, a rather smaller and more intimately knowledgeable group.
.
However, here is a more recent study: (Citation on next post)
.
_My search found 24,210 articles by 69,406 authors. In my judgment, only five articles rejected AGW: Avakyan (2013a,2013b), Gervais (2014), Happer (2014), and Hug (2013). These represent a proportion of 1 article in 4,842 or 0.021%. With regard to the authors, 4 reject AGW: 1 in 17,352 or 0.0058%. _
.
Of course, what matters is not only how many articles reject AGW but also the quality of the evidence presented and the influence of those articles on science. The latter we can judge from the number of citations. As of January 2016, excluding self-citations, the five rejecting articles have been cited a total of once. The only possible conclusion is that there is no convincing evidence against AGW.
.
In the three historical examples with which I began—continental drift, meteorite impact, and global warming—decades passed without evidence sufficient to cause scientists to spurn their long-held beliefs. In contrast, today a massive amount of peer-reviewed evidence, thousands of articles written by tens of thousands of authors, supports AGW and there is no persuasive evidence against it. If such evidence existed, we would already know about it and not have to conduct a needle-in-the-haystack search in a vain attempt to find it.
.
Science can speak no more clearly: AGW is true. To further delay action to prevent global warming is to force science to bow to ideology and politics.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
citation:
.
http://bst.sagepub.com/content/35/5-6/121
.
James Lawrence Powell has a PhD from MIT in Geochemistryand is a former college president, museum director, and 12-year member of the U.S. National Science Board appointed first by President Reagan and then by President G. H. W. Bush. He is the author of several books. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for him.
.
Now a clarification about that the fact that Powell found that 99.99% of authors did not reject AGW. His statistics are based on a survey of scientists publishing in a very specific time period. So it by no means includes all scientists.
.
But, and this is important, the selection of articles was made by searching a database for papers with subjects of “global warming” OR “global climate change” OR “climate change.” So only articles whose authors indicate those are a topic for the paper are found. That includes people like Will Happer, who is not a climate scientist.
.
It is also important to note that Powell deliberately did not try to measure how many endorsed AGW. Instead, he showed, very effectively that there is virtually no rejection of AGW in those 24,000 articles.
.
Which is why the deniers can never support their claims against AGW. The science is against them..
But of course the liar deniers will claim it is a conspiracy, with no evidence, and a complete lack of understanding of how science is actually done in the real world. Science is a cut-throat competition for funding. Non climate scientists would object to the kind of BS the deniers claim happens. But in fact, most scientists do support the conclusions about AGW.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
From the American Geophysical Union:
.
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
.
The AGU includes geologist, geophysicists, atmospheric and space (environment) scientists.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
Still cannot do the math. Cook’s study of 11944 papers over 21 years found only 84 papers rejecting AGW. That’s 0.7%In other words, the more rigorous study confirms the same point. There has been no significant evidence against AGW.
.
(and oh please do quote me the 7 (count them 7) deniers who claim their papers were misrepresented). If you still can’t do the math that 7 is 12 times less than the 0.7%
.
And I do love that you are quoting Cook in that first paragraph. While Cook is doubtless correct, he misses the point. Powell could only identify 5 papers that clearly rejected AGW. Even if he missed 10 or 20 times that number, it is still a ridiculously small number out of the total, and remains insignificant. There is no credible evidence against AGW.
.
Still cannot cite anything to back up your scurrilous lies can you? Just lie and lie and lie and lie.
.
And still you show the usual ignorance as to how scientific research is funded and done. Your statements are worthless, absolutely worthless..
You have absolutely no provable evidence of a conspiracy. (Checked under your bed for Reds lately?)
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
Evidence for man-caused global warming
1) Rising Carbon levels in atmosphere and ocean. But the ratio of C14 to C12 is falling, which means that the Carbon is mainly from burning of fossil fuels, whose carbon was deposited so long ago that C14 in them has depleted due short isotope life span.
.
2 CO2 causes tropopause to rise higher, but stratopause to go lower. Predicted in 1957. Solar heating effects would cause both levels to rise.
.
3 Ocean acidification has increased because of increased ocean intake of CO2.
.
4 Global average surface air temperature has increased. (So has globally averaged near surface ocean temperature.)
.
5 Arctic temperatures are rising even faster than global.
.
6 Night-time temperatures rising faster than day-time (Can’t blame the sun for that!)
.
7 Rise in Global averaged sea level (some (~20%) is due to pumping ground water out, but most is due to warming of the oceans and melting of ice.)
.
8 Globally averaged loss of ice mass. Which translates to a lower albedo, hence less sunlight reflected back to space.
.
9 Satellite observations of infrared emitted by upper atmosphere show a decline, which is due to Greenhouse gases’ increased trapping of the radiation.
.
10 increase in globally averaged sea level.
.
11 No increase in solar output (beyond the normal variations due to solar cycle, which amount to about +/- 1 part in 1,000. Might even be a small (smaller than the above) decrease.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
So scientists add “global warming” terminology in unrelated studies just to qualify for grants, so the “number” of research papers is meaningless.
.
Explain why the government funds only climate change ideology and denies grants to skeptics.
.
Oh, no, of course you never claimed there was a conspiracy. Liar! You may or may not have used the word, but many of your posts are like the above. So your claim is worthless.
.
Because, as I have pointed out numerous times, in order to perpetrate what you claim, would require that not only climate scientists, but all other scientists competing for government funding would go along with your stupid ideas. Sorry, liar, the real world of science does not work that way. You lose.
.
And BTW, the second statement is demonstrably false. I have reported here before about certain skeptics’ research that was funded by the government. (and I know it was because they acknowledge the funding source.)
.
Those two comments (and several others you have made) are exactly what Martens has dinged you about. You cannot, or worse, will not distinguish between opinion and fact. It’s opinion (or in your case, scurrilous lies) unless you can actually provide evidence.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
[Powell] makes many of the same errors that contrarian critics make: ignoring the papers self-rated by the original authors; and making unwarranted assumptions about what the “no-position” abstracts and papers mean.
.
I did incorrectly credit that statement to Cook, because I found it on the skepticalscience web site. (An updated version of the one you cite.) The author, Andy Skuce, however, is one of the Cook et al 2013 authors.
.
But again, you want to argue about the “consensus” numbers, which I do not. They no longer have any interest.The point is that there is an insignificant amount of published scientific, peer-reviewed research against AGW. And as the article by Skuce points out:
.
We received self-ratings on 2141 papers, among which 39 (1.8%) were self-rated as rejecting AGW. Of the 1189 authors who responded, 28 (2.4%) wrote papers that rejected AGW to some degree or other. The dissenters are but a small percentage of the many thousands of scientists working on climate change.
.
The phrase self-rating means that the authors of the papers rated their belief.
.
Again, there is no significant evidence against AGW. If there were, more scientists would be against it, whether they are climate scientists or not. (wait before you leap with your previous dumb comment about belief. There’s more.)
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
Explain how there were times in the past that CO2 concentrations where thousands of times the present value
.
I don’t have to. It is not true for any period in earth’s history. ROFL!
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth’s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
.
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg
.
But as usual, you fail to understand that the past changes took longer periods, but even so, life forms died. You want temperatures in the dinosaur era? Well, you’ll get a big sea level rise, etc. Now, genius, how are our food crops going to survive? You know, those plants that we have spent several thousand years cultivating, but which do not grow everywhere. Rice might do okay, but wheat? Do you want to find out?
.
The amount of change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1959 is the same as the change that took place from low to high in the glacial cycles of the past few hundred thousand years. It will mean higher temperatures in the end. Fact, not opinion. Higher CO2 levels mean warmer temps.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
Explain how in the past the earth was warmer than it is today 65% of the time – before SUVs or carbon emissions.
.
LOL! Ask me something hard!
.
CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere have varied considerably due to natural causes. It is known that weathering of rock contributes to depletion of CO2, so the creation of new mountains like the Himalayas is associated with a depletion of CO2. That leads to cold cycles. But of course that all occurred over geologic timescales not 50 years.
,
Huge, really huge volcanic eruptions lasting thousands of years have put CO2 into the atmosphere more than once. If they also put sulfur dioxide, the temperature may fall, despite CO2. But because of the CO2, it did not get as cold as it could have.
.
So, natural variations happen. And not everything that was alive survives. All of that period was before humans could be affected. Not so now. It’s not about the amount of change, but the rate. You people always miss that point. You can survive a 200 foot drop in height if you are on a roller coaster, but not if you simply jump from 200 feet. Rate, dummies, Rate!
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
YOU don’t know whether there is AGW or not. You are putting your trust into climate scientists that you agree with. You are merely appealing to a higher authority. And the TRUTH is, YOU don’t know whether he’s honest or not.
.
Well, I certainly know from your writings that you are not honest. And since you can never, ever cite any kind of real evidence against AGW, there is absolutely no reason to trust what you say.
.
But as for your statement, it has some truth, but it still misrepresents the situation. A certain Christian poster here is always citing her bible as the ultimate truth. She accepts absolutely no evidence against it. That’s her higher authority. And all the theologians she may (if she were to do so) who support the bible as authority do so only on belief.
.
I am considering the “miraculous” elements of the bible here. I know that there is some actual history described in the bible. How do I know this? Because of independent evidence. Evidence “found on or in the ground” as it were.
.
Now you have accused me (quite falsely) of being like her. In fact, it happens that I have a good knowledge of meteorolgy and yes, even of climate science. I took a graduate course on the Physics of Climate, using the book by Peixoto. As part of my work on atmospheric turbulence effects, I learned a great deal about the inner workings of the US Navy’s COAMPs weather prediction code. There are differences of course between the workings of Climate models and Weather models, but the physics of the atmosphere is the same.
.
I can and do read technical articles on the subject in the peer reviewed journals. I can, as it were, do the math … and the physics. So when I make a judgement on the matter, it is an informed judgement. Since I have never received money for climate modeling, I have no financial gain to realize, unlike th
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member over 7 years ago
continued…
.
If I place trust in the writings of the vast majority of climate scientists, it is because I understand far better than do you or most of your foolish deniers that peer review does mean something. I know that, as I have stated before, that no collusion of the type you so fervently believe in (but have no proof of) exists in a group that has to compete for funds.
.
Everyone wants to be Einstein. They want to be the man or woman who found some truth that everyone else did not. So when they look at the work of someone else, they are looking for errors, omissions, misrepresentations and dubious evidence. Sometimes reviewers miss things, but a more extended readership usually catches them. And those readers are usually in competition for funds. So it behooves them to make sure that errors are pointed out. It is part of the self-regulation of the system that depends of self-interest.
.
If the majority of scientists have accepted AGW, it is because they have examined the evidence put forth by proponents and found it convincing. You and the deniers? Nothing credible.
.
Most importantly though is that the majority of the evidence I cited does not come from people who would identify themselves as climate scientists!!! So you argument is pure BS, as usual.
lonecat over 7 years ago
I’m not a scientist, but I know a lot of scientists, in various fields, and I have noticed that they all agree that climate change is real and important. So for as they are concerned, it’s not a question worth debate at this point. One of them is the husband of my niece. He works on geo-morphology, and in particular beaches and sand dunes, and when he mentions climate change, from time to time, he just takes it for a given that it’s real and important. Another is the daughter of a close friend: she’s a biologist and she works on diseases spread by insects in Africa, and she says the only way to explain the changes they are seeing in the spread of diseases is that it’s because the ranges of insects are changing because of climate change. I can go on, but the point is clear. The fact of climate change has simply been accepted by just about every scientist in every field where it makes a difference, because without it you can’t understand what’s going on. Science is made up of a large number of interconnected arguments which work all together. And all of these interconnected parts of science agree. At this point there is no longer any fruitful debate.