29 excuses for "the pause"!!!

[skookerasbil]

follow the money

 

[Crick]

You keep saying that but I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

As far as I can tell, it is deniers who wish to convert all mention of "global warming" to "climate change". And they do so despite their apparent unawareness that the only reason "climate change" ever appeared was that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and that would be the CO2 from the human combustion of fossil fuels) was found to be having more effects than simple warming: ocean acidification, for instance. Climate change is simple a more inclusive term. Global warming is still taking place. Despite your fervent desires, no one on my side of the disagreement is embarrassed to use the term. If you want to talk about climate change, we can talk about climate change. If you want to talk about global warming, we can talk about that. Just clear your mind of the erroneous idea that the two terms are synonymous.

Dang s0n......you are so naïve. I'd get it if you were twenty something but dang.........

For curious peeps checking t his thread out, Id point this out. Skeptics like me recognize that there are special interests on both sides of the climate debate. The AGW true believers think there are no special interests connected to "climate science"......that climate science is ONLY about good intentions and scientific truth.

Anybody who REALLY educates themselves on this ends up a skeptic. But don't take me word for it.......check it out yourself. One tip........follow the money, as they say!!!

I've got a better idea. Since this is a discussion about a science topic, follow the science. And once there, as good science does, follow the data.

What does "We have peer reviewed consensus, DENIER!!" have to do with science?

 

[Crick]

Because peer review is a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method. And I'm wondering, since you make that query immediately following a post presenting a conversation in which you do not figure, who you were addressing.

I'm also wondering who you're claiming made the statement "We have a peer reviewed consensus, DENIER", since you have that text inside quotation marks.

In fact, I have now searched the entire thread, and that statement does not appear. So, WHO are you quoting Frank?

 

[jc456]

Because peer review is a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method. And I'm wondering, since you make that query immediately following a post presenting a conversation in which you do not figure, who you were addressing.

I'm also wondering who you're claiming made the statement "We have a peer reviewed consensus, DENIER", since you have that text inside quotation marks.

In fact, I have now searched the entire thread, and that statement does not appear. So, WHO are you quoting Frank?

Dude, So explain to me why we need peer reviewed papers? Why can't we see observed data that isn't scrubbed? Why are you obsessed with peer review?

 

[Crick]

If I need to explain that to you, there's really no point in doing so. But, hey, I bang my head against walls here all day every day, so what the hell.

If I want to write an article that's nothing but a pack of lies, that's a complete fabrication, a fantasy, a delusion, something perhaps I'm being paid to write by special interest groups, where am I more likely to get it out there: a journal that's going to send my work out to multiple, independent experts in the field for review or one that's going to take my Word file and slap it up on their website without even looking at it?

That's why I like peer review.

 

[SSDD]

Because peer review is a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method. And I'm wondering, since you make that query immediately following a post presenting a conversation in which you do not figure, who you were addressing.

I'm also wondering who you're claiming made the statement "We have a peer reviewed consensus, DENIER", since you have that text inside quotation marks.

In fact, I have now searched the entire thread, and that statement does not appear. So, WHO are you quoting Frank?

Maybe it used to be....this email revealed the truth...

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - Phil Jones

 

[Crick]

Peer review is still a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method.

However, if you think you've got a better idea, feel free to speak up. Your peers here can review it.

 

[SSDD]

Peer review is still a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method.

However, if you think you've got a better idea, feel free to speak up. Your peers here can review it.

Pal review is certainly important to the climate change hoax...In the rest of the scientific world it is a valuable tool to discover the truth...in climate science it is a valuable tool to suppress it...unfortunately, nature itself is not cooperating and your claims of ever increasing change get more and more ridiculous in the face of observation.

 

[Crick]

Peer review is still a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method.

However, if you think you've got a better idea, feel free to speak up. Your peers here can review it.

Pal review is certainly important to the climate change hoax.

In most (if not all) journals, the journal editors select reviewers. I'm sure that a certain amount of "pal review" takes place in journals on all science topics. Most of these fields are quite specialized, the number of field experts can be relatively small and it might actually be difficult to find reviewers who aren't acquainted in some way with the author(s). Of course there also exists the real possibility that selected reviewers hold antipathetic views towards the author(s) or his/their work.

..In the rest of the scientific world it is a valuable tool to discover the truth...in climate science it is a valuable tool to suppress it.

You'll need to explain to us why you think climate science is so different from all other fields of research. Of course you'll tell us it's "the money"; that for some reason, all climate scientists have the morals of a snake and will falsify data and lie about the results in order to obtain grant money. This does not work and it's been repeatedly explained to you why it does not work but that's never stopped you and yours from repeating it: absurdity ad nauseum.

..unfortunately, nature itself is not cooperating and your claims of ever increasing change get more and more ridiculous in the face of observation.

The slowdown in surface warming - caused primarily by the replacement of the warm sea surface with cold water from deep - has certainly not helped the cause of reducing GHG emissions. I had never given the effort good odds. Humans aren't very smart about such topics and not very motivated about such long term target goals. But the implication or outright claim that warming has stopped or even that the planet is cooling is NOT supported by the data. To shore the denier claim up requires patent cherry-picking. You must ignore both the marine temperature data (XBT and Argo float data) and the satellite radiative flux data. You must make false and/or misleading claims regarding surface temperature trends, Arctic ice extents, radiative flux at ToA and, of course, your physics fantasies. I'd like to suggest you try the views of mainstream science. They are far easier and far simpler to maintain and the process of defending those views is far less of a strain on one's ethics.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Peer Review" has long been one of the BS talking points of the religion for some 20 years +......just like the bogus "97% of scientists" crap.

THE consensus IS, it has been approximately 17 years since we've seen any warming. Its like a giant thorn in the sides of the AGW k00ks who now look like dicks.

 

[boedicca]

30) Al Gore got Really Mad and held his breath.

31) Michael Moore took Beano and stopped farting.

 

[jc456]

Peer review is still a crucial element in the modern day implementation of the scientific method.

However, if you think you've got a better idea, feel free to speak up. Your peers here can review it.

Pal review is certainly important to the climate change hoax.

In most (if not all) journals, the journal editors select reviewers. I'm sure that a certain amount of "pal review" takes place in journals on all science topics. Most of these fields are quite specialized, the number of field experts can be relatively small and it might actually be difficult to find reviewers who aren't acquainted in some way with the author(s). Of course there also exists the real possibility that selected reviewers hold antipathetic views towards the author(s) or his/their work.

..In the rest of the scientific world it is a valuable tool to discover the truth...in climate science it is a valuable tool to suppress it.

You'll need to explain to us why you think climate science is so different from all other fields of research. Of course you'll tell us it's "the money"; that for some reason, all climate scientists have the morals of a snake and will falsify data and lie about the results in order to obtain grant money. This does not work and it's been repeatedly explained to you why it does not work but that's never stopped you and yours from repeating it: absurdity ad nauseum.

..unfortunately, nature itself is not cooperating and your claims of ever increasing change get more and more ridiculous in the face of observation.

The slowdown in surface warming - caused primarily by the replacement of the warm sea surface with cold water from deep - has certainly not helped the cause of reducing GHG emissions. I had never given the effort good odds. Humans aren't very smart about such topics and not very motivated about such long term target goals. But the implication or outright claim that warming has stopped or even that the planet is cooling is NOT supported by the data. To shore the denier claim up requires patent cherry-picking. You must ignore both the marine temperature data (XBT and Argo float data) and the satellite radiative flux data. You must make false and/or misleading claims regarding surface temperature trends, Arctic ice extents, radiative flux at ToA and, of course, your physics fantasies. I'd like to suggest you try the views of mainstream science. They are far easier and far simpler to maintain and the process of defending those views is far less of a strain on one's ethics.

hahaahahahahaahahahaahaha, sorry but that is all this is worth. You one of those who believe you don't need proof? That science doesn't use proof for validation?

 

[Crick]

I don't know where you got the topic of proof from the prior post but here:

Symposium on Evidence in the Natural Sciences Simons Foundation

 

[jc456]

I don't know where you got the topic of proof from the prior post but here:

Symposium on Evidence in the Natural Sciences Simons Foundation

Nope, just asked a question. Again, are you one of those who doesn't believe you need proof to validate science?

 

[Crick]

I am one of the large number of people sufficiently familiar with the natural sciences to understand there are no "proofs" to be found there. Your problem is that you either have no familiarity with the natural sciences or no familiarity with the definition of "proof" in this context.

The scientific method does not require proof.

From Wikipedia's article:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Scientific method - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[skookerasbil]

I am one of the large number of people sufficiently familiar with the natural sciences to understand there are no "proofs" to be found there. Your problem is that you either have no familiarity with the natural sciences or no familiarity with the definition of "proof" in this context.

The scientific method does not require proof.

Climate science does not use the scientific method nor do they account for statistical error. Most PhD and Masters Level scientists will tell you that.......tens of thousands in fact!!! That's why they cant sign on to the climate change crap.

 

[skookerasbil]

follow the money s0ns........

 

[Billy_Bob]

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52


You simply can not make this stuff up. they are throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if it sticks...

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]
]

 

[SSDD]

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52


You simply can not make this stuff up. they are throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if it sticks...

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]
]

You beat me to it...the fact that there are more than two excuses is clear evidence that climate science is suspect...the fact that there are now more than 50 is clear evidence that climate science is completely without a clue and is wildly guessing...trying to cover every possible reason for the stop in warming so that at some later date they can point to the one excuse and claim that they knew while ignoring the other 50...or will the number eventually reach into the 100's as the warming stop goes on and on while CO2 continues to increase?