Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[IanC]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.

the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.

 

[Crick]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.

the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.

And what would those be?

 

[SSDD]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.

the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.

And what would those be?

If the science were actually settled, the answer to that question would be readily available.

 

[Crick]

So you don't know. Ian?

 

[jc456]

So you don't know. Ian?

Sure he does because you have nothing to dispute it

 

[SSDD]

So you don't know. Ian?

And neither do you nor all the king's climate scientists....they actually know very little at this point in the grand scheme.

 

[Crick]

But the two of you are just so certain SOMETHING else is the cause. Now THAT'S good science.

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

But the two of you are just so certain SOMETHING else is the cause. Now THAT'S good science.

God are you stupid.

Since the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero, of course it must be something else as it has always been something else....for you to suspect that this time it is CO2 when every other time it was something else is just stupid. Good science makes sure it understands all previous causes for an event before inventing an entirely new cause for an event. Science doesn't really have a clue what caused past warm periods...it is all guesswork.

 

[Crick]

You just finished telling us all, twice or more, that it was negative. Now you say it's zero. Those are not the same. You're a fucking idiot.

You seem to be saying that good science wouldn't waste time trying to understand what's going on with the current climate (the one from which we can take direct measurements) till we find out what caused warm periods dating back to the paleolithic (the ones where we cannot).

Just a fucking idiot.

 

[IanC]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.

the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.

And what would those be?

the Null Hypothesis is that natural factors controlled the climate in the past, and continue to do so. if you cannot explain why the recent warming excursions like the MWP and RWP happened, how can you claim to know that this warming event is unnatural?

 

[Crick]

Doesn't it make you uneasy to use as vague a term in as vague a manner as you just did with "natural factors"?

There are numerous theories as to what caused the MWP. There are numerous theories as to what has caused the last 150 years' warming, but one is far more widely accepted than any other.

I think the null hypothesis applied to the MWP would say that it was idiopathic.

 

[jc456]

WHAT natural variation are you talking about? Events require causes.

the same natural causes that formed the MWP, Roman warm period, etc. or the 'Pause' for that matter.

And what would those be?

the Null Hypothesis is that natural factors controlled the climate in the past, and continue to do so. if you cannot explain why the recent warming excursions like the MWP and RWP happened, how can you claim to know that this warming event is unnatural?

this!!!!

 

[SSDD]

You just finished telling us all, twice or more, that it was negative. Now you say it's zero. Those are not the same. You're a fucking idiot.

You seem to be saying that good science wouldn't waste time trying to understand what's going on with the current climate (the one from which we can take direct measurements) till we find out what caused warm periods dating back to the paleolithic (the ones where we cannot).

Just a fucking idiot.

Zero or less is what I have always said....and you can't provide a single bit of observed evidence to the contrary.

And as I said, good science first, endeavors to understand what caused previous warm periods and assures itself that the cause of none of those warm periods are the cause of the present warm period (which in historical terms isn't really even a warm period) before it assigns a totally new and unique reason for events that have happened with regularity in the past. Religion assigns a cause for events with no real idea what caused them.

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't it make you uneasy to use as vague a term in as vague a manner as you just did with "natural factors"?

Not nearly as uncomfortable as assigning a completely new cause when clearly there are numerous natural causes which have resulted in even more and more rapid warming than we have experienced.

There are numerous theories as to what caused the MWP. There are numerous theories as to what has caused the last 150 years' warming, but one is far more widely accepted than any other.

Which is most likely to open the grant money spigot?

 

[Crick]

If someone were chasing money, they wouldn't be pushing an environmental agenda. They'd be doing something to cheer up the people with the money: the fucking fossil fuel industry you goddamn ignoramus.

 

[IanC]

the govt(s) fund the multiple layers of bureaucracy to study and regulate all things 'CO2".

the problem with the fossil fuel industry is that they actually expect something for their money.

 

[SSDD]

If someone were chasing money, they wouldn't be pushing an environmental agenda. They'd be doing something to cheer up the people with the money: the fucking fossil fuel industry you goddamn ignoramus.

The fossil fuel industry is pursuing the AGW hoax as well...more money to be made. Sorry you don't grasp economics.

 

[Crick]

I think the most astounding error you deniers make is to assume that ten thousand degreed climate scientists, whose work all gets mutually reviewed are all simultaneously and unanimously willing to falsify data and lie to the public in order to keep their jobs while the fossil fuel industry, whose very existence you believe threatened by this line of inquiry, who pull in tens of billions of dollars in net profits each year, are as pure as the driven snow and wouldn't consider spending one thin dime in what boils down to an unethical PR campaign to save their own hides.

God are you stupid.

 

[IanC]

I certainly dont believe "Big Oil" is trustworthy or on my side.

My skepticism stems directly from the weakness of published peer reviewed climate science papers and press releases.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

All major global temperature-tracking agencies have ranked January, February, and March 2015 as among the warmest three months on record, respectively.
2015 is hot A weirdly warm Pacific Ocean is set to make this year the warmest on record.
Right wing reaction shot :