CDZ "Climate Science" is no longer any such thing.

[RedTeamTex]

Not so fast.
Some evidence has demonstrated that not only did heat escaping the atmosphere not decrease as expected with AGW theory but it in fact increased.

Citation, please RM?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Contemporary Liberal politics has corrupted Environmental Science in a fashion not unlike Galileo's day when church politics corrupted the conduct of Astronomy---scientific progress subverted by political motives.

You're projecting your own way of thinking on to the reason-based people. You don't see us reason-based people bringing up politics. We talk about the science. Being that all the science contradicts your side, you can't talk about the science, so you have to divert by trying to make it entirely about politics.

Professionals in environmental scientists have abandoned the course dictated by the Scientific Method and Occam's razor to purport a theory of anthropogenic global warming to such a degree that it's a political objective of popular conversion rather than a set of assumptions to be sequenced for critical testing, using science's best resources to disprove.

You don't seem to understand Occam's. Here's how Occam's works.

Which is more likely?

1. You've been misled by a small group of political cultists.

2. A vast secret global socialist conspiracy involving millions of people is faking the data.

Occam's says #1 is far more likely to be the correct answer, being that it is by far the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data.

Having inconveniently defied its original computer model prophecies,

The models have performed very well. However, even if no models existed, the direct physical evidence alone would give solid evidence supporting global warming theory.

I know you've heard differently, but that's because your political cult has fed you a bunch of baloney. Everyone actually involved in the science knows that. Your side is not ignored by the scientists because of a socialist conspiracy. Your side is ignored because it stinks at the science, and because it lies a lot.

In what respect is a 'scientific' theory of anthropogenic global warming falsifiable?

Many things could falsify global warming theory. Here are some of them.

1. A sustained lack of warming.

2. A lack of a CO2 increase

3. A lack of sea level rise

4. Stratospheric warming

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

6. Steady backradiation (instead of increasing)

Global warming theory is real science, hence many things can falsify it.

Settle it, if you can.

Now, your turn. What evidence could falsify your beliefs? If you can't provide any, that will demonstrate how your beliefs are based on emotion instead of reason.

^ Guam, still upright and above water

 

[konradv]

^ Guam, still upright and above water

Unresponsive post which goes against the spirit of the forum.

 

[cnm]

I should have been more specific and mentioned the theory I'm objecting as scientifically unsubstantiated is specifically:

"Humanity is causing excess global warming to a degree imminently catastrophic to human existence." I hope that was understood. If not, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Who professes that theory? No climate scientist I've read, nor is it the scientific consensus.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been proven. CO2 going up since the Industrial Revolution has been proven. What more do you need?

Some evidence has demonstrated that not only did heat escaping the atmosphere not decrease as expected with AGW theory but it in fact increased. So the jury is still out on that one. And that is the most profound aspect of the entire AGW theory. It's the essence of the greenhouse effect claim.

Don't just tell me, show me. If you're going to make a claim like that, extraordinary proof should be required, since the ability of CO2 to absorb IR is a given physical fact. You'll have to show how its presence alone could possibly result in an increase in energy escaping the atmosphere

What's more, any of those scientists who don't toe the AGW line become objects of disparagement and ridicule by the political forces. This is a scam. It's about political control and the best way to do that is to manipulate the economy. Here's a link from this past year that addresses the politically driven ostracizing of so-called skeptics.The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

Like I've been saying, argue the politics with someone that's interested. IMO, this is just a distraction from the fact that you're hand waving the science.

Lindzen/Choi.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not so fast.
Some evidence has demonstrated that not only did heat escaping the atmosphere not decrease as expected with AGW theory but it in fact increased.

Citation, please RM?

Lindzen/Choi

 

[konradv]

Lindzen/Choi.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

As we noted in our discussion of LC09, the paper contained a number of major flaws. Lindzen himself has even gone as far as to admit the paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Lindzen/Choi.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

As we noted in our discussion of LC09, the paper contained a number of major flaws. Lindzen himself has even gone as far as to admit the paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

The grant-funded status quo are responsible for the discrediting.
Here's a link explaining the increase in atmospheric heat escape...

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

 

[konradv]

Lindzen/Choi.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009 As we noted in our discussion of LC09, the paper contained a number of major flaws. Lindzen himself has even gone as far as to admit the paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

The grant-funded status quo are responsible for the discrediting.
Here's a link explaining the increase in atmospheric heat escape...
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Forbes isn't a scientific publication. It has no more veracity than the site I cited. Give us the original publication info.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Lindzen/Choi.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009 As we noted in our discussion of LC09, the paper contained a number of major flaws. Lindzen himself has even gone as far as to admit the paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

The grant-funded status quo are responsible for the discrediting.
Here's a link explaining the increase in atmospheric heat escape...
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Forbes isn't a scientific publication. It has no more veracity than the site I cited. Give us the original publication info.

Go dig it up yourself. It was reported in multiple sources. None mainstream, obviously.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Lindzen/Choi.

Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

As we noted in our discussion of LC09, the paper contained a number of major flaws. Lindzen himself has even gone as far as to admit the paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing."

Your link is to a pub dedicated to AGW alarmist propaganda.

 

[cnm]

I bet it made all this up about LC11...

PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described. As a result, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.

As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

"The paper is based on...basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity"

lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html​

 

[konradv]

Go dig it up yourself. It was reported in multiple sources. None mainstream, obviously.

Why are you citing an article that was turned down by PNAS? The article I cited gives all the reasons for its rejection. Considering that the authors were skeptical of their own research, I don't see why I need to check out an obscure Korean journal.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Who professes that theory? No climate scientist I've read, nor is it the scientific consensus.

There's no disguising it -- global warming's no put-on

Which inspires the leader of the free world to say things such as these: 'Climate change is a fact,' Obama declares

And the UN to take a report such as this: http://www.osce.org/eea/14851?download=true

and make a map such as this: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9climat.png

predicting:
Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

I'm forced to cite this heavily editorialized article: The UN "disappears" 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt since it's factually correct the UNEP did remove the map and its blurbs from the site--I'm hard pressed to turn up the material otherwise.

Where did all the Liberals go? Why can't I get a self-professed Democrat to support their Party on these enlightened positions?

***

Now Presidents saying silly things is hardly new:

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1981

However I'm unaware of a Republican-driven government campaign in the 80s to convince the world entire of it. To any degree we actually spent money in the 80s on that sort of nonsense, I would argue is equally foolish as the government using "climate science " to promote most of "green" policy--which today is in the tune of billions and many many billions more are being demanded. (Apparently not by the liberals on this board, but I'm afraid that doesn't mean they're not out there.)

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Go dig it up yourself. It was reported in multiple sources. None mainstream, obviously.

Why are you citing an article that was turned down by PNAS? The article I cited gives all the reasons for its rejection. Considering that the authors were skeptical of their own research, I don't see why I need to check out an obscure Korean journal.

I'm talking about the satellite data that showed an increase in escaped atmospheric heat. Completely contrary to the projection and AGW theory.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I bet it made all this up about LC11...

PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described. As a result, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.

As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

"The paper is based on...basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity"

lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html​

Here's a story questioning the credibility of the PNAS, those who allegedly rank scientific credibility...

Circa 2010: PNAS "Expert Credibility in Climate Change"..debunked

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The bottom line is this; when science refers to consensus and polls and numbers of opinions it is anything but science anymore. It's pure speculation and theory. What's more, when a science issue is pounded hardest by politicians then skepticism is most warranted.
Experts dispute the veracity and intensity of AGW theory and that is enough to create pause.
No one here is an expert. We have to rely on experts. When experts provide conflicting opinions the prudent thing is to step back to the next layer and consider motivation. That takes you to the funding and political realm. At that point the bias becomes obvious and doubt should rule. That would be the prudent thing.
When measures undertaken in the name of a politicized and propagated take on the alleged science prove to be severely economically counterproductive and in some third world regions, deadly, then it's time to stop the nonsense and expose the political fraud for what it is.

 

[mamooth]

I'm talking about the satellite data that showed an increase in escaped atmospheric heat. Completely contrary to the projection and AGW theory.

The tiny problem for you there being there is no such data. The actual satellite data shows a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, just as theory predicts.

So, that would be the real issue here, that you're just parroting fictions that your political cult has provided to you.

Back in the real world, AGW science has such credibility because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Deniers claim otherwise, but again, deniers create their own weird reality. The whole planet doesn't ignore deniers because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialist plot. Everyone ignores deniers because denier science stinks.

Remember how science works. The accepted theory is the theory that best explains all of the observed data. AGW theory does that. Deniers? They don't even have a theory. Screaming about the opposition is not a theory. Sometimes deniers will mumble about "natural cycles", but that "theory" is flatly contradicted by the observed stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, all of which are smoking guns for greenhouse-gas caused global warming.

 

[RedTeamTex]

While making a gentle, general remind to all...

If you're addressing the topic (which as I defined in the OP is anthropological in scope, specifically scientific professionalism, and in this case the absence of it contributing to political propaganda) then you'll do one of these three things:

1) adopt a stronger argument for the Liberals and argue "the science is settled, therefore we should act."
2) Concede "the science isn't settled" and yet try to argue the phenomenon we refer to as 'Climate Science' and Liberal utility of it hasn't crossed the threshold to junk science.
3) Agree with the OP.

If you opt for 2), I'll concede the burden of proof is on our side to make the case 'Climate Science' has drifted into 'junk science.' I think I was fairly stringent in the OP about what that means.

But before I do, I sincerely want argument 1) to have a fair chance to make its case.

...and leaving the door cracked open for an entry for the argument 1) banner---you are still most welcome---I'm going to start introducing some articles for future reference before I begin drawing a border around "junk science" in earnest.

Let's jump in the fuel-efficient TARDIS and head back in time! References for your enjoyment on Global Cooling!
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

(If anybody wants to chip in and pool resources to buy the full articles on some of these that are unavailable for free, let me know! We can use that snazzy 'conversation' feature for closed viewing and quote appropriately brief extracts here on the thread. It's only a good idea if we have takers on both sides of the aisle, though...pooling resources for just one side of the debate doesn't appeal to me.)

With the reasonable suppositions of:
a) pollution particulates reflect light
b) there is an ever increasing amount of pollution particulates being introduced into the atmosphere
some folks with letters after their names concluded an alarming likelihood of:
c) sufficient sunlight will be reflected away from the earth and catastrophic cooling will ensue.
...a likelihood alarming enough to bring to the attention of the public.

Were these fringe crackpots looking for attention? No, that wouldn't be fair at all. These were largely scientists and people who listened to them.

Who do I hold blameless for the whole thing? The media. They have to sell newspapers and magazines, and "the world is ending" is always a reliable romance that helps sell rags.

Two observations:
St. Petersburg Times - Google News Archive Search
I tried to do some cursory digging on the original source of this comment attributed to Dr. Earl W. Barrett of the ESSA. I found this: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/essa_news/QC801E71970v6no13.pdf
While I'd prefer to see an actual research paper or abstract before hanging the guy, I think the fact his employer distributed the comment along with his credentials is sufficient to make my point. It ended up in the St. Petersberg's Times, after all!

The ESSA was "Environmental Science Service Administration" (Environmental Science Services Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
which was folded into the NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970.

Your tax dollar at work! I'm sure we'll be looking more into that work in future discussion.

Lastly, I'm giving the last word (of this post) to a Peter Gwynne of Global Cooling fame who has since been professionally convinced by science's progress since the 70s, the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, and it would seem Michael Mann's hockey stick (for which he writes with prominence if not endorsement at this late date 2015). My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong | Inside Science

I think it's a very interesting article. While he joins the chorus in painting objectors as fossil-fuel funded propagandists, he does conclude his remarks with some actual self-reflection and saw room for improvement in his own coverage of a scientific topic.

"Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world's food production that had scant research to back it."

Now that's an endorsement of journalistic integrity greater than I asked for. While his characterization of opponents is just as sloppily researched, he's at least giving lip service to some intuition that things advertised in the name of "science" maybe ought to be handled with a little more care.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm talking about the satellite data that showed an increase in escaped atmospheric heat. Completely contrary to the projection and AGW theory.

The tiny problem for you there being there is no such data. The actual satellite data shows a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands, just as theory predicts.

So, that would be the real issue here, that you're just parroting fictions that your political cult has provided to you.

Back in the real world, AGW science has such credibility because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Deniers claim otherwise, but again, deniers create their own weird reality. The whole planet doesn't ignore deniers because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialist plot. Everyone ignores deniers because denier science stinks.

Remember how science works. The accepted theory is the theory that best explains all of the observed data. AGW theory does that. Deniers? They don't even have a theory. Screaming about the opposition is not a theory. Sometimes deniers will mumble about "natural cycles", but that "theory" is flatly contradicted by the observed stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, all of which are smoking guns for greenhouse-gas caused global warming.

The data is there according to NASA.
Data also shows a cooling trend for most of this century.
Again, the larger point is that with so much discrepancy it is dangerous and way wrong to enact such stifling policies so as to hurt people in the name of allegedly helping them.
Time to weigh priorities and put away the AGW propaganda.