So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

[SSDD]

Your arguments, Tommy and Oddball, would be what could accurately be termed "red herrings"

You really are turning into a little girl aren't you? Making a point that you aren't talking to me any more because I hurt your little feelings and made you look like a fool?

Your arguments are so full of red herrings that sea gulls probably follow you around.

 

[Crick]

The subtitle of Sunsettommy's article

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

That does NOT mean that, at the time, the consensus opinion wasn't the most likely to be correct.

 

[SSDD]

The subtitle of Sunsettommy's article

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

That does NOT mean that, at the time, the consensus opinion wasn't the most likely to be correct.

Consensus is never a reason to accept science....buckets full of observed, measured evidence supporting the claims being made is a reason...and all of climate science can't even come up with a single shred of observed, measured evidence to support the claim that the climate change we are experiencing is in any way different from natural variability...The claims simply are not supported by empirical evidence even though the are about an eminently empirical system..

Consensus is a symptom of group think...not a symptom of actual science... When you have to point to the "consensus" in an attempt to support your claim, it is because there is no actual evidence around for you to point to...

 

[depotoo]

Average Scientist Salaries in the United States | Indeed.com
How much does a Scientist make in the United States?
The average salary for a Scientist is $93,877 per year in the United States. Salary estimates are based on 4,236 salaries submitted anonymously to Indeed by Scientist employees, users, and collected from past and present job advertisements on Indeed in the past 36 months. The typical tenure for a Scientist is 1-3 years.

And that does not include the benes from grants.

Running a global conspiracy must be a pretty high paying gig, right?

Climate Scientist average salary is $71,505, median salary is $82,514 with a salary range from $48,000 to $84,000.

Oh, shit!

$48,000 to $84,000!

They DEFINITELY entered that profession for those giant fucking dollars signs and not because they love science, am I right? They're making as much money as public school teachers! YOWZA!!!

 

[depotoo]

Survey: Most Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis | PSI Intl

You over look the "prizes" that some of the most prominent AGW supporting scientists "win" even when they committed a crime such as DR. Gleik, and people like Al $$$ Gore who make millions and some warmists who get cushy jobs in Academia, while a few skeptics get fired for being skeptical.

I am talking about what scientists are making, not Al Gore. You seriously have to be crazy to think there is some giant get rich conspiracy when most climate scientists barely qualify as middle class. These are the people collecting data and saying this is happening.

So no evidence you can offer, no link to show the money and you missed the point about Al $$$ Gore who makes money off warmists like you who fails to realize the AGW conjecture died years ago.

Meanwhile you are showing your desire to lie here since I clearly stated that I don't do conspiracies, quoting my words:

"No evidence that most or all skeptics claim a global conspiracy, I never do"

Your initial post is still dead on arrival.

Feel free to go prove my numbers wrong. Don't make me laugh by suggesting a large amount of skeptics aren't conspiracy minded. If you're not one of those then good for you.

 

[SSDD]

Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community"

The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.

Like I already told you...the political heads of scientific institutions tow the consensus line because if they don't, the funding they depend on will dry up... The only institution to ever poll its membership regarding their institutional statement regarding climate change was the American Physical Society...the most prestigious of all the institutions in the world, and it turned into a nightmare for them. It took mere minutes for them to learn that the membership had quite different ideas on climate change than the statement that the political head published.

The fact of the matter is that the scientists who make up the bodies of those institutions have very different views on the topic than their respective political front offices...

 

[Crick]

Average Scientist Salaries in the United States | Indeed.com
How much does a Scientist make in the United States?
The average salary for a Scientist is $93,877 per year in the United States. Salary estimates are based on 4,236 salaries submitted anonymously to Indeed by Scientist employees, users, and collected from past and present job advertisements on Indeed in the past 36 months. The typical tenure for a Scientist is 1-3 years.

And that does not include the benes from grants.

Running a global conspiracy must be a pretty high paying gig, right?

Climate Scientist average salary is $71,505, median salary is $82,514 with a salary range from $48,000 to $84,000.

Oh, shit!

$48,000 to $84,000!

They DEFINITELY entered that profession for those giant fucking dollars signs and not because they love science, am I right? They're making as much money as public school teachers! YOWZA!!!

This particular thread seems to have gotten lost in quoteland.

I don't know what this thread is supposed to show: The denier claim is that they are all getting rich off research grants but research grants aren't income to scientists, they pay for the research. In general, people with PhDs make more money than people with Masters and people with Masters make more money than people with Bachelors and people with Bachelors makes more money than people with high school diplomas and people with high school diplomas make more than people without.

I don't think anyone rejects that as a general rule. And I don't think these sorts of data refute the denier claim. I think that is refuted by a knowledge as to how research grants work.

 

[depotoo]

Honey, they are very creative. I know, having had family that worked directly with some.

Average Scientist Salaries in the United States | Indeed.com
How much does a Scientist make in the United States?
The average salary for a Scientist is $93,877 per year in the United States. Salary estimates are based on 4,236 salaries submitted anonymously to Indeed by Scientist employees, users, and collected from past and present job advertisements on Indeed in the past 36 months. The typical tenure for a Scientist is 1-3 years.

And that does not include the benes from grants.

Running a global conspiracy must be a pretty high paying gig, right?

Climate Scientist average salary is $71,505, median salary is $82,514 with a salary range from $48,000 to $84,000.

Oh, shit!

$48,000 to $84,000!

They DEFINITELY entered that profession for those giant fucking dollars signs and not because they love science, am I right? They're making as much money as public school teachers! YOWZA!!!

This particular thread seems to have gotten lost in quoteland.

I don't know what this thread is supposed to show: The denier claim is that they are all getting rich off research grants but research grants aren't income to scientists, they pay for the research. In general, people with PhDs make more money than people with Masters and people with Masters make more money than people with Bachelors and people with Bachelors makes more money than people with high school diplomas and people with high school diplomas make more than people without.

I don't think anyone rejects that as a general rule. And I don't think these sorts of data refute the denier claim. I think that is refuted by a knowledge as to how research grants work.

 

[Crick]

Who is very creative? Climate scientists? You actually think you can generalize like that about climate scientists? Because "you have family that worked with some"? Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[Confounding]

Who is very creative? Climate scientists? You actually think you can generalize like that about climate scientists? Because "you have family that worked with some"? Are you fucking kidding me?

I think the scientists are wrong about Earth being a globe.

 

[SSDD]

Who is very creative? Climate scientists? You actually think you can generalize like that about climate scientists? Because "you have family that worked with some"? Are you fucking kidding me?

I think the scientists are wrong about Earth being a globe.

You guys always trot out some stupidity like that..but the fact is that there is ample observed, measured evidence that the earth is not flat, and is in fact spherical..very different from the fact that all of climate science in more than 30 years has yet to produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that indicates that the climate change we are experiencing is in any way different from natural variability...

One has observed measured evidence...one does not. There is, believe it or not, a difference.

 

[Confounding]

You guys always trot out some stupidity like that..but the fact is that there is ample observed, measured evidence that the earth is not flat, and is in fact spherical..very different from the fact that all of climate science in more than 30 years has yet to produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that indicates that the climate change we are experiencing is in any way different from natural variability...

One has observed measured evidence...one does not. There is, believe it or not, a difference.

The data the round Earth scientists are using is flawed. It's a conspiracy.

My anecdotal observations are sufficient.

 

[SSDD]

You guys always trot out some stupidity like that..but the fact is that there is ample observed, measured evidence that the earth is not flat, and is in fact spherical..very different from the fact that all of climate science in more than 30 years has yet to produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence that indicates that the climate change we are experiencing is in any way different from natural variability...

One has observed measured evidence...one does not. There is, believe it or not, a difference.

The data the round Earth scientists are using is flawed. It's a conspiracy.

My anecdotal observations are sufficient.

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

 

[Confounding]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not surprised...religious beliefs seldom require anything other than how they make you feel.

I know weasel language when I see it. The round Earth scientists have an agenda.

Now you are deep into the bullshit zone since your illogical flat/round earth crap have no coherence in it.

Which is better:

Climate Modeling scenarios, then wait 81 years to see if they are correct, which means decades of stagnant science, resulting in no advancement in knowledge and understanding.

or,

Follow The Scientific Method, which requires experimentation for it to gain traction or change the hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

You think people are going to wait 81 years to see if a scenario was correct? YO ODDBALL. HERE IS AN ACTUAL RED HERRING. JUMP ALL OVER IT DUDE!!!

 

[cnm]

Snicker...………….

Here you go.

 

[cnm]

Follow The Scientific Method, which requires experimentation for it to gain traction or change the hypothesis.

What? Doesn't that indicate no hypothesis about black holes can be valid as experimentation is not possible? Are you really a Crusader Frank sock? That's his ludicrous stock in trade theme.

 

[Crick]

Where experimentation is not possible, one uses observation.

Scientific method - Wikipedia
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[1][2] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[3]

1. Peirce, Charles Sanders (1908). "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" . Hibbert Journal. 7: 90–112 – via Wikisource. with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
2. ^ See, for example, Galileo 1638. His thought experiments disprove Aristotle's physics of falling bodies, in Two New Sciences.
3. ^ Popper 1959, p. 273

What Is Science?
The scientific method
When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis(often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

 

[Oddball]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]