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

[Crick]

You are absolutely right that there is no science supporting your side of this argument.

While you're skiing, see if you can figure whether its words or actions about which you're the expert, eh.

I'll be picking up leaves in 83F weather.

 

[jc456]

So you think a few big fish climate scientists are running a cabal and that ground level climate scientists are being told to lie, and that they're going along with it? The vast majority of people that work with climate science out of a passion for science rather than a fat paycheck are lying about science? Do you ever stop to think about the shit that you believe?

I doesn't have to be a conspiracy....The guys at the bottom want to get noticed by those on the top...It's human nature.

Are the minor leagues in professional sports a conspiracy?

If you knew the first thing about how it works you'd know that the way to get noticed is to make a good argument against the current view. The scientist that proves AGW is bullshit will be rich and famous. That person will go down in history.

I've presented a few good arguments, which you have rejected out of hand....The one about the climate charlatans having no reason to come out and say that they've been wrong is a circumstantial argument, which is far down the list.

So how about refuting this?....None -as in NONE- of the AGW "science" has the following elements of traditional and time-tested scientific method to be found anywhere near it:

• Is repeatable on demand and in context
• Is quantifiable
• Is falsifiable
• Has a static control
  
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data

C'mon, Corky, dazzle us all with your scientific acumen.

he's still waiting.

"I patiently wait for the most qualified people on Earth to make observations and determinations. "

he hasn't the brain to observe and make a decision on his own. And since nothing has been observed, he is stuck in fking limbo, stupid'sville.

 

[SSDD]

How much money do you think will get wasted moving 150 million people away from the coasts?

Tons if government tries to pay to move people who chose to live in a zone that is subject to such things..zero if the people and business who chose to live there move themselves....they have about a half a thousand years to prepare, so there is no reason for them to not be able to foot the bill for themselves...

 

[jc456]

Interesting that you place so much respect on a scientist whose education only makes him worth 80K per year.....the guy who cuts my grass makes more than that.

Oh so now you don't trust them because they don't make enough money.

I would argue they aren't of any real value. You wouldn't know anyway, you have no clue what is happening, you are waiting for your talking points. no thought at all about your own surrounding.

 

[Crick]

So how about refuting this?....None -as in NONE- of the AGW "science" has the following elements of traditional and time-tested scientific method to be found anywhere near it:

• Is repeatable on demand and in context
• Is quantifiable
• Is falsifiable
• Has a static control
  
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data

C'mon, Corky, dazzle us all with your scientific acumen.

I'm curious where you came up with these. However:

If you read up on the scientific method, there are branches of science that are not amenable to experiments; the most common examples being astronomy but also including paleontology, cosmology and climate science. In those cases, experiments to test predictions and demonstrate repeatability are replaced by observations accomplishing the same thing.

Is repeatable on demand and in context
Repeatable observations include global temperature measurements made by NOAA, NCDC, NASA, JWA, NWS, Hadley and others that show very close correlation. Sea level rise and decreasing ice extent and volume do the same thing. Observations of increasing GHGs made by several organization show close correlation. This list goes on.

Is quantifiable
Warming, in terms of total energy, energy per unit area or volume or mass, temperature change, warming rates, sea level rise in absolute value or rates, ice loss in mass or area per unit time, atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels, pH changes in seawater due to increased levels of dissolved CO2, animal population numbers, changes in migratory dynamics, etc etc etc are all quantifiable metrics of anthropogenic global warming. This claims was ridiculous

Is falsifiable
This has been gone over here repeatedly. There is a substantial list of items that could potentially falsify AGW. A few would include
1) Prove that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation
2) Prove that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere
3) Prove that the increased CO2 is not of human origin
4) Repeat 1, 2 and 3 for Methane and CFCs
5) Show that the world has NOT grown warmer
6) Shows that some other factor is primarily responsible for the observed warming
7) Prove that the world's climate scientists are all members of a conspiracy to falsify evidence of AGW

And so forth. That you cannot come up with a demonstration that actually DOES falsify AGW is not a problem.

Has a static control
The actual state of the Earth's climate at any time in the past is a static control. The problem, of course, is that our knowledge of it is imperfect and grows more imperfect with increasing age. However, scientists studying paleoclimatology and more recent data, both instrumental and by proxy, are constantly improving the accuracy of that knowledge. It has consistently shown that current GHG levels and current warming are exceptional and that the current rate of GHG and temperature growth is without parallel in tens of millions of years.

Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data
Well, now I see where you got this list. It's anally derived. This demand is simple bullshit.

Tell you what, I think there's an exceptionally high likelihood that the tens of thousands of PhD scientists who accept AGW as valid have a FAR, FAR, FAR better idea of what satisfies then scientific method and what does not, then do you.

 

[jc456]

Scientific method knows about science

Which people know the most about science?

Again, the appeal to authority.

If they know so much about science, why is there no actual scientific method to their "science"?

proves he doesn't even know what scientists do, but is waiting to take their advice. I call that stupid.

 

[jc456]

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!!!

And if they say there is no CAGW, their position is not needed at all.

why would they claim a negative and end their salary? At least they aren't that stupid.

 

[mamooth]

If you click the first link and then choose all in the drop down, you'll find three projects that received 10 million dollars each in grants.

So?

Scientists don't get any money from grants. They'd go to jail if they took money from grants.

Hence, your idiot conspiracy theory looks especially stupid.

 

[mamooth]

He's an expert on numbers and statistics...

Obviously not, given how badly his work sucks. But then, you're a denier, so you worship fraud and failure.

Something that you warmers also want to ignore.

Don't project, little fraudster. Your side has been caught faking data over and over, and you smooch the keisters of those fraudsters.

But then there are also Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Stepen MacIntyre, and Roy Spencer, just to name a few off the top of my head....They've all been blackballed from the super-exclusive IPCC tree house club.....I'm certain you can find a way to attack them personally, rather than address their counter-arguments to the hoax.

Pointing out that someone's science sucks is not blackballing them. That's the heart of the matter. Your side's science sucks hard. Contrary to what your cult has told you, all ideas are not equally valid. Your cult's ideas are stupid, therefore they are inferior, hence normal people laugh at them.

I understand that your religion says otherwise. I don't care. Scientologists may sincerely believe in cleansing their engrams, but it's still loopy pseudoscience. You may sincerely believe in the dogma of your liars' cult, but that dogma is stupid loopy pseudoscience.

And yes, we know with certainty that your beliefs are entirely religious in nature. They don't satisfy your "five points". For example, you will not be able to list anything that might falsify your beliefs. I've asked that of deniers many times, and I've always gotten crickets in response. Deniers can't even imagine something that could falsify their beliefs, so it's clear those beliefs are the faith-based beliefs of a religion.

 

[Crick]

Unfortunately for you, you just named a significant portion of the lot of them.

From 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]

So 69,402 out of 69,406 published climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming.

Pal review = Approval seeking = Not scientific.....GIGO.

That almost all published scientists accept AGW is not Pal Review. If you want to get somewhere in this discussion, you need to make statements for which you have evidence.

Powell's studies are published and may be reviewed:

1. Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
2. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.

 

[jc456]

Unfortunately for you, you just named a significant portion of the lot of them.

From 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]

So 69,402 out of 69,406 published climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming.

Pal review = Approval seeking = Not scientific.....GIGO.

That almost all published scientists accept AGW is not Pal Review. If you want to get somewhere in this discussion, you need to make statements for which you have evidence.

Powell's studies are published and may be reviewed:

1. Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
2. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.

what is that? post something from either that proves something you're trying to sell. otherwise it is crap.

 

[cnm]

You are truly missing the point Oddball makes here, the total ABSENCE of The Scientific Method

Like where the greenhouse gas theory predicts increased temperatures and increased temperatures are observed?

 

[cnm]

The AGW conjecture has already failed due to the few short term prediction/projection made since 1990 that never succeeds,

Yeah, right. Funny how observed temperature stays within predicted range.

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

 

[cnm]

No, it's not falsifiable

What invincible ignorance. Dunning-Kruger in real life. Falsify the greenhouse gas theory and AGW disappears.

 

[cnm]

If they know so much about science, why is there no actual scientific method to their "science"?

Begging the question. Weasel Words 101. Don't you have a Masters?

 

[cnm]

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

So black holes don't exist as no experiments have been performed on them. TIL.

 

[cnm]

"Authorities" who have no scientific method in their "science".

So prove them wrong. You have the authority.

 

[cnm]

That's classic unfalsifiability.

That's classic weasel words 102.

 

[SSDD]

So how about refuting this?....None -as in NONE- of the AGW "science" has the following elements of traditional and time-tested scientific method to be found anywhere near it:

• Is repeatable on demand and in context
• Is quantifiable
• Is falsifiable
• Has a static control
  
• Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data

C'mon, Corky, dazzle us all with your scientific acumen.

I'm curious where you came up with these. However:

If you read up on the scientific method, there are branches of science that are not amenable to experiments; the most common examples being astronomy but also including paleontology, cosmology and climate science. In those cases, experiments to test predictions and demonstrate repeatability are replaced by observations accomplishing the same thing.

Is repeatable on demand and in context
Repeatable observations include global temperature measurements made by NOAA, NCDC, NASA, JWA, NWS, Hadley and others that show very close correlation. Sea level rise and decreasing ice extent and volume do the same thing. Observations of increasing GHGs made by several organization show close correlation. This list goes on.

Is quantifiable
Warming, in terms of total energy, energy per unit area or volume or mass, temperature change, warming rates, sea level rise in absolute value or rates, ice loss in mass or area per unit time, atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels, pH changes in seawater due to increased levels of dissolved CO2, animal population numbers, changes in migratory dynamics, etc etc etc are all quantifiable metrics of anthropogenic global warming. This claims was ridiculous

Is falsifiable
This has been gone over here repeatedly. There is a substantial list of items that could potentially falsify AGW. A few would include
1) Prove that CO2 does not absorb IR radiation
2) Prove that CO2 cannot warm the atmosphere
3) Prove that the increased CO2 is not of human origin
4) Repeat 1, 2 and 3 for Methane and CFCs
5) Show that the world has NOT grown warmer
6) Shows that some other factor is primarily responsible for the observed warming
7) Prove that the world's climate scientists are all members of a conspiracy to falsify evidence of AGW

And so forth. That you cannot come up with a demonstration that actually DOES falsify AGW is not a problem.

Has a static control
The actual state of the Earth's climate at any time in the past is a static control. The problem, of course, is that our knowledge of it is imperfect and grows more imperfect with increasing age. However, scientists studying paleoclimatology and more recent data, both instrumental and by proxy, are constantly improving the accuracy of that knowledge. It has consistently shown that current GHG levels and current warming are exceptional and that the current rate of GHG and temperature growth is without parallel in tens of millions of years.

Has a baseline "optimal" temperature from which to compare all data
Well, now I see where you got this list. It's anally derived. This demand is simple bullshit.

Tell you what, I think there's an exceptionally high likelihood that the tens of thousands of PhD scientists who accept AGW as valid have a FAR, FAR, FAR better idea of what satisfies then scientific method and what does not, then do you.

Nothing falsifies a hypothesis quicker than failed predictions and the AGW hypothesis has littered the past 30 years with failed predictions...if it were actual science, the hypothesis would have been scrapped decades ago and we might have a working hypothesis by now...unfortunately it is pseudoscience and pseudoscience can have any number of failed predictions and remain viable so long as the funding continues...

the rest of your post is your standard bullshit...

The quantifiable section is interesting though...considering that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

 

[Oddball]

The quantifiable section is interesting though...considering that there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

Quantifiable as in X amount of "excess" CO2 = Y° in raised temperatures...Nowhere to be found in any of the pseudo-scientific hypothesis.