You don't say...lol

[bodecea]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

 

[Confounding]

real scientists

Do the real scientists doing the work agree with what you said?

Empirical evidence tells us we can have an impact locally but there is no evidence to suggest it is a global impact.

Science is self-correcting. Humans make mistakes and mistakes are sought out and corrected. That's why you read about things like this. Scientists that believe AGW is happening corrected a miscalculation and then WUWT used that work to make AGW look like an unraveling hoax. You people are either unbelievably ignorant or insidiously dishonest.

 

[Confounding]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

I think future technology may mitigate a lot of it.

 

[jc456]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

 

[jc456]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

I think future technology may mitigate a lot of it.

to do what?

real scientists

Do the real scientists doing the work agree with what you said?

Empirical evidence tells us we can have an impact locally but there is no evidence to suggest it is a global impact.

Science is self-correcting. Humans make mistakes and mistakes are sought out and corrected. That's why you read about things like this. Scientists that believe AGW is happening corrected a miscalculation and then WUWT used that work to make AGW look like an unraveling hoax. You people are either unbelievably ignorant or insidiously dishonest.

dishonest about what? what could we have affected that would be considered dishonest exactly? Have you been using other electricity and cars than the rest of us? how are you exempt from blame exactly? of what you have no fking clue, but what?

 

[jc456]

I do... I talk with three of them on a regular basis during conference calls on NH weather patterns and modeling output. You would be surprised what their real positions are.

Those three people are not the people we were talking about.

Oh..You mean the political hacks in the front office who wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

No, I mean the scientists that did the report this thread is based on.

didn't he say that?

The people that did the report wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

why did they lie?

 

[Confounding]

Those three people are not the people we were talking about.

Oh..You mean the political hacks in the front office who wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

No, I mean the scientists that did the report this thread is based on.

didn't he say that?

The people that did the report wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

why did they lie?

Maybe they were just wrong. And I was talking about the people that contradicted them. You know, the scientists this thread is propping up as the real ones taking it to the AGW lunatics. Oh wait! They are AGW lunatics too!

 

[jc456]

Oh..You mean the political hacks in the front office who wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

No, I mean the scientists that did the report this thread is based on.

didn't he say that?

The people that did the report wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass?

why did they lie?

Maybe they were just wrong. And I was talking about the people that contradicted them. You know, the scientists this thread is propping up as the real ones taking it to the AGW lunatics. Oh wait! They are AGW lunatics too!

what is it you think they did wrong?

 

[bodecea]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

That will be a wonderful answer to give the next generation.

 

[jc456]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

That will be a wonderful answer to give the next generation.

what will they ask exactly? since you can't say what it is they'd be short on. funny, you ain't evha got an answer.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

That will be a wonderful answer to give the next generation.

what will they ask exactly? since you can't say what it is they'd be short on. funny, you ain't evha got an answer.

The real tragedy will be; why did you not prepare for the coming ice age? Why did you not prepare a way to feed us? As millions die of starvation they will realize that AGW was a scam that cost them their very lives..

 

[jc456]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

That will be a wonderful answer to give the next generation.

what will they ask exactly? since you can't say what it is they'd be short on. funny, you ain't evha got an answer.

The real tragedy will be why did you not prepare for the coming ice age? Why did you not prepare a way to feed us?

nope, they'd be, like duh, where's my money?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's too late now....our children and their children will curse those who could have done something and did nothing.

do what?

That will be a wonderful answer to give the next generation.

what will they ask exactly? since you can't say what it is they'd be short on. funny, you ain't evha got an answer.

The real tragedy will be why did you not prepare for the coming ice age? Why did you not prepare a way to feed us?

nope, they'd be, like duh, where's my money?

Only the indoctrinated, well to do idiots will be alive to ask this question.

 

[SSDD]

The AGW hypothesis is falsified and they admit it..

Why do they think AGW is happening regardless of this report? They are qualified scientists reporting facts.

Do climate scientists think it is happening? Some I suppose. That is the nature of groupthink. The number of scientists who were staunch advocates of AGW when they were "in the game" so to speak where one publishes or dies who turn to hard line skeptics when they are no longer under that sort of pressure should cause anyone who believes the AGW hypothesis to have merit to at least raise their eyebrows.

You don't see many retiring scientists in other fields suddenly changing their position on their whole field of science when they are no longer under pressure to publish and compete for funding. And you don't hear nearly as many horror stories from retired scientists in other fields about being blackballed for pushing against the consensus. Science is supposed to be a field of skeptics who rarely if ever agree on anything, even within their respective specialties...that is how science progresses...it isn't like that in climate science...if you don't believe in AGW, the gatekeepers can effectively ruin your career...that isn't science..that is politics.

Those that do believe, like I said, are victims of group think and more importantly an error cascade....take michael mann's hockey stick paper for example...it has been cited in other papers more than 1,500 times. Every one of those papers accept that mann's paper is valid and their work depends on that work being valid. Mann has, at this point spent more than 2 million dollars (and where does a climate scientist get 2 million dollars) keeping his work hidden. He is running out of hiding space in the courts now and when his work is put in the public eye, it will take about a new york minute to demonstrate that it is terribly flawed...that in turn, renders the 1,500+ papers which assumed that his work was valid to be terribly flawed as well..such is the nature of an error cascade...it happens in all fields of science and is unfortunate.

 

[SSDD]

Grow up, the premise of the thread is they were caught supplying false data and they did.

Even if that's true it doesn't change anything about what the most qualified people believe based on the evidence we have.

What evidence is that? I constantly ask for a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and no such evidence is ever forthcoming because no such evidence exists...

I ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...again..no such evidence will ever be forthcoming because no such evidnence exists...

And I point out that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming, due to our production of greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on those greenhouse gasses. Not a single paper...Lacking such fundamental evidence, what sort of evidence do you believe exists that supports the hypothesis over natural variably?

 

[Confounding]

Do climate scientists think it is happening? Some I suppose.

Bullshit dude. You saying "some of them" after all of the hours of conversation you've had with me and others shows definitively that for some reason you're not interested in having an open and honest conversation about this. You bob and weave and mitigate reality. Why?

group think.

error cascade

If you've figured out something significant you should be able to demonstrate it to scientists and change their mind.

 

[Confounding]

Grow up, the premise of the thread is they were caught supplying false data and they did.

Even if that's true it doesn't change anything about what the most qualified people believe based on the evidence we have.

What evidence is that? I constantly ask for a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and no such evidence is ever forthcoming because no such evidence exists...

I ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...again..no such evidence will ever be forthcoming because no such evidnence exists...

And I point out that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming, due to our production of greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on those greenhouse gasses. Not a single paper...Lacking such fundamental evidence, what sort of evidence do you believe exists that supports the hypothesis over natural variably?

You think the vast majority of scientists all over the world have come to a similar conclusion based on no significant evidence?

 

[SSDD]

They believe as I do that man has an impact

Hmm...

So AGW is real to some extent in your opinion?

but the current modeling and hypotheses is failed.

Oh? Could you link me to some stuff where they go into depth about their position on AGW and how they disagree with the current modeling and hypotheses?

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-co...estimates-of-climate-sensitivity_JCli2018.pdf

Strengthening tropical Pacific zonal sea surface temperature gradient consistent with rising greenhouse gases

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809519303667

How many would you like...paper after paper has been published calling climate models into question when their output is compared to reality...

 

[Confounding]

How many would you like...paper after paper has been published calling climate models into question when their output is compared to reality...

Stop twisting the conversation. I am asking for the specifics of the opinions of the scientists that made the correction this thread is focused on. The correction is being used to criticize AGW scientists. It's dishonest though because it was also AGW scientists that made that correction.

 

[SSDD]

Do climate scientists think it is happening? Some I suppose.

Bullshit dude. You saying "some of them" after all of the hours of conversation you've had with me and others shows definitively that for some reason you're not interested in having an open and honest conversation about this. You bob and weave and mitigate reality. Why?

group think.

error cascade

If you've figured out something significant you should be able to demonstrate it to scientists and change their mind.

If your job and financial security depended on your agreement with the mainstream hypothesis...do you suppose that there is anything that anyone could provide for you that would make you go against that hypothesis? The instinct for self preservation is pretty strong...and science has shown us over and over how difficult it is to move past a consensus position and accept a new paradigm..that is one of the reasons science often stagnates for so long even when it is evident to anyone who looks the the present consensus is wrong...