Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[jc456]

You being the lonely attention grabber you are, didn’t read the list did you ?

I opened it and looked at the names, looked up the name and it wasn’t a climate scientist!! Name one who is a climate scientist. You can’t. Garner attention or not!!

From your link:

“For example, Keywan Riahi, the head of Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, is the highest-ranking scientist on the Hot List.“

System analyst

 

[Dagosa]

I opened it and looked at the names, looked up the name and it wasn’t a climate scientist!! Name one who is a climate scientist. You can’t. Garner attention or not!!

From your link:

“For example, Keywan Riahi, the head of Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, is the highest-ranking scientist on the Hot List.“

System analyst

I‘VE NEVER SEEN SUCH AN IGNORANT PERSON.

Boy, you are a dufus aren’t you ? You did read the heading ? Dufus. If you’re working on climate as a specialty dufus, you’re a climate scientist regardless of your special area, dufus. A biologist can be a climate scientist. A mathematician can be a climate scientist. You didn’t ask for a climatologist dufus, you asked for a climate scientist.
You are a dufus, dufus. Maybe you're such aN ILLITERATE, YOU DIDN'T KNOW, dufus but climate affects biology, physics and thermal dynamics. So climate sciences needs scientists in all those fields


DUFUS

 

[Dagosa]

name your climate scientist

This was your question, dufus …you didn’t ask for a climatologist .
This was the title of the list…
“Climate Scientist”

You are the dumbest poster we have seen yet..

 

[jc456]

I‘VE NEVER SEEN SUCH AN IGNORANT PERSON.

Boy, you are a dufus aren’t you ? You did read the heading ? Dufus. If you’re working on climate as a specialty dufus, you’re a climate scientist regardless of your special area, dufus. A biologist can be a climate scientist. A mathematician can be a climate scientist. You didn’t ask for a climatologist dufus, you asked for a climate scientist.
You are a dufus, dufus. Maybe you're such aN ILLITERATE, YOU DIDN'T KNOW, dufus but climate affects biology, physics and thermal dynamics. So climate sciences needs scientists in all those fields


DUFUS

Oh, so every scientist we post is a climate scientist now? You concede?

 

[jc456]

This was your question, dufus …you dint ask for a climatologist .

What is the difference?

 

[Dagosa]

What is the difference?

Seriously, you don’t know the difference.
geesus, read my posts already. Climate science requires scientists from all fields.
A climatologist is a general specialty….
Read the second reference, top “1000 climate scientist”, and they are specialist in all related fields.
ha ha
You‘ve never been to college ? Ever had a science course and read the contributors in the references ?

 

[Dagosa]

What is the difference?

YOU ASKED FOR CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
THE HEADINGS IN LINKS WERE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

 

[Dagosa]

You concede?

I only concede that I’ve never read such misinformed posts as yours.

 

[Dagosa]

Oh, so every scientist we post is a climate scientist now?

No they aren’t. bubba. They have to be PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE FIELD OF CLIMATE SCIENCE and doing research at a climate affiliated institution. I make that point all the time. Your references are just blogging Or they are fking dead !

 

[jc456]

Seriously, you don’t know the difference.
geesus, read my posts already. Climate science requires scientists from all fields.
A climatologist is a general specialty….
Read the second reference, top “1000 climate scientist”, and they are specialist in all related fields.
ha ha
You‘ve never been to college ? Ever had a science course and read the contributors in the references ?

Again what is the difference?

 

[jc456]

YOU ASKED FOR CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
THE HEADINGS IN LINKS WERE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

No they are scientists who are in a different field, like analyst. Why do you always comment on the science field when we quote from a meteorologist? You can’t have it both ways bubba

 

[Dagosa]

No they are scientists who are in a different field, like analyst. Why do you always comment on the science field when we quote from a meteorologist? You can’t have it both ways bubba

I gave you the answer. Obviously, I’m right again,bubba.
As Both references were exactly in line. Re read my posts. I’ve answered all your questions.

 

[expat_panama]

I disagree, we have daily temps averaging no proxy data has that

Wait, you're saying we can measure temperatures directly w/o some kind of physical translation at the heat source?

 

[Dagosa]

No they are scientists who are in a different field, like analyst. Why do you always comment on the science field when we quote from a meteorologist? You can’t have it both ways bubba

You’re really naive about everything aren’t you ? Well, you need to read what a scientist does. Go ahead. We‘ll wait. It doesn’t matter what his specialty, if he isn’t conducting legitimate research in natural sciences and related fields, , he’s not a scientist. The operative words are “ doing research”. Like you, you’re just making up shit and throwing it against the wall as are your references. They aren’t DOING RESEARCH. THEY ARE bullshitters.

 

[Dagosa]

No they are scientists who are in a different field, like analyst. Why do you always comment on the science field when we quote from a meteorologist? You can’t have it both ways bubba

Ha ha
It doesn’t matter what your degree is in. You are not a scientist until you’re actively doing research.They aren’t scientists, they are paid lackies..

 

[jc456]

You’re really naive about everything aren’t you ? Well, you need to read what a scientist does. Go ahead. We‘ll wait. It doesn’t matter what his specialty, if he isn’t conducting legitimate research in natural sciences and related fields, , he’s not a scientist. The operative words are “ doing research”. Like you, you’re just making up shit and throwing it against the wall as are your references. They aren’t DOING RESEARCH. THEY ARE bullshitters.

There’s not one individual who is a scientist at graduation. They take on a field and work in the sciences. Stay up to date

 

[jc456]

You’re really naive about everything aren’t you ? Well, you need to read what a scientist does. Go ahead. We‘ll wait. It doesn’t matter what his specialty, if he isn’t conducting legitimate research in natural sciences and related fields, , he’s not a scientist. The operative words are “ doing research”. Like you, you’re just making up shit and throwing it against the wall as are your references. They aren’t DOING RESEARCH. THEY ARE bullshitters.

No, you all claim climate scientist title! Stop back pedaling

 

[Dagosa]

No, you all claim climate scientist title! Stop back pedaling

Read my links instead of continually making stupid posts.

 

[jc456]

Read my links instead of continually making stupid posts.

I read your links and your evidence isn’t in them! You failed

 

[ChemEngineer]

​

Why Scientists Disagree​

About Global Warming​

The NIPCC Report​

on Scientific Consensus​

Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer​

NIPCC​

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change​

(110 Pages)​

xix​

Key Findings

Key findings of this book include the following:

No Consensus

# The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that

scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion

of fossil fuels on the global climate.

# The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for

a “scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global

warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed

and often deliberately misleading.

# There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important

scientific issues in the climate change debate.

# Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on

scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global

warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and

probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the

United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Why Scientists Disagree

# Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many

fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or

two of these disciplines.

# Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational

evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the

parameters of models.

xix​

​

xx
# IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact
on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a
political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.
# Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias
include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.
Scientific Method vs. Political Science
# The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly
stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from
human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
# The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate
indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in
animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability.
# In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit
hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and
make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.
Flawed Projections
# IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global
climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related
greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.
# GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon
dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly
modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter
to their mission to find a human influence on climate.
# NIPCC estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from
280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7
Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming.
# Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by
real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has
been no global warming for some 18 years.

​

​

xxi​

KEY FINDINGS

False Postulates
# Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century
surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
# The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than
previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.
# Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in
temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not
have forced temperatures to rise.
# Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming.
In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere.
# A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would
probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world
would benefit from or adjust to climate change.


Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence
# Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at
“unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact
on the climate.
# Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and
regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability – in
some places rising and in others falling.
# The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures
drought decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the
hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a
closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do
with global temperature.
# No convincing relationship has been established between warming over
the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.

​

xxii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will

see milder weather patterns.

# No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other

than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing

methane into the atmosphere.

Policy Implications

# Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,

policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment

organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political

conflicts of interest.

# Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate

policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography,

geology, weather, and culture.

# Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based

on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to

turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet

face.