Sattelite Data Show 2015 Was NOT EVEN CLOSE to Being Hottest on Record.

[jc456]

And I can show that their financial well being is dependent on their continued "support".

Then do so. If you can, it will the first time in history any denier has done so.

According to the deniers, thousands of scientists spend at least 8 years in near-poverty working 60+ hours weeks in Ph.D programs and postdocs, all for the financial reward of ... a $75k/year job.

That is, the denier conspiracy theory doesn't make a bit of sense, as there are far, far easier ways to earn that kind of money.

So tooth, do you believe there are scientists out there who don't believe in AGW? And if you do, are any funded by government money?

 

[80zephyr]

Izhar Cohen
[FONT=Georgia, serif]Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong[/FONT]

At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?
An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together,” he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”
Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence andshow a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
Rather long, but sums up the findings of scientists. And if you want the names of the scientists on the board of the various Scientific Societies, they are on the sites of those societies. Look them up for yourself.

I love consensus. Consensus showed us that animal fat was bad and that trans fats would save us from sickness and heart disease.

Umm, until it didn't.

Know what I think? I think that if science can, for decades, make a mistake on how a single substance reacts with a human body, that for them to be sure of how a dynamic system like the climate, involving hundreds of ever changing variables is worse than folly.

My analogy still stands. Climate science today is so new that it is like a cave man trying to do brain surgery with a club. They have no idea if they have all the variables that affect climate, and even if they did, how those variables would affect the climate.

Mark

The science behind the computer you're typing this on is newer than climate studies. Do you trust it to do what you want it to do? If you get sick and go to the doctor, the medicine he gives you very likely will be newer than climate studies. Do you tell him no thanks, you don't trust his medicine? The jet engines in the plane you last flew on is newer than climate studies. What in god's name were you thinking getting on and flying thirty thousand feet in the air. So, you're argument there is crap.

As in all human endeavors, science makes mistakes. But the nice thing about the scientific method is that those mistakes are found and they are corrected. And the more a theory is tested and experiments repeated and predictions checked and falsifications attempted and failed, the more likely it is that a theory is correct. You will always be able to find examples of science making mistakes but the reason you know about those mistakes is that it WAS science and science always checks and that gives science the best chance, at any point, of being correct.

I agree, but like I said, this science is to new. BTW, when the ARGO program showed no warming in the oceans, the FIRST thing the scientists said was "we know the globe is warming, so we have to find the mistake in our ARGO program".

Talk about preconceived beliefs.

Mark

About 1820, Fourier noted that there was something in the atmosphere that was retaining heat. In 1858, Tyndall performed the first experiments that measured the absorption spectra of the various gases in the atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenius quantified the affects of a doubling of CO2, coming quite close to modern estimates. In 1957, Sues started measuring atmospheric CO2 on Mauna Loa. That is about two hundred years of science, about as old as most sciences.

The climates complexity makes it hard to study. The experiments you listed measured singular items in a complex mechanism. Its like me telling you I followed an electric impulse inside a brain and now I know exactly how the brain works.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Here are thousands

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what is your point here jc? Are you attempting to claim that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists do NOT concur with the IPCC conclusions?

Maybe if the scientists that dispute global warming weren't ostracized, demeaned and blackballed for their beliefs, it would be easier to prove consensus. Since fighting the establishment becomes a "death knell" for your career, I would be surprised if most scientist don't fall in line.

How about you?

It is sorta telling that the scientists that are in the denier camp are usually insulated from these actions by the positions they hold?

It is to me.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I gave an example of trans fats earlier. What about heart disease? "Everyone" knows that heart disease is caused by our sedentary lifestyle and processed foods. It has been the "scientific" mantra for decades.

Oops, we have a problem.

Studies of mummies from all over the planet show that the ancients also suffered from high rates of heart disease. And no one can accuse them of being sedentary or of eating processed foods.

So, what science "knows" appears to be wrong...again.

Personally, I have always thought that this claim was bullshit, and mummies are proving me correct.

Mark

You are making all kinds of claims, most having nothing at all to do with the subject. How about sticking to the subject, and giving links for your claims?

My claims have EVERYTHING to do with the subject. Consensus is claimed as proof.

Here is a link to the mummy claim:

Mummies show signs of heart disease


In my opinion, science actually knows a lot less than they think they do.

Mark

 

[jc456]

it's the arrogance that gets me. Someone is offended cause someone says something different than they do.

How dare you doubt me syndrome.

And funny, they are all funded by government money. Like hey, you doubting me will cost me my money bubba so back off syndrome. It is the perception anyway.

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't make one bit of difference who is right. Hottest? 2nd hottest? Trending cooler? Trending hotter? Doesn't matter.

The climate is not in our control. We did not change it, we cannot stop it. Period.

 

[jc456]

It doesn't make one bit of difference who is right. Hottest? 2nd hottest? Trending cooler? Trending hotter? Doesn't matter.

The climate is not in our control. We did not change it, we cannot stop it. Period.

ahhhh, but that's where you're wrong. The warmer deniers think they can control the climate. That is the issue that causes the scenario as we see them daily.

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't make one bit of difference who is right. Hottest? 2nd hottest? Trending cooler? Trending hotter? Doesn't matter.

The climate is not in our control. We did not change it, we cannot stop it. Period.

ahhhh, but that's where you're wrong. The warmer deniers think they can control the climate. That is the issue that causes the scenario as we see them daily.

I didn't say anything like that. I know THEY think we did it and I know they think we can fix it. Of course the way we do that is elect democrats.

 

[flacaltenn]

And that's the nugget of truth here -- isn't it? When all of your 10 year RECORDS are within a few hundreths of a degree of one another -- that's not a warming trend. It's propaganda..

That's one part paranoia, and one part fallacy of incredulity. You don't understand the science and statistics, so you assume it must be a conspiracy.

If you disagree, please explain in detail, with the calculations, why the average temperature of the world must undergo wild swings, being that seems to be your argument.

That's especially incoherent --- even for you.. I THINK you are just doing everything you can to avoid the OBVIOUS statement that I made. That if all your 10 year "RECORD" temps only vary by several 100ths of a degree -- that it is NOT a significant warming trend. At least it's NOT worthy of all this scuffling and headlines.

My science and statistics are just fine. Read some of my papers..

 

[mamooth]

So tooth, do you believe there are scientists out there who don't believe in AGW? And if you do, are any funded by government money?

Yes and yes, which proves that there's no conspiracy to silence anyone.

Was there any point to asking that?

 

[mamooth]

That's especially incoherent --- even for you.. I THINK you are just doing everything you can to avoid the OBVIOUS statement that I made.

My bad. I assumed what you said couldn't actually have been as dumb as it sounded.

That if all your 10 year "RECORD" temps only vary by several 100ths of a degree -- that it is NOT a significant warming trend. At least it's NOT worthy of all this scuffling and headlines.

After all, it's mainly third world folks dying, right? No concern of yours.

My science and statistics are just fine. Read some of my papers..

In your papers, are you incapable of multiplication?

Like this: 5 * +0.13C/decade = +0.65C over 50 years. That's more than a few hundredths, it appears.

 

[mamooth]

Every single one of them relies on grants

No, no scientists gets a dime from grants. You don't seen to have any idea of how grants work.

that they only receive because of their continued undying support for the fraud of AGW.

So Judith Curry was fired? Lindzen? All the rest?

Your conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it, and is directly contradicted by the real world.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's especially incoherent --- even for you.. I THINK you are just doing everything you can to avoid the OBVIOUS statement that I made.

My bad. I assumed what you said couldn't actually have been as dumb as it sounded.

That if all your 10 year "RECORD" temps only vary by several 100ths of a degree -- that it is NOT a significant warming trend. At least it's NOT worthy of all this scuffling and headlines.

After all, it's mainly third world folks dying, right? No concern of yours.

My science and statistics are just fine. Read some of my papers..

In your papers, are you incapable of multiplication?

Like this: 5 * +0.13C/decade = +0.65C over 50 years. That's more than a few hundredths, it appears.

Except there ain't no 0.13C/decade anytime recently.. And those records over the LAST decade are mostly literally spaced by hundreths of a degree.. Save the flame -- it's cold outside. Even if it WAS 1.2deg/century ---- there wouldn't be a general attempt to panic the herd..

 

[flacaltenn]

Every single one of them relies on grants

No, no scientists gets a dime from grants. You don't seen to have any idea of how grants work.

that they only receive because of their continued undying support for the fraud of AGW.

So Judith Curry was fired? Lindzen? All the rest?

Your conspiracy theory has no evidence to support it, and is directly contradicted by the real world.

No -- but BOTH of them have pretty much left the active research side of the field. Pretty effective blacklisting.
And you're kidding about scientists not "getting anything" from grants --- right??

 

[mamooth]

No -- but BOTH of them have pretty much left the active research side of the field. Pretty effective blacklisting.And you're kidding about scientists not "getting anything" from grants --- right??

You understand that it's illegal to personally get any money from a grant, no?

 

[flacaltenn]

No -- but BOTH of them have pretty much left the active research side of the field. Pretty effective blacklisting.And you're kidding about scientists not "getting anything" from grants --- right??

You understand that it's illegal to personally get any money from a grant, no?

Pretty irrelevant factoid since the money goes into paying my salary from the Department I work for. ALSO generally generally buys me expensive lab space and toys and trips to conferences to give the freaking papers..

 

[BluesLegend]

Well, it sure was the wettest December ever here in Portland, Oregon.

OMG the climate changed in Portland ALARM!!!!!! Old Rocks these fools house of cards are falling down.

 

[flacaltenn]

No -- but BOTH of them have pretty much left the active research side of the field. Pretty effective blacklisting.And you're kidding about scientists not "getting anything" from grants --- right??

You understand that it's illegal to personally get any money from a grant, no?

You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..

 

[mamooth]

Except there ain't no 0.13C/decade anytime recently.

Since 1970, it's actually more like +0.15C/decade, with no slowing down in the last decade.

And those records over the LAST decade are mostly literally spaced by hundreths of a degree..

Which is a red herring, as nobody ever expected records to jump by whole degrees, as such a thing would be totally contrary to the science.

Save the flame -- it's cold outside. Even if it WAS 1.2deg/century ---- there wouldn't be a general attempt to panic the herd..

Whether or not you're trying to panic anyone, the steady warming is still there.

 

[mamooth]

You need to know who signs the grant contract and who is held responsible for contract performance. The situational bookkeeping becomes even more apparent if the grant goes to non-academic institution. THERE the bookkeeping is CLEARLY tagged to your resources and YOUR job..

But you're not making any actual money off of it.

Hence, the "getting rich off grants" conspiracy theory goes boom.