That is why I go with the nearly 200 Nobel Prize winners in physical science, and the world's science academies, but few here, even on the non-denier "side," seem to think that accumulated knowledge, or the history of a century of peer-reviewed evidence in tens of thousands of publications by thousands of scientists in hundreds of journals in dozens of fields of science, has anything much to do with the subject. Maybe that is why they are here in the first place. And, on the denier "side" of course, "evidence" consists of undocumented quotes and fossil fuel industry funded videos, climate science is nothing but politics and activism pretending to be science so that it can tax us to death (but arguing against such conspiracy theories is being "alarmist"), literacy is for socialists, and honesty is "Greenies" being brainwashed, and logic = cherry-picking.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
It could be partly ignorance on the part of denailists. They say that AGW theory should be able to make predictions. And it does. Other things being equal, if carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, Earth will warm. A lot of the predictions, even those that come from scientists are
A. A lot of the predictions are hypotheses about the effects of global warming, but are irrelevant to the question as to whether global warming is happening. The temperature record is clear.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
B. Other predictions are as to what will happen decades or centuries in the future as we continue to cause Earth to warm. Warm ice to above 0C, it melts. And, except maybe in zoos, there are no polar bears in Hawaii.
I've seen a lot of warmists who seem to treat any prediction by any sceptic anywhere, or even by a prominent "sceptic" scientist, as the Absolute Word of anti-science at that point, presumably so that they can show that Anti-Science was Wrong if/when that prediction later proves untrue. Similarly, they seem to treat any incorrect statement by same as proof that all sceptics are wrong (or lying) about the subject.
There, fixed it for you!
Deniers try to play both side against the middle they try to say asking scientists is an appeal to authority while at the same time trying to create their own such appeal in their petition of (a claimed) 31,000+ scientists.
Note the denier answer here try to avoid the issue but Sagebrush talks of "crap" yet trys to quite just Bill Nye and use a well known denier blog point 'C3' why can't he link to a science site (any science site) because they have none.
As for the claim that consensus can't be shown, where are deniers hiding, the consensus is and has been on public display at any of the major climate conferences, like AGU which can attract 18,000 scientists yet not a peep out of any of these claimed 31,000 in almost a decade. Or the public position of all the leading scientific bodies world wide, denier excuse to explain this away verge on the comical.
You also have the peer reviewed journals ~2000 on climate and many more on related fields like glacial melt, sea ice, sea level rise and solar activity, all different fields (with different scientists) and again deniers papers are almost nonexistent, on these points how can any denier (with a straight face) claim any real scientific support. There is also the YouTube video of the founder of the weather channel claiming he (and 31,000 scientists) are about to sue Gore, of course the oldest of these date back to 2007 and so far nobody has sued Gore.
An experiment for sagebush (or any denier), show me something real to support the claim of even a fraction of 31,000, bet you can't.
I've tried to ask simple questions on which alarmist statements to believe and the basic concensus was "if it's in the realm of possibility you have to believe until it's proven untrue." Or "your not a scientist so your opinion doesn't matter"
What can you do? Stay out of associating problems like prostitution, eroding barrier islands or shrinking animals with AGW. Remain as ambiguous as possible when it comes to weather/climate events, keep repeating that it's just weather but this is the kind of weather we predicted. Ignore all rational causes unless you follow up with just because A always happened before and we knew B C and D was the cause doesn't maen that AGW isn't the cause now. Keep searching for that perfect analogy, like CO2 is like cyanide. Be as condescending as possible when someone disagrees with you.
Well it's understandable that deniers or skeptics treat proclamations by various scientists or even political figures like President Obama or Sec of State John Kerry with some disdain and low regard when anyone who doubts the science is marginalized and ridiculed by our so-called leaders and promoters of AGW claims. Is climate science really "settled" as Obama stated in a recent speech? Kerry claims we "do not have time to debate with the Flat Earth Society".... really??....skeptics are now comparative to the FES? It appears that some regard climate science as a new religion and no one can question their leaders.
I recall that you yourself have stated that climate is "complicated".
How are lay people suppose to weed out or filter the various claims when climate science is so complicated? Do we simply trust that scientists and politicians have the best information and have argued it out sufficiently? How does it diminish the value of climate science when people like Obama or Kerry make certain claims and yet, there is real doubt among accredited scientists? does any science aside from mathematics ever get to 100% certainty and knowledge?
It use to be...and may still be in some fields.. that scientists had a healthy skepticism of their work and that was conveyed in science articles and media reports on science. It is just as important to see where you could be wrong as it is to determine if you are correct. At least that's how I was taught science years ago. Many new developments and understandings begin with some scientist saying..."Hmm, that's odd."...moreso than "Eureka, I've found it."
Or we understood that new evidences and methods would get to the bottom of a matter over time so we held our opinions and beliefs until it was found out one way or another with a high degree of confidence. Science is always provisional and should be open to new evidences. There was still a chance that we could be wrong or not fully understand something due to incomplete data or misinterpretations, etc...
Nowadays it seems more like many in the climate science field are trying to get into the spotlight and show that their work is definitive or that we are closing in on the real problem when in fact, some of the basics are not really pinned down and well understood.
I've posed this question a few times before ... has anyone in climate science determined that Milankovitch cycles of the Earth's axis tilt/ecliptic are indeed gradual and fairly steady? If we are basing climate models on historical climate data to determine future climate optimum parameters, wouldn't such regular cycles be an important part of that? what if they aren't regular? how do we determine that? has anyone done so?
Well yes. There is evidence collected back in the 1930's by the Australian government George Dodwell from historical data and calculations of the ecliptic based on gnomon markers or ancient astronomical/temple sites that the Earth underwent a sudden axis tilt change of a few degrees around 2345 BC which gradually returned to normal until around 1850 AD. A few degrees of tilt change equates to around 333 KM distance of the poles being altered in their locations which in turn affects global climate, weather patterns and temps in the past 4000 years. It also affects how we interpret some ice core data...altered polar temps and seasonal data or how fast glaciers are formed or retreat, etc.. and how we model future climate today based on prior temps or climate data.
So until Dodwell's calculations are confirmed or refuted...and no one has had a good reply as far as I can see or include any confirmations in climate reports from the IPCC..., I will hold a reservation that AGW climate science and their predictions are completely valid just on that evidence alone yet there may be other issues as well.
Some points to ponder....
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain
"The greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge"
Professor Mike Disney... Cardiff University
or..........
"The greatest obstacle to progress is not the absence of knowledge but the illusion of knowledge.”
Daniel Boorstin
Daniel Joseph Boorstin (October 1, 1914 – February 28, 2004) was an American historian, professor, attorney, and writer. He was appointed twelfth Librarian of the United States Congress in 1975 and served until 1987. He was instrumental in the creation of the Library of Congress Center for the Book."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._B...
Dodwell's work and related article...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre...
http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_manus...
to be fair, supporters of climate change are far more likely to take the word of people, especially non-scientist as the ABSOLUTE GOSPEL.
Scientist who support global warming have discredit themselves because they have largely ignored the scientific process. Openly sharing data and information is a critical part of the scientific process yet many global warming scientist will not share the data that they used to come to their conclusions. When you hide information, it's hard to take your work seriously. Many global warming supporters wanted to suppress the latest IPCC report or reword it to sound more promotional about global warming. A few even wanted to exclude certain data that tainted the theory of global warming
Stop trying to be so clever.
Because the rest of the climate lobby stays quiet as this statement is made, or repeats it. They want the scary statement to be heard because it pushes for political action, and then don't want to admit a mistake when it is called out, instead blaming it on one person. How may scientists are willing to call out Michael Mann for making false statements, using upside-down data, etc?
This is why James Annan or Judith Curry gets credibility. He has actually bet against Joe Romm's predictions of ice-free Arctic. He's not a skeptic, as he has attempted to bet Richard Lindzen as well. However, Annan's willingness to call out extreme language brings credibility and should be adopted by others.
Instead, people are happy to let false language slide because it helps 'the cause.'
We need to see more of this:
Like many of my colleagues in the climate dynamics community, I am not convinced that this winter’s extreme cold lies outside the range of internally generated variability of the climate system or that it was exacerbated by the recent reduction of summer Arctic sea ice coverage. The evidence linking Arctic amplification to the behavior of the wintertime polar vortex is not strong and it is not well supported by independent, peer-reviewed studies.
When you produce crap and expect us to believe it, we have the right and duty to show you the error of your ways. It doesn't matter if the crap is coming from a scientist or not. For example, Bill Nye is a joke. Where is the outrage coming from the greenies? No you are too busy promoting your agenda to stop and analyze his mockery of science. If you were a true scientist you would be outraged at the sciences of Bill Nye and Al Gore. You would be outraged at Phil Jones corrupting data. You would be outraged with James Hansen for his manipulating data.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
As long as you go with the flow of the AGW agenda and not true science, keep expecting to take hits from those of us who are reasonable and scientific.
As long as you are not abhorred with the lies of your fellow believers, do not complain to the fact that we expose these cockroaches for what they are.
We sat on our hands long enough back in the 80s and 90s and look what it got mankind. Run away taxes and legislation that have been to the detriment of mankind in general, while people like Al Gore get rich from spewing this trash.
All it takes for evil to prevail is for honest men to do nothing.
Because we are fed up with all the doom and gloom predictions, of course there are scientists with integrity but a lot without when you read some of the climate gate emails, it definitely makes you suspicious.
If there was some real debate, with scientists from both sides, then I would be less skeptical
I've seen a lot of denialists who seem to treat any prediction by any scientist anywhere, or even by a prominent "alarmist" non-scientist, as the Absolute Word of science at that point, presumably so that they can show that Science was Wrong if/when that prediction later proves untrue. Similarly, they seem to treat any incorrect statement by same as proof that all scientists are wrong (or lying) about the subject.
Do non-denialists do that sort of thing, too? Why do denialists do that, other than for cheap debate points? Can the rest of us do anything about it? Any other thoughts?
Their supreme idiocy is to refer to those who agree with them despite a lack of any relevant qualifications as "real scientists" making those who disagree "fake scientists". A case of the fallacy of conformational bias or just plain stupidity on the denialists part
Because "A"scientist is "all" scientists. You are me and I am you. We are all sheep following our sheep dog. I have exposed this. The Illuminati bloodlines very control system turns "A" into "all" each A and All in different groups controlled by it's own force. PLEASE READ THANK YOU. In my new book I expose this in detail. You will get a copy, all of you, for free. This is a cliff notes version customized to fit YA! content limits.
The very few control the many. To understand this you first need to understand one major thing. Stop thinking like the Illuminati/globalist are like us or think like us. If you think they think like us then your really going to mis the point. It is for this reason that your delusions begin. They do not think like us, Do we kill millions of people in useless wars? Do we steal money from innocent people via banking scams and over taxation? Do we have a long line of family power and control? The way it works is simple. For the few to control the society of billions you simply first need to divide the people into different beliefs, each controlled by it's own force. This is done through religions and science. Once you have a belief you then are a follower, closed minded, and will only believe things which express your belief. Like Christians refuse Astrology(it is the devil) Science/atheist refuse creation(it is impossible......not really but "scientific theory" says it is). I and others think everything is a conspiracy etc.
Once they have your mind locked they then can use their media outlets to keep you locked in this mind prison. Now the biggest form of control and brainwashing is the education system. My research shows that the education system soul purpose is to make you smart enough to be an economic slave for the illuminati but not smart enough to discover the truth. The way it works is your given a book(government/rothschild approved same system across the globe just customized for the agenda in any given country) your then asked to re write the information on tests, essays, and homework(the extension of the brainwashing to the home to keep your parents locked in the matrix) if you repeat the book perfectly you get A's if you read it say it is a bunch of crap well you get it. Now that you have gone through the education system and enter adulthood. You are bombarded by the "norms". If your this(religion) you must believe this, if your that you must believe that. These norms are extended through the political system this is why 9 out 10 republicans are christians/wealthy or religous and 9 out of 10 Liberals are atheist or poor(the poor are brainwashed into thinking the democrats are their savior with all their socialist programs). The media can then play those cards and keep you in your mental box, the media is simply you and I each member spreading their beliefs. When someone questions the norms(beliefs) you condemn them because their is a fear that you wish to keep suppressed, the fear of ignorance. We blindly accept whatever is given to us as long as it fits the belief we have been given since birth. The illuminati knows this and that is how propaganda works. Divide and rule by secrecy is the ultimate way to control the masses. You are funneled into the opinion the Illuminati bloodlines want you to have. No need for a "whistleblower" the very system is designed to turn people into sheep following the sheep dog(their beliefs).
They manipulate us through fear. AGW is a prime example. When we are in fear we look out for help or protection from the fear. We are then given "the bad guy" by the media/government and this then relieves your fear. Also they use fear tactics which keep you controlled by never solving the fear. "Oh their is a registered sex offender in my neighborhood can't let my kids outside" this keeps us in a prison of our homes. We are lead to believe that life is simple just go to work pay your taxes and die. They keep you looking forward with your beliefs and at that point they can simply use your beliefs against you to further their agenda. They are systematically using vehicles such as AGW, education, religion, and politics and many many others to force your beliefs into the ideology that we need fascism and control to "protect our freedom". You won't question because the fear has been suppressed and you do not want to relive that fear. Religion does this via the "this is just gods plan and all will be good in heaven" Science does this by "everything is just coincidence life is simple we live then we die it is just the way it is, I can't control nothing I am just little me".
They suffer from pluralcy
Kano Links?? Climategate was found to be BS and you deniers are still crying about it. And where are your links to doom and gloom Most scientists would prefer not to warn about the worst case scenario, but failure to do so and as soon as something happens, you deniers will accuse they should have warned us. The few doom and gloom sites I have seen are likely accurate predictions of the worst of climate change
The sky is falling
