Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Dagosa]

You and I just aren't connecting here, how about we set this aside for now and maybe we can come back to this or some other topic later.

Cheers

It’s simple. Agreement among those who are the best qualified to work in a particular field should be a primary source of information. Agreement is consensus. Anything else is non science.

 

[ding]

It’s simple. Agreement among those who are the best qualified to work in a particular field should be a primary source of information. Agreement is consensus. Anything else is non science.

“The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011).

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus by the IPCC on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.

 

[ReinyDays]

Right, the data we're getting is not consistent. It might be the CO2 numbers that are wrong or are localized. The "150ppm survival" number may be wrong or for just a special case. For now my take is that any conclusions we make from any of this data will have to be labeled "conjecture".

Plant will evolve to survive at most any CO2 concentration ... thus we know plants today can survive down to 180 ppm ...

As a general rule ... the C3 plants can't photosynthesize below 150 ppm, and that's almost all plants ... however, the C4 plants can work down to 10 ppm. and these include corn, sugarcane and sorghum ... it's the C3 process that benefits from the warmer and wetter Earth ...

 

[jc456]

Right, the data we're getting is not consistent. It might be the CO2 numbers that are wrong or are localized. The "150ppm survival" number may be wrong or for just a special case. For now my take is that any conclusions we make from any of this data will have to be labeled "conjecture".

pretty much, most of the documents on this state 150 ppm is when plant life can exist. If you have a document that says otherwise, please share it.

 

[ReinyDays]

Here's a scientific paper with an amazing amount of details on this topic ... both for low carbon levels and high levels ... Google says this paper supports the claim of 10 ppm for the C4 systems ... but I'm not finding it ... however there's a wealth of information here ...

Gerheart, Ward; "Plant Responses to Low [CO2] Levels in the Past"; New Phytologist (2010)188: 674–695doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x ...

University of Kansas ... the true hotspot for evolutionary understanding ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

 

[Crick]

Plant will evolve to survive at most any CO2 concentration ... thus we know plants today can survive down to 180 ppm ...

As a general rule ... the C3 plants can't photosynthesize below 150 ppm, and that's almost all plants ... however, the C4 plants can work down to 10 ppm. and these include corn, sugarcane and sorghum ... it's the C3 process that benefits from the warmer and wetter Earth ...

Do you actually think plants can evolve fast enough to keep up with the current rate of change? Let's compare what we're currently seeing with rates of change during the glacial/interglacial cycles.

My first source says that we increased 2.5 ppm in the last year. That would be 250 ppm/century. Let's look at some data from the past.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Atmospheric-CO2-concentration-in-the-Late-Quaternary-solid-blue-line-course_fig3_346122220

That peak at ~325 ka BP looks like a doozy. What was the rate of change there? It went from 200 ppm to ~302 ppm over the course of about... (taking paper and pen to my screen and picking up ruler... ) 14,285 years. That comes to 0.714 ppm/century. So, the current rate is 357 TIMES as fast as the rapid rises we see during the Quaternary. How confident are you that plants could evolve fast enough to adapt, particularly when the total change during the interglacial spike was about as much as we've changed in the last 150 years and we are still pushing levels higher? I have to disagree with you. I don't think plants will adapt. I think if they can't already take it, they will die. Of course the same is true of animals as well. And fish. And all the carbonate-fixing molluscs. It's the last and deadliest blow of the Sixth Great Extinction.

 

[jc456]

Do you actually think plants can evolve fast enough to keep up with the current rate of change? Let's compare what we're currently seeing with rates of change during the glacial/interglacial cycles.

Show me they can’t bitch.

I’m still waiting for the name of that climate scientist

 

[expat_panama]

I'm not there. Life is more resilient than we think. We know (i.e. not conjecture) that there were thousands of feet of ice covering large portions of NA, Europe and Asia. We know (i.e. not conjecture) those areas are covered in plant life today. Besides the 150 ppm threshold doesn't actually say plants can't survive.

Of course the "150 ppm threshold" doesn't actually say plants can't survive, the number doesn't say anything because numbers don't talk, they just sit there waiting to be read. Meanwhile there are some people who will say that 150 ppm plants can not survive beyond the threshold and others who say not. That also is not conjecture as I can show you these people saying thus.

Let's step back, take a deep breath, and get back on the same side here.

Personally I can think up a lot of possible explanations as to why we have this inconsistency but a possible explanation is conjecture. Also, arbitrarily deciding w/o additional supporting fact that one faction is right and the other is wrong is also conjecture. We won't go there.

 

[expat_panama]

It’s simple. Agreement among those who are the best qualified to work in a particular field should be a primary source of information. Agreement is consensus. Anything else is non science.

That's what a lot of folks say, that science is good and consists of an enormous body of accepted knowledge, and therefore we ought to believe and accept what "science" says. In general I concur w/ that point of view.

At the same time science is also a method of inquiry that starts w/ physical observations which in turn support theories that are then duplicated to become accepted as scientific law. Meanwhile there are also some unqualified people who say they're scientists and they put on lab coats and spout garbage. When I'm suspicious I make my own observations, and ask the "scientist" for his supporting numbers, and I make my own decision regardless of whoever may agree w/ the "scientist".

 

[expat_panama]

Plant will evolve to survive at most any CO2 concentration ... thus we know plants today can survive down to 180 ppm ...

As a general rule ... the C3 plants can't photosynthesize below 150 ppm, and that's almost all plants ... however, the C4 plants can work down to 10 ppm. and these include corn, sugarcane and sorghum ... it's the C3 process that benefits from the warmer and wetter Earth ...

We got on this subject when someone posted a statement to the affect that a degree rise in world temperature was caused by the doubling of the CO2 concentration. Then we got into the problems w/ that statement. One problem is (like u pointed out) the different reactions of the different kinds of plants.

 

[Dagosa]

the same time science is also a method of inquiry that starts w/ physical observations which in turn support theories that are then duplicated to become accepted as scientific law.

That’s incorrect. Theories aren’t laws.

 

[expat_panama]

pretty much, most of the documents on this state 150 ppm is when plant life can exist. If you have a document that says otherwise, please share it.

That's just it, plants will behave as they want and it's our job to find a document that agrees w/ plants, not the other way around.

w/ the history of the earth there've been several times when conditions changed and 99% of all plant life was wiped out. Personally, I don't think were any where near that happening now.

 

[Dagosa]

When I'm suspicious I make my own observations, and ask the "scientist" for his supporting numbers, and I make my own decision regardless of whoever may agree w/ the "scientist".

As long as you realize It’s not your decision as to what is an accepted science theory. Unless you are presently working in the field and doing your own research, your opinions are just that. Those who make the decision on our tax dollars should be guided by consensus science and not the irrelevant opinions of non science persons.
Consensus is an absolute necessity to establish any validity in science. Science is more responsible for the greatest discoveries of mankind than anyother endevor. Nothing else comes close. The premise of this thread is entirely bullshit. The author has no fking clue what consensus means….

 

[Dagosa]

That's just it, plants will behave as they want and it's our job to find a document that agrees w/ plants, not the other way around.

w/ the history of the earth there've been several times when conditions changed and 99% of all plant life was wiped out. Personally, I don't think were any where near that happening now.

The discussion as to what occurred prior to man kind inhabiting the earth is less relevant than what happens while he is here. The title of this thread is bullshit.

 

[ReinyDays]

We got on this subject when someone posted a statement to the affect that a degree rise in world temperature was caused by the doubling of the CO2 concentration. Then we got into the problems w/ that statement. One problem is (like u pointed out) the different reactions of the different kinds of plants.

Plus plants evolve ... or more likely to "express" genes that utilize the extra carbon ... nature fills her niches in a big hurry ... especially these "generation a day" algae types ...

 

[Dagosa]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.

America Insider is under construction

The Pulse of America

www.americainsider.org

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.

That’s a silly argument. If Judith Curry wants to be believed, she needs to DO THE RESEARCH required, publish her findings and get a general consensus for her work.
Anyone listening to individual scientist opinions and accepting it as fact, is delusional.

 

[Dagosa]

We got on this subject when someone posted a statement to the affect that a degree rise in world temperature was caused by the doubling of the CO2 concentration. Then we got into the problems w/ that statement. One problem is (like u pointed out) the different reactions of the different kinds of plants.

Not really. We know if the CO2 came from plants or from the use of fossil fuels. It’s not a “plant problem.”

 

[expat_panama]

As long as you realize It’s not your decision as to what is an accepted science theory.

My decisions have nothing to do w/ which scientific theory is accepted by the over all scientific community. Two entirely different processes.

...Consensus is an absolute necessity to establish any validity in science...

Lots of folks leave it at that and I wish them well. Are you aware that sometimes the consensus is in error? Sure, it usually soon changes direction and puts itself aright but the consensus is human and subject to change.

 

[Crick]

My decisions have nothing to do w/ which scientific theory is accepted by the over all scientific community. Two entirely different processes.

Lots of folks leave it at that and I wish them well. Are you aware that sometimes the consensus is in error? Sure, it usually soon changes direction and puts itself aright but the consensus is human and subject to change.

Sometimes the consensus opinion of mainstream science is in error, but these days, that is an exceptionally rare happenstance. Acting as if it is more likely wrong than not.. that you should opposed widely accepted science... THAT is an error.

 

[jc456]

As long as you realize It’s not your decision as to what is an accepted science theory

so you take orders on what you believe in? wow, you really are an obedient rat!!!! Complicit fk huh?

I accept what I accept based on what I see. Not from anything anyone person ever says unless it's right in front of me. Doesn't make me a doubting Thomas either. makes me independent with my own thoughts.