CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[SSDD]

Do you really think it would be possible to orchestrate a conspiracy that large and keep it under wraps? Do you really think so many scientists would have so little integrity?

It has been done before...on larger scales, by far more important people than climate scientists. Believe it or not, there are actual conspiracies...Here are a few....feel free to look them up...much has been written on them over the years.

The Dreyfus Affair, The Mafia (they were practically unknown til the 60's), MK-Ultra a CIA program that used LSD on unsuspecting test subjects, Operation Mockingbird - CIA payments to high profile journalists and publishers to publish CIA propaganda, Aesbestos - between 1930 and 1960 manufacturers did all they could to prevent knowledge of the dangers of the product from leaking out, Watergate, The Tuskegee Syphillis Study, Operation Northwoods, Counter Intelligence programs against activists in the 60's, The Iran Contra Affair, CIA Drug Running in LA.

Conspiracies do happen...and they happen at the highest levels. I think climate science is the victim of an error cascade, but you claim absolute knowledge that it isn't conspiracy. That is a claim you can't support.

The burden of providing evidence is on you. You have charged the scientific community at large with conspiring to deceive the public and you seem to have no evidence of that at all. Irony...

I have done no such thing...I have said that there is no observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate we are experiencing is anything other than natural.

 

[SSDD]

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

I wonder how many of those "500" actually claimed that man is not contributing to the warming of the Earth. Anyway, there is a consensus among leading scientists. To claim otherwise is just laughable.

Quite a few find that various aspects of the climate are within the realm of natural variability and that there is no apparent human fingerprint on the global climate...

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

Again with the personal attack...I understand weasel words just fine..."Consensus" is one of them.

 

[Confounding]

Conspiracies do happen...and they happen at the highest levels.

An academic conspiracy that big wouldn't be possible to hide. You think every scientific institution on Earth is in on it?

I have done no such thing

You're suggesting there is a conspiracy among climate scientists, no?

 

[SSDD]

How about the 500+ peer reviewed, papers published in 2018 alone which reached conclusions that are skeptical

How many peer reviewed studies in 2018 do you think came to a different conclusion? I bet the number is a lot, lot higher.

Don't know...do you? 500 in a year sounds like a lot if there were nearly the total consensus that you claim.

And here's the real problem.

I am happy to listen to any skeptical scientist. Your side on the other hand operates on the assumption that the other side is wrong. You don't approach this matter scientifically because it's a partisan issue for you.

I am asking for straight forward observed measured evidence which suggests that the present climate is somehow different from the natural variations that happen in climate..how much more scientific can one be than to ask questions and seek evidence?

You are the one claiming that lack of evidence is meaningless and that we should trust the scientists because they say so.

 

[Confounding]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

Again with the personal attack...I understand weasel words just fine..."Consensus" is one of them.

It's not an attack. It seems like you really don't understand that calling something a consensus just means you're saying there is a general agreement among people, scientists in this case. Most climate scientists are saying something similar. That is called a consensus.

 

[Confounding]

You are the one claiming that lack of evidence is meaningless and that we should trust the scientists because they say so.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. You're not arguing in good faith so you're no longer interesting.

 

[Pilot1]

We're not supposed to question Man Made Climate Change. Remember, the Science is SETTLED, and the DEBATE is OVER! We aren't allowed to question anymore.

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

Again with the personal attack...I understand weasel words just fine..."Consensus" is one of them.

It's not an attack. It seem like you really don't understand that calling something a consensus just means you're saying there is a general agreement among people, scientists in this case. Most climate scientists are saying something similar. That is called a consensus.

"Consensus" is nowhere to be found in scientific method....It's a process of collaborative politics....It's often expressed in the redundancy of "consensus of opinion".....Science isn't open to opinion, either.

Your ignorance of semantics is showing.

 

[SSDD]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

Michael Mann's hockey stick is a fine example...it has been so thoroughly debunked and discredited that few people who believe in man made climate change even use it any more...he has spent millions of dollars trying to keep his data away from anyone who has the skill to analyze it because he knows it will be discredited...

That paper, and the work in it has been referenced thousands of times over the past couple of decades...and the papers that referenced it have been referenced, and those have been referenced.

And there are a great many papers that were retracted only after they had been referenced by other authors...and they remain part of the "science" and keep being referenced even though they were retracted due to fatal errors in the study..

Like I said...that sort of thing is far to common in science...

 

[SSDD]

You tell me

I did. It's because you're ignorant and they're not.

that is your opinion....not supportable by any evidence whatsoever...you seem to think that because you believe a thing, that it must be true...even when you have no evidence that it is true.

 

[Confounding]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

Again with the personal attack...I understand weasel words just fine..."Consensus" is one of them.

It's not an attack. It seem like you really don't understand that calling something a consensus just means you're saying there is a general agreement among people, scientists in this case. Most climate scientists are saying something similar. That is called a consensus.

"Consensus" is nowhere to be found in scientific method....It's a process of collaborative politics....It's often expressed in the redundancy of "consensus of opinion".....Science isn't open to opinion, either.

Your ignorance of semantics is showing.

Did I claim a consensus is anything more than a general agreement? There is a general agreement among scientists. That is called a consensus. I am not saying a consensus means science is settled. I'm saying it means most scientists believe something similar based on their observations.

 

[Confounding]

that is your opinion....not supportable by any evidence whatsoever...you seem to think that because you believe a thing, that it must be true...even when you have no evidence that it is true.

It's pretty bold to suggest you are less ignorant than leading climate scientists when it comes to the climate.

 

[SSDD]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

 

[SSDD]

An academic conspiracy that big wouldn't be possible to hide. You think every scientific institution on Earth is in on it?

The Tuskeege Syphilis Experiment was an academic conspiracy...and it was hidden for decades...

You're suggesting there is a conspiracy among climate scientists, no?

No...I am suggesting that they are the unfortunate victims of an error cascade..

 

[Confounding]

Personally, I believe it is an error cascade... It happens far too often in science.....a researcher publishes a paper with errors in it...other researchers publish papers, and rather than do all the work necessary, they will reference the findings of the author who published a paper with errors...then the errors become part of the second authors paper...and so it goes, till the errors published early on become ingrained in the science to the point that the errors are believed to be true...

Do you have any evidence of an "error cascade" in climate studies?

View attachment 249329
Every single model is based on the science you claim is gold... They all FAIL...

Need I say more?

You should show that graph to the scientists that work for NOAA. I bet they've never seen it before. Maybe they'd disappear you for disrupting the narrative.

It was produced by a climate scientist that works for NASA....He is the principle climate research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville...And the Science Team Leader for the dvanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite and was the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center

Does he think AGW isn't actually happening?

 

[Oddball]

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific one...Holding a vote has never been involved in scientific method.

It's a word with a meaning that you apparently don't understand.

Again with the personal attack...I understand weasel words just fine..."Consensus" is one of them.

It's not an attack. It seem like you really don't understand that calling something a consensus just means you're saying there is a general agreement among people, scientists in this case. Most climate scientists are saying something similar. That is called a consensus.

"Consensus" is nowhere to be found in scientific method....It's a process of collaborative politics....It's often expressed in the redundancy of "consensus of opinion".....Science isn't open to opinion, either.

Your ignorance of semantics is showing.

Did I claim a consensus is anything more than a general agreement? There is a general agreement among scientists. That is called a consensus. I am not saying a consensus means science is settled. I'm saying it means most scientists believe something similar based on their observations.

I don't give a rip what you are or aren't claiming...I'm telling you what the word means, and you're conflating it to mean that a bunch of people believe the same thing is what consensus is, which it is not...BTW, belief isn't involved in scientific method either.

 

[SSDD]

You are the one claiming that lack of evidence is meaningless and that we should trust the scientists because they say so.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. You're not arguing in good faith so you're no longer interesting.

I am asking for evidence...I am asking where the evidence is..The fact that climate science can't provide it is their problem...

 

[Oddball]

that is your opinion....not supportable by any evidence whatsoever...you seem to think that because you believe a thing, that it must be true...even when you have no evidence that it is true.

It's pretty bold to suggest you are less ignorant than leading climate scientists when it comes to the climate.

There's that appeal to authority again.

 

[Confounding]

you're conflating it to mean that a bunch of people believe the same thing is what consensus is, which it is not

Wow.