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

[80zephyr]

Like I said, I deal in reality. If I had a nickle for every time a warmer admitted to be wrong but stated that THIS time was different...I'd have a lot of nickles.

Mark

Your statement is clear proof that you do NOT deal in reality. The world's scientists, by an overwhelming margin, tell us that the world is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

And yet, every time their science proves them wrong, they go to great lengths to prove that they screwed up in te first place.

Their record of being correct sucks. I hold out no hope that they are suddenly right.

Mark

 

[jc456]

Like I said, I deal in reality. If I had a nickle for every time a warmer admitted to be wrong but stated that THIS time was different...I'd have a lot of nickles.

Mark

Your statement is clear proof that you do NOT deal in reality. The world's scientists, by an overwhelming margin, tell us that the world is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

here Crick, since I messed up, I'll post this one up.

from
Rabett Run

Rabett Run: POPA throws a curveball

Excerpt:
"This rumbling drumbeat of public commentary continued through the summer, as an enlarged subgroup of POPA continued its efforts. An impartial observer with no inside knowledge of the inner workings of POPA might conclude that matters came to a head in September with the publication in the Wall Street Journal of an Op-Ed piece by no other than Steve Koonin himself. It was entitled “Climate Science Is Not Settled”. This was met with a forceful rebuttal from Raymond Pierrehumbert, a professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, who then commented on the procedures that the APS had adopted for reviewing the 2007 statement. He opined that “The choice of its drafting committee indicates some serious problems with the APS process for its climate change statement, as the committee did not include a single physicist who was actually doing work in the area of climate science."

Hmmmm, didn't use a single physicist doing work in the area of climate science. A guy from the University of Chicago claiming bad statements.

 

[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

 

[skookerasbil]

Love the way the AGW alarmist always refer to "the scientists". Make no mistake.........they are the AGW climate crusading "scientists". The ones who get hysterical about half a degree AFTER they rig the data. Thousands and thousands of scientists of PHd and Ma degree levels say the conclusions of "the scientists" are a joke. But to the AGW religion, these same scientists are fake scientists.

Unless you are one of the sheeple who hails from Scratchmyassville USA, it doesn't pass the smell test. Not even close. One must ask themselves if they are not a committed member of the religion...............if the science is so "settled", why to organizations like the NOAA and NASA have to screw around with the data?

 

[jc456]

Love the way the AGW alarmist always refer to "the scientists". Make no mistake.........they are the AGW climate crusading "scientists". The ones who get hysterical about half a degree AFTER they rig the data. Thousands and thousands of scientists of PHd and Ma degree levels say the conclusions of "the scientists" are a joke. But to the AGW religion, these same scientists are fake scientists.

Unless you are one of the sheeple who hails from Scratchmyassville USA, it doesn't pass the smell test. Not even close. One must ask themselves if they are not a committed member of the religion...............if the science is so "settled", why to organizations like the NOAA and NASA have to screw around with the data?

skooks, you need to correct:

do organizations like the NOAA and NASA have to screw around with the data?

 

[flacaltenn]

2015 will be warmest on record; 2016 could be warmer still

Reality.

Profound.........increase of less than 1/10 of a degree!!!



nobody cares

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..

 

[Crick]

Old Rocks statements regarding the national scientific society's statements is absolutely correct. The scientists of this planet say you're wrong.

well Judith Curry is a scientist and she says differently. So?

And was a member of the NAS, and part of group to write a statement, and her input and others input was not used in the NAS statement. so, how scientific can it be if it was all made up?

For every Judith Curry you can name, You KNOW I can find very close to 100 scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions.

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[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

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks statements regarding the national scientific society's statements is absolutely correct. The scientists of this planet say you're wrong.

well Judith Curry is a scientist and she says differently. So?

And was a member of the NAS, and part of group to write a statement, and her input and others input was not used in the NAS statement. so, how scientific can it be if it was all made up?

For every Judith Curry you can name, You KNOW I can find very close to 100 scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions.

And I can show that their financial well being is dependent on their continued "support". Kind of like how peasants do the bidding of crime lords because the crime lord hands out goodies from time to time. Defy him though, and the goodies go away....

 

[westwall]

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.

And up until you say "the science is settled" I am OK with what you posted. When you make that claim though, then you have entered into the realm of religion and abandoned science.

 

[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

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks statements regarding the national scientific society's statements is absolutely correct. The scientists of this planet say you're wrong.

well Judith Curry is a scientist and she says differently. So?

And was a member of the NAS, and part of group to write a statement, and her input and others input was not used in the NAS statement. so, how scientific can it be if it was all made up?

For every Judith Curry you can name, You KNOW I can find very close to 100 scientists who agree with the IPCC's conclusions.

Name 100 then. I threw you Curry. Go !!!!!!!!

 

[Crick]

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?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Every single one of them relies on grants that they only receive because of their continued undying support for the fraud of AGW.

 

[jc456]

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?

the point was, show me the scientist names, you stated for every Judith Curry, you had a 100 you could name. I went to your Wikipedia link, and I went down to the references they used and I can't access any of the information from the references. Pages don't exist, papers don't exist, so perhaps instead of link to Wikipedia, you follow through with your 100 scientist you claim you can name. Got any yet?

Also, to my point, the fact is none of the organization statements would be considered valid based on what I found with the information I tracked down for the APS. Again, even a dude from the University of Chicago backs me. So far, you haven't provided the class with what you claim you can.