The hockey stick was wrong

[ding]

That there isn't one

 

[Crick]

If you think there isn't a consensus, you're either exceedingly stupid or a liar.

 

[ding]

If you think there isn't a consensus, you're either exceedingly stupid or a liar.

Or that consensus is for textbooks and not phenomenon still actively being investigated. Arguing the science is settled is decidedly unscientific.

I think the fact that scientists are still arguing that the recent warming trend is due to natural causes is proof there is no consensus.

 

[Crick]

Very close to zero scientists are investigating whether or not global warming has been taking place, whether or not CO2 is the primary cause of that warming or whether or not human combustion of fossil fuels is the source of almost every bit of the excess CO2. Those points have come to be "widely accepted science". No one seriously questions any of them except some ignorant whack jobs here and there.

 

[ding]

Very close to zero scientists are investigating whether or not global warming has been taking place, whether or not CO2 is the primary cause of that warming or whether or not human combustion of fossil fuels is the source of almost every bit of the excess CO2. Those points have come to be "widely accepted science". No one seriously questions any of them except some ignorant whack jobs here and there.

There has been an active campaign to dissuade them primarily because of the IPCC mandate to speak from one voice. There's no room for dissenters to be heard.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports.

"...Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, claims many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions. “It’s gotten so polarized that scientists who go against the mainstream worry they’ll be treated poorly in the press,” she says. “People will just say, ‘Oh, they’ve been bought off by the oil industry,’ but that’s not always true.”​

​

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism​

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you think there isn't a consensus, you're either exceedingly stupid or a liar.

75/77.....very convincing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you think there isn't a consensus, you're either exceedingly stupid or a liar.

Give us a fucking link on the consensus and name the scientist who say man is causing 100% ....i will be waiting for ever

 

[Wyatt earp]

Very close to zero scientists are investigating whether or not global warming has been taking place, whether or not CO2 is the primary cause of that warming or whether or not human combustion of fossil fuels is the source of almost every bit of the excess CO2. Those points have come to be "widely accepted science". No one seriously questions any of them except some ignorant whack jobs here and there.

Liar, I can't believe you actually posted all scientist think just fossil fuel is contributing.

What a dumb ass

 

[ding]

The climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as many want to believe. The earth's present climate is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2. To argue there aren't other variables that could be responsible for the recent warming trend other than CO2 is ludicrous.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And about what consensus failures has he been told?

You have seen them too.... too bad your memory ability gets smaller every year. You seem to imply there are zero consensus failures.....

You actually don't know of one? It is easy if your brain was working, here it is AGAIN for about the tenth time here in the forum and others have posted the below a few times too.

Aliens Cause Global Warming By Michael Crichton

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were
spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

LINK

 

[skookerasbil]

Very close to zero scientists are investigating whether or not global warming has been taking place, whether or not CO2 is the primary cause of that warming or whether or not human combustion of fossil fuels is the source of almost every bit of the excess CO2. Those points have come to be "widely accepted science". No one seriously questions any of them except some ignorant whack jobs here and there.

But spiking the ball on symbolic stuff is......

"widely accepted" is a mere talking point. It was zero relevance in the real world.

We've heard for almost 20 years about the consensus....but where has it transcended beyond the science club?

The gun grabbers have been spouting their certainty on the evil of guns for a dog's age. Where has it gotten them? Nobody cares.

Still no evidence anywhere the 97% consensus is mattering. Actually, it hasn't added up to dick.

 

[Crick]

The climate isn't as sensitive to CO2 as many want to believe. The earth's present climate is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2. To argue there aren't other variables that could be responsible for the recent warming trend other than CO2 is ludicrous.

So you do believe that the climate is getting colder while the oceans are getting warmer. I'd really like to hear you explain how that happens.

 

[ding]

So you do believe that the climate is getting colder while the oceans are getting warmer. I'd really like to hear you explain how that happens.

I believe we are in an interglacial cycle and that the earth is warming but the overall trend is a cooling planet as evidenced by the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

 

[ding]

It's odd that abu afuk thinks it's funny I believe we are in an interglacial cycle and that the earth is warming but the overall trend is a cooling planet as evidenced by the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. That's mainstream science that is actually in a textbook.

Maybe this will help him.

 

[skookerasbil]

What fucking panels on the right? Scientists are not divided into right and left. Basically, you and the rest that spew that lie are idiots. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have uneducated fools like you spewing nonsense.

But you've been calling climate skeptics "uneducated fools" for 12 years in this forum...."liars" and "idiots".....thus making you some guru with all the answers.

But exactly who is caring about the "clear and present danger" you've posted up in here about a billion times in those 12 years? And that temperature graph we've also seen a billion times. I mean.........wtf? The same shit. I lost track years ago the amount of times you've been made to look silly in here. Cognitive dissonance is they. To boot........you and your ilk debate this stuff like China doesn't exist on the planet.........also ghey.

Anyway.........we are STILL not seeing anybody who is caring. Which is to say.......the science isn't mattering. And you're calling skeptics the "idiots".. Come on, man!

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you do believe that the climate is getting colder while the oceans are getting warmer. I'd really like to hear you explain how that happens.

CO2 isn't warming the ocean; it is the SUN doing that!

Meanwhile I notice you ignored the numerous consensus failures post I made you had asked about.

 

[Crick]

I believe we are in an interglacial cycle and that the earth is warming but the overall trend is a cooling planet as evidenced by the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

View attachment 602743

I'm sorry but that does NOT explain how the ocean could be warming while the land surface is cooling. And do keep in mind that an interglacial period contains a warming period and a cooling period. You cannot say (as you have on numerous occasions) that we are in an interglacial and therefore we are cooling or therefore we are warming.

 

[Crick]

The latest data show present global temperatures to be radically higher and warming radically faster (ie, unprecedented) than at any other point in the last 24,000 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The latest data show present global temperatures to be radically higher and warming radically faster (ie, unprecedented) than at any other point in the last 24,000 years.

View attachment 603230View attachment 603231View attachment 603232

What was the second fastest warming period in the last 24,000 years?

 

[Crick]

The day I met my wife.