Warmers are Neurotic Basket Cases

[Vegasgiants]

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in IPCC statements because of the IPCC's desire to speak from one voice. 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. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

So not a single scientific agency on the planet supports that premise?


Want to see my list? Lol

 

[ding]

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA Science

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and...

climate.nasa.gov

I see so since the sun can't drive warming trends (and I am guessing cooling trends for that matter) what caused these pre-industrialization climate fluctuations?

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

 

[Indeependent]

Definition: SCIENCE
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Where there appears to be no science would be within whatever substitutes for intellect in your brain.

You’re right and the Environmental Engineers I know say you’re wrong.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I see so since the sun can't drive warming trends (and I am guessing cooling trends for that matter) what caused these pre-industrialization climate fluctuations?

View attachment 632413
δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

A wide variety of things have caused temperature changes in the past. Now its AGW

 

[ding]

So not a single scientific agency on the planet supports that premise?


Want to see my list? Lol

Science isn't conducted by agency. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. There's your science. Besides I provided a paper on it. You didn't. And you certainly didn't address their argument that the results depend upon which datasets one uses in their models.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Science isn't conducted by agency. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. There's your science. Besides I provided a paper on it. You didn't. And you certainly didn't address their argument that the results depend upon which datasets one uses in their models.

Yep. In the past many things caused climate change. NOW the science says its AGW

THE SCIENCE IS OVERWHELMING

 

[ding]

A wide variety of things have caused temperature changes in the past. Now its AGW

You couldn't make a more vague less scientific answer than that.

Again... scientists come to different conclusions depending upon which datasets they use.

If you want to fuck science in the ass then use those warmer readings from urban temperature stations and use the low variability solar output datasets, go ahead. It won't be honest, it won't be correct but at least you can still get paid for doing it.

 

[Vegasgiants]

You couldn't make a more vague less scientific answer than that.

Again... scientists come to different conclusions depending upon which datasets they use.

If you want to fuck science in the ass then use those warmer readings from urban temperature stations and use the low variability solar output datasets, go ahead. It won't be honest, it won't be correct but at least you can still get paid for doing it.

Well that is you'r opinion. I know a lot of very respected science agencies that have looked at the data and disagree

 

[ding]

Yep. In the past many things caused climate change. NOW the science says its AGW

THE SCIENCE IS OVERWHELMING

I was wrong. You did make a more vague less scientific answer than that.

 

[ding]

Well that is you'r opinion. I know a lot of very respected science agencies that have looked at the data and disagree

You don't know the first thing about earth's climate.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I was wrong. You did make a more vague less scientific answer than that.

Thanks for playing

 

[ding]

Thanks for playing

You are welcome. Come back anytime.

 

[Vegasgiants]

You don't know the first thing about earth's climate.

Yeah but these guys do. Lol

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[ding]

Yeah but these guys do. Lol

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Back again so soon.

Science isn't decided by consensus. In fact, that would be anti-scientific. Again... Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in IPCC statements because of the IPCC's desire to speak from one voice. 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. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

 

[ding]

“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.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Back again so soon.

Science isn't decided by consensus. In fact, that would be anti-scientific. Again... Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in IPCC statements because of the IPCC's desire to speak from one voice. 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. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.

You're certainly entitled to a opinion


Consensus is how we decide what to do with science


Consensus is how we decide if your water is safe to drink

 

[westwall]

Can you name one scientific agency on earth that supports that idea?

Can you name one agency that supports it that doesn't make money from their support?

 

[westwall]

You're certainly entitled to a opinion


Consensus is how we decide what to do with science


Consensus is how we decide if your water is safe to drink

If that were true then plate tectonics would still be talked about in hushed back rooms.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Can you name one agency that supports it that doesn't make money from their support?

All of them

 

[Vegasgiants]

If that were true then plate tectonics would still be talked about in hushed back rooms.

Prove it