97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

So you think an MD qualifies him as a climatologist. Not surprising.

 

Addressing or not addressing CO2 proliferation is not part of the consensus position. It's part of common sense and logic, of course. But it's not included in ANY of the consensus positions I have listed. They are only about the facts. The rest are political decisions that reside outside the realm of climate science.

 

You are moving the goalposts in response to your latest refutation. Many scientists who have become well-known in climate research got their initial training in other fields.

 

So, literally, you don't have a point, other than to promote a ridiculous "consensus" that violates the scientific method. IN an attempt at what then? What is the point? If you prefer the idea that there is a consensus, even though, you have been repeatedly admonished that your 97% statistic is strategically disinformation, meaning that of those <35% of respondents, in the sample who provided a conclusion, that cook counted that number and then advanced it as the consensus you now defend. It's a stupid argument to make when more than half in fact, two thirds didn't express an opinion to begin with. This idea then that AGW as described by your consensus expresses a specific causality, CO2 of which you now refuse to express a condition to promote a policy then to manage.

So what's the point? To demand that the rest of us recognize this ridiculous standard for a "consensus" that literally has no meaning? That seems a fools errand at best. When you suggest you have facts, the fact then that what you are peddling shows just how disingenuous your argumentation actually is, well, that's a tactic, for sure. Your fact then is this. Of the small number of respondents who preferred an opinion, they agreed there was an anthropogenic cause for climate change. And as you then suggest, you have no other suggestion, other than this ridiculous temper tantrum designed to bully folks into accepting a dishonest standard as a fact.

 

You aren't a climatologist, and yet you insist you are credible here... Are you mad that even the normal folks can see through your otherwise packaged BS?

 

It can be entertaining to watch a poster retreat from defeat to defeat, but after a while it becomes merely tedious.

 

Moving the goal posts? As far as I know Michael Crichton had NO training in Climatology, and NEVER did any climate research. Unless you can provide a peer-reviewed study he authors which... Uhmmmm... never mind.... Asking you to support your claims is futile.

 

And now you're moving the goalposts again. It's amusing for a while to watch, but then it becomes tedious. As a general rule, it's dangerous for a poster to stake out a big claim in an area where he/she knows little. Just sayin'.

 

We actually do know this, because he was nice enough to document his research for us and we can read it. I thought you said you researched stuff?? Doesn't seem like it.

 

And for that reason I have made NO claims. I only parrot the claims climate scientists have made. Just like you parrot the claims you find on your pseudoscience websites. Right there it's clear why my posts will always have a leg up on yours.

My job is easy. I don't envy yours one bit...

 

Got that backwards, G. There's very little common sense or logic concerned CO2 panickers palaver.

Maybe your list is incomplete. Or maybe your self-vaunted "research" is woefully one sided.

 

It means years of study of scientific subjects, experience in chemistry, mathematics and other related fields. I don't recall you ever citing your academic credentials that would place your climate, and related topics, above his.

 

WTF? Michael Crichton has done NO research on climatology. You actually thought Jurassic Park was a scientific study?

That's hilarious! Did you also think that Alice In Wonderland was a historical novel?

 

Nothing like somebody jumping into a thread they haven't read and have no clue what it's about.

 

LOL... Move a goal post here, move one there, and the snake never gets cornered... But thankfully, the mongoose is here. No one said that his novels were scientific studies. Eat that straw man all by yourself. More, of course Michael was nice enough to actually append works, like "State of Fear" with all of his research compiled for his work of fiction. For example, you, nor others, have ever been able to remove the bias of heat islands from the data sets that you claim shows this unprecedented "warming". As noted earlier, weather stations that actually aren't effected by the heat island results show an entirely different version of the temperature record. But because the bias of the modeling doesn't allow for these heat islands to be reasonably removed or corrected for, the data set models are grossly over estimating actual temperatures.

And we know, for example, that this is being done purposefully. Why? Funding. Simple shyte here. Climate budgets world wide are in the 10s of billions of dollars, and don't all goodly little snot nosed progressive scientists only interested in their next research grant? And funny how those grants would turn off if one doesn't supply the expected data outcomes, even if it is immediately obvious to the lay person, like me, others, Michael Crichton for example to see...It's obvious man. And all you have as an explanation is the stupid appeal to authority that you believe in a "consensus" that literally doesn't exist, and is scientific BS to begin with. And yet, you're still here waxing on and on blathering endlessly about how no one understands your BS,... I don't suppose that it is a legitimate concern then that even you don't? Hard to know. But what I do know is that all of these ridiculous, baseless attacks that you use are annoying. Further, they indicate, to me, that you aren't serious. So, like you, I could just as easily blast your analysis that the Cook et al "study" was serious. More, that your continued belief in it seems to infer that you believe in a fantasy that you've been told to believe in. Your religious ecstasy then is transparent for all of us to witness.. How embarrassing for you.

 

LOL... That was your response? Because you couldn't defend your comment any other way? Likely. It's the kind of stuff you can't buy on HBO... it's why we come to watch... LMAO...

 

Classic sign of the damage consensus produces.

1. Wadhams on Arctic sea ice.
2. Hansen on sea level rise.
3. Sterling and Derocher on polar bears.
4. Mann on paleoclimate.
5. IPCC on ECS.
6. Oreskes on doubt merchants.
7. Viner on UK snow.
8. Schellnhuber on temperature tipping points.
9. Gore on inconvenient truths.
10. No hotspot.
11. Warming rate prediction 50% too high.
12. No Positive Feedback Loop

They were all hilariously wrong!

AGW is DEAD!!!

 

Which of Crichton's really dumb logical fallacies there impressed you the most?

There were so many, it was basically a Gish Gallop. That's why I'm asking which one you'd like to discuss.

 

1. Wadhams on Arctic sea ice.

One guy, and the universal consensus was that he was wrong. Claiming his opinion was consensus is dishonesty on your part.

1. Hansen on sea level rise.

He was correct.

1. Sterling and Derocher on polar bears.

Not enough evidence for a conclusion now. The predictions never said polar bears would all die by this time.

1. Mann on paleoclimate.

He was right.

1. IPCC on ECS.

They were right.

1. Oreskes on doubt merchants.

Not a climate scientist, so irrelevant.

1. Viner on UK snow.

Again, one guy, not supported by the consensus, and he was talking about the future.

1. Schellnhuber on temperature tipping points.

Too early to tell, but he's probably right.

1. Gore on inconvenient truths.

To vague to be meaningful, and not a climate scientist.

1. No hotspot.

A big ol' lie.

1. Warming rate prediction 50% too high.

From the 1985, and it's actually closer than that. More recent predictinos are spot on. In contrast, your crank cult can't even get the direction right.

1. No Positive Feedback Loop

Absolutely delusional.

So, ten tries, ten whiffs.
I do give you credit. At last you tried. However, you don't understand the degree of your own brainwashing, and just how much garbage psuedoscience you've been fed, so the results were hiloarious.

On the bright side, the cult will eat it up. As far as preaching to the choir goes, you aced it. It's not like any of them are in touch with reality.

 

Any time you use the extra-fudgy UAH temperature model -- emphasis on "model", something that your side usually says is forbidden -- you demonstrate how you can't be taken seriously.

Real scientists use real data.

 

And Carl Mears, who says that surface temperature data is the stuff to use.

"A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)."

https://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/

Predictions were 0.20C/decade, measured is 0.19C/decade. The accuracy is impressive.

Why is it you have to go back to 1990 report that summarizes 1985 science?

Because everything more recent is so darn good.

 

Of course it was. It was all over the popular media.

Nope. The people calling for cooling ended up being the first deniers, and they remained so until their deaths. The great majority of scientists in the 1970s were predicting warming.

And your side is _still_ calling for cooling. At least you're consistent.

It appears that your point is that you don't know what the science says. I accept that you've conclusively proven that.

 

What unbelievable nonsense! Modern Science doesn't work by verifying. It works through falsifiability. It's impossible to verify "all swans are white". Because you would need to gather all the swans in existence. But you can FALSIFY "all swans are white" by showing a swan of a different color. This, in fact, HAS been falsified.

On the same token, it would be absurd to demand proof of the statement "ALL peer-reviewed studies in the last 20+ years support the consensus position". But you can falsify the statement by showing ONE peer-reviewed study that arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the consensus position. In this forum, this statement has yet to be falsified.

You commit a rooky mistake.

And it most definitely does NOT work with one investigator. Because science requires replication. The results of a study must be REPLICATED again and again, or there is no science. This means multiple investigators. A consensus is obtained when a large enough majority of peer-reviewed studies arrive at the same conclusion. 100% is not necessary, but it appears to be the case (has not been falsified) for AGW.

I read your post and you make dozens of similar kindergarten-level mistakes. Too many to be worth it to go through them one by one. But it is evident that I must admit a mea culpa by overestimating your level of understanding of how science works.

 

Whoosh! And down the field go those goalposts. It's a good thing you've got them mounted on wheels and motorized.

Your previous claim is that a 3-year La Nina was claimed to be "impossible". Now you've sleazily shifted to "exceptional". As I'm sure you understand the very different meaning of the two words, I have to conclude your attempted deception is deliberate.

Can you show that any models predicted that a 3-year La Nina couldn't happen?

I'll answer. You can't, because such a thing never existed. You made it up.

Next time -- and there will no doubt be many next times -- when I bust you for saying something stupid, just quietly slink away. Don't dig down deeper into the liar-hole.

 

And you are willing to post remarkable falsehoods, as above.