97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

The UAH global temperature report is produced by a joint project among NOAA, NASA and UAH. You are uniformed.

 

Which says nothing about how it's _model_, with all sorts of fudge factors.

 

If it's good enough for NOAA and NASA then I conclude your complaint is without merit.

 

Terrible attempt at aa hominem fallacy.

 

But it's not good enough for them. That's why they don't use it.

You seem confused about the concept of "funding an experimental thing."

 

You are uninformed. The UAH database is created by NOAA satellites launched by NASA. The UAH data are the NOAA/NASA data.

UAH satellite temperature dataset - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › UAH_satellite_tempera...

The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from ...

 

Sure.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-y...c-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)

 

Decades of collaboration.
25th year of GTR begins with revised satellite dataset - UAH
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu › AprilGTR2015
PDF
Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset is by far the most extensive revision of the procedures and computer code we have produced in ...

 

The science is unsettled.
Settled Science and the Politics of Knowledge
Adam Ellwanger, The American Mind



The deep, dark secret of climate science is that it will always be the day after tomorrow. So the charade rolls on. Read More

 

You remain ignorant of his numerous accomplishments since he created an Emmy winning show, created Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, created and directed Westwood wrote several technical books on computers and so on Wiki has a nice coverage of his success in several fields he participated in showing his diverse intelligence in play.

Wikipedia LINK

Excerpt:

John Michael Crichton (/ˈkraɪtən/; October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008 was an American author and filmmaker. His books have sold over 200 million copies worldwide, and over a dozen have been adapted into films. His literary works heavily feature technology and are usually within the science fiction, techno-thriller, and medical fiction genres. His novels often explore technology and failures of human interaction with it, especially resulting in catastrophes with biotechnology. Many of his novels have medical or scientific underpinnings, reflecting his medical training and scientific background.

and,

Crichton was also involved in the film and television industry. In 1973, he wrote and directed Westworld, the first film to utilize 2D computer-generated imagery. He also directed: Coma (1978, The First Great Train Robbery (1978, Looker (1981), and Runaway (1984). He was the creator of the television series ER (1994–2009), and several of his novels were adapted into films, most notably the Jurassic Park franchise.

Awards

• Mystery Writers of America's Edgar Allan Poe Award, Best Novel, 1969 – A Case of Need
• Association of American Medical Writers Award, 1970
• Mystery Writers of America's Edgar Allan Poe Award, Best Motion Picture, 1980 – The Great Train Robbery
• Named to the list of the "Fifty Most Beautiful People" by People magazine, 1992
• Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement, 1992
• Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Technical Achievement Award, 1994
• Writers Guild of America Award, Best Long Form Television Script of 1995 (The Writer Guild list the award for 1996)
• George Foster Peabody Award, 1994 – ER
• Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series, 1996 – ER
• Ankylosaur named Crichtonsaurus bohlini, 2002
• American Association of Petroleum Geologists Journalism Award, 2006

===

Then we should tell Milton Humason that his ZERO college degree background should have prevented him from making that famous paper be published and being hired as a STAFF member at Mt Wilson while he was a high school dropout.

Wikipedia LINK

Humason dropped out of school and had no formal education past the age of 14. Because he loved the mountains, and Mount Wilson in particular, he became a "mule skinner" taking materials and equipment up the mountain while Mount Wilson Observatory was being built. In 1917, after a short stint on a ranch in La Verne, he became a janitor at the observatory. Out of sheer interest, he volunteered to be a night assistant at the observatory. His technical skill and quiet manner made him a favorite on the mountain. Recognizing his talent, in 1919, George Ellery Hale made him a Mt. Wilson staff member. This was unprecedented, as Humason did not have a Ph.D., or even a high school diploma. He soon proved Hale's judgment correct, as he made several key observational discoveries. He became known as a meticulous observer, obtaining photographs and difficult spectrograms of faint galaxies. His observations played a major role in the development of physical cosmology, including assisting Edwin Hubble in formulating Hubble's laws of motion.

===

Then we have PHD Astronomer Alfred Wegener who was a better amateur5geologist than the professional geologists of the day who thought he was crazy for promoting Continental Drift hypothesis and noticed that the coastlines and Africa were once connected something geologists scorned him on.

Wikipedia LINK

Selected Excerpt:

From 1902 to 1903 during his studies he was an assistant at the Urania astronomical observatory. He obtained a doctorate in astronomy in 1905 based on a dissertation written under the supervision of Julius Bauschinger at Friedrich Wilhelms University (today Humboldt University), Berlin. Wegener had always maintained a strong interest in the developing fields of meteorology and climatology and his studies afterwards focused on these disciplines.

In 1905 Wegener became an assistant at the Aeronautisches Observatorium Lindenberg near Beeskow. He worked there with his brother Kurt, two years his senior, who was likewise a scientist with an interest in meteorology and polar research. The two pioneered the use of weather balloons to track air masses. On a balloon ascent undertaken to carry out meteorological investigations and to test a celestial navigation method using a particular type of quadrant (“Libellenquadrant”), the Wegener brothers set a new record for a continuous balloon flight, remaining aloft 52.5 hours from 5–7 April 1906.

===

Wikipedia LINK

What about Henrietta Leavitt who made great astronomical discoveries without a college degree in the field.

Leavitt attended Oberlin College before transferring to Harvard University's Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women (later Radcliffe College), receiving a bachelor's degree in 1892.[7] At Oberlin and Harvard, Leavitt studied a broad curriculum that included Latin and classical Greek, fine arts, philosophy, analytic geometry, and calculus It wasn't until her fourth year of college that Leavitt took a course in astronomy, in which she earned an A−.

Leavitt also began working as one of the women "computers" at the Harvard College Observatory, hired by its director Edward Charles Pickering to measure and catalog the brightness of stars as they appeared in the observatory's photographic plate collection. (In the early 1900s, women were not allowed to operate telescopes[10], but the scientific data were on the photographic plates.)

===

Then we have Clyde Tombaugh recently a High School graduate who in just a few months of blinking the photos he made discovered Pluto while many professional astronomers failed after years of searching because he didn't follow the expert's method of searching, he made his own decision on looking for it via Lowell another amateur astronomer of the day who made predictive calculations, but Tombaugh chose a specific region for his search that netted him the prize.

Wikipedia Link

Excerpt:

Beginning in 1926, he built several telescopes with lenses and mirrors by himself. To better test his telescope mirrors, Tombaugh, with just a pick and shovel, dug a pit 24 feet long, 8 feet deep, and 7 feet wide. This provided a constant air temperature, free of air currents, and was also used by the family as a root cellar and emergency shelter. He sent drawings of Jupiter and Mars to the Lowell Observatory, at Flagstaff, Arizona, which offered him a job. Tombaugh worked there from 1929 to 1945.

=====

I schooled a Civic Engineer who stated Pressure is the all-important factor in designing Irrigation systems which myself and a coworker who were Irrigation Specialists argued it is FLOW RATE that also matters and pressure while important isn't the defining parameter in making a viable system and often the cause of utilizing undersized pipes in their designs.

I knew this when I had to correct numerous design flaws in many parks over 18 years' time because they were using undersized pipes and too many sprinkler heads (16-28 on 2" valves often just broke up a giant zone into two smaller ones by adding a new valve to it to greatly boost the pressure which I did extensively in a park that had around 22-24 heads average on 2 " Valves which made the pressure to be low around 35-42 PSI which was why there were many dry spots between straight zones in the park as they couldn't reach each other a violation of the 110% coverage standard between sprinklers standard.

Had to show him that 1" is rated for 15 GPM maximum for safe flow rate, 1 1/4" is 26 gpm, 1 1/2 35 gpm and so on to show that each sprinkler needed a specific flow rate to work properly and the system needs to be pressure balanced which is only possible when there is sufficient flow of water into the zones are available otherwise they decline near the ends of the zones which can create dry spots in the grass.

I had pressure gauges that were designed to measure the individual sprinkler through its nozzle to see how well a zone is performing which needs to between 50-60 psi for best performance while higher numbers can work it reduces watering efficiency as more of the stream becomes more fragmented into mist which floats away.

He had the degree I didn't have such a one, but I taught him how to design better Irrigation plans which he did even created a test irrigation plan format to help my bosses interview people for work as Irrigation Specialists opening job.

You shouldn't get hung up on education credentials so much as many people did well without one because they are intelligent and hard working.

 

His accomplishments are great, but they don't make him a climatologist.

In fact, he was one of my favorite SF authors when I was a teen in the 70s. I was saddened when he became a science denialist in his final years of life.

In any case, we have learned that your understanding of epistemology is not up to the task of maintaining a significant dialogue about research. But thanks anyway.

 

Actually, your reply shows that you prefer to advance the snobbish Argument from authority argument since you ignored numerous examples of people who shines in the field of science without a college degree even a high school dropout to their name did very well anyway because they were intelligent and hard working.

It is also revealing that you ignored examples of people who greatly advanced science research without a college degree in the requisite field or no degree at all since that destroys your argument.

You showed no evidence that he is anti-science at all......., don't you know how to post an effective counterpoint?

Actually, I already destroyed your absurd 100% consensus nonsense by showing THOUSANDS of published studies that doesn't support the AGW hypothesis which I posted HERE and HERE which you completely ignored for a reason everyone else understood because you have been fully refuted over 3 days ago and you still haven't acknowledged it because you can't refute it thus ignoring it is all you can do.

Your snobbery doesn't work here.

 

People who shine in science without a college degree don't deny well established scientific fact.

Crichton was a great SF author. But never came even close to "shining" in the field of climatology. Best I can say for him is that, having died in 2008 (I think it was), he didn't live to see most of the predicted effects of AGW become reality... some even sooner than was originally predicted. He might have changed his mind if he had lived for another 5 or 10 years. Can't say the same for anybody alive today, though.

 

No, the low warming rate, the no hotspot and no positive feedback loop situation after 30 years makes clear there is no viable AGW existing.

You still haven't countered anything he wrote thus all you write is opinion and nothing more.

I doubt you even read the book which I own a copy.

 

20 years ago I would have happily engaged with you in a discussion about the science behind AGW. I would have ALL science studies available behind me. You would have pseudoscience websites, an SF author who died 15 years ago and many denialists with no scientific training on climatology, as well as Fox and Breitbart on your side (you even lost the support of Oil Companies, since back then)

But that debate is over. It was over decades ago. There is no point or any need to discuss science anymore. It's settled science. It's like debating Evolution or Maxwell's Equations or the Theory of Gravity.... So we don't ask you to understand science anymore. All we ask of science denialists is that they stay out of the way of the adults who are now trying to mitigate (not fix, because it's not fixable anymore) the problem.

 

The main cross connection in a convo w/ u is that your understanding that science honors AGW is the apparently overwhelming favoring consensus. Everyone says so. Discussion closed.

Please correct me if I misunderstand u.

Our approach is from an entirely different direction because we see science not as a body of accepted info but rather as a method of inquiry. We have yet to hear what's warming, and from what temperature readings the warming is based on. We're not saying that this makes u wrong, but does mean we've heard nothing from u that supports AGW.

 

It doesn't matter what "everyone" says. Only thing that matters in science is what they can prove. And there is only ONE way to prove things in science: peer-reviewed studies. And it turns out every single peer-reviewed study that provides an answer to the question published in the last 20+ years "says so". My area is Epistemology. Not Climatology. But any epistemological analysis of this fact would conclude that that IS pretty convincing.

100% wrong, as explained above.

And you would be wrong again because Science is BOTH. By "Science" you can be referring to the Scientific Method or you can be referring to the corpus of knowledge obtained using the Scientific Method.

There is an unwritten way to distinguish the two generally used unofficially. Which is to use Science (capital S) when referring to the method, and science (lower case s) when referring to the bulk of knowledge or any part of it. I have been knowing for using the wrong capitalization. So don't mind me if I do it wrong.

 

. Sorry no.Peer review, as documented elsewhere on this forum is NOT the GOLD STANDARD in climatology. All a peer review does is say the content of the study is structurally sound and the conclusions are consistent with the data. Many have been proven wrong as science progresses and other questioned and debated by other climatologists.
From a scientific standpoint climatological studies lack one of the features most studies possess - repeatability. Recreated the climate conditions within which the data was collected is not possible. Additionally, studies based on climate models depend on the accuracy of the model - a questionable procedure.

 

Haw haw haw haw haw you have ducked several THOUSAND published science papers I listed by people who have science degrees I posted in front of YOU that destroyed your 100% consensus baloney that doesn't support the AGW agenda which you clearly support because you are emotionally attracted to it because you are afraid to be open minded you are afraid of Michael Crichton who is far smarter than you and has won awards started the Jurassic Park movie franchise, developed ER the Emmy award winning show, created and directed a good movie Westworld, wrote a good screenplay for the Andromeda Strain sold over 100 million books and more, he is more credible than you are on this topic as he is lucid and rational in his presentation which you are not here.

It is clear you have reached the bottom of the barrel which means you have nothing left to offer but useless opinions which doesn't help you because you say nothing of substance which is why no one thinks highly of your postings. If the science was settled and there is no debate why does the IPCC continues to exist when every last dot on the AGW is in place, and little change on the reports that continues to run on a phalanx of unverifiable climate modeling scenarios that does work yet there is a growing flood on new science papers coming in that contradicts the he he he settled science of the AGW propaganda which YOU refuse to acknowledge which means YOU are the one who is denying a lot of recently published science research that doesn't support the AGW idea because you have been thoroughly brainwashed which is sad.

You are the anti science puppet, the one who is denying THOUSANDS of published science papers that doesn't agree with your IPCC cult claims and promoting utter nonsense of a he he ha ha settled science which the IPCC doesn't seem to get that message as they keep spewing out new modeling baloney every 5 years, the money must be really good which make it look like a racket in progress.

Twice I have stated there is no hot spot and no positive feedback loop you ignored it likely because you can't address it because they don't exist.

I don't watch Fox or Breitbart because I am a Free Thinking Independent who dislike the leftist and republican parties because they stopped doing their jobs as there supposed to do. I was thrilled to see a small group of Republicans demanding the incoming Speaker get back to the older ways of doing business in the House where the bills were smaller and full debate was once engaged on the floor and voted on in person and get those committees back to normal to their part to get the bills better addressed for the main body.

You have nothing here why bother repeating the obvious propaganda you promote here that doesn't impress anyone since you show a remarkable inability to debate the science instead you get snobbish, insulting and a clear avoidance to address the science that has been posted in front of you.

I am done with your empty irrational replies.

 

He is so stuck on the consensus propaganda which Dr. Crichton in the speech he didn't read that showed a sampling of consensus ERRORS/FAILURES of the last few hundred years because he thinks that is an attack on his holy IPCC church which is why he promoted a lot irrational statements such as 100% consensus which is false and why he dislikes Crichton so much.

I think he is really afraid of a debate because he hasn't been in one.

 

This is the reality warmist/alarmists will ignore because it contradicts their holy IPPC scripture that mandates climate models should be revered and came from the god UN.

WUWT?

Good 2022 Climate News the MSM didn’t tell you

January 7, 2023

Guest Post by Javier Vinós

Excerpt:

No minimally informed person denies that climate changes. The climate has always changed. Since 1860 the predominant climate change has been warming, which is fortunate because if we had a winter like those of 1800-1850, we would be in for a shock. No one has been able to prove that global warming is primarily a consequence of our emissions. It is reasonable to assume that increased CO2 has contributed to warming since the mid-20th century when our CO2 emissions increased significantly, but no one knows how much they have contributed, no matter how much the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that “humans are the dominant cause of observed global warming over recent decades.” (IPCC AR6, page 515).

There is no evidence for this statement. I know this because I have read thousands of scientific papers looking for it. And no, computer models are not evidence of anything but the programming skills of their authors. Models and their predictions are constantly changing and when our knowledge of climate changes, they must be redone.

The absolute lack of evidence contrasts sharply with the decision to cut our CO2 emissions to zero by completely changing our fossil fuel-based energy system and calling CO2 a pollutant—when it is as essential to life as oxygen. All this while most of the world doesn’t give a damn about emissions and many are only on board for the promised money.

To get to the good news about global warming we need to look at variations in the rate of global warming, i.e., the speed of warming. Today we are going to use satellite-calculated global temperature data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, UAH 6.0. They are plotted in Figure 1.

LINK

======

Warming rate is declining since 1994.

Arctic ice decline rate is zero in last 16 years.

Sea level rise has been in decline for 10 years.

Major Hurricane/Tropical storm rate, duration and strength in slow decline since 1998.

The rate of CO2 emissions has almost doubled while warming rate has declined for 18 years now.

 

Like I was saying our approaches are very different.

My understanding is that scientific methodology confronts a reality were some evidence appears to point in one direction and other evidence seems to point the other way. This should leave an honest researcher in the position of at best having to choice which direction the bulk of evidence seems to point. Likewise, we can agree that no honest researcher would ever purport to having arrived at "The Truth".

So let's file "The Truth" in the Religion folder and take the approach where we're choosing alternatives that fall short of certainty.

 

Peer-review is more than that. But, in any case, if it's NOT structurally sound, and/or the conclusion are not consistent with the data, the study is not worth the paper it's written on.

 

Great! In that case it should be easy to post, from the the Conclusions section, ONE peer-reviewed STUDY (not model, not article, not opinion,...) published in the last 20 years, that contradicts the consensus position. Several versions of which I posted, but they all boil down to (to summarize) "the surface temperature of the planet is increasing abnormally, and this increase is due to human activity" (more detailed wording is available from Science Academies and other groups, if you need them)

ONE! That's all I ask. Not "thousands". Just one! But it must be from a proper peer-reviewed publication. And, again: it MUST be a study.

Don't waste your time on personal attacks, or unnecessary verbiage. Post only the quote (from the Conclusions), indicate WHAT in the consensus position it rebuts, and provide a link to the peer-reviewed publication where it originate.

Simple.... Your response shouldn't be more than 4 or 5 lines long (at most), I would estimate. And please DON'T include more than one.