97% Consensus Claim Conclusively Debunked

Oh God! Absolutely not!. There are so many inaccurate statements above I don't even know where to begin. Science has nothing to do with "Truth". It has to do with "certainty".

But it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Or "your approach" vs "my approach" The Scientific Method has clear and very strict rules. This is why peer-review exists: to guarantee that those "rules" are followed strictly. There is no such thing as "honest" or "dishonest" scientists. Scientists either comply with the rules set by the Scientific Method, or they don't. And, if they don't, peer-review will show this, and their work will not be considered "science"... regardless of whether the researcher holds a science degree or not. The AGW consensus is not a consensus of opinions. It's a consensus of peer-reviewed studies. There has not been even ONE peer-reviewed study published in the last 20 years that contradicts AGW.

 

Again, as documented/discussed elsewhere on th forum your last sentence is frequently true. Unfortunately the climate and climatology has become a miss-mash of science, personal ambition, and politics at the expense of academic study. The interesting thing with climatology is that EVERYONE has access to the same raw data; sure, it can be sliced and diced in different ways and entered into differing models, and the models tinkered with to produce a "solution".

What I find interesting is the split between climate disaster advocates and "yeah, the Earth's getting warmer - what would you expect from growing populations and improving quality of life; we can adapt" seems to fall into progressive vs conservative political camps.

 

So you're saying that you would consider a study "science" even if it's NOT structurally sound, and/or the conclusions are not consistent with the data.

Science is very strict about this... Pseudoscience is not. Not surprisingly, many confuse the two. Peer-review is what makes the difference clear.

Models are not science.

“All models are wrong, but some models are useful”. George E. P. Box

 

Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that the history of science has shown over and over that "settled science" frequently isn't correct, and that differing opinions can emerge from the same data.

If only . . .:rolleyes. Unfortunately, as I said above politics is putting a thumb on the scale of science v pseudoscience.

You apparently don't grasp the meaning of this quote. How do you think most of the "science" of Climatology you seem to embrace comes from models? Most current datasets shows little, if any, of the climatic horrors we'r bombarded with.

 

Then we need a way to insure that it's not. Hmmm... maybe we could call it something like... "pony review" ... "prime review"... I got it! Let's call it "peer review"

They also come from microscopes and telescopes and thermometers and computers and.... many many other tools. Which doesn't meant that the tools are science. People unfamiliar with how science works tend to confuse the tools science uses (like models, mathematical equations, graphs, measurements, ...) with science. They are NOT! ONLY peer-reviewed studies are science.

 

Been there, done that, results are weak, at best.

You're just playing word games now. Given the inaccuracies and distortions found in peer reviewed studies calling them the ONLY science, is absurd. Particularly, in climatology they're just another tool, by your definition.

 

OK, so at least you've ascended into prayer. That's good.

Meanwhile, while you're working on proving ur right and I'm wrong, I'll be working w/ anyone interested in the climate/AGW issue; I wish u well in your interest.

Cheers

 

Please state what ELSE is science. I hesitate to ask as I fear your list will include "anything Tucker Carlson says" or something like that. But do make your list, and explain to us how you can tell what is science and what is pseudoscience, given that "peer-review", according to you, doesn't cut it.

And explain why I even had to ask, instead of you just TELLING us.

Science is not perfect. There are mistakes from time to time. Sometimes they even escape the pre-publication peer-reviewers. But not the post publication reviewers. So unless you can WOW us with some new method hitherto completely unknown to scientists all over the world, then you will have to admit that your attacks have no basis if you are to retain your credibility.

And, in the case of climatology, I think that tens of thousands of studies over the course of the last 120 years of research ensures that whatever mistakes were made, they have certainly been spotted and corrected by now.

But let's hear you explain YOUR wonderful new Scientific Method. I predict that you won't. And that, at best, your next post will be a long list of excuses why you won't explain this. Prove me wrong!

 

Going low, eh? Shows you got nothing.

You think a definition of science would fit on a forum post? It's far more complex than that.

What's this "us" crap? You speak solely for yourself.

And just as many, maybe even more, other mistakes have also been made. Science is like that. What once was gospel often times becomes laughably wrong.

My pleasure.




BYW, G, does your study of epistemology include the use of insults and demeaning comments? Seems to be one of your favorite tactics

 

Says the guy raging because someone didn't blindly accept Crichton as an absolute authority.

Stratospheric cooling.
Increased backradiation.
Decreased outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.

Those are smoking guns for the human cause of the current fast global warming. There are no natural explanations for that directly observed data.

That means any "It's natural!" theories are contradicted by the data, so any "It's natural!" theories are wrong.

It's that simple. No matter how elegant your theory is, no matter how certain you are of it, if the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong. The data contradicts denier theories.

And no, deflecting by telling a big ol' denier lie about "no hotspot" won't change that. Nor will repeating the fable about "thousands of links." That's how deniers work. They don't post actual evidence. They just _say_ they've done so, and then they demand everone accept their claim.

 

Real science is falsifiable.

I could quickly rattle off 10 ways that hard data could disprove AGW theory. I've done so before.

Deniers? I've asked them before what hard data would disprove their theory. None have been willing to give any examples. In their minds, denialism is sacred scripture, so it can not be questioned.

Since denialism is not falsifiable, it's pseudoscience babble.

 

Au contraire.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has dominated climate science in recent decades, certainly since about 1995. (See Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal.) In a nutshell, the AGW paradigm holds that greenhouse gases are the vastly predominant driver of climate change in our time. The paradigm has however failed its test, as we shall see. Please see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, within which the following passage is found (p.144, University of Chicago Press, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition):

"In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. . . . Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm."

The noteworthy puzzle is the specification of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and the failure to solve it presents the crisis of the AGW paradigm. Professor Nir Shaviv put it well.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

"The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think."

Meanwhile, research to specify ECS has pushed the likely range lower.

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]

 

Back in reality, ECS estimates have been excellent. Half a doubling, logarithmically, created 1.0C of warming. That pegs TCS at 2.0C / doubling. ECS has to be bigger than TCS, so 3.0C is a good estimate, based on observations.. And look. that's right in the middle of the estimate range.

I also see you posted the faked "ECS has been decreasing" graph. If someone filters the data so it only includes the trend they want, then it's easy to create a trend. Such dishonest cherrypicking is a hallmark of pseudoscience like denialism.

And yes, you failed to meet my challenge about listing what data could falsify denialism, but that was expected, given how denialism is unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

 

The data in the graph were not filtered. Your disagreement is with the data, not me.