Chevron has fallen!

Awww! Did some nasty person say the words “electric vehicle” or, or, or maybe it was “solar panel”? / sarcasm

 

I clearly understand what the scientific method is and how it is used. The enhanced CI2 effect hypothesis is what you believe to be true. Do you not believe that human CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming? Yes or no.

 

No links no validation incorrect use of terminology

fail!

 

What terminology is invalid? I assume that you believe that human caused CO2 emissions resulting in increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration is the reason for the global warming we have seen in the last ~ 150 years. That is a CO2 effect hypothesis. The modifier “enhanced “ refers to the increase of other greenhouse house gases resulting from this warming.

 

No, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron. Or are you just purposely being nasty and obtuse?

 

You keep talking of “enhanced CO2 hypothesis” proving a) you do not understand the physics of CO2 and b) you do not understand what a hypothesis is

 

Yes! Commiserations!

https://cen.acs.org/policy/litigati...rt's June 28,unfavorable to their bottom line.

 

All “laws” of physics are hypotheses.

Science is never settled. The scientific method is used to continually test scientific hypotheses.

 

“One of the oldest principles of toxicology, the study of poisons, is that “the dose makes the poison.” If, as according to EPA there is no safe level of PM 2.5 inhalation, then single cigarettes ought to be tools of suicide. Each cigarette ought to be one’s last, if the EPA is correct about PM 2.5 .”

 

I think you are conflating hypothesis with theory

https://www.merriam-webster.com/gra...hypothesis,already been substantiated by data.

There is less embarrassment in checking facts BEFORE you post

 

Semantics?? Really??

BTW the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis has never been tested and shown to be correct in the real world. All that exists is correlation.

 

It is the way the words are used in science. To conduct research first you must formulate a hypothesis - since you claim to use the “scientific method” I am surprised you do not know this.

• Step 1: Identify the Problem.
• Step 2: Evaluate the Literature.
• Step 3: Create Hypotheses.
• Step 4: The Research Design.
• Step 5: Describe Population.
• Step 6: Data Collection.
• Step 7: Data Analysis.
• Step 8: The Report-writing.

Again googling prior to posting saves embarrassment

 

And as I have shown using you defintions the enhanced CO2 effect is correctly termed a hypothesis.

 

There's no ad hom in calling out religious bigotry. An eye-rolling citation of someone's religious views has no place in a discussion of his/her research work.
Whatever you think of Monckton, he has been widely published and is "discredited" only among those who never credited him in the first place. I prefer to live in a world where heterodox views are not suppressed.
The high standards at NTZ and WUWT are evident every day in their outstanding content. You cannot simultaneously claim never to look at them and credibly opine on their editorial standards.
Vinos (University of Madrid), Svensmark (Technical University of Denmark), and Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) are all supported by their universities. Thanks for reminding me of Spencer (University of Alabama - Huntsville). And all have numerous collaborators at other universities.
Kuhn outdated? I hardly think so. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was named one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century. My personal copy is the 50th anniversary special edition.
Ongoing revisits to Kuhn's work do not diminish his contribution.
You are of course free to disagree with Myrdal, as I am to gain by his insight.

 

That article's a hoot. A bunch of corrupt bureaucrats whining about how their cozy money and power fountain has been interrupted by proper Constitutional order. Thanks, you've made my day.

 

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind because there is no such thing as an “enhanced CO2 effect. Now I tire of this ridiculous insubstantial straw man

 

Good! But this is going to be such a car catch if the GOP stays in power

 

If you believe in AGW you believe in the enhanced CO2 effect.

 

Ah! So THAT is what you were referring to! Mate “intelligent design” isn’t and it is up there with the flat earth society. In other words outside of fringe America it is considered a huge joke

This is better than the infamous “World famous in NZ” slogan. Monckton has never managed to pass peer review anywhere. He has in total seven papers, mostly with Willie Soon who is notorious for taking fossil fuel money but none are in credible journals with strict peer review. Monckton has no tertiary education in climate science and is considered a clown. He is known for telling lies I.e that he was a member of the House of Lords, that he won a Nobel prize, that he was a science advisor to Margret thatcher etc etc etc

Nope! They fail basic academic standards and do NOT peer review articles

Four universities out of how many in the whole world?

https://truowl.com/university/how-m...00 universities,many students coming to study.
Four out of 25,000 - be still my beating heart
200 scientific organisations who support the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

 

Strawman

 

What do you believe to be true?

 

What you describe is exactly what Eisenhower warned about.

 

Religious bigotry is not diminished by repetition. Referring to religious beliefs as "a huge joke" certainly qualifies as bigotry.
The Willie Soon smear was shown long ago to be without foundation.
You are of course entitled to your opinion about the journals in which Monckton has been published. That opinion seems to reflect your prejudice more than anything else. In any case, defending Monckton is not central to any point I'm making.
Neither NTZ nor WUWT claims to peer review. They aggregate peer-reviewed papers and other articles.
As for public declarations, here's a useful corrective.
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

Two sentiments come to mind. The government gets the “science” it pays for (Ike warned about this ~ 70 years ago). Never waste a crisis as Rahm Emanual succinctly stated. Thankfully we have scientists with integrity and courage and the willingness to forego monetary rewards to publish the truth.

 

Here are WUWT taking on some of their customary allies in pursuit of truth. I have never seen one of your favored alarmist sites demonstrate such ethical integrity.
Cyclone Causes Increase in Coral Cover – If You Believe Their Nonsense Number
Jennifer Marohasy

WUWT Preface:

While our critics, climate alarmists, and others, often accuse us at WUWT of ideology, tribalism, motivated reasoning, or just plain for-pay corruption, in fact, we are truth seekers.

This can sometimes displease our majority audience, but if we are trying to bring truth to light, or reinvigorate the scientific process, we should not and cannot suppress information that can be perceived as harmful to our version of “the cause.”

A specific story about record coral cover at the Great Barrier Reef has been loudly trumpeted in the skeptosphere. . . .