Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Debunked

 

The peer-reviewed research of Koutsoyiannis et al suggests otherwise.

 

The consensus to this individual study was that CO2 released from the ocean is 1/40th of the atmospheric Co2 effect. So yes, Koutsoy**** explains 2-1/2% of the warming

 

The data say otherwise. “Consensus” is meaningless.

 

Consensus is only meaningless to deniers who embrace partisan political rhetoric instead of science.

 

Well, no. Einstein pointed out that if he were wrong, one contrary finding would be sufficient.

 

There’s consensus in the medical community that cigarettes aren’t healthy. Does one denier make this not true. When the subject is the theory of Relativity, Einstein was probably right. If he could speak today, he would probably point that out to those of you who have taken him out of context.

 

That's nice. Meanwhile what we got is:

1. We don't know what is warming.
2. We don't know what its temperature is.
3. You refer to those who do not subscribe to your faction as "deniers".
4. We seem to have set aside observations of anything with an increasing temperature.
   
5. You can continue your support of your faction without me.

 

Bad guess. And I suggested nothing. I explained where he could find the information he seeks. I think it is you who hasn't understood what NOAA has said.

 

I think the health risks of smoking are based, not only on science, but also on common sense. Einstein's mathematics have been challenged but never reversed. Yet his theories are still theories, not settled science. The critical nature of global warming, on the other hand, is based on the desires of those who benefit from it. The science says the warming has been trivial. The climate crisis isn't even a theory. It is an opinion.

 

Once upon a time there was a consensus in the medical community that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. Research found the real cause.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . ."

 

Backtracking on the Einstein false context statement?

 

On the contrary, backing it up: "Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right . . . "

 

I figured that’s where this would head when I sent this, describing the reputable temperature measurement system of the NOAA. Have you noticed all the shills of the Fossil Fuel Climate Deniers?

 

Not sure what information is that "he seeks" but it doesn't seem to concern me.

Like I said before, I'm trying to find out "what is warming, what is it's temperature, and what was its temperature back when". If you ever find this info please let me know. If you've never seen it that's fine because I've never seen it either. If you don't have it and you say I'm a bad guy for asking then OK, I'm a bad guy for asking.

Meanwhile I'll keep looking for any description of what's warming, what's its temperature, and what the temp was back when.

 

ok, the NOAA graph was reputable, we got denier shills, and I'm still looking for--

1. What is warming.
2. What its temperature is.
3. What its temperature was back when.

Somehow you don't seem interested in finding out, but I care and I'll keep looking on my own.

Cheers

 

Joni Mitchell - “The Circle Game” is aproppo.

 

To be fair, it takes only one scientist to bring forward a hypothesis based on observation and experimentation. But it takes others to question and add to the knowledge. It takes more to accept the hypothesis and the background that supports it. Very few biologists deal with the the theory evolution brought forward by Darwin, for instance. But virtually all of them accept it as settled science despite the fact that it is still a theory. There is a consensus that no other opposing theory exists that is credible to the majority. I use this example because my degree is in zoology and I'm very familiar with Darwin's work. The science may not be a consensus but how people with expertise view it certainly can be.

Climate change is a theory that isn't even accepted by virtually all climatologists. I would say it is still a hypothesis. Consensus may have no place there. But to say there is no such thing as consensus in science is a bit over the top.

 

Einstein said if he were wrong only one contrary finding would be necessary to overturn his claim.

 

There is consensus among physicists that Einstein's theories are solid. I have a friend who is a Ph.D physicist and he told me that.

 

I'm sure that's true, but Einstein's comment was in response to a book entitled One Hundred Against Einstein condemning his work. He said one hundred were not necessary; one would be enough.

 

Beating that horse to death..

 

"Consensus" is the lie that merits eradication every time it is put forward.

 

Of course the Denier Caucus hates consensus. When 97% of scientists disagree with the nonsense spewing forth by the fossil fuel radicals.

 

That number is also false.