The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Another proxy word, FOX News. You should do some reading other than the "approved" outlets for the IPCC. There are other scientists that were on the Global Warming bandwagon that have been banned mainly due to them actually listening to other scientists that have opposing viewpoints and discussing those issues.

 

what's been proved is deniers don't have a sufficiently broad enough education to comprehend the science, things as simple as interpreting a simple grade school level graph is beyond many( a single data point on a graph indicates "trend" in denier world science understanding) ...the overwhelming data offered to counter their claims is invariable answered with "it's a conspiracy" as you demonstrated here yet again...

 

At what point did it become ethically acceptable for tax payer funded scientists to manufacture data, lie about data, shout down questioners and accuse anyone who so much as asks "is this data reliable?' of being in the employ of oil companies.

In a day and age when ALL scientific research is funded through the lens of the science being"Settled", such horse(*)(*)(*)(*), that won't even tolerate the idea of funding someone to look into the accuracy of this crap and question the ethics of doubters is beyond pale....

These so called experts have been playing the system and sucking each others extremities for so long they have no idea of the word ethics. When an entire faculty gets caught cheating, and walk without so much as a reprimand, the extreme deceit of the "Hockey Stick", your use of the very word "ethics" is comedy in the extreme.

 

Tabloid? Yoy mean like 'Scientists Say Arctic to be Ice Free by 2013'?

 

There you go again. You seem to think the Climate can be put on a single point graph. LOL So far the "graphs" of temperature rise by the IPCC have failed.

 

I seriously doubt that a group of people given billions of dollars to investigate climate change would ever come back and conclude that it is a natural process unworthy of such funding.

 

Would you like to run the numbers on that? The 97% of vetted climate scientists that declared for AGW were all bought? That definitely needs to be exposed. You can begin by revealing the source, the recipients and the amount. I'm sure it is well documented.

 

I would however

Andelusion

Did an excellent job schooling you on it in another thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=324674&page=11&p=1063158451#post1063158451

 

Vetted by whom ? Do you realise that 97% figure was manufactured from just 77 individuals out of 10,257 Earth scientists polled. 70% of that original figure were so hysterically alarmed by this impending 'catastrophic' fate of the planet that they didnt even bother responding at all !

 

Okay 97% of the vetted(by their expert peers) climate scientists who responded declared for AGW. That proves they were bought or part of some conspiracy I take it. Do you really have a rational point? And no they are not members of some equivalent to a cigarette company that pays them to return a certain result. The analogy is beyond absurd unless you are some kind of conspiracy nutcase.

Hmmm, we're talking denialist so ......

 

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

"In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm




Any Questions?

 

"Vetted." How precious.

Their vetting was bought. That's all that was necessary. Just vet out dissenters. Simple.

If you think a massive scientific hoax is well documented, you have a credulity problem.

 

A paper whose methodology has already been proved baldly, even hilariously, fraudulent.

That's a measure of bullying, intimidation and gate-keeping, not consensus.

Another absurd "survey" to silence dissent.

Maybe because peer-reviewed papers have to say something new, and "We don't know," isn't new.

Have you read, "Manufacturing Consent"?

 

Obviously the combined education of the two above posters on an internet forum....far outweighs the entire scientific community.


You guys are amazing.....such powerful intellect in one place, no one can possibly compete.

 

The 'entire scientific community' have never been asked what they really think

Instead of sarcastically denigrating people perhaps you might pay attention to the points they make and the information they post. All is not right with the AGW world and pointing out just how far from reality it has departed doesnt mean its somehow just another cynical exercise in political point scoring

 

Interesting blog looking at sceptics vs. academics

 

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University, UK (1945), Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948 ), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968 ), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968 ), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981), National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988 ), Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988 ), Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989), Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989), Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991), Britannica Award (1990), Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990), Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994), Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994), Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996), Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996), Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999), Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999), Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Templeton Prize (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004), Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), 21 Honorary Degrees

 

The scientific community has spoken very clearly, nut some choose to ignore it. And, I did pay attention to the OPINIONS....but there was no information beyond that.

 

How can the alleged 97% majority opinion of the hypothesis be correct when 100% of the predictive climate models it is totally reliant on have failed to date ?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

 

Pretty much incorrect. The scientific community has many different hypothesis, many that disagree with the current politically motivated and paid 'consensus'. When the science actually agrees, and it doesn't, then maybe we will get somewhere. Problem is that the 'consensus' makers have garnered the most funding from governments interested in a particular outcome. Most of the funding has gone to modeling and I can tell you from experience, and from the history of the current modeling, garbage in, garbage out. Since the actual temperatures do not agree with the modeling projections, it pretty much proves the failure of the 'consensus' approach to this issue.

 

I am sure that if you go back 160 years, over 97% of the scientific community would have told you that blacks were inferior.

Were they right as well?

Hell, a few decades ago most of these same scientists were telling us to knock it off, we were creating a new Ice Age with all of our industrialization. Were they right too?

It's Ice Age! Wait, no, it's Global Warming! No, wait again, we do not know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) we are going, it's Climate Change!

This among those who understand the scientific method is known as "chasing the data".

 

Attempting to compare societal attitudes and bias to scientific evaluation of Data makes very little sense. As for the Ice Age cr@p....you might want to actually look into your claim, rather than regurgitate long ago debunked talking points.

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Actually we have been in an ice age for about 2.5 million years which are interspersed with short milder interglacial periods like the one we are in now and possibly close to the end of it. What happens when we go back into a glacial period?

 

*Subject change noted*, but to answer your query....when we go back in to a glacial period, the icecaps increase in size and the climate becomes much cooler. This does not seem to be the trend, and is in many ways the opposite of what is currently happening.