Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

That's right. It aggregates "pseudo" to "science".

 

The cited, linked and quoted article is from the peer-reviewed literature. Your statement reflects a lack of information.

 

As I already told you in my response (above), I have said NOTHING about the article. I haven't payed much attention to it but I have seen many papers that point one way or the other. My issue is with YOUR "aggregated" pseudo-science that you took from the science denialist blog.

 

So apparently you really don't know anything about real science.

 

That, I'm afraid, makes no sense at all.

 

What happened to your claim that it's not considered scientific unless it has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal?

More to the point, what happens when millions of people die because hysterical anti-CO2 fools have deprived them of access to cheap, safe, convenient, reliable fossil fuels? Will that be scientific enough for you? How will you apologize then?

 

In science, actual physical events always trump peer reviewed scientific publications. ALWAYS.

Or if any are.

Yes, that will happen when climate changes to become cooler, which would retard the hydrological cycle, reducing precipitation and leading to the drier conditions that increase the severity of wildfires.

"Estimates" based on nothing but absurd and hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

Or not at all.

Ain't that the truth....

Obvious... but wrong. Increased warmth accelerates the hydrological cycle, leading to more precipitation and relieving the drought conditions that intensify wildfires.

Right: only hysterical anti-CO2 nonscience masquerading as science in peer-reviewed publications is.

 

Bravo! I was working in DC in 2007 when Massachusetts v. EPA was decided. It basically grabbed everybody's attention wondering what was going to happen going forward. I mean, EPA regulating CO2? How can that be?

The general thinking was that there were 2 options for what could be done, basically terrifying (let them do what they normally do) or marginally less terrifying (Cap and Trade). A bill to enact Cap and Trade (Warner Lieberman) was brought to the floor in 2009 but once people could actually see it, it died almost immediately. Leaving us with letting EPA work their horrifying magic that you're seeing now.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) put out a paper summarizing the issue. The opening line was a simple math formula that summarized the issue. It was:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = Population size x GDP (as a proxy for economic activity)

So you want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere? Which component do you want to reduce?

And there you have your point.

 

You mean AGW Science? Not more than any averagely informed human being who just happened to do some research when he thought facts would convince gullible followers of pseudo-science. Fun factoid: they don't (see OP)

 

If you have a question about some remark I made, quote it first. Your question makes no sense.

I find that most people who QUOTE my comments, by the fact alone of quoting them, find the answer they were seeking without even needing to post the question.

 

You mean like the "actual physical event" that the 9 warmest years on record have happened in the last 10 year?

To the point of your question, science is based on observation. So if observation disagrees with a scientific postulate, that postulate needs to be revised. This could happen to ANY postulate. In theory, it could... I mean, it COULD happen, just an example, that one day things start falling UP, instead of falling down. Which would mean that a Scientific Consensus like Gravitational Theory would need to be re-addressed. It has NEVER happened to a scientific consensus.

AGW is a scientific consensus.

The only "hysterics" I've seen in discussions about AGW are people who use absurd terms like "anti-CO2". I mean, why would anybody be "against" a chemical compound. That's like being "anti-water" or "anti-fish". Laughable beyond measure. But using those made-up idioms does help identify people who have ZERO clue about what the issue is.

 

So you are a unrepentant physics denier.

Got it.

 

Now you are disingenuously pretending not to have said what you have often said. I have read many -- too many -- of your anti-scientific comments, and find it tiresome and predictable that you pretend you have not consistently maintained that science consists only of peer-reviewed papers.

In post #248 in this thread you wrote:

But go ahead: deny, deny, deny...

 

No, because that's not an actual physical event. It is one interpretation of various edited, weighted, smoothed, reconciled, and otherwise manipulated aggregations of various forms of temperature data that may (but probably does not) represent the actual surface temperature of the earth.

See? You are so remote from objective reality, you can't even tell the difference between man-made compilations of data and actual physical events.

That's clearly false. It happened to the scientific consensuses that the continents are fixed in place, that atoms are the smallest particles of matter, that there is no particular limit to how fast an object can move, etc.

No it isn't. All claims of such consensus have been proved to be false and dishonest.

Everyone reading this knows that is false. Nothing I have written on the subject could reasonably be considered "hysterics." But Google "Greta Thunberg" and start reading, or "Guy McPherson," just as two obvious disproofs of your claim.

You seem to like making baldly false claims that any reasonably informed person knows are false.

Because they believe stupid AGW nonscience, obviously.

Bingo. Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and now a trenchant opponent of anti-CO2 AGW hysteria, resigned from Greenpeace decades ago because he found he could not persuade the organization's governing council not to pursue a campaign for the prohibition of chlorine.

Like anti-CO2 AGW nonscience.

Like "climate denier," "denialist," etc.

I have proved I understand it incomparably better than you.

 

Ok. What's your question?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: you're supposed to provide the quote AND make the question in the same post. And, of course, the question should be ABOUT what you quote. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Huh? It's not a physical event? What is it, then? A spiritual event?

Oh, I see! It's a conspiracy!

Sorry, but saying that somebody is "anti-CO2" sounds very much like "hysterics" to me.

Anyway... .it's clear that you think there is some sort of "conspiracy" of scientists (plus one teenager) who "hate CO2"... or something. There is no possible argument against conspiracy theories. Not even thousands of studies. Because, to conspiracy theory advocates, that simply means MORE scientists who "hate CO2". There is just NO rational way around an airtight Worldwide Conspiracy Theory.

 

blank

 

I think you confuse peer review with ecclesiastic blessing. Sorry, they are not equivalent at any level. With only mild exaggeration I'd tell you that geocentrism was peer reviewed. IF the scientific system didn't not block the publication of papers that deviate from policoclimate doctrine the peer review process WOULD have more value. However scientific papers are NOT the holy writ; there are merely hypotheses based on the research of a a scientist or group or sciences, e.g. WE THINK the follow is true. In most sciences that next step in the process would be to design an experiment or group of experiments to PROOF the hypothesis. Most climate scientists will tell you, OFF THE RECORD that we understand far less about the climate system that they're given credit for. But they're human, with families, egos, and ambitions and right now that leads in many cases to some leeway in results and reviews.

 

Wrong! Peer-review exposes a study to criticism by a jury of peers. Reviewers look for methodological errors or contradictions. And post-publication peer-review exposes it to an even larger jury of peer. Anybody... even a student struggling to make a name for his/herself is eager to find some error that will make them stand out among their peers. If such a large jury cannot find anything wrong with the study, that means we can have high confidence in the conclusion. And if you have thousands of papers that reach the same conclusion and can withstand such onslaught, with few to none reaching a different conclusion, we have a consensus....

 

Peer review does not guarantee accuracy. Its value as a guarantee to accuracy is questionable. There are multiple sources saying this same thing.

 

How on earth do you persuade yourself that someone (other than you) could be interested in your absurd and disingenuous evasions?

In any case, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

 

It doesn't.

 

It's not an event at all. It's just a claim based on an aggregation of highly processed data that may or may not represent an actual physical event.

No, that's just another bald fabrication on your part to evade the facts by dismissing them as a conspiracy theory.

No it doesn't. It sounds very much like what it is: a concise description of those who tout the AGW/CO2 climate narrative.

No, you also made that up. Greta Thunberg is merely the most prominent teenaged anti-CO2 scaremonger, and I never said they hate CO2. That was just another fabrication on your part. They are merely trying to get everyone to be sufficiently afraid of it that they will acquiesce in draconian government measures to reduce emissions of it.

Or against unsupported and disingenuous accusations thereof to evade the facts.

It is despicably disingenuous of you to put that expression in quotation marks when I never used it.

Which you also made up.

 

Wrong. Your worshipful and adoring embrace of the subject not withstanding, reviewers, like the rest of us are human and subject to the same pressures (including PEER pressure) as the rest of us. Their objective is that the methods and analyses used and the data gathered are consistent with the study's findings. And you ignore or overload that one study's finding may conflict with those of another or completely NEGATE the other study.

 

Then stop preaching that peer review is the ultimate authority.