Why I dislike the AGW cult

Sure whatever

 

First before you get started, tell us about yourself. What climate science are you expert in? Are you expert in clouds globally?

 

You have many times been asked your background. So far as I am able to learn, you have not said you have a background to speak as any sort of expert on this. But you call the reports of a woman climate expert that was the head of a university climate section crap.

 

I'll let you start your science intro first.

 

Normally that makes me suspicious. It is like you want to use my post as a stepping stone so you know what to say.

I am an open book on my science. I took General science as a HS freshman in 1952 yet do not count that as all that much of a science background. I learned a lot of electronics at radio shop at the time and this led me to understand TV and other issues, such as radar. Physics in both high school and college with excellent A grades filled me in on a lot of physics. Knowing Calculus of course was important in physics. As to climate other than a nearly daily information gathering over the past 25 years, my training to be a pilot in 1980 fed me a lot on climate. Reading Dr. Lindzen's papers was well worth doing as well.

 

Having a degree in climate science (no such thing) is not required to understand the fundamentals of Climate or natural history...being capable of critical thinking....IS.

 

Exactly. Many fields in science contribute to what we know about climate change. An entomologist following the migration patterns of insects can contribute as well as a geologist who draws inferences of the CO2 levels during past millennium from geological formations. This is where the high level of consensus comes from.

 

There's a term for that, by the way, "consilience", multiple lines of evidence in unrelated fields all converging on the same conclusion.

Climate science has superb consilience.

Denialism has none. The variious denier theories often contradict each other.

 

Well said. It’s comical listening to deniers try to convolute the case against AGW by bringing up their own list of so called experts, who are individuals, all. The counter argument is simple and includes your essential idea of consilience . Only the institutions that include all of the fields of science can be viewed as the essential truth tellers. There are no accredited institutions, businesses or govt. agencies in the free world that agree with these guys. These institutions are the essential vehicles that collate all of sciences in the name of AGW. They provide the consilience, the overwhelming evidence that deniers have no response for.....

 

EVERY significant scientific advance has been made by an individual who defied the consensus.

You reveal your naivete (to be charitable).

At least you admit that it is a conscious, deliberate propaganda effort.

Except to invite everyone to consult the evident, unaltered facts that people can check for themselves.

 

You're absolutely wrong about scientific advancement. Discoveries maybe conjectured and theorized by individuals but they are verified by hundreds of other scientists who work to DISPROVE the original theory. Only institutions can be the nexus and provide the validity of scientific knowledge because they give authenticity by consensus of all those affiliated with accredited institutions . .

If Dr. Joe Blow said he has a cure for a cancer, it means nothing until institutions like Mass General, Johns Hopkins and the like, conduct trials, gain approval then offer the treatment and post their recommendations including references of those providing the consensus . The same applies for every other scientific discovery. It’s validated by institutions. Don't be so simple. You obviously have little realistic background in science.
But, I expect this from people who follow Charlestons around instead accepting institutional validation.

Read this...you’ll see even Einstein needed validation by institutions before his theories could be accepted as working ideas. For every scientific discivery that is validated by con census, there are dozens of others refuted by consensus.
https://www.livescience.com/49627-quantum-experiment-demonstrates-relativity.html

 

Exactly. While there are heroic strokes of genius by individuals it still takes repeated and independent confirmation of any claim before it is accepted with any kind of real confidence.

 

This is completely inaccurate as the VAST majority of breakthroughs and advancements result from building upon the work of previous scientists and consensus. Virtually everything done requires a basis to begin from and hypothesize.....I can only assume you have not dealt with scientific pursuit in person.

 

You got it. The vast majority of complainers of the scientific method don’t have clue how importantant it is. The hypocracy is rampant among them. Somehow, they still depend upon their cell phones and medical science. It’s like Trump being agaisnt gov. run healthcare...yet, where does Melanie have her surgery when she could have it done by any private hospital in the US ? A Govt. run healthcare provider ! Let’s send AGW deniers and their kids to a revamped Trump University. That will be a match made in heaven.

 

For sure. Without the backing of institutional lead and supported consensus, you’d have every charlatan and their brother operating all over the country promoting medical cures that exist just for profit. It happens enough in the private sector. At least now if anyone has doubt, educated and knowing people can consult with anyone of 3500 world wide universities, Govt. agencies and institutions on science they can find factutual and verifiable. Industries all over the world are depending upon the research supported by institutions. They is no economy without legitimate science. There is no legitimate science without these institutions.

 

If I held the belief that water is wet would you me a cultist?

 

No but if you thought that would make Earth uninhabitable I would.

 

Typical hyperbolic strawman

Have you ever read the IPCC??

 

Here's some reading for you.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Call it propaganda, not science

The IPCC is controlled by political hacks who override the scientists with a predetermined agenda. Calling it science is a fraud upon the public. History of the IPCC


Chris Landsea, hurricane expert, explains why he separated from the IPCC due to its dishonesty.
"All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."


Tom V. Segalstad: Oceans Regulate CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2. See Global Dynamic page.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ipcc.html

 

OOOH! A conspiracy theory blog
How about you read it for yourself and make up your own mind?

 

Wait, what?

You're telling me you don't hate scientists???

 

The AGW cult is the conspiracy theorist. They think everyone who doesn't believe is part of the big oil conspiracy.

 

I am pro science and anti politics disguised as science.

 

You didnt google your mushroom farmer who wrote that blog did you? Please go ahead it is an absolute hoot!!!!

 

Then you should know that before you reject a systematic review out of hand you should read it