The New Climate Reality

As the climategate emails proved, the protocol in place is to use pal review to suppress publication of dissenting research results.

Classic ad hominem fallacy.

 

A bunch of false statements injected with woo woo and with no reference, IS babble.

 

No, you just made some $#!+ up again.

But make up some woo woo.

 

Classic conservative whining.

 

Well, that’s a ridiculous assertion in light of you not referring to any of the evidence provided in the articles or defended in the footnotes. This article isn’t a posting on a forum . They actually supply evidence. Your not indicating you are reading it. That makes your comments not serious.

 

But not as babblicious as a bunch of false statements injected with woo woo and references that don't say what you claim they say.

 

It's a fact.

 

Bye bye.

 

Actually, you're the one making a political argument ("plurality of scientists" and all that). We're posting peer-reviewed science.

 

You mean the ones that the "plurality of science" put together?

You can't have it both ways.

 

That chart showed a wobble in the RATE of WARMING.

And, it showed nothing about how that rate was being affected by any of the natural cycles that we know. Further, it isn't NEARLY long enough to establish an actual trend that could be based on natural phenomena where that trend is opposite of what has been happening for many decades.

This has NOTHING to do with your concern about how linearly science advances.

This is about identifying trends in data, and whether it is advisable to consider our full knowledge rather than to ignore our full knowledge and extrapolate based on a tiny section of one kind of data and declare that past decades of scientific measurement and analysis are irrelevant.

Kuhn doesn't suggest that we need to be that ridiculous. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that Kunh's claims apply to the advancement of climatology today.

 

You have posted papers that are NOT reviewed as well. Plus, finding individual papers that dispute some element does NOT mean that all the rest of the scientists of the world are wrong. This is where your treatment of consensus goes off the rails.

It is a clear fact that science is DESIGNED such that consideration of consensus is important.

That does NOT mean it is political. Calling it "political" MEANS that you believe in a conspiracy theory. But, you have NEVER given any indication of how such a world wide conspiracy could be established or maintained.

Until you can do that, your attempts to ignore the full world of scientific progress HAVE to be totally rejected.

 

No, you need to think about that chart a little more than that.

There are numerous cycles related to the heating of Earth's surface. For example, there are several cycles of different durations in solar heating of Earth.

All these cycles can reinforce or cancel each other as a high (or low) point in one cycle can hit at the same time as it does in some other cycle.

When looking at raw data, one can not ignore this FACT.

At the VERY least, one needs to consider averages over periods of time that are long enough to allow the math of that averaging to remove the possibility of coincidence of multiple cyclic maxima or minima.

Just look at the chart! There are significant differences from year to year. You can't compare 2017 to 2018 and then proclaim you have a trend that invalidates the entire remainder of the world of climatological measurement and analysis!! And, increasing the averaging to 3 years does not solve that problem.


NOAA states that your analysis is wrong.

 

"Plurality of scientists" is not a scientific argument. Reproducible results make a scientific argument. Hence, Einstein:
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”

― Albert Einstein

 

Sorry to say you have missed the point.
“. . . though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist afterward works in a different world. . . . ”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

No conspiracy -- a word only you use -- but common herd behavior.

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. . . ."

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

That claim is without foundation in fact.

 

This is pretty old article to be swinging around.

I respect Crichton's work, I really do, but I remember reading his bio on how he became a writer versus a doctor. IIRC, it was in 1968, that he made the choice to drop out of med school and continue with what was getting him through college which was his writing. Crichton made a conscious choice to leave academia to become a fiction writer, and he became a really good one, but I wouldn't trust him to be an expert in academic science just because his writings are inspired by science.

 

I suggest you read a counter argument:
Michael Crichton and Global Warming

​

 

I KNOW you want that to be what is happening today.

It creates a tiny opening for the chance that YOU are right and all of the world's scientists of today are WRONG.

It's a justification for an escape from reality.

 

Yes, the WORK of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

But, that's not the issue.

The issue is that independent scientists in independent fields that happen to be related to climatology are finding the same root issues.

We can look at that and WE can apply what some claim is consensus.

But, what it actually IS is the fact that the world of science is coming to the same conclusion on some very important and impactful results.

 

You are wrong. Crichton earned his MD from Harvard and did research that was peer-reviewed and published.

 

I am persuaded by the argument of Professor Nir Shaviv, the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted

 

Not "all." A number of scientists share the view I find persuasive.

 

Sorry, but hype running well ahead of the research does not impress me.