As to the "majority of climate scientists"

i always find it funny that people who come up with that "the majority of scientists believe" nonsense then go on to say that anybody who doesn't believe them doesn't understand science, when science is predicated upon skepticism.

it's like they know absolutely nothing about science, which is proven by talking about their majority consensus.

 

I can see the data, where did YOU get that?

 

Also, I can't find the NOAA data.

 

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data/Temperature_Reconstruction.pdf

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/dc_co2_hol_fl02.txt

 

Cite your solar scientist claim, please.

And, your funding claim is totally false - even in the USA.

 

Can you name a few times when the experts were all wrong? I can think of Plate Tectonics offhand but very few others where there is such clear agreement

And as we all know, the "truth" is always on the side that has an agenda as obvious as the muscles on Dwayne Johnson and several trillions vs the one that has no money and no reason whatsoever to risk their careers at the least beyond a concern for their grandchildren

 

What clear agreement? Show me the survey which shows there is clear agreement.

 

You don't understand science, or you wouldn't ask me this.

I will repeat myself. Science is predicated upon skepticism.

I understand that you don't understand this, but maybe you will one day learn about science. It's really a cool thing. You have your idea, you test your idea, and if it works out, then great! If no, then your idea sucks.

Nothing in there about 9 out of 10 dentists preferring crest. You really should learn about science, because it's cool.

 

Note that I support the link between rising CO2 concentrations and the greenhouse effect.

However, an interesting example of a majority of scientists proven wrong is the chemiosmotic theory by Peter Mitchell, explaining how ATP is generated from a proton concentration gradient across the mitochondrial membrane. The metabolism experts had difficulties believing it, and it only became mainstream after many of the disbelievers retired or died.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e78/8c89de76e08afbbe35e63288c61c9bad6c6d.pdf

 

The only place I could find that particular chart was on Anthony Watts
denier site Wattsupwiththat. I can't pull the Pdf he supplied on my phone but I'll have a look tommorrow.

Typically these sites will pull localized ice core data out of context and try to convince people that this says something about global climate. You can tell right away that there is something really wonky about that CO2 line compared to measurements from atmosphere stations. Could be CO2 trapped in the core itself but I can't tell without seeing the actual data.

Easterbrook tries this stuff all the time on WUWT and is easily debunked.

At any rate whatever trick they are pulling it says nothing about his claim that temperatures have not risen over the US which even if it were true is still trying to mislead a statement about global temperatures.

 

Just checked 2 sites with noaa data and both show significant temp increases over the entire lower 48 over the last 30 years.

 

And, here I was waiting for a Piltdown Man reference!

One problem with claiming that climatology is wrong is that it involves consistent evidence from such a broad range of sources.

 

Yeah, in the end, it's sort of like the vaccine/autism rates charts, most likely just cherry picking data. However, I'm not a climate scientist, so it's hard for me to give a real analysis on this without a professional viewpoint on it. Regardless, it's just a single line of data.

 

I am not claiming that climatology is wrong, I just provided an example where it was the case that the majority of scientists we're wrong.

 

Solar irradiance has been decreasing to a mininum for quite a while now as has sunspot activity. It's not the sun.

Yes we are all that. There is not an ecosystem on this planet we are not affecting and our activity is having profound effects on the oceans and atmosphere.

 

Another was plate tectonics which the science community howled derision at.....until it was proven true.

 

Nevertheless, theirs are the only opinions that would matter, had they demonstrated 1% as much competence in their discipline as physicists had in theirs by the 18th century.

No doubt they will whether such impacts could have been avoided or not, if by that time the enemies of truth and freedom have secured enough power to do so.

Even if those were global numbers, given that recorded temperature observations span no more than the blink of an eye in geological time, what's missing is a reason to find such numbers interesting, let alone concerning.

 

I used to run the marketing department for a large corporation. I would hire experts to prove that our product was the best. Not surprising, all the experts always found reasons that our product was the best. Our product was not superior to many of our competitors but that didn't keep us from citing the experts. In short, when studies are funded by groups to find man made global warming is a fact they will do just that.

As for all scientist believing that man is the cause of global warming, that is not true.
S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
Wiki says the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

Speaking of funding, guess where Singer gets his? That is if he is not still getting funding from the tobacco industry to deny the harm of cigarettes. The Heartland Institute is not exactly an unbiased source for funding.

And his low-balled satellite data at UAH has had to be repeatedly corrected for deliberate errors and bias.

But at least he is one of the few deniers with some qualification. - even if he is a creationist - which doesn't seem very scientific.

 

But record of temp over CO2 is quite clear over the period since the industrial revolution and in the levels before that - with natural variation included.

It's concerning, trust me. Change is excellerating and happening faster than scientists had predicted as they tend towards conservative estimates.

 

Also your own wiki link states that almost all published CLIMATE scientists, up to 97% agree with the consensus.

 

Key word "published", if 1% are published does that make them the majority?

 

Yes - I didn't mean to suggest you claim climatology is wrong, but I could see how that could be the interpretation of my post.

 

Well, that's what scientists do, right - publish.

You should reread your own link - not that wiki is an authority on anything.

 

News flash, they don't all publish on the same subject.