As to the "majority of climate scientists"

That's optimistic. Rampant science fraud has been a problem for a long time.

"This was a year for splashy headlines about retractions, after some much-ballyhooed findings were pulled. Some prominent scientists each retracted multiple papers in 2015. And, of course, the last 12 months saw more and more cases of faked peer review. Here, in no particular order, are our picks for the top 10 retraction stories of 2015."
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

 

I think this exactly shows me and the rest of the folks why then this isn't important. The answer MUST be what can we or should we do about it. Clearly, being chicken little is the extent of your depth. That seems, well, a waste of my engagement time at this point.

 

You are showing that we aren't yet at the warmest we've been in the last 400K years.

But, it doesn't show anything concerning a limit on where temperatures are headed.

NOBODY that i've heard from is claiming that we're at the warmest we will see within the next hundred years.

Beyond that, being as warm as earth has been in the past would be a serious problem for humans today - something we would definitely want to avoid.

 

I think it's fun to watch folks have to justify the veracity of science given the tawdry behavior so many in their upper echelons exhibit.

 

Yes. Fake Science is a very inconvenient truth.

 

As far as I can tell, your charts say nothing about your argument concerning heat islands.

And, the very first sentence in your third link is a screed of lies concerning Al Gore!!!

Is that representative of the quality of your thought?

 

Well, headlines mean nothing. It should be noted that these retractions were retractions, and, it was of course scientists that caused them to retract. The fact that they retracted means that they are interested in the truth, more than anyone else really. Perfection is not a claim of scientists, only that they are better arbiters of truth than any other people or endeavor anywhere ever.

 

That's not what's going on AT ALL.

You are making claims that are so far totally unsubstantiated.

And, you are thrashing.

 

You have absolutely zero basis for you comment. You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that your brush off here is accurate. We hear, endlessly, breathlessly even that the earth has "NEVER SEEN TEMPS THIS WARM"... ever. Clearly, the historic record indicates that this is a specious lie. More, we understand that as the temps do rise, the biodiversity of the earth explodes with it. We know this. The geologic and fossil record demonstrate this. And yet, the temp goes up marginally, and I mean marginally ~<.7C and folks are ready to wholesale destroy our modern economy. Frankly, your assessment demonstrates a certain lack of imagination, and seems, well, more likely to be in line with what classic denialism actually is. You deny that the transitive nature of our climate can happen, and you demand that it then must not. Except that you aren't actually willing to articulate what must be done if your pet theory is accurate, in order for your world view to be accomplished. I don't blame you, the policy that might effect CO2 saturation is dire. Malthusians rejoice though in your following, I'm sure.

 

Hey - I just asked for a cite!

If that's too hard, what does THAT say?

 

Yes, it's not like science is the only thing that has ever advanced mankind or anything.

 

Lots of retractions. And more all the time.

"Can’t take criticism? Just make up your own reviews! It may sound far-fetched, but we’ve now counted more than 270 retractions, more than half of them this year, which occurred because authors or editors compromised the peer-review process in some way—most egregiously, some authors faked email addresses for peer reviewers and gave their own papers a green light."
THE SCIENTIST, The Top 10 Retractions of 2015, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions, By Retraction Watch | December 23, 2015.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44895/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2015/

 

I have not made an "assessment".

I asked you for a cite for those claims you made, and you have failed.

Now, you are trying to dodge.

You're running on empty so far.

 

I have already given you one cite. How many do you need?

Fake Science is indeed an inconvenient truth.

"Two years ago this month, news of the replication crisis reached the front page of the New York Times. “Psychology’s Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don’t Hold Up,” read the A1 headline on the morning of Aug. 28, 2015. The journal Science had just published a landmark effort to reproduce the findings of 100 recent peer-reviewed psychology experiments, and just 39 of those replications succeeded. This dispiriting result, the Times reported, “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.”
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

 

It isn't? Can you then explain why Dr Phillip Jones destroyed one of the only paper historic records of temperature records in existence? Can you explain why Steve McIntyre finally won both the scientific and legal battle with Mann? Perhaps you can shed real light then, on the reason the plain language email texts from managing editors of scientific journals were bullied by or otherwise threatened by the cabal from East Anglia? So excuse me if I find it enormously funny that you're entirely unaware of these things.

 

I just posted three well reviewed and peer cited studies. That isn't failing, unless it's your inability to understand them. And there isn't a dodge here, You simply don't like the answers. Tough.

 

I didn't ask you for a cite.

But, you are getting majorly confused here.

The soft sciences, including psychology, do not follow the same scientific processes used in the hard sciences, which include physics, chemistry, biology.

The result is that there have been recent findings concerning studies in the soft sciences.

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with climate change.

 

Lol, so first of all, there are millions of papers published in a year, so if 270 were complete lies, we would have the most perfectly honest industry that could ever be hoped for ever. That would be so mind bogglingly perfect that nobody should ever do anything else with their lives. Of course its many many times worse than that, but maybe when an industry that may be as much as 99.9999% honest says something, we should give it some pretty serious respect, given that the next best thing (journalism maybe) is probably 60% honest.

 

Three is extremely paltry, but which did you post?

 

You're changing the subject again.

I asked for a cite.

And, sorry, but Mann is one scientist in a gigantic field of investigation that is taking place the world over.

There is NO CHANCE that anything impugning Mann or any other individual could invalidate that effort.

Once again, you're desperately attempting to change the topic.

Please provide the cite I originally asked for.

 

Peer review is often called pal review for a reason. There are significant structural problems with peer review. After that, very few papers actually stand the test of time.

One of the negative aspects of peer review is that professors are expected to write a certain number of papers a year so there is always pressure to get something out no matter what.

The worst recorded instances are in the medical field but it extends to climate change as well. Take, for instance, the now debunked infamous hockey stick by the neophyte scientist Michael Mann at the time. It had so many errors along with Mann refusing to release the background information and databases that were eventually found by hackers, later some released by Mann, but not all data was released. The scientific method requires providing all the data that backs up a paper so it can be tested for validity by other scientists.

 

Oh, good LORD!

We need our best analysis of the problem from science AND our best efforts in determining action from our political system.

It's you who is claiming to know the size of the problem.

However, you CAN'T CITE! You can only dodge and spout ad hom.

 

What percentage?

Why is that negative?

Debunked how?

 

I have no time to explain to the clueless. Do some work on your own for a change.

 

Or don't lie