Yet, curiously, you never seem to offer any practical definition of the "majority of scientists". You're just pretty dang sure that everyone agrees with you.
The title of the graph means squat - the data is from GISS. And NO he DOESN'T promote it as a refutation of anything. He's presenting DATA. Data from the government. All he did was present BOTH a temperature anomaly graph and an actual temperature graph. Same data every other climate scientist in the world uses. You need to grasp the difference between DATA, which documents PAST facts, and data models which are, basically, educated guesses as to what's GOING to happen. So far of the 100 or so models out there NOT ONE has been less than 1.5C- 2C HOTTER than observed temperatures. Oh, and your most of the climate experts recognize that GHG has at most a small (<10%) effect on temperature. And that water vapor forcing is orders of magnitude greater than CO2 or NH4.
There are LOT'S of topics of science. And, there are certainly methods of determining what the major views of scientists are on a specific subject and to learn where and how much real difference exists on the fundamental questions we ask. Listening to dead people, to crackpots such as Kennedy, and to those who have found studies that seem to us to be contrarian (but for which actual experts are never asked to explain), is simply ridiculous. It's a flat out decision that science if fundamentally irrelevant. Another problem is that studies tend to reach the public through media, and it is frequently the case that reporters and their editors are willing to do some twisting in order to grab attention or support some political opinion.
This is a list of scientific organizations which have concluded that humans are contributing to climate change. Obviously, knowing the answer to some basic question such as this in no way restricts the vast amount of climate related science that is ongoing throughout the world. You are free to find lists of scientific organizations who disagree. It could be interesting to see what they are proposing.
Then find out from scientists why they think this analysis is CRAP. Also, warming has an effect on water vapor. Not all the influence of CO2 is direct. Are you sure you didn't mean CH4?
no one has denied that. What's your point. Disagree with what? You guys think AGW is a binary choice - either we're destroying the climate or we're doing nothing to it. It has far more dimensions that that, and the the factors all work at their own speed and frequency (many are cyclic at various frequencies. Ocean currents, sun affects, winds, even cosmic rays all work together or in opposition to create the weather we feel and the climate.
Yeah, CH4. Re Co2: the contribution of C02 to warming is estimated to be around 5%. Of the 168 W/m2 that heats the surface about 4-5W/m2 is attributed to CO2.
No one has claimed that. “Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science. But they cannot alone determine a particular body of such belief. An apparently arbitrary element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given time.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Can you give an example of these "apparently arbitrary" elements that are "compounded of personal and historical accident"? I do not see the opportunity for personal or historical accident entering in when the "community" is the world. When one is talking about a community such as the economics department of Chicago, personal and historical accident can certainly have an effect. At least at one time, they gave deference in hiring to those who agreed with a particular model of economics, for example. In part, this came from the nature of economics, where scientific experiment is far from easy, thus bending to a philosophy. That kind of confounding pressure can't influence studies of specific aspects of our environment, such as temperature gradients and chemical composition in the atmosphere or our oceans. They are what they are, and if some institution gets it wrong, it will be fixed. Plus, the continuing investment in instrumentation means we are getting a constantly improving and better cross checked results. Outside of this particular issue, it is still the case that broad agreement among scientists deserves a level of respect, not support for claims of conspiracy. When results of a particular study don't seem to be confirming of a position that has earned agreement, it is important to ask those experts how they account for the study results.
The Verdict of Instrumental Methods Guest Blogger We’re faced once again with the enormity of contemplating a science that has collapsed into a partisan narrative; partisans hostile to ethical practice. Pat Frank LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air Temperature Record has passed peer-review and is now published in the MDPI journal, Sensors (pdf). The paper complements Anthony’s revolutionary Surface Stations project, in that the forensic analysis focuses on ideally located and maintained meteorological sensors. The experience at Sensors was wonderfully normal. Submission was matter-of-fact. The manuscript editor did not flee the submission. The reviewers offered constructive criticisms. There was no defense of a favored narrative. There was no dismissive language. MDPI also has an admirable approach to controversy. The editors, “ignore the blogosphere.” The contest of ideas occurs in the journal, in full public view, and critical comment must pass peer-review. Three Huzzahs for MDPI. LiG Metrology… (hereinafter LiG Met.) returns instrumental methods to the global air temperature record. A start-at-rock-bottom 40 years overdue forensic examination of the liquid-in-glass (LiG) thermometer. The essay is a bit long and involved. But the take-home message is simple: The people compiling the global air temperature record do not understand thermometers. The rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1900 is unknowable. . . . .
The Phanerozoic climate Shaviv, N. J., Svensmark, H. & Veizer, J., 2022, In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review Open Access A persistent influence of supernovae on biodiversity over the Phanerozoic Svensmark, H., 2023, In: Ecology and Evolution. 13, 3, 9 p., e9898. Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review Open Access
I call bs on this assertion. You have an ABET accredited engineering degree? If not, you have how many years of practice and in what field? There is no engineering if it doesn't involve natural science, all engineering is is applied natural science. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/...r-accrediting-engineering-programs-2022-2023/
And yet you've simultaneously asserted that science is incapable of proving anything, but AGW has been proven by science. Or have you somehow simply displayed a not-uncommon characteristic of engineers' relatively weak writing skills?
Nope, I've not confused you with someone else. You have posted many assertions that science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable assertions and that science is of itself capable of proving nothing. Simultaneously, you've championed the consensus "science" of a political institution's management and control of the entire AGW narrative as "scientific" proof that it is an absolute truth. Or effectively the equivalent of one for policy purposes.
You have your ideas in a major stir here. It's true that science depends on proof of falsity, not proof of truth. The reason is obvious. Humans don't know all the factors that could possibly exist. For example, Newton didn't know about the effects of relativistic speed. In math, one is perfectly aware of all factors, so proof is possible. Not so in physics. The point with AGW is that climate involves numerous fields of science, with major overlaps. And, the vast preponderance of those studying climate agree that AGW is what is happening today. Someone can disagree with that. But, they damn well better bring it. And, it has to be reviewed by all - not just those who wrote some paper. We didn't accept Einstein for more than a DECADE until serious evidence was produced that everyone could look at and agree on. Maybe someone will make a discovery that will rock all climatology, and be famous throughout human existence - but they have not done that yet.
No, that is not how it works. Science damn certainly does not depend on proof of falsity. And yet you graduated with an Engineering degree. Well, not the first I've met that managed to do so without actually understanding the profession.
