"then what?" I check other sources, maybe do a little research. Maybe even dig out a book or two. And you? Drop you knees and prostrate yourself before every utterance from NOAA or NASA?
And yet, WUWT was sufficiently committed to science to post a paper by a scientist whose point of view they do not share. Perhaps that's why WUWT has been so honored.
It just can't work that way to an meaningful extent. The problem is that NASA is one organization in the USA, where there are numerous organizations and universities with scientists working on various aspects of climatology. And, the USA is only one of the countries in the world with similar groups of scientists working on aspects of this problem. NASA climate science just does not have the ability to force the world of climate science in any particular direction. Neither do the similar organizations in other countries have the ability to force OUR scientists in any particular direction. What you are claiming IS a conspiracy theory. And, there is just no possible way for your conspiracy theory to work.
But it does. True, and the fact they ARE working on it should indicate to you that there is no "99.9%" consensus. Scientists grow and improve by exploring new areas and also working to expand or discredit past reports. Yep, as I just pointed out they're doing so to find new data and/or disprove old facts. But the people with money and political aspirations DO. And yet it is. I mentioned the World Economic Forum above. You should do some research on it.
Again, WUWT prints the papers it wants to print. And, there is NO presentation of the evaluation of those papers by the general body of scientists who clearly do NOT agree with many of the papers that WUWT publishes. You don't get to see ANY of the response to those papers. That's not a way to conduct science. It IS the way that we conduct politics. As to the content, the vast majority of papers on WUWT are absolutely contrarian. Yet, YOU want those contrarian views to overturn the views of the vast majority of scientists WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY REVIEW by scientists!! Anthony Watts holds strongly contrarian views, and that is fine. There are contrarians in all fields. But, accepting the blog of a contrarian while ignoring mainstream understanding on a subject is nonsense.
Bull. What I have insisted is that mainstream science, agreed by scientists from around the entire world be considered. Anthony Watts is one individual who is a well known contrarian who blogs papers of his choice. The very idea that climatology should be decided by some contrarian blogging papers of his choice, with NO review by mainstream science is just plain ludicrous. Let's remember that there is a wide range of possible response from science to any individual paper that Anthony Watts chooses to blog. There could be mistakes made in the paper. Results from the paper may be consistent with mainstream views in ways that the author did not consider. The paper could be part of some specific area of climatology where there isn't agreement - but, can not be considered as disputing the overall conclusions of mainstream climatology. Etc., etc. The claims by Watts that his papers should be seen as the basis for a revolution in climate science are no more than the political tactics of a contrarian.
CITE something. You claim that there can't be a consensus. But, it's been multiply cited that there IS a STRONG consensus on the fundamentals of climatology - that Earth is warming due to human activity. The MISSION of the World Economic Forum on climate change: You can cite that there are people with money. But, that is NOT evidence of the conspiracy you claim. If you want to continue promoting the idea that there is a conspiracy, you need to cite evidence.
I have, and Hays has, and you just blow it off with your "99%" mantras. You cited it for me. Read that mission statement and tell me how they'r going to achieve it without major efforts to interact with the governments of the world? I've mentioned India and China several times - getting them to work on reducing emissions serious would go a long way toward their goal, but WEF ignores them. Yet Kerry attends Devos an kisses every ass in cite and pledges how the US will work hard to accomplish goals (even if it damages or destroys our economy severely)
We have to be crystal clear concerning the division between science and the policy response to science. The fact that any policy response to climate change is difficult does NOT mean that the science is wrong. There certainly are serious questions concerning policy. And, that is even more true when one must consider that this is a worldwide problem, and we have very little in the way of mechanisms for causing international commitment. The claims of damaging our economy have almost all been total political BS. The whining about other nations is also seriously lame, since we were a major player in the decades of producing this problem, and we are still one of the worst offenders. Obviously, the total fossil fuel energy sector is opposed to doing ANYTHING about the fact that the CO2 they produce is the major factor in US greenhouse gas emissions. And, that is a stupendously powerful sector.
NO views should go untested if the objective is science. And, Mr. Watt provides NO method for publishing the response of those he believes he is refuting.
it doesn't mean the science is correct, either. Your catching on. Wrong. If we commit to obeying a global directive rather than what's in our own best interests it can harm our economy. Nonsense. China on it's own have some of the worst co2 producers in the world; last I saw it was 23 of the top 25 accounting for 40-50% of all co2 emissions - and they're building coal-fired power plants to the tune of 50 or more per year. India also has plans to build dozens. WASHINGTON (April 13, 2020) — The 2020 edition of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) comprehensive annual report on nationwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, released today, shows that since 2005, national greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 10%, and power sector emissions have fallen by 27% -- even as our economy grew by 25%. “This report highlights declining emissions trends since 2005, showing that the U.S. is reducing GHG emissions while still being able to grow a robust economy,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “While there was a small rise in emissions due to weather and increased energy demand from the prior year in this report, based on preliminary data, we expect next year’s report to show that the long-term downward trend will continue.” The United States is a world leader in protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From 2005 to 2018, total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12%. And we've been reducing co2 emissions for years. In fact we're among the world leaders in that field
The paper was published to present it, not to refute it. And the WUWT comments section is quite robust. I think you are flying blind.
The WUWT comments section??? Seriously? Face it. The methodology used by Anthony Watt is not science - it is purely politics.
Our own best interest IS the issue. Slowing climate change is a highly economic choice for America to make. It's even of immediate value, as transportation pollution in cities carries a heavy health care cost for the immediate region - the city and the state. And, similar cases include what is happening with agriculture, wildfire, sea rise, etc. The US still emits more greenhouse gas than China does on a per capita basis. And, that is obviously the only fair measure. Plus, China is ahead of us in clean energy, as described. Suggesting China doesn't care is just plain ridiculous. It is the USA that doesn't care. We have the means. We can even improve our economy with various possible actions. Yes. We're cutting out coal. And, the growth in clean energy is the same as the growth in total new demand in the USA. Also, clean energy is now employing more Americans than is big oil in America. (Of course, you still here big oil making ridiculous claims about employment.) Of course, that doesn't mean that progress is enough. And, before you lord it over other countries, let's remember that many have been taking action FAR longer than we have. For example, check out fuel tax in other countries. They have weighted their revenue to include fuel as well as income and other business activity - something we won't do. But, their economy is not suffering from that, obviously. Years ago they were already doing the work, reaping the easier advantages. So, now look at per capita emissions and notice that for as much as we've improved, we are still FAR FAR worse than countries that have been part of the EU for the period discussed. In other words, while we have improved, we have NOT caught up.
That is irrelevant. The WHOLE point is that having Anthony Watt print papers is NOT a valid process for determining or evaluating the science of climate change.
I responded to the claim that we've improved, noting that we absolutely HAVE improved. You're really having a problem today!
