Now for some possible really bad news for the Climate

Yes, I know who Lindzen is. Is there a particular point you wanted to discuss?

 

Not my theory...study was done by UC Davis...viticulture is their reputation

Try this one as well in today's news;

http://www.capitalwired.com/half-of-the-north-americas-birds-at-risk-due-to-climate-change/22206/

People like you seem so scared to accept challenging information, in this case regarding the 'potential' of global climate change, and instead just politically dismiss everything? No one is asking anything from you other than to open your mind, pay attention to what's 'really' going on, and over some time you can decide what might be in the best interests of the USA and world...you DO NOT need to accept or reject this stuff today...take your time...

 

Yes someone spends their lives studying dendroclimatology. But no bupkis about actual tree growth. What life does Dr. Briffa or Dr. Mann have if it proves to be a dead end? You admit that the problem hasn't been solved yet insist that because people have "written" on it we can ignore it.

News flash. If trees have an inverse parabolic response to temperature Dr. Mann and Dr. Briff'as lives are essentially wasted. There is the problem. Over specialization in science encourages bad science. I've never met a homeopath who agrees that homeopathy is quackery. They cant.

 

All that proves is that homeopathy is not scientific. If trees have an inverse parabolic response to temperature, those who could demonstrate such would be rushing to publish. Any scientist who could show that a fundamental assumption of their field of study was wrong would go down in history (remember Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Planck?). Does that sound like a wasted life to you?

 

Actually there is plenty of evidence of parabolic response. Just go into an arboretum there is an optimal growth temperature for all trees.

And no one is going to falsify their entire field and even if there were someone they will not be allowed by their piers to publish. Its not the quickest path to fame. Its the quickest path to the unemployment line.

 

Then all they have to do is publish a paper showing how these optimal growth charts relate to dendrochronology.

Somehow, that didn't stop Einstein from publishing not just one, but three papers in 1905 overturning the field of physics. Then again, working as a patent clerk at the time he probably wasn't worried about loosing his job over it either.

 

Uh its not 1905. And einstein didnt falsify the field. And there was no peer review in 1905. Editors stuck there necks out and nothing was done anonymously. Modern peer review did not become the norm until the 60s. When Einstein first had a paper peer reviewed in 1935 he was furious and warned against the new process because he saw the potential for gatekeeping. He did not believe that any of his 1905 work would have been published under such a system.

 

Science is not science unless it can be challenged, observed, tested by peers, etc. Specialization in science does not encourage bad science...this is like saying specialization in welding creates bad welders? BTW; who determines 'bad science'?

 

Right now politics does. Not supporting AGW is bad science.

 

Politics doesn't change or determine science? Politics can abuse information like the Theory of Gravity and actually convince idiots it's alright to jump off of skyscrapers. Those who jump are the problem since science remains rooted in it's systematic processes...

- - - Updated - - -

The above is not bad science...it is bad deductive reasoning...or a complete lack of...

 

It is in the case of AGW. If you want to get a job in your field or receive grant money you better toe the AGW line. If not, no job, no money. That is why most of the skeptics are older scientists that no longer rely on grant money to survive.

 

Maybe Chris Colose can let us know when the AGW cabal demands his allegiance.

 

A surprising number of climate scientists report just that.

- - - Updated - - -

How many of Dr. Richard Lindzen papers have you closely studied?

 

I wish I had solid evidence against the prevailing view of AGW...fame for me, a nobel prize, and the reputation to receive grant money easier in the future.

The vision of a handful of climate scientists who sit in some auditorium and doctor up some "consensus" and determine the orthodoxy is so far into delusion. If people want to understand how much we hate to agree with each other, just go to a conference. We like to argue and yell at each over everything- how someone did an analysis, what data they used, why they didn't cite someone, etc. Bad ideas get weeded out pretty quickly nowadays.

 

If politics could possible change science...then it would not be science.

If scientists do not research and report empirical data, 'tow the AGW line', then they are not scientists.

 

Like I said, it's not bad scientists because those who do not follow the systematic processes of scientific studies ARE NOT scientists...they are political or personally biased hacks.

It is incumbent, no matter the subject matter in discussion, for every individual to reason and rationalize the information they receive...no matter the source. For example, should people accept everything they hear from their government? One other example; if a person reads one article that Earth is 6000 years old, then another article which says 4.8 billion years old...what exactly is it that determines which information they will accept?

 

http://www.decodedscience.com/global-warming-simplified-climate-change-timescales-statistics/48995

Let's see...do I place all of my knowledge in my religion, or my political party, or my personal bias, or Rush Limbaugh and Rachael Maddow, or should I embark to better understand the science in discussion? Is there any reason whatsoever that I must pick sides this very second and stand my ground no matter challenging information which unfolds in the future?

As horrific as the potential 'might' be regarding global climate change, we should not be scared of the situation, continue to receive more and new information, and be ready for each of us to do our part as our respective light bulbs brighten...assuming they can brighten...

 

When you shine your light in one direction, that is all you see. That is one of the Climate Science problems. Another is that negative studies are diminishing as more money is poured into Climate Science as it does in other sciences. More money actually ends up producing focused science instead of more diverse science. The focus leaves out other areas of study. Basically the light is being shined in one direction.

 

Bingo. It's akin to what creationists do - find an unanswered question and then insert their favourite answer as some kind of magic fallback that "must be true."

For all we know, there might be (aggregate) fluctuations in quantum space or Dark Matter / Dark Energy that subtly alter our climate. It's never safe to jump to conclusions.

 

absolute BS...researchers are almost always tenured university employees, they dont lose their jobs, they cant be fired...the researchers that toe the line are in the employment of private research, funded by energy corporations..."those older skeptics" are paid for their scripted public appearances and blogs...

Ive a friend who is a senior science researcher with the federal government...its well known in canada our CC denier government has slapped a gag order on all its researchers, all research findings must be vetted through the government...of course now my friend can't report how contaminated the watershed has become due to the tarsand development, speaking up and revealing his findings will cost him his job...speaking the truth will damage the energy/oil/carbon industry...

 

The money is in Climate Change funded by government right now, not in the miniscule spent by private entities. Most of the critics are paid by Universities but no longer need to 'make it' because they are tenured. Young scientists that are skeptics don't get funding. It is only BS to those enthralled by their own hubris.

 

I bookmarked the released Sunday November 2, 2014 IPCC climate report. It names the scientists writing the report. I looked up 2 USA Scientists so far and neither works in the climate field. Clearly it will take a bit of time to check out all the named scientists. Reading the report and sources can take a long time given I also have other things to do.

Anyway, I suppose we must check out the report. I noted thus far any changes to ocean temperature are so tiny you might dip a thermometer into the ocean and not be able to see the temperature change had you not used the super sensitive types they used. If it is so bad, why the need such hyper sensitive thermometers?

 

It should be noted that the IPCC is a report writing body created by politicians for a political purpose. The doom reports keep coming and the date keeps moving. 10 years ago it was 10 years, now it is16 years to do something despite a lot of observational science that keeps falsifying the projections.

 

Good points.

 

They've altered it to "Climate Change" so it can more easily encompass anything that might happen. If it's too hot it's your fault, if it's too cold it's your fault. Couple that with a compliant and dizzyingly stupid liberal electorate and totalitarianism is just around the corner.