Absolutely. But, the debate on these boards can be (and often is) "junk science", too. One can't assume that those on these boards are scientists with qualifications in climatology related fields. And, statements on these boards rarely come with review by experts - which is a requirement of science.
Indeed. I was suffering a bit of tunnel vision there apparently, focusing on the IPCC's self stated role that it "determines the state of knowledge on climate change". As I've noted several times in this thread, the IPCC is a political organization that has made it its primary mission to determine the validity of climate models. A very convenient truth. As it so happens, you are correct, the IPCC does report on matters of policy. As such, in my opinion, it only serves to further undermine the validity of current climate model consensus as having anything to do with "science". The IPCC is currently structured with four divisions: WG1 which reports on the 'science' of global warming; WG2 which reports on the impacts of global warming; WG3 which reports on the mitigation of global warming; and, TFI which reports on GHG emissions by nations. Here is a list of the chapters currently planned for WG3's report: Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6-WG3) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing Chapter 2: Emissions trends and drivers Chapter 3: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals Chapter 4: Mitigation and development pathways in the near-to mid-term Chapter 5: Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation Chapter 6: Energy systems Chapter 7: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) Chapter 8: Urban systems and other settlements Chapter 9: Buildings Chapter 10: Transport Chapter 11: Industry Chapter 12: Cross sectoral perspectives Chapter 13: National and sub-national policies and institutions Chapter 14: International cooperation Chapter 15: Investment and finance Chapter 16: Innovation, technology development and transfer Chapter 17: Accelerating the transition in the context of sustainable development This is a whole lot of proposed control based on 100 ppm of CO2....
I assure you that my complaints about these models has nothing to do with what the IPCC told me about them. The quote I cited was provided by an article linked by @skepticalmike, see post 241. Apologies, I thought perhaps you had perhaps caught up on the thread given your 19 day delayed response. I think I mentioned somewhere in this thread that I also questioned to what extent the IPCC models account for vertical oceanic thermal cycles. Not because I'm a climate scientist or because I've read much of the IPCC publications, but because I know that the bottom of the ocean is a lot colder than the surface and that dynamic systems will determinantly mode lock from time to time. El Nino for example. I suspect there are no significant vertical oceanic thermal cycles. That cold water at the bottom of the Marianas Trench doesn't likely mix much with the top of the ocean. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere, and it has no significant effect on water vapor. For example, at 90°F water exerts a vapor pressure of about 0.70433 psia. If it happens to be here on the gulf coast with a Def Leppard hot sticky sweet moment in time of 100% RH, then that means that H2O by volume and mole percent is about 50,000 ppm. Science has certainly informed me about the way feedback loops work. The IPCC assessments admit that they do not account for water modeling.
If I were a bit brighter I'd not even try to ferret out what rabbit hole you've fallen into on this exchange. Let's take Chemistry for an example. Let's say you have two pieces of glassware filled with equimolar concentrations of HCL(aq) and NaOH(aq). Let's say you take an eyedropper, and take a drop of the HCL(aq) and drop it on the back of your hand, and then do the same with a drop of the NaOH(aq). It won't be pleasant. Then, you pour both into a beaker and you have salt water. Proof positive. Ah, another one comes to mind that I've not used around here for awhile, do tell whether or not the scientific theory behind nuclear physics has been proven true. Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are insufficient for you? You are welcome to skip use of the words ridiculous and stupid should you choose to respond.
What a science says is determined by the relevant community of scientists. So sure, publish your *work* in one of their journals. The babbling in this forum has the same relelvance as what a drunk is hollering from the floor moments before passing out. Koch has been pushing mindless propaganda for a generation, and fools keep buying it.
More boogeyman Koch? I have seen the lists of the scientist who signed a piece of paper ..it includes prominent fields like the study or worms Btw you do know Cooks 97% has been debunked for years correct?
You're talking about the second wave, when the overall science community supported climate change. Koch and his buddies spent hundreds of billions brainwashing the country and pushing their crazy agenda. I live a couple thousand miles away, but they spent about a million bucks killing gay marriage here.
99.9% of the general public supported climate change, what did the scientific community support? Give us an idea did they support Man contributes .0003% of climate change? Man contributes 10% of climate change? Man contributes 35% of climate change? Man contributes 100% of climate change?
I get the feeling you are in a desperate search for an excuse. If not, science is hardly shy, go learn.
So you don't have an answer either did James Hansen vs Judith Curry at the congressional hearings Don't be shy go learn
OK, I THINK you're trying to claim that science DOES have positive proof. However, I don't see any of these examples you give as showing that. What scientific hypothesis is proven true in any of these cases? Also, I see hints of the suggestion that small concentrations in our atmosphere must be considered inconsequential simply because they are small. But, changes that have serious effect don't have to be of a magnitude that compares with arriving solar energy or the cold of space. All that has to happen for significant effect is to cause Earth to retain a tiny bit more heat - to slightly change the balance that exists between what is arriving and what is leaving..
Cook's work has been attacked. But the thing is that there are NUEROUS such studies. And, any of the rational attempts to include those with science credentials in a climate related field agree with Cook's results closely enough to be considered verification.
Enzymes are proteins. They require nucleic acids and other enzymes to produce. But what's your point anyway?
It's true that the surveys and statements are not all identical either in the question they ask or in the populatin they poll So, there isn't one answer to your question. There isn't any question that the majority of climate change related Phds agree that humans are the cause of this warming we're experiencing. We're way past the previous GOP assault on the idea that there isn't actually any warming going on or that we're witnessing no more than a short term aberation. So, I'm posting an article that is centered on identifying studies and group responses answering specific questions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Here's another site that addresses this issue: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Did you read any posts before that one? It was a reply to a conspiracy theorist / science illiterate.
I find it challenging to respond to this question. Are you not familiar with some of the scientific foundations of chemistry and physics? Ionic and Covalent bonds? Chemical equations? HCl + NaOH = NaCl + H2O? Nuclear fission and fusion? Are you not aware that these concepts are scientific hypotheses that have yet to be proven wrong? In fact, these scientific hypotheses are so well established, that they are accepted fundamental principles in physical science. Odd that you seem to be denying that science has ever proven anything.....
How About Some BAD SCIENCE now. https://news.yahoo.com/uk-study-tests-bcg-vaccine-082200907.html UK study tests if BCG vaccine protects against COVID LONDON (Reuters) - The widely used BCG tuberculosis vaccine will be tested on frontline care workers in Britain for its effectiveness against COVID-19, researchers running the UK arm of a global trial said. . . . Diving for dollars scientist. Many nations routinely vaccinate the population with BCG yet apparently not spared the COVID epidemic. Moi, BSc Biology, M.D. ret. Make Pay Its' Fair Share
The theories in those areas were accepted before there was something that could be called proof. And, I'd point out that our undersanding of what is happening at those scales has changed AFTER those ideas were accepted! So, calling the original understanding to be proven doesn't make sense. This includes the problem that multiple confirming experiments is not proof. It's far closer to these ideas becoming harder and harder to assail as they work in practice, as viable alternative models can't be found, as abilities to measure improve, etc. Today, there are hypotheses that have been accepted by science concerning climate. Suggesting we ignore climatology until those hypotheses are as accepted as the existence of covalent bonds, or nuclear fision are accepted today is totally irrational. In climatology, the assessments of the many known factors each include error bars that are (in some cses) not insignificant. It's true that even with the worst cases of those error bars, human activity still comes out as being the root cause. The likelihood of other explanations has been reduced. But, let's remember that there appeared to be a "pause" in warming that required significant study to answer for, as it appeared that there might be a significant factor that hadn't yet been discovered. (As you may remember, this was resolved.) How do you "prove" that you have found all the factors in a natural system such as climate? The main point with policy decisions is that ignoring results that aren't "proven" is ridiculous. We have a solid understanding, and ignoring that best understanding can not possibly be justified.
