I don't know who you refer to as "she". But, it's true that pumping the claims of single individuals presented without the possibility of falsification by other scientists is advocacy. Another bad direction is presenting data for analysis by people who don't have climatological training and expertise. There are other bad directions - including politics (using push polling,considering personal gain such as in current energy industry, etc.), slanting results based on whether we have solutions, claiming conspiracy when the entire world is hugely interested in the topic (making conspiracy totally unrealistic), etc.
Dr Curry is a woman scientist. She knows the proper process. And Dr Curry is an expert climatologist.
There is a large number of expert climatologists. Curry is in the minority in her opinion about the human contribution to warming being negligable. She echoes other scientists in some other areas. Picking one indiviual whose opinion you like is not science. It's pumpkin picking.
As I said, looking for individual scientists is not a good idea. And, that is doubly so when those in opposition are not heard. So, you report Curry. But, you don't report those who don't agree with Curry - even though they are in the majority. It's like that push poll you cited. It's a common political tactic, not science. One needs to look for much broader agreement across climatology. And, it's important to understand where there is agreement. There isn't agreement on every climate issue, obviously. But, there is very broad agreement on humans beng the primary cause of the warming we're seeing right now. As I've pointed out in the past, Curry does agree that we need to be taking action in response to the climate change we see now and that will continue. I haven't seen you push that part of Curry's message. You just pust the part where most scientists disagree with her!! Isn't that just one more political move on your part?
The usual dishonest/misleading claims from warmists in full parade here. 1) Most skeptics have long accepted that Climate changes. This is probably the longest and most common lie warmists push. 2) The observed INCREASE in snowfall extent in recent decades is in contradiction to the IPCC projections, which stated less snow and more rain/freezing rain. 2001 IPCC TAR (AR3) predicts that milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms. Snowfall are just a thing of the past (2000) Reality is a decisive INCREASE in snowfall HERE and HERE. 3) No we are ALREADY in an Ice age, it started around 2.6 million years ago and will intensify over the next million years as Canada land area occupy more of the North Polar region, making permanent Ice cover easier to build and last longer. There used to be a specific 41,000 year oscillation, but that changed to a 82,000-100,000 year oscillation as the world gets colder and colder over time. 4) Warming is mostly natural with a small CO2 effect that is now largely expended since it has a diminishing effect over time, even if it warms around 1C by year 2075, it will still not exceed the warmest part of the early Holocene. 5) Consensus arguments are worthless, REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science. Consensus has been wrong many times in the past, you need to drop this dead end. 6) That is what warmists claim, skeptics commonly say it is useless since consensus doesn't drive science research.... Consensus errors are many and have sometimes taken over a century to overcome. 7) It has been warming over all since the late 1600's, and nearing the end of the warm phase that was predictable as it is part of the 1500 year oscillation. Note that the warm peaks between Minoan, Roman, Medieval and modern warming are around 1,000 years apart, with a cold interval in between. The world over all has been COOLING since the Minoan warm peak, around 3,400 years ago. CO2 is a trace gas with a tiny IR footprint, doesn't have much effect in the "heat budget" either. It is the classic warmist Pseudoscience bogeyman. The irrational fixation on a trace gas has led them to make profoundly absurd claims over the years.
Climate is not one system to be averaged. But nevertheless,. climate reversed to cooling. Curry is the climate forum.; and you can post to the forum. Go to her forum and explain this all to the scientists who specialize in climate.
Consensus stuff is boring and often used by science illiterates, it only takes ONE reproducible paper to destroy it. AGW conjecture, which comes in TWO parts was long ago destroyed by its own internal failures.
Your NASA link is pure junk, they have repeatedly adjusted their "data" over and over. I see that you IGNORED this post I made about the lack of temperature data stations for year 1900 Here is a far better one which also answers his statement that cooling has taken place: How long will it last? who knows.
Consensus is how science and peer review work and are critical to advancing our knowledge, that you find it boring says more about you than anything else. Conjecture is also very important as it develops hypothesis which then creates theory. The climate change theories and AGW are far from debunked as much of our data confirms various aspects.
Well Damn me for majoring in science in 4 yrs of highschool and electrical engineering in college branding me a no good for nothing non contributor to my own thread. As many lousy names as you call me to prove how superior you are, I no doubt enjoy and deserve your scathing names directed my way. One of these days I may run into this man you call science
As usual you dismiss verified data in preference of pre-conceived notions which is fine with me as you are very easily dismissed as irrelevant. By the way....even your graph verifies the warming trend.
So, Calculus was pure junk until people like you approved it. Darwin was full of crap until you showed up to accept it.; aren't we all fortunate to have you here to tell us we are full of crap!!
Do you realize that Consensus mantra is used when they have received opposition to their idea, it is what politically minded people use when their unsupported science claims are being exposed as junk, Since the AGW conjecture runs on far into the future climate modeling scenarios, it is unfalsifiable. Try reading the Scientific Method, which I brought up yesterday. You ignored it then, you going to ignore it today? Consensus Fallacy is a well known as a popularity fable as well shown HERE It can take just ONE person to destroy it, which has happened many times in the past. Look up J. Harlan Bretz, Otto Wegener, Semmelweiss, Mendel, and more. Science runs on REPRODUCIBLE papers! You need to get off the Consensus bandwagon, it makes you appear anti science.
Your ignorance is exposed in several places, already showed that data 1900 and before are seriously lacking to make a baseline with. That NASA has a long history of changing their temperature charts, not surprising that you are ignorant of this well known fact. Here are changes to their charts: Notice how they erased a well known COOLING trend from the 1940's to the 1970's? Yes the UAH shows warming from 1979, but Robert was making it clear that it is CURRENTLY cooling, which the UAH chart clearly shows, from mid 2016.
You and I clearly have different understanding of science and will disagree. That is unfortunate but easily remedied. Have A Nice Day
There you go. I started studying with this man you call science all the time by 1950. I was creating theory of travel faster than the speed of light about that time. I knew a lot about nuclear physics by the 10th grade. But as you constantly remind me, you are so superior to me and others and we will learn to bow to you and submit to you. I learned from you how stupid I am. As a retail seller, so was I. My product and service was in the housing industry. From you I learned how pathetic the FAA course about this topic actually is. But you know how pathetic the FAA courses are.
I posted the evidence that you employed the Consensus FALLACY, Showed the description of it too. You are apparently easily fooled by the nonsense because AGW runs on far into the FUTURE climate scenario models, which makes them unverifiable/untestable thus worthless. It is normally called Pseudoscience, but for you it is fantasy wonderland. You are on record in IGNORING The Null hypothesis, The Scientific Method and Reproducibility of science research. Don't you feel embarrased?
