Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~ Richard Feynman
“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” ~ Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York
“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman
Whoops, yet another hypothesis that will turn out to be wrong.
“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman
I bet those Young Earth Creationists get really pissed when those (clearly biased) academic Journals won't accept their articles about a 6000 year old earth and Intelligent Falling.
Why don't you take your argument to the IPCC thread....(I know why you won't)
Even a broken clock is right once in a while. No one is wrong about everything - even conspiracy theorists, but with science when your observations don't match your predictions, your theory is wrong (see Feynman). This is the problem with the Harold Camping Rapturist CAGW hypothesis. Predictions are made, and then turn out wrong over and over again, and yet the apocalyptic predictions continue. In science the skeptics do not need to present an "alternative theory". All skeptics need do at a minimum is point out the falsifications and flaws of those proposing a hypothesis and claims resulting from it. A skeptic may do more than the minimum of, but is not required to.
CAGW asserts that CO2 causes temperatures to rise in the real atmosphere due to the GHG effect. Yes there is a GHG effect but clearly Mother Nature isn't obeying the CAGW Hypothesis as the empirical data shows:
No warming for 17 years and 6 months in the actual real atmosphere even while the Co2 has increased contradicts the CAGW hypothesis.
Which wins in science, opinion or empirical data? The scientific method says that empirical data always trumps claims or opinions or consensus that contradicts it. Data wins. Papers and paper authors lose when contradictory empirical data shows their claims wrong. That is the harsh way of science and why we make progress.
“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way, “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.” – Richard Feynman
There are 17 years and 6 months of empirical temperature data (RSS 2014) exception to the CAGW hypothesis claims thus following the rules of the scientific method the claims of CAGW are automatically falsified and all the papers that contradict this empirical evidence are thus Null And Void.
Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
This is why I call it the Harold Camping Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. If the actuality fails to materialize, you simply pull a Harold Camping, and say that doom is still coming, only another decade later than first thought. Ben Santer said that in order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long. Right now it's 17 years and 6 months. Now they are saying that somehow the oceans are eating the heat. This may be true, but maybe the Ocean was doing this during the last cooling phase as well. We simply don't know.
Mike Mann is claiming that we will hit 2C of warming (the point of no return) by 2036. This will not happen for obvious reasons, but just like past prediction failures, Mann or someone will simply push the doom and gloom back another decade or two when it doesn't happen.
No matter what the climate does, it is always the fault of CAGW. Extremes happen every year, just like always, but for some reason an extremely cold winter today is a sign of CAGW, while an extremely cold winter in 1950 was not. There is not one bit of evidence that shows that today's extremes are the result of AGW. The Null Hypothesis in climate science still stands, that is that the so called "climate changes" that have been alleged are entirely Natural.
No paper has falsified the "Natural Climate Change" Null Hypothesis. If one had it would be the most well known science paper in climate science.
The only way the Null Hypothesis is overcome is by fudging the numbers, and twisting the truth. This is because people believe that the end justifies the means.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." ~ Richard Feynman
“No theory is carved in stone. Science is merciless when it comes to testing all theories over and over, at any time, in any place. Unlike religion or politics, science is ultimately decided by experiments, done repeatedly in every form. There are no sacred cows. In science, 100 authorities count for nothing. Experiment counts for everything.” ~ Michio Kaku, a professor of theoretical physics at City College of New York
“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman
Whoops, yet another hypothesis that will turn out to be wrong.
“If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~ Richard Feynman
I don't think Mann was talking about a 2 degree rise from 2014, and why are you quoting a theoretical physicist who died in 1988?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
