Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

[bishop]

A smart man knows which war to fight and which war not to fight. You use your mouth like a machinegun; spitting out as much BS as possible trying to hit every target and never hitting a single one. That is not the way I operate.

Because it is clear to me that climate science is not a science as defined by the scientific method, I do not need to talk about data. If I talk about data that implies that I respect the methodology which I do not. The output of climate science is not to be respected, and paying the output no lip service is my way of showing my contempt for this pseudo science.

I have stated the reasons why climate science is not a science, you should try to refute that with logic and reasoning rather than spitting out a whole lot of nothing and thinking you scored points.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Or you could even take the correct link for NASA's data, which is this:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

That's just the meteorological stations, doofus.

 

[Butler1000]

What you and the anti-science crowd miss is that once evidence emerged, the scientists involved realized they were out to lunch. The only scientists who claimed the benefits of smoking were the ones on the payroll of the cigarette industry. And coincidentally, the prominent scientists who deny the impact of human CO2 are on the payroll of places like the Heartland institute.

And a whole lot of scientists on the public grants payroll are supporting the whole global warming theory. Yet is seems the the ones not on the "payroll" continue to debunk it.

Not sure if you want to place GW researchers in with cigarette shills.

 

[Frankfooter]

Because it is clear to me that climate science is not a science as defined by the scientific method, I do not need to talk about data. If I talk about data that implies that I respect the methodology which I do not. The output of climate science is not to be respected, and paying the output no lip service is my way of showing my contempt for this pseudo science.

I have stated the reasons why climate science is not a science, you should try to refute that with logic and reasoning rather than spitting out a whole lot of nothing and thinking you scored points.

Once again, you backed down to just repeating your opinion.

So once again I'll note that real scientists, who know and judge the work and scientific methods of others, back the findings of the IPCC.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

You are welcome to a layman's opinion, but that doesn't make it correct.
So please tell me why you think you are a better judge of the scientific method and the work of the IPCC then the very vast majority of real scientists at the AAAS and NASA.

 

[Butler1000]

Once again, you backed down to just repeating your opinion.

So once again I'll note that real scientists, who know and judge the work and scientific methods of others, back the findings of the IPCC.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

You are welcome to a layman's opinion, but that doesn't make it correct.
So please tell me why you think you are a better judge of the scientific method and the work of the IPCC then the very vast majority of real scientists at the AAAS and NASA.

Actually I worry they are searching for information to back up preconceived notions rather then obtaining information and drawing conclusions based solely on evidence.

The money is coming from people who want answers they want to hear. Best way to lose funding is to disagree with their political views.

That's why I don't trust them. Research used to be done by universities and the funding was non partisan. Same with medical research. Now it's all about monetizing findings, whether in the private sector or gov't grants.

And this is one big cash cow right now.

 

[glamphotographer]

Oh Ok, so let's go back to industrial waste and carbon gas and over pollute our only place in the universe like we don't care.

 

[bishop]

Once again, you backed down to just repeating your opinion.

So once again I'll note that real scientists, who know and judge the work and scientific methods of others, back the findings of the IPCC.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

You are welcome to a layman's opinion, but that doesn't make it correct.
So please tell me why you think you are a better judge of the scientific method and the work of the IPCC then the very vast majority of real scientists at the AAAS and NASA.

So basically the only argument you have, ever had, and ever will have, is an appeal to authority. Why do you even debate, all you have to say is other people smarter than me says so, so it must be true, just say that once. No need to keep saying the exact same thing over and over using different words each time.

 

[Butler1000]

Oh Ok, so let's go back to industrial waste and carbon gas and over pollute our only place in the universe like we don't care.

The issue isn't that. It's the profiteering and slavish kowtowing to what has been turned into on one hand scientists looking for cash instead of the truth and on another front using carbon taxes as an excuse for wealth redistribution.

Anyone with common sense wants to see continued research into renewables and reduction methods. But there are too many using this as an excuse to line their pockets and achieve political aganda that have nothing to do with these real goals.

Hence the reluctance and push back.

 

[JakeLive]

Oh Ok, so let's go back to industrial waste and carbon gas and over pollute our only place in the universe like we don't care.

+1. Forget about global warming for a second, we all know that pollution exists. Compare the air from the DVP to a lake in Muskoka. There's no denying that pollution is bad for our health (and our planet).

 

[bishop]

Oh Ok, so let's go back to industrial waste and carbon gas and over pollute our only place in the universe like we don't care.

You do understand that CO2 is not a pollutant? and conflating it with industrial waste is just makes you look foolish. What is next, is H2O gonna be considered a pollutant because it has a chemical name?

 

[Frankfooter]

So basically the only argument you have, ever had, and ever will have, is an appeal to authority. Why do you even debate, all you have to say is other people smarter than me says so, so it must be true, just say that once. No need to keep saying the exact same thing over and over using different words each time.

Dunning Kruger effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

When you claim that you know better then the vast majority of scientists, I have to come to the conclusion that you suffer from Dunning Kruger and that you need to be reminded constantly that you aren't that smart.
So please tell me why you think you are a better judge of the scientific method and the work of the IPCC then the very vast majority of real scientists at the AAAS and NASA.

 

[bishop]

You are right, using logic and reasoning should be reserved only for those with PHDs, anyone who dares use it without a PHD is mentally ill.

So basically as part of your desperate attempt to convince the world of AGW, you are demonizing logic and reasoning.

 

[Jicama]

You are right, using logic and reasoning should be reserved only for those with PHDs, anyone who dares use it without a PHD is mentally ill.

So basically as part of your desperate attempt to convince the world of AGW, you are demonizing logic and reasoning.

You find it somehow logical and rational that a person with zero scientific training, no experience as an actual scientist, and who has admittedly not looked at any of the data would know more about what constitutes good science than thousands of more qualified individuals? OK.

Science is not about the truth it is about what we can prove.

There is phenomenon that science can not explain or encompass yet, no doubt the phenomenon is real and tangible but it is out of our reach for now. AGW maybe true, it maybe false, though I hope you guys will agree that regardless of how good a theory sounds, it has to pass the same rigors of science as all other theories have to do to become accepted.

If AWG was scientific it would not be called AGW, it would merely be called something like CO2 theory, that is to say that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. That is all you need, and that is a much more sharpened and on the point theory. If CO2 is the primary driver of climate, and if it can be shown that human beings produce the vast majority of CO2 (if true then this is not hard to prove at all) then AGW is an inescapable conclusion.

But AGW has none of these common sense rigours, it bypasses all scientific framework and goes directly to humans are causing climate change without any of the intermediate steps required to prove it.

AGW has no explanatory powers like regular scientific theories, it does not explain why the earth was both colder and hotter in the past and worse yet it does not even try to provide and explanation.

AGW does not involve scientific experimentation.

AGW purports that is has predictive power, now because AGW lacks explanatory power or scientific experimentation if AGW does have predictive power then it lives or dies based solely on that metric so it's predictive ability has to be earth shatteringly good for AGW to even begin to be taken seriously. The only predictive power AGW has is that the next AGW statistical model will be better than the last cluster f*ck of a AGW statistical model.

I don't even know where to start with this nonsense. AGW is unscientific because of its name?
It's not necessary for humans to produce the vast majority of CO2 in order to effect climate change, only a sufficient amount to disrupt equilibrium.
It's not necessary for AGW to account for every single temperature change in the past in order to be valid, what a ridiculous statement.
Science does not necessarily involve experimentation, ever heard of Einstein? Later experiments have verified some of his predictions and raised more questions about others. You could say the same for Newton or virtually any scientist in history - there is little of our physical science that is 100% "proven".

 

[bishop]

AGW is unscientific because it does not use the scientific method, AGW is based on a statistical approach that has no controls.

Stats that have no controls is called finance, stats with controls is called medical science.

AGW does not need to account for every temperature change, but it does not even account for the most important temperature changes in the past, because a statistical model has no explanatory powers.

Speaking of Einstein, do you think he got the nobel the instant he published his paper? No it took eddington with his mercury observations to prove einstein right, after that einstein got all the awards he deserved. Nobody gave einstein the time of day until eddington made his observations years after einstein published his paper. And even afterwards, after the atomic bomb, scientists were still skeptical, it was not until NASA figured out that clocks on satellites had to be adjusted to take into account time dilation that finally Einstein's relativity was universally accepted.

Science that does not involve experimentation is not science, Einstein got relativity right without any experimental evidence, validation of relativity took observation and experimentation after the fact. If was only after this, that relativity become an accepted theory.

I challenge you to find a physicist that does not think black holes radiate energy, so why does Hawking not get a nobel for his work on black hole physics then if 100% of physicists believe that hawking radiation is real? It is because we have no black holes around to measure the radiation from it. When we do have that ability then Hawking will get his nobel, though he will be long dead by then.

Why did peter higgs only get his noble prize in 2013? His theory about the higgs boson was by all accounts well accepted by other physicists since decades ago. It took 60 years to verify that the higgs boson exists, and it was only then that Peter Higgs got his nobel.

Why does climate science get to dictate truth using pseudo science, while real scientists like einstein, peter higgs, and hawking, have to do real science and even then their theory has to vindicated by observations and experimentation to become an accepted theory? If you are so laxed about science, at least give hawking a nobel prize for f*cks sake, that guy is in a wheel chair and probably only has a few more years left to live.

Nothing is certain, but there is a reasonable threshold for certainty. Quantum mechanics matches experimental results down to like 20 decimal places, the LHC had results for the Higgs Boson long before they made any announcement about it but they waited until results matched predicted down to about 10 decimal places to confirm that the Higgs Boson exists.

 

[David007]

AGW is unscientific because it does not use the scientific method, AGW is based on a statistical approach that has no controls.

That is exactly what the tobacco companies argued. And that argument was persuasive for many years, because you can't ethically do a randomized double blind placebo controlled designed experiment where you require some people to smoke. But over the years the ability to statistically validate the effects of cigarettes became stronger and stronger.

It's the same story with AGW. You are on the losing side.

 

[bishop]

What I considered winning and losing is not what you would expect it to be.

AGW will never be accepted over the long run unless it is validated with the same rigor as science such that it is a science.

If AGW is real and by using real science it can be proven, then I win and not only I but everyone wins because the proper methods were used and the outcome is truth that is accepted by everyone.
If AGW is real and not properly addressed because so much time was taken up by pseudo science mumble jumble, and public opinion is totally split, then I lose and we all lose.
If AGW is not real and by using real science it can be proven that it is not real, then I win along with everyone else and everyone will accept it.
If AGW is not real then all this pseudo science and debate is a complete waste of time, then we all lose a little.

 

[Jicama]

Einstein and Hawking did not become scientists after the fact, they would still be scientists irrespective of the degree to which their theories were right. Science is an ongoing process with many components - verification is obviously important, but some things are harder to measure in a controlled environment than others. The global ecosystem is sufficiently complex that I doubt AGW even explains 1% of it. But there doesn't need to be a smoking gun, science scratches and claws its way to gradual discovery with many small steps and missteps along the way. It completely misses the point by assuming there is some magical threshold where we validate whether something is scientific or isn't. I can accept that AGW might be dead wrong or would even understand a kind of agnosticism about it, but if the vast majority of bright minds are leaning strongly in that direction, than I think it's foolish to dismiss that

 

[Frankfooter]

AGW is unscientific because it does not use the scientific method, AGW is based on a statistical approach that has no controls.

That is bullshit.

Start from the basic, chemistry premise of the greenhouse effect.
If you'd like to disprove the greenhouse effect, I'd challenge you to a test.
Sit in your car with the windows closed, car not running, in the sun on a hot summer day.
If you live you will have understood that the greenhouse effect heated the car and nearly killed you.

That is basic science, its been a hypothesis thats been tested, confirmed and is no longer considered a theory, but a fact.

Now apply that to the planet, through measurements of CO2, temperature readings, historical temperature constructs through investigation and compare that with models of the planets climate that are continually upgraded and made more accurate through years of research, in order to predict what may happen to us as we royally fuck up the climate.

That, my friend, is science.

 

[bishop]

If you are trying to convince me that CO2 is a better thermal insulator than nitrogen or oxygen, you do not need to bother, I know for a fact that CO2 is a better insulator than other main gases in our atmosphere.

If that is where science stops, and the buck is handed over to politicians, that is more than fine with me as it is the proper way to do it.

When climate scientists start relying on statistical models with no control it becomes finance and not science.

When climate scientists start making doomsday predictions it becomes a religion and not science, we have all heard that by so and so we will not know what snow looks like, the polar bears will be all dead, some piece of shit island will be totally under water, etc.... Well that time has passed and none of that doomsday BS was even remotely correct.

I hope AGW is not true because in that scenario these climate assclowns have only done financial damage so long as it does not become global policy, if AGW is true then these assclowns with their pseudo science have put up more than enough roadblocks to stop real scientists from addressing the problem in a timely manner.

 

[Moviefan-2]

....but if the vast majority of bright minds are leaning strongly in that direction, than I think it's foolish to dismiss that

One of the questions is how many of those "bright minds" are well informed.

In the Netherlands survey of climate researchers that was done in 2012, respondents were asked how temperature changes in the 21st century compared with what had been projected. About 70 per cent of respondents got it wrong (Page 38: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf).

Similarly, when the researchers were asked how the temperature trends in the 21st century compared with previous decades, about two-thirds of respondents who provided an answer got it wrong (Page 10: http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf).

As Ross McKitrick wrote earlier this year in the National Post, who cares what the ill-informed think?: http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much