NASA: peer review science show 97+scientists agree man causes global warming

[cancel2 2022]

Why do Al Gorians look at "climate scientists" ... as gods able to predict the future climate. What's so special about "climate scientists, they've never been right, ... they've never ever been able to predict climate.

I don't really know, climatologists are mostly just glorified statisticians anyway.

[sear]

""climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31

You used the word "never".
That means all I have to do to prove you wrong is to cite one example.

So be it.
- They predicted decreasing polar ice caps. They are right.
- They predicted sea level rise. They are right.
- They predicted change in climate, such as more severe storms, worse wild fires, etc. They are right.

""climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31

Perhaps it is yourself you refer to as never being right. You are clearly wrong here.

BTW:
When professional, employed climatologists awaken and prepare for commuting to work each morning,
each has to decide if there's no law against public nudity, or whether they must wear clothing on their commute, and while at work.

"they've never been right" Bd #31

It's not just that one or two has gotten it right.

I've never found a single news report of a climatologist commuting to work naked, or completing their professional work day naked.

So it seems they're ALL right, virtually all the time. That would seem to disprove your:
""climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31 libel.

When you lie like this Bd, you're not undermining them. You're undermining yourself.

[Micawber]

That being said, this entire debate would stop if there were concrete, irrefutable, scientific facts to back it up.
."

False. These people would debate water being wet if their wallets depended on it THere is concrete scientific fact supporting ACC

"irrefutable" is your out here. Deniers offer nothing to refute man caused global warming that is peer reviewed science, but your standard "irrefutable" is pretty high.
But as as stated, they would contest the irrefutable. Trump proves that daily with his tweets and his surrogates statements that are lies.

[Bigdog]

You used the word "never".
That means all I have to do to prove you wrong is to cite one example.

So be it.
- They predicted decreasing polar ice caps. They are right.
- They predicted sea level rise. They are right.
- They predicted change in climate, such as more severe storms, worse wild fires, etc. They are right.

Perhaps it is yourself you refer to as never being right. You are clearly wrong here.

BTW:
When professional, employed climatologists awaken and prepare for commuting to work each morning,
each has to decide if there's no law against public nudity, or whether they must wear clothing on their commute, and while at work.

It's not just that one or two has gotten it right.

I've never found a single news report of a climatologist commuting to work naked, or completing their professional work day naked.

So it seems they're ALL right, virtually all the time. That would seem to disprove your:
""climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31 libel.

When you lie like this Bd, you're not undermining them. You're undermining yourself.

Climate is generally referred to as 30 years or longer. Are those 30 year old predictions? And, in your examples, they are only predicting one of two outcomes ... colder or hotter. Vague and meaningless.

[Micawber]

I don't really know, climatologista are mostly just glorified statisticians anyway.

See? Attack on all fronts. Can't win the scientific debate on the facts, attack the institution. These attacks more than any other prove you are a hack.
It's ironic you disrespect the scienctists in that field of study and you spend most of your pathetic life pretending to be one anonymously online to people who hate your fucking guts.
How a chemistry degree, or a non college trained computer science guy thinks his C++ certification stacks up favorably over statisticians and PhD climate scientists I have no idea.
Your hierarchy is wrong.

[Micawber]

Bigdog
Pragmatist

This message is hidden because Bigdog is on your ignore list and has been for years.

[CFM]

The right will demand the ambulance chaser types, who are a slice of the scientific community, should have equal time to the real scientists.

Nordberg considers a real scientist as someone that says what he wants to hear.

[CFM]

Bigdog
Pragmatist

This message is hidden because Bigdog is on your ignore list and has been for years.

Wrong. The message is hidden because Micawber is a motherfucking pussy and always will be.

[tinfoil]

Stop posting tinfoil. Nobody sees anything you write

LOL
Yeah, because the skeptic arguments have been totally debunked. Natural variability has no effect on climate. It's only anthropogenic emissions that affect climate. Ocean heat cycles make no difference. Sunspots and galactic cosmic rays make no difference. Clouds make no difference. Volcanic activity makes no difference. Urban heat island effect makes no difference.

It's the carbon dioxide from humans alone that drives climate

[sear]

"Climate is generally referred to as 30 years or longer." Bd #34

Not necessarily.
"Long term" is the term used by AHD. But I won't contest at this point.

"Are those 30 year old predictions?" BD #34

It wouldn't matter either way. They are predictions.

You are correct in that it's not valid science to extrapolate from one data point. There is no statistical "trend" in one data point.

BUT !!

Climatologists have literally millennia of data to refer to.
They've analyzed air bubbles in arctic ice, dated the air by strata and other means, and measured the concentrations of Carbon, etc.

They've even sampled the air sealed in antique hour glasses, the kind where sand slowly spills from the top bulb through a narrow neck to the bottom bulb.

These data are vastly more than 30 years old.

"And, in your examples, they are only predicting one of two outcomes ... colder or hotter. Vague and meaningless." Bd

Even if you were right, and you're CLEARLY not, but
even if you were right, your updated excuse doesn't disprove. For my reply to you was to refute your lie that "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.
You didn't say they were meaningless. You claimed "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.

And as usual, you have been proved wrong, AGAIN !! !!

Don't you EVER tire of being wrong ?1

[cancel2 2022]

See? Attack on all fronts. Can't win the scientific debate on the facts, attack the institution. These attacks more than any other prove you are a hack.
It's ironic you disrespect the scienctists in that field of study and you spend most of your pathetic life pretending to be one anonymously online to people who hate your fucking guts.
How a chemistry degree, or a non college trained computer science guy thinks his C++ certification stacks up favorably over statisticians and PhD climate scientists I have no idea.
Your hierarchy is wrong.

A true climate scientist requires an understanding of astrophysics, geology, geochronology, atmospheric chemistry and physics, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. Sadly very few so called climate scientists have even a subset of those.

Climate science is primarily the work of specialists engaged on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees, amplified and exaggerated when computer modellers get involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t even know about interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture.

[cancel2 2022]

Not necessarily.
"Long term" is the term used by AHD. But I won't contest at this point.

It wouldn't matter either way. They are predictions.

You are correct in that it's not valid science to extrapolate from one data point. There is no statistical "trend" in one data point.

BUT !!

Climatologists have literally millennia of data to refer to.
They've analyzed air bubbles in arctic ice, dated the air by strata and other means, and measured the concentrations of Carbon, etc.

They've even sampled the air sealed in antique hour glasses, the kind where sand slowly spills from the top bulb through a narrow neck to the bottom bulb.

These data are vastly more than 30 years old.

Even if you were right, and you're CLEARLY not, but
even if you were right, your updated excuse doesn't disprove. For my reply to you was to refute your lie that "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.
You didn't say they were meaningless. You claimed "climate scientists, they've never been right" Bd #31.

And as usual, you have been proved wrong, AGAIN !! !!

Don't you EVER tire of being wrong ?1

God, you're such a pompous windbag! Here is just one claim made back in 1988.

It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world. The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.” — Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...climate-alarm/

[Micawber]

A true climate scientist requires an understanding of astrophysics, geology, geochronology, atmospheric chemistry and physics, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. Sadly very few so called climate scientists have even a subset of those.

Climate science is primarily the work of specialists engaged on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees, amplified and exaggerated when computer modellers get involved. They are specialists trying to be generalists but omit major segments, and often don’t even know about interrelationships, interactions and feedbacks in the general picture.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...imate-science/

An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.



Stop plagiarizing, attribute your extended cut paste, poser.

[iolo]

Weirdoes hate science and believe big business knows better. 'Nuff said.

[cancel2 2022]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...imate-science/

An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.



Stop plagiarizing, attribute your extended cut paste, poser.

Yes anything for you to not acknowledge the truth, if ducking and diving was an Olympic sport you'd get a gold medal. I took what Ian Plimer has stated many times and modified it, I very much doubt that you've ever said anything original in your entire life. Anyway I am done here, nothing of any consequence ever happens in your threads so I will just ignore you in future.