Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

To be balanced, Dr. Lindzen failed to present two points.

First, that the group 1 scientists outnumber the group 2 scientists by a ratio of at least 30 to 1.

Second, he completely failed to mention the denialists in group 3. Sure, the alarmists have motive to push their point of view, but where is his description of all the media, politicians, and others that have the same motivation to push their denialistic point of view?

I accept the views of atmospheric scientists that are skeptical. They are far outnumbered by atmospheric scientists who agree with man-made global warming, however. All others who don't qualify for expertise in this area are the ones that make it seem like this subject is evenly divided among scientists. It isn't. And Dr. Lindzen is completely misrepresenting the facts by not even mentioning that huge imbalance of expert opinion.
 
mogur said:
To be balanced, Dr. Lindzen failed to present two points.

First, that the group 1 scientists outnumber the group 2 scientists by a ratio of at least 30 to 1.

Second, he completely failed to mention the denialists in group 3. Sure, the alarmists have motive to push their point of view, but where is his description of all the media, politicians, and others that have the same motivation to push their denialistic point of view?

I accept the views of atmospheric scientists that are skeptical. They are far outnumbered by atmospheric scientists who agree with man-made global warming, however. All others who don't qualify for expertise in this area are the ones that make it seem like this subject is evenly divided among scientists. It isn't. And Dr. Lindzen is completely misrepresenting the facts by not even mentioning that huge imbalance of expert opinion.
Click to expand...

I thought that you were cleverer and more well informed than that, the John Cook 97% consensus survey have been thoroughly debunked many times not least by Prof. Richard Tol. Even if it were true, I am sure that you are more than aware than science is not decided by consensus. Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Calling sceptics denialists is incredibly lazy and wrongheaded, it has no place in a serious discussion of the issues.

Richard Lindzen is without doubt one of the most brilliant atmospheric scientists alive, he is of the opinion that climatologists are for the most part second rate, I am inclined to agree with him.
 
CONSENSUS FOLLOWS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
ONLY A TWIT SHILLING FOR OIL CORPORATIONS, WOULD ATTEMPT TO DENY WHAT THE WORLD CAN HANDILY SEE OUT IT'S WINDOW.

Poor Borbo
 
Legionthecat said:
CONSENSUS FOLLOWS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
ONLY A TWIT SHILLING FOR OIL CORPORATIONS, WOULD ATTEMPT TO DENY WHAT THE WORLD CAN HANDILY SEE OUT IT'S WINDOW.

Poor Borbo
Click to expand...

So where is this empirical evidence then? Climate models don't count. You will never be able to best me when it comes to science related matters although it is amusing to see you try.
 
Last edited:
Am I supposed to be impressed with your ability to find YouTube videos? It is perfectly clear that do not have the chops to discuss the topic in an meaningful way.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Am I supposed to be impressed with your ability to find YouTube videos? It is perfectly clear that do not have the chops to discuss the topic in an meaningful way.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no empiracle evidence yet alarmists persist in claiming there is science.
 
Celticguy said:
There is no empiracle evidence yet alarmists persist in claiming there is science.
Click to expand...

Please learn to spell words like empirical correctly. Here are some memorable quotes from the speech given by Prof. Lindzen to the House of Commons Climate Change Committee in 2012.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, denial of the facts on the left, has made the public presentation of the science by those promoting alarm much easier. They merely have to defend the trivially true points on the left; declare that it is only a matter of well- known physics; and relegate the real basis for alarm to a peripheral footnote – even as they slyly acknowledge that this basis is subject to great uncertainty.
Click to expand...


Quite apart from the science itself, there are numerous reasons why an intelligent observer should be suspicious of the presentation of alarm.

  1. The claim of ‘incontrovertibility.’ Science is never incontrovertible.
  2. Arguing from ‘authority’ in lieu of scientific reasoning and data or even elementary logic.
  3. Use of term ‘global warming’ without either definition or quantification.
  4. Identification of complex phenomena with multiple causes with global warming and even as ‘proof’ of global warming.
  5. Conflation of existence of climate change with anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...

Some Salient Points:

1. Virtually by definition, nothing in science is ‘incontrovertible’ – especially in a primitive and complex field as climate. ‘Incontrovertibility’ belongs to religion where it is referred to as dogma.
2. As noted, the value of ‘authority’ in a primitive and politicized field like climate is of dubious value – it is essential to deal with the science itself. This may present less challenge to the layman than is commonly supposed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
Here are some memorable quotes from the speech given by Prof. Lindzen to the House of Commons Climate Change Committee in 2012.
Click to expand...

1. The claim of ‘incontrovertibility.’ Science is never incontrovertible.
Click to expand...
Of course not, both alarmists and denialists are guilty.

2. Arguing from ‘authority’ in lieu of scientific reasoning and data or even elementary logic.
Click to expand...
Shall I remind you of what your response to my last post was? "Richard Lindzen is without doubt one of the most brilliant atmospheric scientists alive, he is of the opinion that climatologists are for the most part second rate, I am inclined to agree with him." Seems you are violating one of Dr. Lindzen's main tenets.

3. Use of term ‘global warming’ without either definition or quantification.
Click to expand...
Lame. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not need to be defined in every scientific paper published. It is an assumed definition, and its quantification is the very subject of virtually scientific paper in which it is discussed. No one needs to define and quantify the theory of relativity in order to discuss it.

4. Identification of complex phenomena with multiple causes with global warming and even as ‘proof’ of global warming.
Click to expand...
Serious scientists studying the effects of AGW understand the complexity of the multiple influences on the climate and those drives that effect changes to the climate. They are abundantly aware of the relative infancy of this field of science and that simplifying those influences aren't a 'proof' of their conclusions. That is a smoke screen simply meant to denigrate the honest work of many dedicated scientists.

5. Conflation of existence of climate change with anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...
The entire purpose of the study of AGW is to differentiate mankind's influence on the climate versus naturally occurring changes. Alarmists and denialists may conflate the two, but most scientists do not.

Calling sceptics [sic] denialists is incredibly lazy and wrongheaded, it has no place in a serious discussion of the issues.
Click to expand...
Who the fuck called skeptics denialists? I call chicken littles alarmists. And I call heads buried in the sand denialists. I am a skeptic. All scientists are skeptics. The scientific method is based on skepticism. Lame people are alarmists and denialists. I am proud to be a skeptic.

the John Cook 97% consensus survey have been thoroughly debunked many times not least by Prof. Richard Tol.
Click to expand...
That's nonsense. Here is what the economist Richard Tol said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.” His study merely picked on minor details of the Cook study. You are lying, Milagro. Naomi Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009), and Anderegg et al. (2010), all confirm Cook's study. Does a consensus mean that the science is settled? Well, yes, actually, for now. Settled science can be overturned. Galileo, Einstein, and Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics) have all overturned the settled science of their day. But that doesn't mean that you get to ignore a consensus without providing a better hypothesis. All hypotheses are not equal. You need to offer a better one to refute an accepted one.
 
mogur said:
Of course not, both alarmists and denialists are guilty.


Shall I remind you of what your response to my last post was? "Richard Lindzen is without doubt one of the most brilliant atmospheric scientists alive, he is of the opinion that climatologists are for the most part second rate, I am inclined to agree with him." Seems you are violating one of Dr. Lindzen's main tenets.


Lame. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) does not need to be defined in every scientific paper published. It is an assumed definition, and its quantification is the very subject of virtually scientific paper in which it is discussed. No one needs to define and quantify the theory of relativity in order to discuss it.


Serious scientists studying the effects of AGW understand the complexity of the multiple influences on the climate and those drives that effect changes to the climate. They are abundantly aware of the relative infancy of this field of science and that simplifying those influences aren't a 'proof' of their conclusions. That is a smoke screen simply meant to denigrate the honest work of many dedicated scientists.


The entire purpose of the study of AGW is to differentiate mankind's influence on the climate versus naturally occurring changes. Alarmists and denialists may conflate the two, but most scientists do not.


Who the fuck called skeptics denialists? I call chicken littles alarmists. And I call heads buried in the sand denialists. I am a skeptic. All scientists are skeptics. The scientific method is based on skepticism. Lame people are alarmists and denialists. I am proud to be a skeptic.


That's nonsense. Here is what the economist Richard Tol said, "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.” His study merely picked on minor details of the Cook study. You are lying, Milagro. Naomi Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009), and Anderegg et al. (2010), all confirm Cook's study. Does a consensus mean that the science is settled? Well, yes, actually, for now. Settled science can be overturned. Galileo, Einstein, and Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics) have all overturned the settled science of their day. But that doesn't mean that you get to ignore a consensus without providing a better hypothesis. All hypotheses are not equal. You need to offer a better one to refute an accepted one.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that Richard Tol quote? I wouldn't accept anything by Naomi Oreskes as I consider her to be a lunatic pure and simple. Nobody is seriously saying that there isn't an anthropogenic element to warming, it is the degree that is the crucial factor. I agree with luke warmers like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson that the effect is minor. Most serious scientists now agree that the equiibrium climate sensitivity value (ECS) for CO2 is around 1.2K for a doubling in concentration. Although the relationship is not linear but logarithmic, hence a subsequent doubling will have a far more attenuated effect.

The equation used by the IPCC is
323e7d730380a06480b684af3e3a8f37e8d7911c
which is the classic Arrhenius relationship with a value for alpha of 5.35. Here C is carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C[SUB]0[/SUB] denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square metre. Nobody has provided any reliable evidence that the positive feedbacks postulated by climate alarmists in fact exist outside of computer models.

Oh and I am British and we spell skeptic as sceptic, so shoot me!!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

[url]http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/03/its-all-wrong-un-convening-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-slams-media-for-false-claims-about-alleged-97-consensus/

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4923[/URL]

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
Am I supposed to be impressed with your ability to find YouTube videos? It is perfectly clear that do not have the chops to discuss the topic in an meaningful way.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Exactly try like his master Legion, he can only "discuss" with links. He doesn't have beliefs, he only knows what others tell him to believe.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Am I supposed to be impressed with your ability to find YouTube videos? It is perfectly clear that do not have the chops to discuss the topic in an meaningful way.

Sent from my Lenovo K50-t5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You asked for empirical evidence. I gave you empirical evidence. You know my opinion already.
Poor Borbo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top