First of all here are more of those dissenting scientists that do not exist: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html Now I post this for 2 reasons...the obvious one is for those that keep claiming the science is settled and dissension can be ignored. Also to show how those people think. This skeptics article promptly generated a response from a number of "climate scientists" saying these who disagree should be ignored. In part their letter said: You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. Two points here: One: they claim that physics, chemists, and the like are NOT qualified to question the AGW theory since they are not "climate experts". Since the AGW theory relies almost entirely on data collection and interpretation I would argue that it is perfectly fine for any qualified scientist to question the way data is collected and analyzed. Scientists outside the climate field are free to express their views. Those inside know it is lock-step with the Church of Gore, or perish. The shameful conspiracy to exclude dissension from publication is but one example. BTW: Mann's PHd is in geology and geophysics....the head of the IPCC who is dictating climate policy to the world...is a RAILWAY ENGINEER.... Second, notice ow the authors of the original paper who ARE climate specialist are simply dismissed:"The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step". In simpler terms, they disagree with us, they don't go to our church, so they are wrong.......scientific method?????? AGW: 10% science 90% political
Strawman. Nobody ever said dissenters don't exist. What we have said is that they are a small minority, and that their argument's don't add up. Nothing you have posted challenges either of those points. Another strawman. The science is settled, but dissent isn't ignored. In fact, in a previous post you listed a thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers that allegedly were dissenting. You can't have it both ways. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? You have to distinguish between scientists whose dissent is based on science, and the right-wing fringe whose dissent is based on politics. If the WSJ sixteen had anything scientific to say, they would publish in a scientific journal. Since they have no science to stand on, they are reduced to publishing in right-wing newspapers. This is in fact the only tactic left to the right-wing fringe: publish essentially political diatribes, and try to pretend it's real science. It isn't, and it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend otherwise. Whoever told you that "AGW theory relies almost entirely on data collection and interpretation" has lied to you. AGW theory is based on fundamental physics: everything from Boyle's Law to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, to quantum mechanics, to Henry's Law, to Conservation of Energy, and Newton's Laws too. That's why nobody has yet shown AGW to be wrong: because it's pretty hard to argue with fundamental physics. CO2 goes up, the planet gets hotter. Period. And we're responsible for CO2 going up (that's Conservation of Mass, which you can't argue with either.) Strawman. Nobody has ever said skeptics can't express their opinions, and nobody has tried to stop them from doing so. What we have said is that you can't express an opinion and claim it's science. Scientific publication is exclusive by design. You can't publish in a scientific journal unless you can pass peer-review, which is a pretty low bar. The fact that skeptics often can't pass that low bar should tell you that they've got nothing. The fact that you yourself posted a list of a thousand allegedly skeptical papers that did pass peer-review should tell you that the person who sold you on the conspiracy theory was lying. Why do you believe that crap? A climatologist is someone who works and publishes in climatology, and Mann qualifies. Most of those on your various lists do not. Pachauri does not, and has never claimed to be a climatologist, nor was he the author of any of the IPCC reports. Anthony Watts, by contrast, has no degree in anything, yet claims great expertise. So who's being dishonest? If skeptical scientists were really interested in the scientific method, they would subject their ideas to scientific scrutiny, the way mainstream scientists do every day. The fact that skeptical scientists don't do that is proof that they've got nothing scientific to stand on, and they know it. Global warming skepticism: 1% science, 99% political.
Lie. The 1000 dissenting papers definitely offer arguments that add up. Anti-scientific garbage. No, it is just dismissed, derided, ridiculed, suppressed, vilified, censored and misstated. Some of them have. And they have been duly dismissed, derided, ridiculed, suppressed, vilified, censored and misstated. Garbage. The science is absolutely clear: actual temperatures are far below the AGW predictions. AGW is a theory that has been objectively falsified. Another flat-out lie, as the 1000 dissenting papers prove. Right: it relies almost entirely on hypothetical models unsupported by actual data. Another blatant lie. Fundamental physics shows the global climate's sensitivity to CO2 is about 1C, an entirely ordinary and non-dangerous level consistent with the earth's climate history. AGW theory relies on hypothesized massive positive feedback mechanisms that baldly contradict the indisputable long-term stability of the earth's climate. AGW has definitely been shown to be wrong. The last 15 years of stable global temperature data in the face of continuing exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration show it to be wrong. That is not the AGW theory. No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that human activities have increased its atmospheric concentration. The disagreement is over the hypothesized and entirely implausible positive feedbacks that are alleged to make the global climate hypersensitive to CO2, a claim baldly contradicted by the earth's climate history. Lie. The Climategate emails explicitly admit that AGW "scientists" have been trying to stop publication of dissenting views. Unless it's an opinion that agrees with AGW theory, as all the AGW models are. You fundamentally do not understand peer review. Peer review is only a low bar for publication of NOVEL results, which AGW models can generate by carload lots. If your results merely confirm established science, as most refutations of AGW theory do, you can't get published. Flat wrong, as proved above. Peer review places a premium on NOVELTY, and just restating or reconfirming known facts that refute AGW theory does not pass that test. "Climatology" being increasingly defined as, "AGW theory"... You, for claiming that lack of a degree proves lack of expertise. Most of the great pioneers of science did not have degrees. Another flat-out lie from you, as the 1000 published papers prove.
The great pioneers of science who did not possess college degrees were extraordinarily talented. Anthony Watts, on the other hand, is a pathetically incompetent hack who does not even have a high-school-level grasp of basic science/math. Here's one (of many) examples of his incompetence: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/ Scroll down to Watts' discussion of temperature histograms to see his flaming incompetence in its full glory.
Poor Debater posted this hilarious statement: The science is settled, but dissent isn't ignored. I cannot imagine a more self-contradictory statement. My point is made.......... ROFL....case closed
If you don't see why this statement is both consistent and true, you have no idea of the way science works.
If you don't see why this statement is both consistent and true, you have no idea of the way science works. Let's take one example. It is settled science that the increase in CO2 since 1750 has been caused by human burning of fossil fuels. In spite of that fact, about a year ago, Murray Salby, a physicist in Australia, dipped his toe into climate science and developed some evidence which (he believed) challenged that settled science. He gave a public lecture which generated a lot of oooo-ing and ahhhh-ing in the denier blogosphere, claiming that the rise in atmospheric CO2 had natural causes. At the time, Salby said that he had a paper on his thesis "in press", but it later appeared that said paper was only in review. That paper has yet to appear in print, and I doubt that any such paper ever will. Why not? Because there is a very good reason that we know the rise in CO2 is caused by us. And that very good reason is based on conservation of mass, which is a bedrock principle of science. If you're arguing that the recent atmospheric rise in CO2 has natural causes, you run right up against conservation of mass. Working climate scientists know this immediately, but scientists parachuting into climatology from other disciplines may not. And that's what caught out Salby: nothing in his public lecture (nor, presumably, his in-review paper) dealt with this absolutely critical issue. So no doubt the reason we haven't seen Salby's paper is that he has failed to pass peer-review, and for very good reasons. If you screw up conservation of mass, you're not going to get published. So yes, the science is settled on the cause of the CO2 rise. But no, we're not ignoring the critics. We're dealing with them in the normal way, through the normal operation of the scientific process.
PD.....I am not about to argue about CO2....stick to the topic if you want to debate me: My point was that you cannot state that something is "settled", but still open for dissent.....LOL..... no matter what the subject is.....CO2 or the proper amount of baking soda for a 3 layer German chocolate cake....
Not only can I state just that, but I am. As the above example illustrates, these statements are not inconsistent.
So English is not your first language......? Or you are doing this deliberately, in which case. I have no use for a "debater" who resorts to the tactic of simply denying what is manifestly obvious in order to "win" by simply outlasting his opponent....the amount of free time I have to post is limited. You see I am one of those right wing nut cases that actually works over 40 hours a week.........good day sir.....
