No, there are many examinations of what scientific organizations involved in climate related fields support anthropogenic climate change. This does not go back to Cook other than that his work, including the updates, is only one of many. And, I have no reason to believe his work was somehow best.
The papers he cites ARE PART of the field of science just as much as those you chose to embrace. Climatology is a strange field because unlike many other sciences creating experiments to prove or disprove a thesis is near impossible. We have models and observations and a vast void in a field that comprise millions of factors, and influences, and interactions. Ten or twenty years from now we'll all be laughing at how naive we were.[/QUOTE] Yes. Those papers are all part of the total body of climate related science. The thing is, we can find scientific papers that claim to falsify EVERY significant theory of science. There is NO theory that doesn't have scientists who write papers disputing those theories. Finding such papers is not hard. But, the next step is to figure out why it is that those papers are not accepted as overturning the theories they target. Also, those papers may have something of value to add even if they don't falsify the theory they target.
Of course, But you don't seem to be following what you just said; you're continuing rebuttal is "a vast majority say . . . ". First off, there is no "vast majority", there is a well publicized majority that dependably says what globalist financiers want them to say; and the science is so vague they can do so with few qualms". But there are others that see that a few tenths of degree gain per year isn't going to end up in a burning planet in ten years. I don't think there's much debate about us being in a temperature up cycle - more people, more commerce, more people emerging from primitive living into more urban environs. And there are now some folks asking if the warming is all bad - crop production world-wide is booming, for instance. Deaths caused by cold outnumber those caused by heat. And the big question is: exactly how much of this is actually human caused. There are so many other things going on in our environment - ocean currents, solar activity, multi-decade long variations in ocean currents, etc.
Well, there is a vast majority of climate related scientists who absolutely do agree that human activity is the primary cause of the climate change that is measured. Some here have suggested that someone's paper should overturn that majority of climatology without even asking what the vast majority of scientists think about said paper. And, that is just plain ridiculous. Yes, there is significant complexity in the study of climate. That's all the more reason that we need serious experts - not personal belief. I think you're also alluding to the study of impact on the human population, given what is known about climate change - certainly a serious topic. Plus, that leads to the study of ways we can reduce those impacts - what can we do for NOLA, what can we do for the greater US southwest where water is scarce and heating and population are increasing. What can we do for national security, since our DoD sees climate change as a serious issue of security, since heat, lack of water, failing agricultural methods are basic reasons for populations to move and other acts of desperation.
You keep repeating that like a voodoo mantra, and it's not fact. Once again, science is not a majority rule issue. Just because more money is spent to publicize their opinions doesn't make them fact. And yet you cling fanatically to the personal beliefs of one cohort of scientists. Nice recitation.
Actually, it very much is a fact. Science IS a consensus issue in that no theory can actually be proven true in the sense of mathematics, and every theory is forever susceptible to refutation. No, I'm the one who says that listening to one "cohort" is illegitimate. It's guys like Hays who post a paper that claims to refute climatology, and then ignores what every other scientist thinks about the paper. Making decisions on climatology while not even asking what the vast majority of scientists believe is just plain stupid. And, it certainly is NOT science.
~ Governments depend on gradually dumbing-down and misleading society in order to pass their agenda — which is always less rights and freedom for citizens and more authority and control by government. Covid-19 pandemic, climate catastrophe, Russia collusion, Ukraine, mass shootings are all recent examples of using fear and exaggeration as strategies for social engineering. Ever notice there is never a public discussion /debate with opposing sides of the climate or pandemic issues ..? Sadly we have lost journalistic integrity and ethics — which makes us all " information detectives" if we want the facts .
BS. “Because scientists are reasonable men, one or another argument will ultimately persuade many of them. But there is no single argument that can or should persuade them all. Rather than a single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Well said. At the just-held World Economic Forum in Devon, Switzerland (where the airport was overrun with private jets) the discussions centered on what the attendees could do to gain more support amongst the "little people" in order to get them to go along with their "one world" ideal
sorry, no. Wrong again. Not listening to "one cohort". We're balancing one version the other. You really don't seem to grasp the scientific method. IF Hays WERE posting a single paper you may have a valid post; but that's not the case. There are hundreds if not thousands of papers conttadicting the role of human caused global warming. It's NOT a "vast majority". It's just the group that strengthens the objectives of the One World movement. WHEn they start forcing India and China to abandon coal burning power plants, get back to us.
No, you have not. You don't even know the scientific value of those papers you cite, because you have done nothing to verify how other scientists view those papers. And, let's be straight about your count of papers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4966958/ https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change Which states: " More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change" So, you come up with a few papers that YOU think agree with YOU. And, you don't bother to look into why the world of science continues to grow more confident in the analysis that Earth's temperature is increasing, and human activity is the primary cause. And, I'm supposed to side with you instead of the vast majority of scientists from all over the world???
~ Several times in the past as well — if my memory is correct. ' The more we learn , the more suspicious things look. John Stossel has tried several times to interview NASA and UN authorities on climate with others of opposing views. His answer is they are not " granted permission " to do interviews. Why ...?
That's his theory. And, you have NO evidence that it is affecting the entire world of climate science.
OK, there are two main problems here. 1. There is NO legitimate excuse for ignoring the vast preponderance of scientists in the fields related to climatology who support the consensus direction on human involvement in our warming Earth. And, as I've cited on several occasions, it IS a vast majority as measured by numerous independent organizations. 2. You mention "one world movement" and China and India burning coal. Those are POLITICAL issues. This thread is about science.
The question is who has the authority to represent NASA (or whomever). Pretty much no organization allows every employee permission to freely represent the organization.
Ignoring the vast majority of scientists studying a particular field is planned ignorance, surely with no excuse other than politics. That's just NOT and excuse for you idea that science should be ignored until a political accommodation is made with India and China. That's a pure straight up BS excuse for totally ignoring science. Besides, you have it totally backwards. First, we figure out what the science is. Then, we work on solutions to problems that are identified, such as exacerbating warming by burning vast quantities of coal. Without the science, why would you suggest talking to India or China about their energy plans.
You keep spewing the nonsensical BS> That's a pure straight up BS excuse for totally ignoring science.[/quote]Real science requires honest, unbiased analysis and investigation. First we need to determine the actual degree humans actually contribute to the minuscule warming we're experiencing. You mean other than putting almost 50% of CO2 into the atmosphere? See, if those two countries are pumping that amount of CO2 into the air WHY has NO serious action been taking against them. Hint:global politics.
Real science requires honest, unbiased analysis and investigation. First we need to determine the actual degree humans actually contribute to the minuscule warming we're experiencing. [/QUOTE] Yes. That's part of the science that you keep proposing that we ignore. I don't get your point here. You demand we ignore the overwhelming number of scientists who point to human contribution to warming that IS happening. THEN, you whine about India/China not helping to fix that!!! If you are right, and we SHOULD ignore what science has determined, they why bother India/China???
It's just so much twaddle. And when scientists become activists, activism is presented as science. ". . . To cast further shadow upon the study’s conclusions beyond the glaring selection bias problem, Lynas himself inspires reason for distrust. The lead author has a history of climate activism. . . . " The Irrelevancy of Lynas ‘99.9 Percent Certainty Climate Change’ Consensus 2021 › 10 › 19 › the-irrelevancy-of-lynas-99-9-percent-certainty-climate-change-consensus released from Cornell University titled Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the ... widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous
Basic lie. Once again, for possible comprehension that is NO "vast majority" No whining involve; just pointing out your heroes are lying to you. Nope, not ignore, just view in a balanced and unbiased manner. You seem to worship them as if they were Gods. Yes. That's part of the science that you keep proposing that we ignore.[/quote]Stop lying. Obviously. Stop you lying. Nope. That's a total lie.
Climate alarmists' habit of exploiting weather for climate propaganda purposes has backed them into a corner. When scientists become activists, activism is presented as science. CONTRADICTIONS An Awful Chilly Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere
