More from Judith. Please use my previous supplied links to obtain things said by her and others. "The ‘consensus’ often characterizes climate change skepticism being more rabid in the U.S. than any place else. However, it is my perception that we are seeing far more respect for skepticism and skeptics in other countries notably the U.K., which is enabling a more sophisticated dialogue on the topic of climate change. Ben Pile’s characterization of ‘consensus without an object’ is spot on IMO; this has degenerated into the use of ‘consensus’ by certain individuals as a power play for influence in the policy and political debate surrounding climate and energy policy. It’s long past time to get rid of the concept of ‘consensus’ on climate change. An excerpt from the Conclusions to my paper No Consensus on Consensus: The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge and in building political will to act. We have presented perspectives from multiple disciplines that support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach. The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both. Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently. "
There are waaaaaaaaaay more than ten "pro" AGW scientists waaaaaaaay more. What criteria did they use to determine this list?
If it is man made, man can control climate. If not, they you and your group waste all of your time doing simply harping on this topic.
Wasn't her list And if it was it was only her opinion Each chapter of the IPCC report has hundreds of authors
That is how you think you brush that aside. But you do not use science to do this. You introduced the only strawmen.
well you have that exactly 100% wrong....the climate scientists who raised the alarm are the outliers, they are the Newtons, Darwins, Galileo and Einsteins who challenged the established scientists and public who didn't believe them...a handful of scientists took on the established science and convinced the scientific world they were right....Newton, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein would applaud them...
^ Exactly. It was Callendar who first raised the red flag regarding a link between man-made CO2 and global warming. His views were largely met with skepticism at the time. And it didn't help that there was a multi decade lull before warming really started to take off. But, in the end he was vindicated and it's actually believed that his 2C climate sensitivity calculation (done without computer models by the way) is actually too low. And, of course, Arrhenius made a similar calculation in the late 1800's, but he was largely ignored because no really cared at the time. These people definitely had an uphill battle against skepticism or extreme indifference.
today's deniers are the "flat earthers" rejecting the science behind AGW out of pure intellectual arrogance(Dunning Kruger Effect) or political bent...
OK, so you love to chat over an issue you can't control. i am done. I don't care about this so called problem. For me, it is no problem. Done as to your comments. I plan to post things from Curry to help people understand this topic.
I share my informed view with 97% of the scientific community and outliers like Newton, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein...I guess I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know more than the millions of highly trained scientists...
Well, at least you make the case for being a snob. How hard is it for you to pound your own back with such gusto? I created this corner to get science into the fresh air where one is not called names due to a view of science that is different than the politicians views. Curry and Lindzen appeal to me due to their enormous study on this topic.
And here it is Do you want cheese with that whine? Every time we offer rebuttals to the tripe being peddled we get a complaint about being picked on. Please we are NOT calling you names. But this is a discussion board. Put up rubbish and expect at least one of us to call it what it is
Wow, count on you to leap in calling names again. And trying to lecture us all. Why oh why would we want to listen to your snobby rubbish?
What name you ask? How did you treat my post? Was it kind and helpful? I saw it as bitter and vindictive.
First you called me a whiner. And you accused me of rubbish and you would show up to accuse me of more rubbish.
No I called the post a whine Which is what it was. It had no content only complaints If you do not want debate don't post
The few consensus scientists they listed (out of thousands) have impressive resumes, a track record of being right. In contrast, their psuedoskeptics have a track record of being wrong. Lennaert Bengtsson Wrong about climate sensitivity. Mainly known for claiming martyrdom because others had the nerve to point that out. John Christy Consistently wrong for many years about the satellite temperature record Judith Curry Predicted level temperatures, and record warming occurred instead. Your propaganda piece lied big by claiming she was "drummed out" of science. Nobody made her leave. She cut and ran because she couldn't explain why her science failed so badly, and because she'd rather take the easy fossil fuel cash instead of working for living. Richard Lindzen Wrong about climate sensitivity, among other things. Wrong about cloud effects. Also claimed smoking is not correlated with lung cancer. Nir Shaviv Wrong with his cosmic-rays affect climate theory.
