Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Given a choice between a strange individual on the internet with obvious ignorance on many subject and NASA or University professionals I must admit the choice seems quite easy.

 

Especially credible. "with obvious ignorance on many subject and NASA or University professionals"... Now, there's a coherent thought...

 

I assume you are trying ti indicate that the professionals who have spent decades in study, research, education and experimentation are ignorant, which does little more than solidify my point.

 

So, you assume. Precisely. The comment I made has literally nothing to do with the potential credibility of others,...

 

Okay...then please clarify that I can see my errors.

 

It is difficult to understand anyone being so negative, or ignorant, about Earth and be the president of the USA...also tells you something about those who voted for him and continue to support him...

 

Believing NASA is no different that believing tobacco companies and their scientists that smoking tobacco is OK.

Both NASA and tobacco companies scientists would go belly up if idiots did not believe them.

 

Weird....you are an idiot who does not believe them, yet they are not belly up.

 

Those deplorables.

They don't see the sky falling.

They believe their own eyes.

They do not want to depart with their money for a common good and common belief.

Negative and ignorant about Earth... you cracked me.

 

You pretty much should already know that I believe only in God, no more beliefs are needed.

I don't believe NASA in anything even for a second.

NASA scientists would go belly up if idiots didn't believe them.

You expressed your choice to believe NASA.

 

Though I understand you cannot grasp this I will share it regardless.

By claiming your beliefs in this situation you are making God look really bad.

 

You shared with this forum so many times that God looked bad in your eyes.

Did I really add anything to your grasp of the reality?

 

You're incapable of open-minded discussion on this topic and all you have to offer is biased diatribe. Absolutely negative and ignorant about Earth...

 

If all you have are mythical beliefs...why are you jawboning on a science forum and science topic?

 

Ya know, Judith Curry used to subscribe to AGW dogma - it was climategate that made her take a deeper look.

Upon further review, she rejected the orthodoxy.

Prior to rejecting the orthodoxy she was a brilliant scientist.

After reconsidering the evidence and arriving at the view that CO2 is not a driver of climate, and that "run-away global warming" is not in our future - she suddenly became a nincompoop who couldn't add 2+2.

Stick to the script?? And you're rewarded with research money, publishing, and acclaim.

Dare to speak the truth, and your reputation is spat upon and your career is in peril.

The hallmarks of science indeed

 

Regardless of what JC says to the media her activity in the scientific community is consistent with the message that CO2 is the principal driver of climate change today and her best estimate of the warming it will produce is within the official IPCC forecasted range, albeit on the low side. You can read her most recent publication on the topic here. Her equilibrium climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 is 1.66C which is within the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5C. And keep in mind that this is from an outspoken "skeptic" who produces some of the lowest sensitivities you'll find. Many experts (as in more than one) have pointed out several mistakes with this publication that cause her conclusion to be biased low. Afterall, the Earth has already warmed by 1.0C and we're not even 50% of the way to a doubling of CO2. And that 1.0C is just the transient climate response which JC estimates as being 25% less than the equilibrium response. Basically...don't bet the farm on her 1.66C figure being reality.

https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf

 

As always in science, as Richard Lindzen says... "these are not yes/no questions, but rather 'how much' questions".

Nobody denies there has been warming, and no one denies that man has contributed to some of that warming; but, what the evidence shows is that natural processes balance out the equations and limit the effect that CO2 can have.

I'll try to post a lecture from Lindzen when I get home... he uses IPCC data and the models that prove that you, and they are wrong.

If you can refute it, refute it. If not admit it. Science is about falsification and finding the truth, not digging up facts in support of your beautiful theory while dismissing and ignoring facts that's disprove your theory.

 

Lindzen has a history of being on the wrong side of science. He testified on behalf of the tobacco companies that smoking is not a contributing factor to lung cancer. If I'm not mistaken he still denies the link today.

But what about his climate contributions you say..

He has been predicting global cooling since at least 1989. Since then the planet has warmed by almost 0.7C and that's including the 0.4C drop caused by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

In 2004 he predicted that it would be cooler in 20 years and even offered to place bets with other scientists. When other scientists jumped on the opportunity to take the bet Lindzen withdrew his bet altogether or tried to negotiate ridiculous terms like the other party was required to payout 50-to-1 while he was only on the hook for 1-to-1. By the way, it's warmed 0.4C since 2004.

He made predictions about water vapor behavior that he then used to refute AGW. The only problem...his predictions regarding WV were completely wrong and the scientific community overwhelmingly refuted his claims regarding WV from the get-go anyway.

In 2011 he said Arctic sea ice was not declining. Arctic sea ice extents have been making new record lows consistently ever since.

He's also claimed that a doubling of CO2 will only result in 1C of warming. Yet, we've already warmed by 1C. Nevermind the strange contradiction with his 2004 prediction that the Earth would actually cool.

Also, consider that Lindzen is paid by ExxonMobile and Peabody energy.

If you want I can post a bunch more stuff about ridiculous claims that Lindzen's made that have been debunked. It's not that he's been made a few mistakes here and there which is totally understandable. He's been consistently wrong on just about everyone of his claims. So is this the person you want to hang your hat on for climate information especially considering the overwhelming majority credible scientists take issue with his claims?

This isn't correct. I don't doubt that you can find evidence that makes this claim, but science does not work on the principal of cherry-picking. Scientific consensus is born out the abundance of evidence. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that the CO2 effect completely dwarfs natural variability by at least an order of magnitude and likely much more.

Please do. And make sure you link to several other independent lines of evidence that can corroborate Lindzen's claims. I'll take a look.

 

It is you who has a need for all kinds mythical beliefs,
I believe in only God, no need of any other beliefs

 

You are not earth, and you diatribe I quoted is no attempt to discuss anything.

 

Well...any of the 200+ gods are mythical...

 

That is another myth you believe in, and you have thousands more.

 

There are many decorated scientists that spit phewy on your beautiful theory... my guess is you avoid like the plague anything that runs contrary to orthodoxy.

Again, personalities matter nothing... when you pull back the curtain all your left with is fraud. Lot of people are getting rich though... so to be sure, it's a lucrative fraud.

 

Your guess would wrong then. I faithful read the peer reviewed literature published by Judith Curry, John Christy, Roy Spencer, etc. But, I also read everyone else's publications as well. I don't just hang my hat on any one scientist's work. I weigh each person's work against all others. That means I weigh these onsie-twosie lines of evidence against the 30,000+ lines of evidence that 3,500+ experts reviewed to make the nearly 5,000 page summary that the IPCC published as AR5. And that barely even scratches the surface of AGW's 120+ year history which spans multiple disciplines of science.

I would agree. There is a lot of fraud out there. Be careful what you read. When you see these conspiracy theories and claims of faked data from non-expert bloggers read them with a critical mind. Think to yourself...is this person who misrepresents scientific literature, deceives readers with cherry-picked data, denies the fundamentals of science, and whatever else really someone I want to throw my lot in with? Why do you think the merchants of doubt like Lindzen, Easterbrook, Singer, Tony Heller, etc. make really bad predictions; predictions so bad that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct? Why are these people evasive regarding their thoughts on what is responsible for the observed warming? Why is there never any attempt to explain GHG's smoking gun signal of a cooling stratosphere? And do you honestly think the Earth is going to be cooler in 2024 than it was in 2004 even though we've already warmed by 0.4C?

 

You are the one that I on record as saying the earth should be cooling due to volcanic activity and reduced solar output. You are the one claiming we now control the climate with our C02 output so I ask you once again. What is the ideal temperature for earth and how much C02 should we be adding to keep from sliding back into the LIA but at the same time not getting the planet too warm? What's the magic number here?