Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Yep! Millions, in fact. All over the world. Balloons, weather stations, radars, ships buoys, satellites,.. some ways are even natural. The interesting thing is that, no matter the methods, they are all in close agreement. There is not that much of difference between a temperature read by throwing a bucket in the ocean and measuring what comes out with a thermometer (the favorite method in the early 20th Century) to satellite measurements today. Just like there is no significant difference between the average with the limited locations that were used 100 years ago, than with millions of instruments covering the surface today, or with data collected by the most sophisticated satellites.

That's right. And you must understand how difficult it is for those of us who have at any point in our lives seen the struggle of REAL scientific researchers who require their papers to pass peer-review to take you seriously unless you DO say it. Clearly and unequivocally.

 

No they aren't, which is why AGW scaremongers always have to cherry-pick them.

Wrong again. The discrepancies have given rise to a whole discipline of temperature methodology.

I'm not going to say something that clearly isn't true.

Unlike some people....

 

Ah! Looks like you learned something new today. So, at least for you, this might not have been a complete waste of time.

I did NOT make that up: No National Science Academy in the world has denied or disputed the AGW scientific consensus since 2000. Most have signed joined statements urging governments to take action. Some have even issued their own reports.

Here are some examples:

This one signed by 17 Academies
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261

This one by 11
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

13 here
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825

Another 29
http://www.leopoldina.org/de/publik...critical-decisions-on-climate-change-in-2015/

And this one by 42
http://www.leopoldina.org/de/publik...cation/health-effects-of-climate-change-2010/

... and I could go on and on. There are hundreds...

So... your Conspiracy Theory would need to explain how scientists, who are not even climatologists (they are a minority in these academies) would participate in this conspiracy. Unless you didn't know (like @Pieces of Malarkey didn't) that climatology is basically Physics and Chemistry. So ANY scientist in those areas who belongs to ANY Science Academy would immediately spot the deception and start screaming "bloody murder" in every news outlet in the world. Especially if THEIR Academy wanted to sign something like this.

I ask again: WHY does that not happen?

If you tell me it's because they used alien technology to implant a microchip in their brains to control the urge, that would be more credible than because ALL are seeking "political power" or "because they want to feel good" or "as a favor". So please try to provide a RATIONAL response.

 

Why on earth is he randomly smashing all the world's data together, from different data sets, in one plot? That makes it impossible to conclude anything.

Now, if you look at individual pyrgeometer data, or data over a local set, the rising trend in downward longwave radiation is clear. As AGW theory predicts.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Meanwhile, 2023 is the hottest year in the long historical record, by a large margin.

That's exactly as AGW theory predicted. That should be seen as another validation of AGW theory. Oddly, deniers take the success of AGW theory predictions as proof that AGW theory must be wrong.

 

Hmmmm......

The first link was to an oped in Science magazine. Which is technically better than the other 4, which go to pages that no longer exist.

I wouldn't count that as a victory if I were you.

And, again, physics denial (the proper term for "climate change") has no basis whatsoever in either physics or chemistry which are both empirically demonstrated and proven over the last 600-some years.

So, rather than avoid the question again, please explain how exactly "global warming" is supposed to work. And it would help if you followed your own suggestion and tried to be rational this time. And maybe learn to proofread while you're at it.

 

I suggest you take your objection up with the editors of Hydrological Sciences Journal.

 

The debate is about attribution, not temperature.

 

It is not random; it is not "smashed"; it is not all the world's data; it is quite possible to conclude something; and he does.

Increased CO2 will increase downward longwave radiation whether AGW theory is correct or not.

The historical record is short relative to known climate cycles; the margin is not that large; and the sun has been exceptionally and unexpectedly active for the last two years -- exactly as could be predicted if AGW theory is completely wrong.

 

I took those from an old post I sent years ago. But all I needed was to rebut the claim that I made it up.

A quick search shows that Academies of Science STILL unanimously abide by the AGW consensus.
https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not worth wasting much time if you refuse to understand that Climatology IS basically Chemistry and Physics. Somebody might argue that the evidence is "made up", or that the conclusion is wrong... anything. But, even by those very low standards, that's too far beyond silly.

 

That does not mean that every single member of those organizations agree. Just another misleading statement.

 

The poster I'm responding to claims I "made that up". I'm demonstrating that I didn't. It's the ONLY point I'm making. So I have no idea what's "misleading" about it.

Yet again you drop into a debate without bothering to find out what it's about.

 

The statement, by itself, is misleading. The statement implies that everyone belonging to those organizations agree. Only the organizations are unanimous in their beliefs. I just want to make that very clear.

 

Not sure what climate change fanzine site you cribbed that from, but it's not true. In fact "climate change" egregiously violates several thermodynamics laws and principles like the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's law, etc.

Sorry, your snark doesn't make it true.

 

But you didn't. Your claim was that ALL scientific academies endorse the AGW narrative, not just that the ones on the list of the ones that do do.

No, that just shows that the ones on the list of the ones that do do.

Not worth wasting much time if you refuse to understand that "all the ones that do do" is not the same as "all do."

 

Of course it is! That's what happens when you take statements out of context. Don't!

 

Ah! NOW we're making progress. From "you made it up", now you're complaining because it should be ALL of them. My statement is based on the fact that there has not been a single one that complained about the scientific accuracy of AGW. But my point is made either way. To believe that all those National Science Academies are... either conspiring to support AGW by signing declarations (or supporting AGW by NOT signing declarations to the contrary) OR scientists who are NOT climatologists don't know much about physics and chemistry that they don't call out the obvious ... mistakes/manipulation

ONE of those assumptions is needed to support the science denialist nonsense.

 

Maybe I am. You obviously aren't.

That was your claim.

Silence is not consent. But thanks for agreeing that you made it up.

There are climatologists who have called out the mistakes and manipulation. They have merely been silenced.

The science denialist nonsense is all yours.

 

In science it IS. This idea that climatologists are carrying out this "conspiracy" (or massive campaign based on mistakes... your choice) and not a SINGLE Academy of Science in the world complains, is all I need to make my case.

Thanks for playing...

 

It was not out of context. You frequently talk about the unanimous scientific organizations. You never talk about individual members. This was just another example.

 

But individual scientists do complain which means that not all members agree.

 

If you'd read the rest of his laurels you wouldn't have looked so much like a biased buffoon.

 

The stream of peer-reviewed research challenging the "consensus" narrative has become robust.
Another Day, Another Scientific Paper Insists ‘Global Warming Is Not Caused By Increased CO2’
By Kenneth Richard on 7. December 2023

“…the rate of change in CO2 concentration is controlled, not by emissions, but by the global temperature” – Emrén, 2023
A new study published in the International Journal of Global Warming once again questions the popular narrative that says humans can control the temperatures of the ocean and melt the polar ice sheets by engaging in common, everyday activities like talking on their smartphones or driving a pickup truck.

“The observed correlation between global temperature and rate of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration shows that the global warming is not caused by increased CO2 concentration. Rather the increase in CO2 concentration is caused by the global warming. This in turn means that neither the increase in CO2 concentration nor global warming can be stopped by reducing combustion.”



Image Source: Emrén, 2023

 

And somehow, increased energy going to the surface won't cause warming. It's magic! The energy just vanishes!

 

<sigh> AFAIAC, there is no doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming of the earth's surface. The question at issue is how much warming. If doubling the concentration of CO2 would increase average global surface temperature by 10C, that would be cause for alarm and concerted public policy action. If it would increase temperature by 1C, that is not cause for alarm or public policy action, but perhaps for caution. If it would increase temperature by 0.1C -- which is IMO closer to the right number than the IPCC's claimed numbers -- that can safely be ignored.

 

Meanwhile, back in reality, half a doubling has raised global temp 1.2C.

That puts observed TCS at around 2.4C. Since ECS is significantly bigger than TCS, ECS would be around 3.0C. Right around what models estimated. Once more, AGW theory scores a remarkably good prediction. That would be why it has such credibility.

Anways, anyone claiming that ECS is around 0.1 can't be taken seriously on any topic, given how the claim is so at odds with observed reality.

Now, proceed in telling us how all the data is faked. It's the only way your lunacy can be justified.