Nobel Laureate: “Climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”

[longview]

Do you somehow think that position statements of scientific societies are not peer reviewed?

LOL

Well they are opinions not in peer reviewed journals, I will leave it to you to lower your standard of what counts
as peer reviewed.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well they are opinions not in peer reviewed journals, I will leave it to you to lower your standard of what counts
as peer reviewed.

Its literally a statment voted on and modified continuously by experts. Yanno... peers.

But nice work avoiding talking about any of the content of those statements, denier.

 

[longview]

Its literally a statment voted on and modified continuously by experts. Yanno... peers.

But nice work avoiding talking about any of the content of those statements, denier.

You are making assumption not in evidence!
Plus A peer reviewed publication is something that has officially gone through the journal's peer review process,
not some process made up by an organization.

 

[noonereal]

Give us names of these so-called 99% of scientists who claim the world will end. Go on.

Cheap way to evade the post.

 

[Threegoofs]

You are making assumption not in evidence!
Plus A peer reviewed publication is something that has officially gone through the journal's peer review process,
not some process made up by an organization.

LOL. I could bring some journals to you to, but you'd ignore them just like you are actively ignoring what I just posted.

You're a waste of time and space.

 

[longview]

LOL. I could bring some journals to you to, but you'd ignore them just like you are actively ignoring what I just posted.

You're a waste of time and space.

Actually you are wasting my time, as you have not demonstrated that you understand what is included
in the scientific consensus about climate change.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually you are wasting my time, as you have not demonstrated that you understand what is included
in the scientific consensus about climate change.

Yes. Its two lines on one website, as long as you ignore the actual scientific statements it refers to.

You made it clear what you understand is the consensus.

Its laughable, but I have a feeling theres a neurologic deficit behind this all.

 

[longview]

Yes. Its two lines on one website, as long as you ignore the actual scientific statements it refers to.

You made it clear what you understand is the consensus.

Its laughable, but I have a feeling theres a neurologic deficit behind this all.

It is your bias that is letting you assume things exists within the scientific consensus, that simply are not there!

 

[Threegoofs]

It is your bias that is letting you assume things exists within the scientific consensus, that simply are not there!

You actually have to look to see that its there, yanno.

I posted three statements of consensus, and there are dozens more. All are clearly saying we need to reduce GHG emissions ASAP.

Literally anyone can see this - its obvious enough to a child.

 

[longview]

You actually have to look to see that its there, yanno.

I posted three statements of consensus, and there are dozens more. All are clearly saying we need to reduce GHG emissions ASAP.

Literally anyone can see this - its obvious enough to a child.

That is an opinion of an organization, and not reflective of the scientific consensus,
which had to keep the concept broad, to arrive at a high consensus number.

 

[NolanVoyd]

That is an opinion of an organization, and not reflective of the scientific consensus,
which had to keep the concept broad, to arrive at a high consensus number.

IPCC: Stop fossil fuels before it's too late

On Monday 20 March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Synthesis of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

eccoclimate.org

 

[longview]

IPCC: Stop fossil fuels before it's too late

On Monday 20 March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Synthesis of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

eccoclimate.org

And that is the opinion of Eccoclimate.org, but does not add to the scientific consensus, which is a very
terse statement.

 

[NolanVoyd]

And that is the opinion of Eccoclimate.org, but does not add to the scientific consensus, which is a very
terse statement.

You didn't read it.

Obviously.

Get back to me after you have.

 

[Threegoofs]

That is an opinion of an organization, and not reflective of the scientific consensus,
which had to keep the concept broad, to arrive at a high consensus number.

When you dont like the consensus....deny its a consensus!

You didn't read it.

Obviously.

Get back to me after you have.

Why would he read it? He already made his mind up what the consensus is. More info just confuses the boy.

 

[ataraxia]

Nobel Laureate: “Climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience” - Gript

"In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis."

gript.ie

Yup, a real scientist actually speaks the truth. Now sit back as the neo luddite cultists try (and fail) to eviscerate this Nobel Prize winner by engaging in all sorts of their usual idiotic fallacies.

Over the years, there have been a lot of weird ideas pushed by Nobel prize winners: Einstein had trouble with and questioned quantum mechanics. Linus Pauling thought vitamin C cured everything, James Watson was spouting racism, etc... Even Newton wrote more about alchemy than he did about his calculus or gravity. After all, even Nobel prize winners and great scientists are human and can make mistakes- no one is right 100% of the time.

The way science works is you take the useful contributions of the scientists, and discard the junk.

So why is it that you think this guy is a "real scientist", and see all the other Nobel prize winners who say climate change is a serious problem as not "real"? It's not because you start with your conclusions and are just really looking to anyone to validate them to call them "real", is it?

 

[longview]

You didn't read it.

Obviously.

Get back to me after you have.

I recognized it for what it was, some group's opinion of what the IPCC report says, just go to the IPCC report itself,
do not rely on a secondary opinion of what something says.

 

[longview]

When you dont like the consensus....deny its a consensus!

Why would he read it? He already made his mind up what the consensus is. More info just confuses the boy.

I am not denying anything, there are quite a few statements out there about what the scientific consensus is,
and they all boil down to the two basic ideas already stated.
A) The average temperature has increased over the last century, and
B) Human activity is likely involved.
Anything beyond that is from creative reading between the lines.

 

[Glitch]

I am not denying anything, there are quite a few statements out there about what the scientific consensus is,
and they all boil down to the two basic ideas already stated.
A) The average temperature has increased over the last century, and
B) Human activity is likely involved.
Anything beyond that is from creative reading between the lines.

The temperature data from all sources since 1850 makes point A irrefutable. It is what is called observed data, or empirical evidence. There is no such empirical evidence to support your point B. All they have are climate models which are manufactured to create a political narrative and have nothing to do with actual science.

If human activity is "likely" involved then provide the observed data that demonstrates that involvement. I have been following the leftist eco-fanatic climate hysteria since the 1970s, and I have yet to see any empirical evidence to demonstrate any human activity causing any issues with the weather, much less the climate. Do you have anything that shows any different?

Until that observed data is presented that demonstrates human activity has some kind of involvement it is pure speculation - without any basis in fact - that humans are "likely involved."

 

[NolanVoyd]

I recognized it for what it was, some group's opinion of what the IPCC report says, just go to the IPCC report itself,
do not rely on a secondary opinion of what something says.

Well you should have read it vegore commenting.
How embarrassing.

The IPCC points out that ongoing climate change poses a threat to the well-being of humankind, societies, and the natural world
Fossil fuel search, extraction, transportation, and combustion have led to a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions – the cause of climate change – compared with pre-industrial times. Between 2010 and 2019, emissions reached the highest peak ever recorded.

Some IPCC data on energy: in 2019, coal contributed to 33% of all human CO2 emissions, followed by oil (29%) and gas (18%).

 

[longview]

The way science works is you take the useful contributions of the scientists, and discard the junk.

So why is it that you think this guy is a "real scientist", and see all the other Nobel prize winners who say climate change is a serious problem as not "real"? It's not because you start with your conclusions and are just really looking to anyone to validate them to call them "real", is it?

This is true, but you have to decide what is useful and what is junk.
In the climate sciences, ANYTHING related to ECS is mostly junk for predictions, because it simulates
an event that cannot happen, (the abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level).
Simulations like TCR are much closer to how Human emissions happen, (but still a little high).
I am not sure why someone would assume that just because Nobel prize winner in Physics says that there is no climate crisis,
it is automatically junk. The Man clearly understands physics.

 

[longview]

The temperature data from all sources since 1850 makes point A irrefutable. It is what is called observed data, or empirical evidence. There is no such empirical evidence to support your point B. All they have are climate models which are manufactured to create a political narrative and have nothing to do with actual science.

If human activity is "likely" involved then provide the observed data that demonstrates that involvement. I have been following the leftist eco-fanatic climate hysteria since the 1970s, and I have yet to see any empirical evidence to demonstrate any human activity causing any issues with the weather, much less the climate. Do you have anything that shows any different?

Until that observed data is presented that demonstrates human activity has some kind of involvement it is pure speculation - without any basis in fact - that humans are "likely involved."

The B) could be covered by some of the massive land use changes that have happened.
An example, is that I think we can say with certainty that the climate around the Aerial Sea has been altered
by Human activity. Also massive irrigation in the American South West, has likely altered the climate to some extent.
The extent those changes to the local climate affect the global climate would be unknown and likely minimal,
but we do change things.

 

[Threegoofs]

I recognized it for what it was, some group's opinion of what the IPCC report says, just go to the IPCC report itself,
do not rely on a secondary opinion of what something says.

You mean the IPCC report that gives the scientific consensus on mitigating climate change?

That one?

You never seem to read that far.

 

[longview]

Well you should have read it vegore commenting.
How embarrassing.

The IPCC points out that ongoing climate change poses a threat to the well-being of humankind, societies, and the natural world
Fossil fuel search, extraction, transportation, and combustion have led to a dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions – the cause of climate change – compared with pre-industrial times. Between 2010 and 2019, emissions reached the highest peak ever recorded.

Some IPCC data on energy: in 2019, coal contributed to 33% of all human CO2 emissions, followed by oil (29%) and gas (18%).

I understand that we have added to the CO2 level, no question in my mind.
The open question and one that connects back to the statements by your citation,
is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
It is all basically SWAGs, as we have no way to measure it.
Even just then amount of forcing doubling the CO2 level causes is pure conjecture,
it is not based on any known physics.
Yes, CO2 can and does absorb 15 um photons, and the excited energy state will pass off that energy ether through contact,
or spontaneous emission, or very unlikely stimulated emission. That said there is no way to say how much warming would result
from an increase in the CO2 level. The observed data is highly subjective, as to which portions of the warming were caused by which event.
Some of the warming before 1950 could be from increases in Solar output, Some portions of the warming after 1985
are clearly from changes in Earth's reflectivity and aerosol clearing.
What remains after those cause are subtracted off is Unknown and could be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases,
but the "Could" is dependent on what other causes of warming we find.

 

[longview]

You mean the IPCC report that gives the scientific consensus on mitigating climate change?

That one?

You never seem to read that far.

No the IPCC has an agenda, and are still using ECS even when they say it is not a good measure.

 

[Glitch]

The B) could be covered by some of the massive land use changes that have happened.

Without any data to support that assertion it is nothing but speculation. Speculation is not empirical evidence.

An example, is that I think we can say with certainty that the climate around the Aerial Sea has been altered
by Human activity.

You would be mistaken if you made those wildly unsupported claims. The Aral Sea may have been altered by human activity, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Soviet Russians diverted the rivers that fed the Aral Sea for their irrigation projects in the 1950s. It had nothing to do with the weather or the climate, that was a deliberate lie.

Also massive irrigation in the American South West, has likely altered the climate to some extent.
The extent those changes to the local climate affect the global climate would be unknown and likely minimal,
but we do change things.

More lies. Altering irrigation does not alter the climate, it doesn't even alter the weather. There is no extent those changes in irrigation could have had any impact on the weather, much less the climate. Nor have you provided any data to support such wild assertions.