There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:
global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation
For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
Leveraged by the consensus on the three points above that are not disputed, the climate ‘consensus’ is being sold as applying to all of the above, even the issues for which there remains considerable debate.
A substantial majority of the individuals responding to the ‘expert’ surveys have not contributed to the primary literature on detection and attribution and have not conducted an independent assessment of this issue. Instead they have arrived at their conclusion based on the second-order evidence that a ‘consensus’ exists.
Ergo, moon cheese.
Prove me wrong liberuls!
Dr, Judith Curry points out an interesting essay about consensus on climate change.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/17/the-paradox-of-the-climate-change-consensus/#more-21437There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:
global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation
For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
Leveraged by the consensus on the three points above that are not disputed, the climate ‘consensus’ is being sold as applying to all of the above, even the issues for which there remains considerable debate.
From Dr. Curry's reflections,
This is EXACTLY what I've been telling everyone!
The skewed scientific ‘consensus’ that the moon is NOT made of cheese does indeed act to reinforce itself, through a range of professional incentives: ease of publishing results, particularly in high impact journals; success in funding; recognition from peers in terms of awards, promotions, etc.; media attention and publicity for research; appeal of the simplistic narrative that climate science can ‘save the world’; and a seat at the big policy tables.
In my view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the moon not being made of cheese is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for a rocky moon.
Just because you disagree with a Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech,There is NO debate about whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes. There is not merely consensus on this issue in the literature, there is virtual unanimity.
There is NO debate about whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being. It clearly will not. Reducing emissions to zero won't make the climate get better. It will only stop it from getting worse.
The fact that Dr. Curry fails to understand these points makes her incompetent to discuss them at an expert level.
It's so nice to know that the denizens of Denierstan deny just about everything. Including reality.
Just because you disagree with a Professor of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech,
does not make you right and her wrong!
I guess she just does not speak to your faith!
There are quite a few, But I will list a few finding lower CO2 sensitivity.If you think she's right, it would be absurdly easy to prove. Just cite three peer-reviewed papers on each side of the issue, which would indicate the presence of a scientific debate.
Go ahead, big boy. Show us your evidence.
There are quite a few, But I will list a few finding lower CO2 sensitivity.
So you are completely unable to defend the statements that Curry actually made, preferring instead to change the subject? Fine with me. I guess we both agree then that her statements are wrong and indefensible.
he posted the links so why did you ignore them?
I suggest if you are actually going to ask for evidence and someone
provides it that you not ignore it.
If you would actually like to discuss Dr. Curry's comments we can.So you are completely unable to defend the statements that Curry actually made, preferring instead to change the subject? Fine with me. I guess we both agree then that her statements are wrong and indefensible.
On the first point of contention,There is genuine scientific consensus on the following points:
global temperatures have increased overall since 1880
humans are contributing to a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations
CO2 emits and absorbs infrared radiation
For the most consequential issues, there remains considerable debate:
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
whether warming is ‘dangerous’
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
I have been discussing them, and you have been avoiding them. I charged that two specific statements by her were patently untrue, and challenged you to provide evidence for them -- evidence that it would be trivially easy to produce, had those statements actually been true. You have declined to provide such evidence, in two opportunities. This is a tacit admission that those statements are indeed false. Denier FAIL.If you would actually like to discuss Dr. Curry's comments we can.
On the first point of contention,
whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes.
If the CO2 sensitivity is lower than the IPCC thinks it is then the observed
warming may not be dominated by human causes.
Curry's next points are not in dispute and I have not disputed them. Next time, read for content.On the second point,
how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
Again this relates directly back to CO2 sensitivity, If it is lower the prediction will be lower.
On point 4,
whether radically reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate and human well being
We need to move off of Fossil fuels regardless, and this will happen with or without any
government involvement. CO2 being as issue or not is actually irrelevant!
See now wasn't that easy!I have been discussing them, and you have been avoiding them. I charged that two specific statements by her were patently untrue, and challenged you to provide evidence for them -- evidence that it would be trivially easy to produce, had those statements actually been true. You have declined to provide such evidence, in two opportunities. This is a tacit admission that those statements are indeed false. Denier FAIL.
A complete non sequitur. Sensitivity tells us how much warming to expect from a given amount of forcing, regardless of the cause of the forcing. Attribution tells us whether the forcing is anthropogenic or not. This is Climate Science 101, and you have just failed. Denier FAIL.
Curry's next points are not in dispute and I have not disputed them. Next time, read for content.
Once again you decline to defend Curry's statement, once again you change the subject, and once again I take this as a tacit admission that her statement is indefensible. Denier FAIL.
then CO2 is nothing to worry about, no crises demanding haste!how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
Worst dodge in the world. they were relevant. you asked for evidence he provided in typical fashion you ignored it.Because they were not pertinent to the question I asked. He was just trying to change the subject.
And I suggest that you learn how to read. I asked for evidence of X, and he provided evidence for Q.
See now wasn't that easy!
If you do not disagree with Dr. Curry on,
then CO2 is nothing to worry about, no crises demanding haste!how much the planet will warm in the 21st century
We don't know if you will have an auto accident this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy auto insurance.
We don't know if a tornado will hit your house this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy homeowner's insurance.
We don't know what the crime rate will be this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the police force.
We don't know if any houses will catch fire this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the fire department.
We do know, however, that "longview logic" is frickin' insane.
Worst dodge in the world. they were relevant. you asked for evidence he provided in typical fashion you ignored it.
no he didn't. He provided support for the question asked. that supports what the other person said.
andThere is NO debate about whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes. There is not merely consensus on this issue in the literature, there is virtual unanimity.
If you think she's right, it would be absurdly easy to prove. Just cite three peer-reviewed papers on each side of the issue, which would indicate the presence of a scientific debate.
Using your logic, a person should go to the best hospital, and have every expensive examination there is to make sure they are OK.
As with all of life's choices, we make risk based decisions,We don't know if you will have an auto accident this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy auto insurance.
We don't know if a tornado will hit your house this year. Using "longview logic", you should not buy homeowner's insurance.
We don't know what the crime rate will be this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the police force.
We don't know if any houses will catch fire this year. Using "longview logic", we should eliminate the fire department.
We do know, however, that "longview logic" is frickin' insane.
Well, there are hundreds of symptoms that are meaningless.They certainly should, if there is evidence of disease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?