The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

[istodolez]

"Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me! Amen." --Martin Luther, 1521
FYI: I'm not religious, but I admire the resolve.

And it is highly unlikely Martin Luther would have let himself off the hook for responsibility for his sins to the level we are currently trying to do with our responsibility for global climate change.

I'm not religious either, but I understand Luther well enough and scrupulosity in general to see how it doesn't really apply to the "climate skeptic/denialist" position.

 

[Jack Hays]

And it is highly unlikely Martin Luther would have let himself off the hook for responsibility for his sins to the level we are currently trying to do with our responsibility for global climate change.

I'm not religious either, but I understand Luther well enough and scrupulosity in general to see how it doesn't really apply to the "climate skeptic/denialist" position.

Really? I have no trouble believing you're not theistic, but your approach (as outlined above) seems quite religious.

 

[calamity]

Really? I have no trouble believing you're not theistic, but your approach (as outlined above) seems quite religious.

Irony from someone who religiously posts nonsense that is proven wrong daily.

 

[Jack Hays]

Irony from someone who religiously posts nonsense that is proven wrong daily.

Whatever you say.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Whatever you say.

I think he was speaking into a mirror.

 

[Jack Hays]

2020 Review: Observational And Modeling Studies Show Temperature Falls As CO2 Rises
By Kenneth Richard on 28. December 2020

Share this...
A 2020 observational study (Zhang et al., 2020) determined “temperatures of atmospheric air with substantially higher CO2 concentration (ranging from 3200 ppm to 16,900 ppm) were lower than that with the lower CO2 concentration (480 ppm)” and a 2020 modeling study (Drotos et al., 2020) assessed that when CO2 goes beyond 4 times preindustrial – 1,120 ppm – “climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero” because the climate cyclically cools by 10 K.
So the science is settled, right? . . .

 

[Jack Hays]

“The very fact that a significant scientific novelty so often emerges simultaneously from several laboratories is an index both to the strongly traditional nature of normal science and to the completeness with which that traditional pursuit prepares the way for its own change.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

[istodolez]

“The very fact that a significant scientific novelty so often emerges simultaneously from several laboratories is an index both to the strongly traditional nature of normal science and to the completeness with which that traditional pursuit prepares the way for its own change.”
― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

This is one of the biggest reasons to believe that AGW is the most likely true hypothesis, precisely because almost all of the earth's researchers and experts in this area have converged on a similar hypothesis.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is one of the biggest reasons to believe that AGW is the most likely true hypothesis, precisely because almost all of the earth's researchers and experts in this area have converged on a similar hypothesis.

Have they really? Or is that the majority of what grant money is being allocated for.

Follow the money. You will see that around the money is in the high 90's percent for going to studies to reinforce the AGW idea.

 

[istodolez]

Have they really? Or is that the majority of what grant money is being allocated for.

Follow the money. You will see that around the money is in the high 90's percent for going to studies to reinforce the AGW idea.

That isn't how grants are allocated. I am married to someone who worked with a research grant organization. The process is not corrupt or biased.

 

[Threegoofs]

Have they really? Or is that the majority of what grant money is being allocated for.

Follow the money. You will see that around the money is in the high 90's percent for going to studies to reinforce the AGW idea.

I know.

And the gravity guys have almost 100% of the funding. And the germ theory of disease ones have been getting billions!

Wonder why?

 

[istodolez]

I know.

And the gravity guys have almost 100% of the funding. And the germ theory of disease ones have been getting billions!

Wonder why?

Big Gravity and Big Germ. So corrupt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That isn't how grants are allocated. I am married to someone who worked with a research grant organization. The process is not corrupt or biased.

I think you would find it highly biased in the climate research area. Have you looked?

 

[Nickyjo]

Lucky for you that's not what it said. It said virtually no warming 2000-2014, which was true.

Therefore we should...?

 

[Jack Hays]

Therefore we should...?

Literally, do nothing.

 

[istodolez]

I think you would find it highly biased in the climate research area. Have you looked?

Show me the bias and corruption

 

[Lord of Planar]

Show me the bias and corruption

You keep intejecting "corruption." I said no such thing.

Why do you do that? Why do you push fallacies?

I have seen the numbers years ago. I'm not going to look for them. It seems you would be able to easily find them yourself with the help of your wife.

I'll lead you to the correct direction to look, but I will rarely spend much time trying to convince you. It is up to you if you wish to remain ignorant of other facts out there or not.

I'm tired of spending time looking things up and presenting a case, just to have people like you, 3G, and others indoctrinated into the AGW dogma, just dismiss the facts.

I have noticed you remain completely silent on several pertinent things I have posted. Why should I wast my time on you?

 

[istodolez]

You keep intejecting "corruption." I said no such thing.

Why do you do that? Why do you push fallacies?

mid grants are not going to good science but going to cronies or people just saying the right thing that would be corruption of the system

 

[Lord of Planar]

mid grants are not going to good science but going to cronies or people just saying the right thing that would be corruption of the system

I see you have a narrow mined view of things.

Are you suggesting no other possibility?

 

[istodolez]

I see you have a narrow mined view of things.

Are you suggesting no other possibility?

There may be corruption in some aspects of everything on the planet. That does not mean it is systemic.

Whenever someone suggests that the ONLY reason their favorite minority-views are not funded is because of some nefarious cabal or bias or corruption it really just sounds like whining.

Every one of us have had to suffer rejection for our favorite ideas at one point or another in life. Adults among us learn that sometimes it is OUR FAULT, that our favorite ideas may not be as impressive as we wish they were.

There's a reason that Creationists don't get funding for their paleontological research: it's not good science.

Now you're going to howl because I used the word "Creationist" but I will ask you to calm down for a second so I can make the larger point. The larger point is that not all science gets funded because there's only a limited amount of money on earth. It has to go to the most likely and most valuable research. There is no systemic corruption which funnels money only to those who toe the line.

Look at you: you have all these ideas in your head about what is or isn't right in climate science. Yet you don't even TRY to publish. If you did you might get experts telling you the issues your favorite ideas run up against. I doubt you'd be able to handle the criticism and you'd, of course, assume it was because the experts were all idiots and only YOU were able to see the brilliance. But it is how the world works. Those of us who HAVE actually published know that it isn't a fun process. Your ego will be SMASHED to bits from time to time. It is the price you pay to be in the arena.

Sitting in the peanut gallery and whining non-stop about how your brilliance is not appreciated does nothing. Get down in the arena and try to publish. It costs a bit but if you get it out there maybe it will generate a buzz and maybe, just maybe you'll wind up changing the science.

Just don't expect that because the thought popped into your head that it is ipso facto the most brilliant thing since Einstein's 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers.

 

[Nickyjo]

Literally, do nothing.

Take that message and your data to the next conference.

 

[istodolez]

Take that message and your data to the next conference.

Conference? Isn't that where people who actually know the topic present their work? Yeah, Jack's an "idea man". He feels technical expertise is "ancillary".

 

[Lord of Planar]

There may be corruption in some aspects of everything on the planet. That does not mean it is systemic.

Whenever someone suggests that the ONLY reason their favorite minority-views are not funded is because of some nefarious cabal or bias or corruption it really just sounds like whining.

Every one of us have had to suffer rejection for our favorite ideas at one point or another in life. Adults among us learn that sometimes it is OUR FAULT, that our favorite ideas may not be as impressive as we wish they were.

There's a reason that Creationists don't get funding for their paleontological research: it's not good science.

Now you're going to howl because I used the word "Creationist" but I will ask you to calm down for a second so I can make the larger point. The larger point is that not all science gets funded because there's only a limited amount of money on earth. It has to go to the most likely and most valuable research. There is no systemic corruption which funnels money only to those who toe the line.

Look at you: you have all these ideas in your head about what is or isn't right in climate science. Yet you don't even TRY to publish. If you did you might get experts telling you the issues your favorite ideas run up against. I doubt you'd be able to handle the criticism and you'd, of course, assume it was because the experts were all idiots and only YOU were able to see the brilliance. But it is how the world works. Those of us who HAVE actually published know that it isn't a fun process. Your ego will be SMASHED to bits from time to time. It is the price you pay to be in the arena.

Sitting in the peanut gallery and whining non-stop about how your brilliance is not appreciated does nothing. Get down in the arena and try to publish. It costs a bit but if you get it out there maybe it will generate a buzz and maybe, just maybe you'll wind up changing the science.

Just don't expect that because the thought popped into your head that it is ipso facto the most brilliant thing since Einstein's 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers.

Assigning the belief of those who believe AGW is less than claimed is not like creationism. I would say your point of view is closer to a religious viewpoint. You accept the science is settled, in that AGW warming is greater than the rest. I suggest you stop comparing my arguments as a religious type until you untangle yourself from your faith-based arguments.

You sure are narrow minded. You assign corruption again in an argument of fallacy.

As for my ideas? Haven't you seen that I have pointed out that things don't properly add up? I notice that you make these claims that I am wrong simply because I don't follow the consensus. Then you wonder why I claim you cannot be a scientist. A scientist, by definition, has an open mind that everything they know might be wrong.

LOL...

My ego would be smashed. If you say so. I have dealt with similar problems in writing technical papers. I hate the task because as you have seen, my writing skills are far from perfect. My dyslexia is something I fight with. It's probably harder than publishing a research paper, as in engineering, you have to be far more precise than you can apparently handle.

Trust me, I am in no peanut gallery. If you had an inkling of understanding of the significance I have said about indirect solar, optical depth, and loss of evaporation cooling, you wouldn't be saying that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Conference? Isn't that where people who actually know the topic present their work? Yeah, Jack's an "idea man". He feels technical expertise is "ancillary".

Perhaps. My point is that there is/was a sympathetic ear in Inhofe in the Senate for hearings, there are presumably other skeptics in other countries who could be allies, there are articles to be written, and presumably there will be some solicitation of papers for the next conference. The world is currently not ready to “do nothing” as Jack suggested, and that won’t change unless alternative theories get more air.

 

[istodolez]

Assigning the belief of those who believe AGW is less than claimed is not like creationism. I would say your point of view is closer to a religious viewpoint.

See, I knew you'd blow right past the point because you were 'triggered' by the word.

You sure are narrow minded. You assign corruption again in an argument of fallacy.

If science is not being done fairly to all sides then it is corrupt. I don't know how YOU define corrupt but that is a form of corruption.

I notice that you make these claims that I am wrong simply because I don't follow the consensus. Then you wonder why I claim you cannot be a scientist. A scientist, by definition, has an open mind that everything they know might be wrong.

-sigh- I sometimes wonder about your reading comprehension.

I am saying that if some random dude armed with an excel spreadhseet on a public forum thinks he has found evidence that the science is wrong (and yet refuses to even TRY to publish his findings) and that science he has found all these errors in convinces thousands upon thousands of experts meaning they are all wrong, it is highly likely that the random dude is, himself not the one seeing the "truth".

I have to keep saying this because you refuse (REFUSE) to listen: I am not an expert on climate. I have NEVER claimed to be. As such the science I DO understand makes sense but I am still left with an appeal to the VAST MAJORITY OF THE EXPERTS.

Now you, who, by your own admission, has even less formal training in the physical sciences than I do, think you have seen some massive systemic error in the work of thousands of professional experts. Well, maybe you have! (Read that again, and again). But I'm not betting on it.

Take your complaints about comparing CH4 to CO2 earlier. Your calculations didn't necessarily comport with my calculations. I bothered to take the data you provided and I compared it to how the data is actually treated. You can revisit that exchange HERE. You differ in your opinion from the experts. Yes. Good. Fine.

Doesn't mean it is ipso facto correct.

My ego would be smashed. If you say so.

I do. Precisely because EVERYONE who has ever submitted for peer review has had to be beaten up like that. My first outing was a horror show. One reviewer took it low and hard against me. It happens.

It's tough. No one comes out unscathed.

I have dealt with similar problems in writing technical papers. I hate the task because as you have seen, my writing skills are far from perfect.

Ironic you should say that because you are UNRELENTINGLY nasty about other people's writing. Yes, you are imperfect. Everyone is. But being an adult means remembering that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

My dyslexia is something I fight with

I am NOT going to make any comments about others' disabilities. They are real and a problem. But please don't roll out an excuse after you've been merciless against my writing. You have personally insulted me SO MANY TIMES over my writing that it really got under my skin.

So I will show you the RESPECT you should have shown others: I will say "I'm sorry to hear about your disability."

. It's probably harder than publishing a research paper, as in engineering, you have to be far more precise than you can apparently handle.

Except I've written MANY technical papers. I've been in peer reviewed journals. I've even written a patent (most of my patents were written by attorneys but when I passed the US patent bar exam I asked the legal department if I could start doing some drafting myself). So please let's not belabor my "precision" in language. It is getting boring having someone like YOU insult me over my writing when I've got 12 peer reviewed publications, 11 conference abstracts, and 15 patents under my belt.