The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

[Buzz]

I'm bringing you back to the thread topic, which you're trying to dodge.

You are the one who isn't addressing any of my criticisms of your C&P.

 

[Jack Hays]

It feels like you argue about the source of the water while our house is on fire. Why don't you try on a Sherlock Holmes cap to investigate? "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Humans are responsible for the exponential increase in carbon in our atmosphere.

The point is the "carbon in our atmosphere" isn't that important. That's why it's important to understand the failure of the AGW paradigm.

 

[Jack Hays]

You are the one who isn't addressing any of my criticisms of your C&P.

Your criticisms were off topic.

 

[Buzz]

Your criticisms were off topic.

How can my criticisms be off-topic when they directly address the topic of your cut and paste?

Your problem is that you just don't deal in reality.

 

[Jack Hays]

How can my criticisms be off-topic when they directly address the topic of your cut and paste?

Your problem is that you just don't deal in reality.

No, they don't, actually. Your post evades the central issue.

 

[vegas giants]

It feels like you argue about the source of the water while our house is on fire. Why don't you try on a Sherlock Holmes cap to investigate? "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Humans are responsible for the exponential increase in carbon in our atmosphere.

The evidence is overwhelming. They dont have to like the truth....but it remains the truth

 

[mrjurrs]

The point is the "carbon in our atmosphere" isn't that important. That's why it's important to understand the failure of the AGW paradigm.

I'll go with the 97% consensus.

 

[longview]

I'll go with the 97% consensus.

The consensus, is only that average temperatures have increased in the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
NASA Scientific consensus on global warming
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
What is it they agree with? They say it in a single sentence.
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
No mention of CO2, or catastrophic warming, or urgent needs to do anything.
Consensus builders, are people looking for common ground, and were forced to limit their scope,
to expand the consensus.
Cook's 97% paper in not even 97%, but 97% of the abstracts that they felt expressed an opinion about AGW.
The study did not evaluate some 66.4% of papers that did not express any opinion.
Cook et al
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

 

[Jack Hays]

I'll go with the 97% consensus.

The "consensus" isn't really on point either way in this thread, but since you brought it up:

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . ."

 

[mrjurrs]

The "consensus" isn't really on point either way in this thread, but since you brought it up:

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . ."

Michael Crichton is a hack.

 

[mrjurrs]

The consensus, is only that average temperatures have increased in the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
NASA Scientific consensus on global warming
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
What is it they agree with? They say it in a single sentence.
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
No mention of CO2, or catastrophic warming, or urgent needs to do anything.
Consensus builders, are people looking for common ground, and were forced to limit their scope,
to expand the consensus.
Cook's 97% paper in not even 97%, but 97% of the abstracts that they felt expressed an opinion about AGW.
The study did not evaluate some 66.4% of papers that did not express any opinion.
Cook et al
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

Okay. Avg temperatures have increased and human activity is likely involved. Sounds right, now let's get started on mitigating the mess we've made.

 

[Nickyjo]

I’ll go with John McCain’s comment that even if human activity isn’t the cause of warming, droughts, worse storms, rising sea levels, etc., conservation, less use of fossil fuels, better mileage standards are all good ideas. (Of course there are all the birds Trump is concerned about.) And if humans do play a role, then we should do that stuff for yet another reason.

 

[longview]

Okay. Avg temperatures have increased and human activity is likely involved. Sounds right, now let's get started on mitigating the mess we've made.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, like there is a mess in need of mitigation!
Where in the consensus statement,
" Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. "
does in state the observation are a mess in need of mitigation?
For the most part, the observed warming has been very good for Humanity.
Crop yields are up globally, winter nights are not as cold, and the warming in the tropics
has mostly been in evening lows not going as low.
As for mitigation, even if we assumed we could halt all future CO2 emissions, what do you think would be different?

 

[mrjurrs]

You are assuming facts not in evidence, like there is a mess in need of mitigation!
Where in the consensus statement,
" Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. "
does in state the observation are a mess in need of mitigation?
For the most part, the observed warming has been very good for Humanity.
Crop yields are up globally, winter nights are not as cold, and the warming in the tropics
has mostly been in evening lows not going as low.
As for mitigation, even if we assumed we could halt all future CO2 emissions, what do you think would be different?

So, enjoy the 3%...it must be lonely out there.

 

[longview]

I’ll go with John McCain’s comment that even if human activity isn’t the cause of warming, droughts, worse storms, rising sea levels, etc., conservation, less use of fossil fuels, better mileage standards are all good ideas. (Of course there are all the birds Trump is concerned about.) And if humans do play a role, then we should do that stuff for yet another reason.

Conservation is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with AGW.
Humanity has a very real problem, energy, We do not have enough nature stored hydrocarbons
to allow everyone alive currently, to live a first world lifestyle for more than a few years.
The answer is to minimize the amount of energy to live a first world lifestyle, while
looking for sustainable ways to provide the energy to everyone.
With the currently available technology, the only path that could meet the requirements,
is hydrocarbon energy storage. Man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, could allow
the seasonal storage of energy, that would move Spring and Fall, surpluses to Summer and Winter demands,
in addition it could provide carbon neutral fuels for transport, that is compatible with existing demands and infrastructure.

 

[longview]

So, enjoy the 3%...it must be lonely out there.

You did not look at Cook's paper.
Cook et al
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So the 97% was never really 97%, but only 97% of the 33.6% expressing a position.
They did not even evaluate 66.4% of the abstracts, about "global warming"!

 

[Threegoofs]

The consensus, is only that average temperatures have increased in the last century,
and that Human activity is likely involved.
NASA Scientific consensus on global warming
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
What is it they agree with? They say it in a single sentence.
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
No mention of CO2, or catastrophic warming, or urgent needs to do anything.
Consensus builders, are people looking for common ground, and were forced to limit their scope,
to expand the consensus.
Cook's 97% paper in not even 97%, but 97% of the abstracts that they felt expressed an opinion about AGW.
The study did not evaluate some 66.4% of papers that did not express any opinion.
Cook et al
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

I’ll go with the vast majority of scientific organizations.

 

[Jack Hays]

Michael Crichton is a hack.

The late Michael Crichton was a Harvard MD. CalTech thought enough of him to invite him to give one of their most prestigious annual lectures.

 

[mrjurrs]

The late Michael Crichton was a Harvard MD. CalTech thought enough of him to invite him to give one of their most prestigious annual lectures.

Not posted as sourced material...

George Orwell Got a B- at Harvard, When Michael Crichton Submitted an Orwell Essay as His Own

Images via Wikimedia Commons In his 2002 memoir, Travels, Michael Crichton took his readers back several decades, to the early 1960s when, as a Harvard student, he tried an interesting little experiment in his English class.

www.openculture.com

 

[vegas giants]

The late Michael Crichton was a Harvard MD. CalTech thought enough of him to invite him to give one of their most prestigious annual lectures.

And he wrote good fiction



Fiction

 

[vegas giants]

You did not look at Cook's paper.
Cook et al
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So the 97% was never really 97%, but only 97% of the 33.6% expressing a position.
They did not even evaluate 66.4% of the abstracts, about "global warming"!

Thise who have a opinion about AGW support it

 

[mrjurrs]

You did not look at Cook's paper.
Cook et al
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
So the 97% was never really 97%, but only 97% of the 33.6% expressing a position.
They did not even evaluate 66.4% of the abstracts, about "global warming"!

Who do you think I'll believe, a paper or my lying eyes?

Top 10 Warmest Years on Record

The global numbers are in, and 2019 ranks as the 2nd hottest year on record

www.climatecentral.org

 

[mrjurrs]

And he wrote good fiction



Fiction

Science fiction

 

[longview]

Who do you think I'll believe, a paper or my lying eyes?

Top 10 Warmest Years on Record

The global numbers are in, and 2019 ranks as the 2nd hottest year on record

www.climatecentral.org

I am sorry but Cook's paper is the basis for the 97% consensus claim,
and statements about X number of warmest years on record, say nothing about the cause of the observed warming!

 

[vegas giants]

I am sorry but Cook's paper is the basis for the 97% consensus claim,
and statements about X number of warmest years on record, say nothing about the cause of the observed warming!

It's all just a coincidence. Lol