To summarize the doubt merchant bullshit.... Blah blah Salby. !!! LOL Google Murray Salby. Anyone. Go ahead. He's a joke, as is your supposed skepticism, and he is not a climatologist. Murry Salby: Galileo? Bozo? Or P.T.Barnum? Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few. Bozo? SkS lists “Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and this earlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write “How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”, but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions. https://www.google.com/search?q=sal...87j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=murry+salby Blah blah blah Miskolczi.....Who? Oh he's an astrophysicist, not a climatologist. Strike two. You really had to far afield for this one huh? He is also a joke, only the most desperate doubt merchants would use his name.. http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi Blah blah blah Lindzen !!!!! Also not a climatologist, a mathematician/physicist. LOL the guy is a creationist and the most laughable of all the jokes you refer to. Lindzenhas published work with the conservative think-tank, the Cato Institute, a think tank that has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan notes that Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5] https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen In short you are a climate misinformer, probably working for a think tank and at the very least you are laughably deluded on this subject. The people you refer to could not be less respected by the science community. They are the tiny few morons that the denier machine and fossil fuel interests refers to. Not a single publishing climatologist denies 1) That CO2 is a greenhouse gas 2) That the levels of CO2 are 40% higher than they were one hundred years ago due to the activities of man. 3) That this is causing the atmosphere to gain heat. I suggest reading the information on this website because it's clear that you are quite ignorant about the subject.. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Google anyone that's been in the news as a target of either the political right or the left and chances are the first page is going to be dominated by the purveyors of "fake news", to borrow a Trumpism. Try this just for fun. Google "George Soros." My way of getting around this is to go at least to the bottom of page one and maybe as far as page three if necessary. You have to go at least past all the child molester articles and pictures of the subject with greenish-gray, wrinkled skin and a devilish, vampire-like grin.
One just needs to read their "science". It's a joke and real climate scientists quickly put them in their place. You sir are a fucking liar. Or you simply don't understand the science or are simply stupid. Yup.......liar for hire. How many more sites are you on spreading the misinformation, obfuscation and outright lies?
I use the term Hansen Hypothesis , as it is the correct way to refer to what is at the bottom of what the media, and even Hansen, are now calling "climate change". No, you use to diminish and ad hom the argument. It's called CLIMATE SCIENCE dipshit. The greenhouse effect was first talked about long ago.......of course you know that....you dishonest scum. The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, who measured the radiative properties of specific greenhouse gases.[7] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[8] However, the term "greenhouse" was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[9][10] Anyone, go ahead, google Hansen's Hypothesis. You get nothing. Maybe some hit on a denier machine website. Maybe. Yes Hansen and most climatologists think that positive feedback mechanisms may strengthen the warming and yes that is indeed occuring and if YOU DARED to post the CO2 vs world temps chart it may be seen how correlated they are and how the rate is increasing. But you NEVER post any real science or charts. Why is that? Is that jerms's job. To obfuscate with irrelevance? I notice that you NEVER counter jerm's obvious intellectual dishonesty about manmade climate change. Why is that?
only from a troll you say scientists don't waste time debunking wrong arguments til they get in peer reviewed journals. interesting considering there are no peer reviewed journals stating man made co2 is causing warming. (except old articles using now failed models.) not a single article. no science... zip.. nada stating man made co2 is causing warming. while there are hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed articles saying the sun or the tides or other natural causes are causing climate change.
Would it be safe to say sometimes the consensus is good and true, and other times it is not good (I worked briefly for a Japanese firm, and in their world nothing is bad, it's just not good) or true?
I'd just like politics to stay out of science, as religion should stay out of both. Scientists are only human and if they're going to be demonized for trying to find holes in a theory, they may follow the pack. I'm not saying this is what's happening, but skepticism should not be attacked but welcomed. If the theory is as strong as it's suggesting then it will only become stronger as the contrarians fail to find flaws. For a prime example, look at scientists trying to understand the biology of "gender". They'll quickly be labeled bigots if their findings point a certain way. I'm guilty of this as I feel the study of say "IQ & demographics" can be counterproductive to social progress as the ideas become politicized and twisted around to support things like eugenics & racial divide. Futurecurrents may feel this way, since if the models prove to be true, then we are running out of time, & contradicting the establishment slows progress towards a solution. I'm hedging on some of the most brilliant minds (I'm talking physicists and mathematicians as derisively as future-currents may feel about them involving themselves in climate) having reviewed the models (which is all math btw) and come to the conclusion that they are solid and the findings correct. This being backed up by empirical and anthropological evidence. I hope it's the right bet, as the inverse would mean scientists are just after the money grab that climate study is right now, or that the most brilliant minds which I'm counting on found the issue to be of little interest, or worse yet, beneath them. If that was the case, then politics has ruined the last bastion of truth, but I remain an optimist when it comes to science and objectivity. I just realized I didn't answer your question. . I don't believe consensus should be a popularity contest, a trend, or a peer pressure thing. Consensus should come from the study of the evidence, backed up by the math (the ultimate truth). I remember seeing an interview about evolution. The man said something to the effect of: "Darwin could not find holes in his theory, I feel he'd be the 1st to welcome an alternate theory or something that could counter his argument". We've found that there are no holes in his theory, but we've found no holes because the contrarians tried to find them and found none. <<<that's how the climate change problem should be approached. Additionally reinforced by other branches of science outside of anthropology (genetics, physics (carbon dating/radiation), etc..) Evolution theory did take a good 200 years to be backed up by the bones, the fossils and ultimately DNA. Seems like the evidence is saying we can't afford that much time w/climate change.
If we could ever find an honest programmer I would live by whatever decision the computer makes. And it can't get here soon enough. This whole country could be run by a lottery and get better results than we are getting from bribed humans.