Global warming and scientific consensus

[EternalOptimist]

Like being savaged by a dead sheep EO.

well, I am not sure what the etiquette is in fora for offering physical violence. But I had a world of sh1te from the district health when I refused to let my daughter have the jab. It became serious.
Anyone who says that didnt happen had better be a black belt in something or other

[TimberWolf]

...nor the fundamentally probabilistic nature of the universe.

That isn't known to be fundamentally true of the nature of the universe. It looks that way as far as we can currently see, and perhaps may ever see, but fundamentally the universe need not be probabilistic. I've provided a link for you on this issue in the past.

There is a surprising number of people who believe you can prove something in science. You can't. You can only really disprove a theory.
You can prove something in Mathematics. Only in Maths is the stuff that was done thousands of years ago still valid.

Proof in the sense of being consistent with axioms that are taken as true, and even that isn't always possible. And those axioms have been added to and changed since thousands of years ago, which has opened up new branches of mathematics, and in that sense the old mathematics has been invalidated.

[DimPrawn]

List of brain dead cretins who don't understand science or statistics.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[EternalOptimist]

List of brain dead cretins who don't understand science or statistics.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its also worthwhile considering the block vote. when an organisation throws its weight behind a cause, it's often portrayed as if all the members agree with the position.

[pjclarke]

So you have this proxy right and you can discern from it what the temperature record is, but when you compare the proxy record with real temperature record it doesn't match. so they hid this fact.

As was pointed out at length, this is balony. Most proxies match the instrumental record for all of their extent, a minority diverge in recent decades, this was not hidden but discussed at length in the literature, the 'hide the decline' email was discussing the cover art on a long-forgotten pamphlet from 1999, all IPCC reports label proxies clearly as such.

Why repeat a falsehood?

[pjclarke]

List of brain dead cretins who don't understand science or statistics.

Well, at least one of those, Fred Singer, is guilty of junk science.

Simply counting scientists doesn't tell us a lot, but if we're playing that game I see your list of thirty six contrarians (thirty six! In the whole world?) and raise you, oh I dunno, 3,000-odd.

More convincing is the actual published evidence. Science historian Naomi Oreskes did a literature review by sampling the ISI publications database with the keywords 'climate change'. This produced 928 abstracts:,

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[BlasterBates]

As was pointed out at length, this is balony. Most proxies match the instrumental record for all of their extent, a minority diverge in recent decades, this was not hidden but discussed at length in the literature, the 'hide the decline' email was discussing the cover art on a long-forgotten pamphlet from 1999, all IPCC reports label proxies clearly as such.

Why repeat a falsehood?

I'll let Professor Judith Curry answer:

Bad science and/or dishonesty?

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest(I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy.[4] She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group


Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[10] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[11] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[4] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[4]

Judith Curry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Churchill]

In my opinion this thread and others like it have less to do with global warming and more to do with winding up other posters.

You will never get a consensus.

[BlasterBates]

I think there is a false impression that we're bored to tears at work so that we are having bit of fun with a "Yah boo sucks" argument.

[Churchill]

I think there is a false impression that we're bored to tears at work so that we are having bit of fun with a "Yah boo sucks" argument.

I don't think that impression is false.