/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8606060
>Firstly, the scientific consensus on AGW PREDATES any political calls to actions - politions were/are the last to get onboard with doing anything about it, not the first.

What consensus? Oh, the one that John Crook made up.
Or are you talking about the 83% consensus on Global Cooling? Yeah, that certainly predates the calls for a $Carbon $Tax.

JOHN COOK DEBUNKED:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

JOHN COOK LIES
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/
www.forbes.com/ sites/ jamestaylor/ 2013/ 05/ 30/ global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims /
wattsupwiththat .com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/
http://impactofcc.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-cook-et-al-willfully-lie.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>8117561
inb4 a bunch of unlabeled memegraphs and a list of papers rejecting climate change (because deniers don't understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data).

>nb4 But our plural anecdote is different!

11,944 papers. And only 36 stated that the Climate Change hypothesis was accurate. 0.3%, nothing but a tiny anecdote. That's definitely not data.

>>8104022
>>>8103500
>>>8103503
>>>8103505
>>>8103507
>plural(anecdote) != data
>nice attempt to disguise the fact that 97% of studies that took a position on the issue came down in favor of the theory of climate change.

A mere 36 papers. I just added 24 papers + 11 below = 35 (including here, >>8110517).
51% CONSENSUS

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
(Euresis Journal, Volume 2, pp. 161-192, March 2012)
- Richard S. Lindzen

Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69-82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Today, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp. 4-10, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Jan Veizer

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)


Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issue 13, pp. 951-970, August 2010)

What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?
(Remote Sensing, Volume 2, Issue 9, pp. 2148-2169, September 2010)

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)

>>8094961
>It's a consensus by experts who've done far more research than any of us have.

Its a consensus of people who will lose their funding, reputation and probably jobs, if they disagree. (Unless they're tenured.) And what consensus? Only 71 papers out of 10s of thousands!

A french meteorologist gets put on leave (and was fired later):
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21766-top-meteorologist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria

Australian Atmospheric Scientist fired: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjul_nXzvHMAhXF4CYKHU7tCdEQFghOMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2013%2F07%2Fthe-climate-mafia-strikes-again-the-curious-case-of-murry-salby.php&usg=AFQjCNHSV8mE7JZOBUEqZ5BN3YRAjw1mMA&sig2=q4KhIWdyD3hccP2PiSR0Cg

>>8078863

>>>8075165
>even your infallible prophet admits that "we" referred to developed nations, not the IPCC
>>https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/
>deniers just can't post without lying, huh?
>Hurr durr its an evil lie made up by evil deniers WattsUpWithThat.

Butt hurt warmists can't handle the truth. Here's the actual site and translation:
"Climate policy distributes the world wealth newly"
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fklimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

>>8010306
>>2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man
>Lie.
You lie. Only 0.3% actually supported AGW.

>>7972709
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=28E83D4569A62218F9413CEFBD792D99.ip-10-40-2-73

Hurr, durr the 0.3% consensus.

>>7950559
>>>7950506 (You)
>he claimed that the consensus was of fairly low sensitivity to CO2, and cherry-picked a few studies that said so. when called on his cherry-picking, he proceeded to cherry-pick slightly more studies, ignorant of the fact that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

20 peer reviewed studies is "cherry picking."
20 peer reviewed studies is "anecdote"

Its funny how you warmists love to talk about peer reviewed research. Never mind that 95% of reviewers are warmists and 95% of editors are warmists; makes for a huge outcome when an Evil Denier gets published.

And so you're left mumbling and prevaricating, "peer reviewed research that we don't like is anecdotal!"
And you're not very good at quantifying peer review, pic related.

>>7679868

Leaving this here
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

>>7528171
>The unSkepticalScience deception.
FTFY

Crook and Nutter are frauds
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/?s=john+cook
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/john-cook-is-a-low-down-dirty-liar/

>>7296253
Clearly you've never set foot inside the beltway.
The funding goes through bureaucracies like the National Science Foundation which is controlled by bureaucrats who are almost impossible to fire. Not to mention, the vast majority of bureaucrats are leftists. You really have no idea about how the government actually works; you only have the ivory tower sketch given to you by your government paid professor. Bureaucrats are always working to make government grow. Especially the bureaucrats at the EPA.

And the silly Tobacco thing? Yup your climate bedwetter "scientists" are busy trying to deny poor people cheap energy, and a strong productive economy. And most of them are paid by the most powerful organization in the world, FedGov.

>because he'd be going against the overwhelming majority of the evidence.
Then why is the history of climate change predictions littered with failures?

PS Your conspiracy theory psychological projecting is pathetic >>7293435. Science is not a popularity contest, nor is it settled by authority. Learn2Science

>>7201759
Except you can't back that statement up with actual facts and data. Just authoritarian references, ad hominem and appeals to popularity.
>>7201755