Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because Flannery’s quotes were taken out of context, misrepresented and occasionally were just flat out lied about from sources biased against him. As a former Climate Commissioner he would have been target number one for the deniers.
He was completely out of his depth. And an inappropriate choice for climate commissioner. Any talk of misrepresentation is him trying to re-write history.
I'm not a deny-er by the way, I just remember his stupid comments.
Yeah, nah. He wasn't taken out of contest at all. Read what his (real) peers say about him.
He was completely out of his depth. And an inappropriate choice for climate commissioner. Any talk of misrepresentation is him trying to re-write history.
I'm not a deny-er by the way, I just remember his stupid comments.
He was completely out of his depth. And an inappropriate choice for climate commissioner. Any talk of misrepresentation is him trying to re-write history.
I'm not a deny-er by the way, I just remember his stupid comments.
The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.
Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.
When does a hypothesis become a fact? About the time 97% of the world’s scientists (and 100% of the credible ones) are saying it I believe.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South of the North pole
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, can you name his “real peers” and what they “really” think of him?
The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.
Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.
Read this, seems to me your hero climate scientists are basically full of it. They certainly do not base their VOODOO SCIENCE on clear or factual based evidence. Their experiments are severely biased at best and complete and utter hogwash at worst.
As for the lunatic that runs your beloved skeptical science website, seems most of you man made global warming/climate change/climate emergency/Greta Thunberg sees carbon particles and is my hero have been taken for a ride.
Read this, seems to me your hero climate scientists are basically full of it. They certainly do not base their VOODOO SCIENCE on clear or factual based evidence. Their experiments are severely biased at best and complete and utter hogwash at worst.
As for the lunatic that runs your beloved skeptical science website, seems most of you man made global warming/climate change/climate emergency/Greta Thunberg sees carbon particles and is my hero have been taken for a ride.
As for the lunatic that runs your beloved skeptical science website, seems most of you man made global warming/climate change/climate emergency/Greta Thunberg sees carbon particles and is my hero have been taken for a ride.
Maybe next try posting from GLOBALISTWARMISTMARXISTHOAXEXPOSED.COM, probably just as credible as those two sources.
Thread Starter
When does a hypothesis become a fact? About the time 97% of the world’s scientists (and 100% of the credible ones) are saying it I believe.
A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. For example, "this sentence contains words" is a linguistic fact, and "the sun is a star" is a cosmological fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" are also both facts, of the historical type. All of these statements have the epistemic quality of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation
I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.
As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.
A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidencethat climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.
This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know - NASA
As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.
A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidencethat climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.
This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:
The weight of all of this information taken together points to the single consistent fact that humans and our activity are warming the planet,
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason you remember his “stupid comments” is because (as I’ve shown in the previous link backed up by IPCC data) he was taken out of context by media with an agenda.
Btw, just because a few snowflakes were upset by the language he used to describe climate change that doesn’t invalidate the underlying science.
(note: I am not a climate change deny-er)
Last edited by The name is Porter; 2nd Dec 2019 at 12:01.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At home.
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daddy F, you refer to peer reviewed hard science as “Voodoo Science”. Perhaps it will help if someone explained how science works. If you are still at school maybe you could ask one of your teachers?
I posted a link from NASA explaining the scientific method (hypothesize, test, observe, analyse, conclude, review) but Daddy F seems to prefer articles from writers of the Heartland Institute, an American conservative lobby group that became infamous for helping Tobacco companies try to use "science" to deny the negative health effects of cigarette smoking.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals 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.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh yes the infamous Cook study.
"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."
He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts.
"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."
He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great article by climate scientist Judith Curry today:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458
Great article by climate scientist Judith Curry today:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458
https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/#more-25458
Ahh yes the infamous Cook study.
"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."
He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts.:
"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming."
He starts throwing out 66% of the papers. Then he only looks at the abstracts.
:
And that's not the only consensus study, there have been many, and they all lead to the same conclusion
And you critique Cook for only looking at abstracts? Fine, on that study Cook went further than the abstracts and actually asked the authors of the study if they agreed with the consensus, and 97% of them did.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farum
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohhhhhh, taking money from bad fossil fuel companies that wants a climate scientist to do hurricane forecasting. Bad bad girl.
An yes she left Georgia Tech a year ago to focus on her own consulting business. So what? Doesn't change the over 180 published papers she did while being a professor.
I know other scientists think of her as a heretic, yes a heretic, because she doesn't subscribe to the so-called consensus. Welcome to the climate inquisition.
An yes she left Georgia Tech a year ago to focus on her own consulting business. So what? Doesn't change the over 180 published papers she did while being a professor.
I know other scientists think of her as a heretic, yes a heretic, because she doesn't subscribe to the so-called consensus. Welcome to the climate inquisition.
Thread Starter
I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.
As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.
A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidencethat climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.
This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:
As factual as Lincoln being assassinated.
As factual as this sentence containing words.
A hypothesis is a statement that scientific research can test. Scientists made their hypothesis on climate change, conducted the research and experiments and came back with the evidencethat climate change is real, a conclusion that climate change is real, therefore it’s a fact.
This is a direct quote from NASA about the fact of climate change:
Two of them are verifiable and one is not.
That the climate changes is fact ( it is verifiable) , I would say that humans ( and other animals/ plants ) having an effect on the climate is also fact ( verifiable).
The output of climate prediction models which by their nature must be produced using assumptions, don’t meet the standard of scientific fact. I can’t go out and verify them and you can’t go out and falsify them.
There is a consensus for sure. History shows us that consensus is a poor measure for what is good/ right/ correct.
What we need now is less polarisation, less derogatory comments, less hype, less scaremongering, and more diligent, independent, process based scientific research with accurate reporting of the findings. It will take decades to build a half descent understanding of how our climate works and in the mean time Joe public might have to be patient rather than demand conclusions.
I believe the 97% of scientists saying that human induced climate change is a fact, not just a hypothesis.
I hope you have a good day. Qanda
An yes she left Georgia Tech a year ago to focus on her own consulting business. So what? Doesn't change the over 180 published papers she did while being a professor.
Doesn’t matter how many papers she published in total, if none of them definitely refuted the facts on climate change then it’s irrelevant.
And she didn’t just leave academia to focus on a private business, she openly admitted on her own blog she was sick of the wider scientific community refuting her work. Sounds like she threw the toys out of the pram on that one.
I know other scientists think of her as a heretic, yes a heretic, because she doesn't subscribe to the so-called consensus. Welcome to the climate inquisition.
Her side is like the religious powers that be at the time of the inquisition, not using the scientific method, not conducting valid research, and instead using gobbledygook to back up their debunked “theories”.
The reason she is disliked by the scientific community is because she is just plain incompetent.
It seems she was widely respected in academia, and did produce work about 15 years ago showing a link between climate change and increased hurricane severity, that upset a lot of denier snowflakes, who deeply criticised her. She obviously took it to heart, and tried to reach out to the deniers. They got to her, and she started spouting the same nonsense they did. That’s when she started producing “research” that was critiqued by every other scientist.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dre, she hasn’t “already been debunked”. All you did was post a link to the sourcewatch website. That website is another one of the anonymously hosted, biased, non-science, and agenda driven sources which you seem to take as gospel.
You’ve got to stop the ad hominem attacks...if for no other reason that they expose your arguments as fraudulent. It cuts both ways, the amount of funding given to the pro climate scientists is enormous... does that influence their findings?
How many times do people have to tell you that science does NOT rely on consensus. Every time someone trots out the 97% consensus Statement I know they don’t understand the scientific method.
The climate change debate is still ongoing but it’s become political rather than scientific. The skeptical scientists’ opinions are being suppressed by a range of tactics. This is itself a red flag, a real scientific debate welcomes skeptics. If you have a strong position, you should be able to defend it from all criticisms without resorting to ad hominem attacks and bogus claims of consensus.
You’ve got to stop the ad hominem attacks...if for no other reason that they expose your arguments as fraudulent. It cuts both ways, the amount of funding given to the pro climate scientists is enormous... does that influence their findings?
How many times do people have to tell you that science does NOT rely on consensus. Every time someone trots out the 97% consensus Statement I know they don’t understand the scientific method.
The climate change debate is still ongoing but it’s become political rather than scientific. The skeptical scientists’ opinions are being suppressed by a range of tactics. This is itself a red flag, a real scientific debate welcomes skeptics. If you have a strong position, you should be able to defend it from all criticisms without resorting to ad hominem attacks and bogus claims of consensus.
Thread Starter
It isn’t the “so-called consensus”, it’s a scientific fact, as I explained to you in my previous post.
It’s hard to see how the climate model predictions are ‘scientific fact’.
Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other, can you answer the following statement with a true or false, it would help my understanding of your position as the discussion continues.
’ Climate Model predictions of future global temperatures are scientific fact’ TRUE/FALSE