Thousands of scientists back "young protesters" demanding climate change action

COTO said:

You seem to be unaware that world governments have been the sole purchaser of climate change research for decades, to the tune of trillions of dollars. If a line of research doesn't support of the consensus, world governments don't want it, it doesn't get funded.

In fact, the funding mechanisms for climate change research is one of the biggest reasons to be skeptical of the consensus. Any time a government says "We will only fund research if it supports X conclusion." (or this is the de facto status quo), we should be concerned about credibility. In the climate arena, this kind of one-sided financing has been going on for decades. My heart goes out to any scientist daring to challenge the consensus. It must be hell.


What action do you think is necessary?

Are you a supporter of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez' "Green New Deal", for example?

What have you personally done to help combat climate change?

Click to expand...

But the US republicans, for example, are notoriously sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. Why would they be funding scientists specifically to produce results that disagree with their worldview? That makes no sense at all. If science can be bought, surely they would be directing the funding towards those who agree with their scepticism.

The obvious conclusion is that the scientists are not tailoring their results to suit the government but, rather, that their results simply reflect reality.

Surface Detail said:

But the US republicans, for example, are notoriously sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. Why would they be funding scientists specifically to produce results that disagree with their worldview? That makes no sense at all. If science can be bought, surely they would be directing the funding towards those who agree with their scepticism.

The obvious conclusion is that the scientists are not tailoring their results to suit the government but, rather, that their results simply reflect reality.

Click to expand...

The "obvious conclusion" belies how the so-called deep state works.

Republican versus Democrat is more superficial than most Americans understand. Liquidating and replacing politicians every 2-4 years still leaves behind 99.9% of existing government personnel and logistical machinery, and dislodging it is a slow and painstaking exercise indeed.

No president, congressman, or political party has the means or authority to micromanage at the level of individual agencies. Pres. Trump is by far the most ambitious and radical US president of my lifetime in this regard, and you'll note that he's accomplished what little he's accomplished by blatantly overstepping the prescribed bounds of his office. Pres. Bush, Pres. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Pres. Obama, were far more content to leave the existing machinery alone. In Pres. Bush's case, because he knew that ending the government monopsony on pro-AGW research would ostensibly require the complete liquidation of the EPA, NASA, K-street, and would jeopardize the GOP's friendly relationship with Wall Street.

Pres. Trump is just a bull in a china shop. His threats to cut funding, appointment of anti-AGW agency heads, etc. may shift the status quo a bit, especially if he gets another four years to do it, but I doubt even this will have much impact. As much power as he has, he can't control what specifically government agencies like the EPA choose to buy with their budgets. He's already alienated a significant chunk of the GOP establishment, damaging his 2020 prospects. And any time he does interfere, it reeks of partisan politics and presidential overreach. Rightly so, because politics is precisely why he's doing it.

It's a truly intractable problem. Corruption always is.

COTO said:

The "obvious conclusion" belies how the so-called deep state works.

Republican versus Democrat is more superficial than most Americans understand. Liquidating and replacing politicians every 2-4 years still leaves behind 99.9% of existing government personnel and logistical machinery, and dislodging it is a slow and painstaking exercise indeed.

No president, congressman, or political party has the means or authority to micromanage at the level of individual agencies. Pres. Trump is by far the most ambitious and radical US president of my lifetime in this regard, and you'll note that he's accomplished what little he's accomplished by blatantly overstepping the prescribed bounds of his office. Pres. Bush, Pres. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Pres. Obama, were far more content to leave the existing machinery alone. In Pres. Bush's case, because he knew that ending the government monopsony on pro-AGW research would ostensibly require the complete liquidation of the EPA, NASA, K-street, and would jeopardize the GOP's friendly relationship with Wall Street.

Pres. Trump is just a bull in a china shop. His threats to cut funding, appointment of anti-AGW agency heads, etc. may shift the status quo a bit, especially if he gets another four years to do it, but I doubt even this will have much impact. As much power as he has, he can't control what specifically government agencies like the EPA choose to buy with their budgets. He's already alienated a significant chunk of the GOP establishment, damaging his 2020 prospects. And any time he does interfere, it reeks of partisan politics and presidential overreach. Rightly so, because politics is precisely why he's doing it.

It's a truly intractable problem. Corruption always is.

Click to expand...

So, if I understand correctly, you are claiming that the US government (and every other government in the world) has been taken over by a corrupt cabal of operatives who ignore the wishes of the elected politicians in order to pursue a secret agenda of bribing all the world's climate scientists to pretend that AGW exists. And that every single national and international scientific body is going along with this.

Do you not think there is the remotest possibility that AGW actually does exist and all those scientists are simply telling it as they see it?

Surface Detail said:

So, if I understand correctly, you are claiming that the US government (and every other government in the world) has been taken over by a corrupt cabal of operatives [1] who ignore the wishes of the elected politicians in order to pursue a secret agenda [2] of bribing [3] all the world's climate scientists to pretend that AGW exists [4]. And that every single national and international scientific body is going along with this [5].

Do you not think there is the remotest possibility that AGW actually does exist and all those scientists are simply telling it as they see it? [6]

Click to expand...

[1] It isn't a "cabal", nor are the actors "operatives". They're ordinary administrators, scientists, and politicians, most of whom genuinely believe they're acting in the public's best interests. They're convinced the science is settled, the time for debate is over, the need for action is critical, and that paying for research that challenges the consensus is an unconscionable hindrance of progress. Contrary research muddies the waters, gives skeptics ammunition, and generally cripples public will to take extraordinary steps (make extraordinary sacrifices) to do the right and necessary thing. Refusing to fund it, therefore, becomes a moral imperative.

[2] It's not a secret agenda. You can't throw a stick without hitting a climate researcher starved of funding, barred from publishing, denied tenure, etc. who plainly asserts he was driven out for challenging the consensus. I suppose the agenda is veiled in the sense that most climate journals won't admit, "No anti-AGW paper will ever make it past review," most grant reviewers won't admit, "We categorically won't fund anything that doesn't have a hope of being published--which includes anything that challenges the consensus," and most bureaucrats won't admit, "If government money winds up funding anti-AGW research, we're not only weakening public resolve, we'd be putting our jobs, our mandate, our international stature, and possibly even our agencies' existence at risk". They use more palatable language like "The science is settled.", "The time to act is now.", etc. But there's no shortage of leakers, dissidents, and apostates to shed light on the practical implications, for anyone willing to look.

[3] It's not bribery. I'm going to go out on a limb to say that the vast majority of pro-AGW climate scientists who receive funding are, at the very least, genuinely convinced the AGW consensus is "probably" right. With this equanimity comfortably in hand, the enterprising researcher need only: i) extend lines of research that tend to support the consensus (or at least don't overtly contradict it), and ii) emphasize the theoretical potential impact of whatever is being studied to the greatest possible degree, which grants the research gravity, notoriety, and--most importantly--continued funding for more research. Such is our publish-or-perish system. Even so, steering clear of career-killing research certainly doesn't rise to the level of accepting a bribe.

[4] Again, in most cases there's no pretending, deceit, or blatant falsification involved. A modicum of willful ignorance, some overreaching conclusions, a bit of rationalization, and a dash of arrogance, self-preservation, zealotry, reactionism, and good old human nature can go an extremely long way.

[5] There are some outliers, languishing in poverty and obscurity. But when it comes to the OECD nations, this is generally correct. We're beholden to the same banks, the same media, the same journals, the same conferences and symposiums, the same political and social forces. We're equally replete with businesses, politicians, and power brokers invested in public belief in the consensus. We keep each other "in line". The extraordinary thing would be if a Western nation somehow completely jumped ship on the consensus and didn't wind up with the same "rogue nation" persona non grata status as Russia or North Korea.

[6] Indeed this is a possibility. Moreover, our theses aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible that all three conditions are true: that i) climate science is hopelessly corrupt and one-sided, however ii) the consensus happens to be correct, and iii) pro-AGW scientists are indeed "simply telling it as they see it". This is precisely why the issue is so controversial. There are compelling arguments on both sides: the science is legitimate vs. the science is corrupt. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't rigorously researched both sides.

COTO said:

...

[2] It's not a secret agenda. You can't throw a stick without hitting a climate researcher starved of funding, barred from publishing, denied tenure, etc. who plainly asserts he was driven out for challenging the consensus. I suppose the agenda is veiled in the sense that most climate journals won't admit, "No anti-AGW paper will ever make it past review," most grant reviewers won't admit, "We categorically won't fund anything that doesn't have a hope of being published--which includes anything that challenges the consensus," and most bureaucrats won't admit, "If government money winds up funding anti-AGW research, we're not only weakening public resolve, we'd be putting our jobs, our mandate, our international stature, and possibly even our agencies' existence at risk". They use more palatable language like "The science is settled.", "The time to act is now.", etc. But there's no shortage of leakers, dissidents, and apostates to shed light on the practical implications, for anyone willing to look.

[3] It's not bribery. I'm going to go out on a limb to say that the vast majority of pro-AGW climate scientists who receive funding are, at the very least, genuinely convinced the AGW consensus is "probably" right. With this equanimity comfortably in hand, the enterprising researcher need only: i) extend lines of research that tend to support the consensus (or at least don't overtly contradict it), and ii) emphasize the theoretical potential impact of whatever is being studied to the greatest possible degree, which grants the research gravity, notoriety, and--most importantly--continued funding for more research. Such is our publish-or-perish system. Even so, steering clear of career-killing research certainly doesn't rise to the level of accepting a bribe.

[4] Again, in most cases there's no pretending, deceit, or blatant falsification involved. A modicum of willful ignorance, some overreaching conclusions, a bit of rationalization, and a dash of arrogance, self-preservation, zealotry, reactionism, and good old human nature can go an extremely long way.

[5] There are some outliers, languishing in poverty and obscurity. But when it comes to the OECD nations, this is generally correct. We're beholden to the same banks, the same media, the same journals, the same conferences and symposiums, the same political and social forces. We're equally replete with businesses, politicians, and power brokers invested in public belief in the consensus. We keep each other "in line". The extraordinary thing would be if a Western nation somehow completely jumped ship on the consensus and didn't wind up with the same "rogue nation" persona non grata status as Russia or North Korea.

[6] Indeed this is a possibility. Moreover, our theses aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible that all three conditions are true: that i) climate science is hopelessly corrupt and one-sided, however ii) the consensus happens to be correct, and iii) pro-AGW scientists are indeed "simply telling it as they see it". This is precisely why the issue is so controversial. There are compelling arguments on both sides: the science is legitimate vs. the science is corrupt. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't rigorously researched both sides.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you seem to be completely clueless as to both the nature of the scientific process and the motivation of scientists.

The scientific process is essentially self-correcting, given that it is underpinned by reality. When science does take a wrong turn, the nature of the process means that such mistakes are inevitably corrected. Examples like the Piltdown Man hoax and Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion claims spring to mind. If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. And no matter how much money you throw at it, reality is reality. For example, the consensus is that the Earth revolves about the sun because that is actual reality, not because the geocentric argument hasn't been sufficiently funded!

Also, scientists are always trying to prove one another wrong and justify their own theories. Fame and fortune is found by going against the flow and making original proposals, not by meekly agreeing with others. If any scientist were able to prove AGW wrong, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and being showered with riches by the proponents of fossil fuels. That fact that none are able to do so is simply a reflection of the fact that AGW is essentially correct.

Surface Detail said:

Sorry, but you seem to be completely clueless as to both the nature of the scientific process and the motivation of scientists.

The scientific process is essentially self-correcting, given that it is underpinned by reality. When science does take a wrong turn, the nature of the process means that such mistakes are inevitably corrected. Examples like the Piltdown Man hoax and Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion claims spring to mind. If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. And no matter how much money you throw at it, reality is reality. For example, the consensus is that the Earth revolves about the sun because that is actual reality, not because the geocentric argument hasn't been sufficiently funded!

Also, scientists are always trying to prove one another wrong and justify their own theories. Fame and fortune is found by going against the flow and making original proposals, not by meekly agreeing with others. If any scientist were able to prove AGW wrong, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and being showered with riches by the proponents of fossil fuels. That fact that none are able to do so is simply a reflection of the fact that AGW is essentially correct.

Click to expand...

So what are these results of AGW that have been replicated by the worlds scientist?

"If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. "

Click to expand...

longview said:

So what are these results of AGW that have been replicated by the worlds scientist?

Click to expand...

The average global surface temperature trend over the past century, for a start. GISS and HadCRUT both show similar results despite using different methodologies. Thousands of papers are published on the topic every year, extending, refining and checking our understanding of AGW.

Surface Detail said:

The average global surface temperature trend over the past century, for a start. GISS and HadCRUT both show similar results despite using different methodologies. Thousands of papers are published on the topic every year, extending, refining and checking our understanding of AGW.

Click to expand...

The root of the concept of catastrophic AGW has never been validated, much less replicated.
"If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. " Which results would be replicated?
I have no doubt that adding greenhouse gasses can cause some warming, but that is not the same as
the catastrophic predictions. which require both the greenhouse gas forcing warming, as well as a high
feedback factor for the amplified feedbacks.

longview said:

The root of the concept of catastrophic AGW has never been validated, much less replicated.
"If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. " Which results would be replicated?
I have no doubt that adding greenhouse gasses can cause some warming, but that is not the same as
the catastrophic predictions. which require both the greenhouse gas forcing warming, as well as a high
feedback factor for the amplified feedbacks.

Click to expand...

As well as the aforementioned agreement between the GISS and HadCRUT temperature series, the fact that the global temperature has risen almost exactly as Hansen predicted that it would is a very good indicator that the theory of AGW is largely correct.

PoS said:

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
-Chicken Little

Click to expand...

Chicken Little is dead, reportedly killed by a meteor impact.

Surface Detail said:

As well as the aforementioned agreement between the GISS and HadCRUT temperature series, the fact that the global temperature has risen almost exactly as Hansen predicted that it would is a very good indicator that the theory of AGW is largely correct.

Click to expand...

The temperatures are increasing, but that alone is not a validation of the concept of AGW.
Correlation is not causation!

longview said:

The temperatures are increasing, but that alone is not a validation of the concept of AGW.
Correlation is not causation!

Click to expand...

The fact that predictions of rapidly increasing global temperature made on the basis of AGW theory have proven largely correct is a good indicator for the robustness of the theory. Enhanced warming of the Arctic and stratospheric cooling also support the theory. There is no other explanation that comes close to explaining the modern warming trend.

Surface Detail said:

The fact that predictions of rapidly increasing global temperature made on the basis of AGW theory have proven largely correct is a good indicator for the robustness of the theory. Enhanced warming of the Arctic and stratospheric cooling also support the theory. There is no other explanation that comes close to explaining the modern warming trend.

Click to expand...

". . . it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 "

Surface Detail said:

The fact that predictions of rapidly increasing global temperature made on the basis of AGW theory have proven largely correct is a good indicator for the robustness of the theory. Enhanced warming of the Arctic and stratospheric cooling also support the theory. There is no other explanation that comes close to explaining the modern warming trend.

Click to expand...

Except that we were already warming, so predicting a continuation of warming means almost nothing.
as for the Arctic, the "theory" predicted both the Arctic and Antarctic would see similar levels of warming, and they have not.

longview said:

Except that we were already warming, so predicting a continuation of warming means almost nothing.
as for the Arctic, the "theory" predicted both the Arctic and Antarctic would see similar levels of warming, and they have not.

Click to expand...

Not only that, the IPCC predicted/projected a much higher rate of warming than we have seen. From 1995 onwards they keep saying minimum of .2C per decade (.30C in 1990), we get a lot less. Satellite data shows around .13C per decade, again way less than the .20C minimum.

Surface Detail said:

Sorry, but you seem to be completely clueless as to both the nature of the scientific process and the motivation of scientists.

The scientific process is essentially self-correcting, given that it is underpinned by reality. When science does take a wrong turn, the nature of the process means that such mistakes are inevitably corrected. Examples like the Piltdown Man hoax and Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion claims spring to mind. If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. And no matter how much money you throw at it, reality is reality. For example, the consensus is that the Earth revolves about the sun because that is actual reality, not because the geocentric argument hasn't been sufficiently funded!

Also, scientists are always trying to prove one another wrong and justify their own theories. Fame and fortune is found by going against the flow and making original proposals, not by meekly agreeing with others. If any scientist were able to prove AGW wrong, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and being showered with riches by the proponents of fossil fuels. That fact that none are able to do so is simply a reflection of the fact that AGW is essentially correct.

Click to expand...

For something simple, i.e. "Does this cold fusion reactor work?", you may have a point.

For something phenomenally complicated, i.e. "Does this model accurately capture all of Earth's climate dynamics?", it's as hard to debunk a theory as it is to posit one.

Having said this, you don't want to hang your hat on the successes of climate modeling. It hasn't had any. Climate models have been consistently failing and being supplanted by new models for over 50 years. Their lack of predictive power is the strongest indictment of their legitimacy. Predictions on mean temperature increase: wrong. Predictions on sea level rise: wrong. Predictions on dominant weather patterns: wrong. Predictions on human impacts: wrong. Perennially, for five decades. The complexity of the climate, and the ability to say "It's complicated; we've got it right this time, though." over and over again is a public grace the science enjoys, not one of its selling points.

Surface Detail said:

If any scientist were able to prove AGW wrong, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and being showered with riches by the proponents of fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

I'd love to hear how exactly you expect a scientist to "prove AGW wrong" to the world's satisfaction.

Suppose tomorrow, God Himself hands you the specs for a flawless climate simulator. The simulator provides you with a perfect road map of the major climate trends and happenings of the next hundred years. As you run the model, you observe that climate does indeed meaningfully change over the decades, and you also observe than man's CO2 production has negligible impact on the change.

"I must tell the world!" You cry. "Surely everyone will see how perfect the model is and regard it as authoritative."

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

If you're lucky, in 50 years, when people finally acknowledge your model hasn't completely broken every 5 years like everyone else's, it might start gaining some traction. If you're lucky.

COTO said:

For something simple, i.e. "Does this cold fusion reactor work?", you may have a point.

For something phenomenally complicated, i.e. "Does this model accurately capture all of Earth's climate dynamics?", it's as hard to debunk a theory as it is to posit one.

Having said this, you don't want to hang your hat on the successes of climate modeling. It hasn't had any. Climate models have been consistently failing and being supplanted by new models for over 50 years. Their lack of predictive power is the strongest indictment of their legitimacy. Predictions on mean temperature increase: wrong. Predictions on sea level rise: wrong. Predictions on dominant weather patterns: wrong. Predictions on human impacts: wrong. Perennially, for five decades. The complexity of the climate, and the ability to say "It's complicated; we've got it right this time, though." over and over again is a public grace the science enjoys, not one of its selling points.


I'd love to hear how exactly you expect a scientist to "prove AGW wrong" to the world's satisfaction.

Suppose tomorrow, God Himself hands you the specs for a flawless climate simulator. The simulator provides you with a perfect road map of the major climate trends and happenings of the next hundred years. As you run the model, you observe that climate does indeed meaningfully change over the decades, and you also observe than man's CO2 production has negligible impact on the change.

"I must tell the world!" You cry. "Surely everyone will see how perfect the model is and regard it as authoritative."

Yeah, well, good luck with that.

If you're lucky, in 50 years, when people finally acknowledge your model hasn't completely broken every 5 years like everyone else's, it might start gaining some traction. If you're lucky.

Click to expand...

The central prediction of AGW theory - that the global mean surface temperature would continue to rise at around 0.1 C per decade if greenhouse gas emissions continued - has proven correct. As you rightly state, it is impossible for any model to predict every detail of the future. But then no model is a perfect reflection of reality, nor does it need to be. No model, for example, could predict exactly which parts of a car would bend or break if you crash it into a wall at 100 mph, but it could give you a pretty good indication of whether you'd survive the crash.

Your incomprehension of the purpose of models - to be useful, not perfect - is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of scientific principles, but the high quality of your rhetoric shows that you have a decent education in the humanities. I suggest that you supplement it with a bit of study of the sciences before your lack of factual knowledge in the area further embarrasses you.

longview said:

Except that we were already warming, so predicting a continuation of warming means almost nothing.
as for the Arctic, the "theory" predicted both the Arctic and Antarctic would see similar levels of warming, and they have not.

Click to expand...

Theories don't just appear fully formed out of nowhere. They are developed and refined over time. The initial, most basic models did indeed indicate that both poles would warm faster than the tropics. But more complex models soon showed that the Antarctic would warm more slowly than originally thought.

While our understanding of the Earth's climate will necessarily never be complete, no theory goes anywhere near the AGW with regard to explaining the rapid rise in the Earth's temperature over the last 150 years or so. While that had been some correlation with variations in solar output, this now seems largely coincidental, given the complete breakdown in this correlation in recent decades. AGW is the only theory left standing.

Surface Detail said:

Theories don't just appear fully formed out of nowhere. They are developed and refined over time. The initial, most basic models did indeed indicate that both poles would warm faster than the tropics. But more complex models soon showed that the Antarctic would warm more slowly than originally thought.

While our understanding of the Earth's climate will necessarily never be complete, no theory goes anywhere near the AGW with regard to explaining the rapid rise in the Earth's temperature over the last 150 years or so. While that had been some correlation with variations in solar output, this now seems largely coincidental, given the complete breakdown in this correlation in recent decades. AGW is the only theory left standing.

Click to expand...

What you do not understand (or choose not to!), is that no theory has to explain all the observed warming.
With regard to the rapid rise in Earth's temperatures over the last 150 years, let's talk about that some.
HadCrut4 has ~.9C of warming since the pre industrial era, now counted as the average of data before 1900.
of that .9C, .28 C occurred before 1950, and is not counted as being natural warming.
So what we really have is .62 C of warming over a 70 year period.
What do we know about that .62 C?
We have a good idea of how much is from CO2 forcing.
and NOAA has what they say is the total CO2e from all the greenhouse gasses at 465 ppm with 1950 being ~329 ppm,
so 5.35 X ln (465/329)=1.85099 Wm-2 X .3 =.555C.
There are simply not a lot of unknowns left.
I know you want to argue that there is a lag between forcing and warming, yet you yourself
are saying the rapid rise in the Earth's temperature is evidence of AGW.

Surface Detail said:

The central prediction of AGW theory - that the global mean surface temperature would continue to rise at around 0.1 C per decade if greenhouse gas emissions continued - has proven correct. As you rightly state, it is impossible for any model to predict every detail of the future. But then no model is a perfect reflection of reality, nor does it need to be. No model, for example, could predict exactly which parts of a car would bend or break if you crash it into a wall at 100 mph, but it could give you a pretty good indication of whether you'd survive the crash.

Your incomprehension of the purpose of models - to be useful, not perfect - is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of scientific principles, but the high quality of your rhetoric shows that you have a decent education in the humanities. I suggest that you supplement it with a bit of study of the sciences before your lack of factual knowledge in the area further embarrasses you.

Click to expand...

Also any scientist that could prove the models wrong would of course have been invited to work for the Bush and Trump administration. Just like he or she would have been invited to speak in from of the Republican controlled congress under Obama.

There the result instead is that denier can’t produce a single federal report or link to any congressional hearings that refute the climate models and/or the urgent need for action on climate change. Instead you have report like this one from the federal government under Donald Trump that acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment | GlobalChange.gov

Bergslagstroll said:

Also any scientist that could prove the models wrong would of course have been invited to work for the Bush and Trump administration. Just like he or she would have been invited to speak in from of the Republican controlled congress under Obama.

There the result instead is that denier can’t produce a single federal report or link to any congressional hearings that refute the climate models and/or the urgent need for action on climate change. Instead you have report like this one from the federal government under Donald Trump that acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment | GlobalChange.gov

Click to expand...

Testimony about the models' inaccuracy has been presented at least as far back as 2012.

[h=2]John Christy’s EPW testimony[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on August 1, 2012 by curryja | 689 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry John Christy’s testimony to the Senate Committee Environment & Public Works Committee can be found here [christy testimony 2012].

Bergslagstroll said:

Also any scientist that could prove the models wrong would of course have been invited to work for the Bush and Trump administration. Just like he or she would have been invited to speak in from of the Republican controlled congress under Obama.

There the result instead is that denier can’t produce a single federal report or link to any congressional hearings that refute the climate models and/or the urgent need for action on climate change. Instead you have report like this one from the federal government under Donald Trump that acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment | GlobalChange.gov

Click to expand...

The models cannot be proven wrong, because they do not say anything definitively.
The models say that the result of doubling the CO2 level will be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 C,
somewhere in the future between 10.1 years and several hundred years from now.
Notice the combination of both an amplitude and temporal uncertainty!
Imagine what data could possibly prove incorrect such a large range of possibilities?

Surface Detail said:

Sorry, but you seem to be completely clueless as to both the nature of the scientific process and the motivation of scientists.

The scientific process is essentially self-correcting, given that it is underpinned by reality. When science does take a wrong turn, the nature of the process means that such mistakes are inevitably corrected. Examples like the Piltdown Man hoax and Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion claims spring to mind. If nobody else can replicate your results, your theory's dead. And no matter how much money you throw at it, reality is reality. For example, the consensus is that the Earth revolves about the sun because that is actual reality, not because the geocentric argument hasn't been sufficiently funded!

Also, scientists are always trying to prove one another wrong and justify their own theories. Fame and fortune is found by going against the flow and making original proposals, not by meekly agreeing with others. If any scientist were able to prove AGW wrong, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and being showered with riches by the proponents of fossil fuels. That fact that none are able to do so is simply a reflection of the fact that AGW is essentially correct.

Click to expand...

Also the fact that fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable so of course they could hire any scientists that could disprove the urgent need for action on climate change. Instead is the evidence so overwhelming that even scientific report from the fossil fuels acknowledge manmade global warming,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...h-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

Bergslagstroll said:

Also the fact that fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable so of course they could hire any scientists that could disprove the urgent need for action on climate change. Instead is the evidence so overwhelming that even scientific report from the fossil fuels acknowledge manmade global warming,

Shell Grappled with Climate Change 20 Years Ago, Documents Show - Scientific American

Click to expand...

You seem to loose sight of the concept that CO2 can be a greenhouse gas,
while not requiring an urgent need for action on climate change.
The two ideas are not linked!

longview said:

The models cannot be proven wrong, because they do not say anything definitively.
The models say that the result of doubling the CO2 level will be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 C,
somewhere in the future between 10.1 years and several hundred years from now.
Notice the combination of both an amplitude and temporal uncertainty!
Imagine what data could possibly prove incorrect such a large range of possibilities?

Click to expand...

You denirs can't even agree on basic things. That you have deniers that claim that climate models are broken every five years while you also have deniers like you who claim that the models can't be proven wrong. Just like you deniers that claim that you will have global cooling while other deniers acknowledge global warming. That the only thing you can agree on is to not wanting to believe in the scientific society. While at the same time not been able to for example provide a single report from either the Bush or Trump presidency.