Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

[Jack Hays]

Just keep ignoring science.

Science is the basis of my skepticism of AGW.

 

[Lakryte]

Science is the basis of my skepticism of AGW.

Then you don't know what science is.

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you don't know what science is.

Sorry, but your orthodoxy vs heresy style of declamation has no effect here.

 

[bubbabgone]

It's not soon. I've been dealing with deniers for a looooong time. Please provide evidence that the majority of scientists do not believe climate change is human caused. I'll wait.

Hold on. You made the claim... "the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused"... It's up to you to support it. Can you?

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, scientists who challenge the establishment will feel the consequences if they insist on a theory that is inferior according to the establishment. Notice again that I mentioned earlier the examples of legit modern scientists who tried to challenge Einstein's and other mainstream theories and who do mention the warnings they received from their supervisors about the implications of their criticism. But I do not see how one can interpreter the fact that the majority of the scientists all over the word support a specific theory. If things were politically motivated, then scientists would have been split way more. In politics, it is extremely difficult to achieve such "consensus " among different countries.

For one thing, adopting "the establishment" view doesn't mean it's right. It just means that's who's in control.
"inferior" is the wrong word choice.
"heretical" would be better.
And given the state of climate science today, the suggestion is that there's an element of religious zeal in AGW adherents.

"the fact that the majority of the scientists all over the word support a specific theory".
Another poster said essentially the same thing but he bailed on trying to support it.
Why don't we start with you stating with what that specific theory is.
If it's something like defining what the greenhouse effect is you can skip past that and be specific about what you think the majority of scientists support and how you know they do.

 

[Lakryte]

Hold on. You made the claim... "the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused"... It's up to you to support it. Can you?

Of course. None of this should be news to anyone, but here you go:

A plethora of U.S. agencies and organizations: Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Nearly 200 international organizations: List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Surveys of research:
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Also see the Paris Climate Accord, which is literally every country but the United States. I could go on, but that should be enough for you to get started. Man-made climate change is real. The fact such a view is the establishment view doesn't make it wrong. Please join reality.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Since the Sun has never blinked and has not become nova, such phenomena are not relevant to the claim that the sun is the main cause of the global warming.

Quite right, and the claim that you have never seen any gasoline "combusted" in your car's engine is irrelevant to the claim that your car's engine burns gasoline.

Also, since I am not an expert I do not want to start a discussion that oversimplifies things about chaotic systems related to the climate.

IOW, you don't actually want to discuss the issue.

Recall that just a small tilt of the Earth and small variations of its distance from the sun during its annual orbit is enough to change the average temperature in a place during summer and winter times.

Now that is quite true. Why if (for example) the annual average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere is 60 degrees and the annual average temperature in the Southern Hemisphere is 50 degrees and a shift in axial tilt results in the annual average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere becoming 50 degrees while the annual average temperature in the Southern Hemisphere became 60 degrees, that would mean that there hadn't been a single degree of change to the Earth's annual average temperature and that would mean that there wouldn't be the slightest bit of climate change at all (since there was no change in the "driving force", that being global annual average temperature).

Right?

PS - You have introduced an interesting new subject that I haven't heard ANYTHING about so far. Could you please give me some links so that I can get some information on that "Human Generated Axial Tilt" issue? Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated cooperation and assistance.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not a good analogy.

A better example is hearing an expert telling you that your car engine is overheated because you have an issue with your coolant, and then hear a response.."But..but.... the gas is the main source of heat in my engine. It must be the fault of the last gas station which I used to fill my tank"

The main SOURCE for the heat that causes the overheating IS the gasoline. Without the gasoline it doesn't matter one whit what your coolant does.

The main CAUSE of the overheating is "Coolant Failure" because without the "Coolant Failure" there would be no overheating regardless of what the SOURCE of the heat was.

As an example, if I take my motorcycle out on the freeway it will not (under almost any "normal" set of conditions) overheat regardless of how fast I go. It will, however, overheat if I put a sheet of cardboard on the front of my radiator. In this case, the heat INPUT remains constant but the heat RETENTION changes.

Now think of that piece of cardboard as "greenhouse gases" and think of the engine as "solar energy".

Up to a certain limit, for any given speed ("solar input"), the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gasses") doesn't matter - BUT beyond that size it ("greenhouse gases") becomes critical and will, eventually, cause catastrophic damage. AND, even if the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") is not critical at X mph ("solar input"), it ("greenhouse gases") may well become critical at X+Y mph ("solar input").

Now if I don't know what speed I am going to be travelling at (and actually have no control over it), doesn't it make sense to try and keep the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") smaller than any recorded speed ("solar input")?

Even though my motorcycle (the Earth) is "red lined" at 10,500 rpm ("solar input"), the engine ("the Sun") can go as high as 12,000 rpm ("solar input") - so a really prudent person would use the 12,000 ("solar input") figure in determining what size the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") should be, wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they do that REGARDLESS of where the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") came from?

 

[bubbabgone]

Of course. None of this should be news to anyone, but here you go:

A plethora of U.S. agencies and organizations: Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Nearly 200 international organizations: List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Surveys of research:
Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming - IOPscience
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

Also see the Paris Climate Accord, which is literally every country but the United States. I could go on, but that should be enough for you to get started. Man-made climate change is real. The fact such a view is the establishment view doesn't make it wrong. Please join reality.

Which one is your favorite climate consensus study?

 

[pamak]

Quite right, and the claim that you have never seen any gasoline "combusted" in your car's engine is irrelevant to the claim that your car's engine burns gasoline.



IOW, you don't actually want to discuss the issue.



Now that is quite true. Why if (for example) the annual average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere is 60 degrees and the annual average temperature in the Southern Hemisphere is 50 degrees and a shift in axial tilt results in the annual average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere becoming 50 degrees while the annual average temperature in the Southern Hemisphere became 60 degrees, that would mean that there hadn't been a single degree of change to the Earth's annual average temperature and that would mean that there wouldn't be the slightest bit of climate change at all (since there was no change in the "driving force", that being global annual average temperature).

Right?

PS - You have introduced an interesting new subject that I haven't heard ANYTHING about so far. Could you please give me some links so that I can get some information on that "Human Generated Axial Tilt" issue? Thank you, in advance, for your anticipated cooperation and assistance.

If you thought that my point was that humans can tilt the earth, then obviously you missed the point. The point is that the climate we get is the result of a complicated and chaotic in behavior system which is affected by different factors of which SOME ARE AFFECTED BY HUMANS! Your naive over simplification and sarcasm do not change what I said. People, like climatologists have TOLD YOU about human generated factors but you have dismissed them based on your grossly simplistic "scientific" "knowledge" and your religious belief in the cult of sun!

If you really want help to expand your scientific knowledge and grasp what I said, start with the concept of chaotic behavior of a system. But of course, you need first to have a good foundation in physics, and math. Then see how the climate has such behavior, but of course you need a solid foundation in thermodynamics and multiple other fields. And even then, as a rookie you will most probable confuse the fact that you cannot get exact predictions in chaotic systems with the fact that you can still see patterns in chaotic behaviors and distinguish between more probable from less probable outcomes...

Here is one example of what I said

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Forcings and Chaos in Global Climate Change

This chaotic aspect of climate is a natural consequence of the fundamental "nonlinear" equations that describe the climate system

A second conclusion is that year-to-year climate change at middle latitudes, such as the United States and Europe, are primarily chaotic fluctuations. Forcings such as greenhouse gases, on the average, alter temperature over two decades by only a few tenths of a degree, while chaotic fluctuations are several times larger.

 

[Lakryte]

Which one is your favorite climate consensus study?

I don't have a favorite. All of the links I provided are more than enough evidence that a majority of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is real. Your denialism is a conspiracy, nothing more.

 

[pamak]

The main SOURCE for the heat that causes the overheating IS the gasoline. Without the gasoline it doesn't matter one whit what your coolant does.

The main CAUSE of the overheating is "Coolant Failure" because without the "Coolant Failure" there would be no overheating regardless of what the SOURCE of the heat was.

As an example, if I take my motorcycle out on the freeway it will not (under almost any "normal" set of conditions) overheat regardless of how fast I go. It will, however, overheat if I put a sheet of cardboard on the front of my radiator. In this case, the heat INPUT remains constant but the heat RETENTION changes.

Now think of that piece of cardboard as "greenhouse gases" and think of the engine as "solar energy".

Up to a certain limit, for any given speed ("solar input"), the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gasses") doesn't matter - BUT beyond that size it ("greenhouse gases") becomes critical and will, eventually, cause catastrophic damage. AND, even if the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") is not critical at X mph ("solar input"), it ("greenhouse gases") may well become critical at X+Y mph ("solar input").

Now if I don't know what speed I am going to be travelling at (and actually have no control over it), doesn't it make sense to try and keep the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") smaller than any recorded speed ("solar input")?

Even though my motorcycle (the Earth) is "red lined" at 10,500 rpm ("solar input"), the engine ("the Sun") can go as high as 12,000 rpm ("solar input") - so a really prudent person would use the 12,000 ("solar input") figure in determining what size the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") should be, wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they do that REGARDLESS of where the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") came from?

Your post has many issues:

Your first sentence:

The main SOURCE for the heat that causes the overheating IS the gasoline. Without the gasoline it doesn't matter one whit what your coolant does.

Cross out the word "cause." In this example, the source of the heat does not "cause" overheating! You confuse the concept of having a necessary condition for an event with the cause of an event. A cause is linked to an event which deviates from regular conditions or expectations. A source of the heat is NECESSARY to have overheating but does not "cause" overheating. The only way a source of heat such as the gas can "cause" overheating is when the gas chemical properties are somehow altered from the norm in such a way that combustion will lead to a high temperature to which the engine is not designed to withstand for long periods of time

The main CAUSE of the overheating is "Coolant Failure" because without the "Coolant Failure" there would be no overheating regardless of what the SOURCE of the heat was.

We agree on this: Now go to your example and tell us which of the things you mention is analogous to "coolant failure"

Next sentence...and up until the end of your analogy...

As an example, if I take my motorcycle out on the freeway it will not (under almost any "normal" set of conditions) overheat regardless of how fast I go. It will, however, overheat if I put a sheet of cardboard on the front of my radiator. In this case, the heat INPUT remains constant but the heat RETENTION changes...

First, I want to make crystal clear that I am all about using analogies AS LONG AS one is aware of their limitations in reaching conclusions. Recall that I said earlier that the climate has a chaotic behavior. The example you try to use is not chaotic. For example, on thing that characterizes chaotic systems is that

Chaos -- from Wolfram MathWorld

In particular, a chaotic dynamical system is generally characterized by

1. Having a dense collection of points with periodic orbits,

2. Being sensitive to the initial condition of the system (so that initially nearby points can evolve quickly into very different states), a property sometimes known as the butterfly effect,

Notice that in your example, you actually indirectly admit that your system is not chaotic

Here is what you said...

Up to a certain limit, for any given speed ("solar input"), the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gasses") doesn't matter - BUT beyond that size it ("greenhouse gases") becomes critical

I hope you can see why you cannot push your analogy to much and try to compare our decisions with respect to environment to the decisions that you describe in your scenario sicne you admit that your system is not that sensitive to the initial conditions ( which include the size of cardboard).

 

[pamak]

The main SOURCE for the heat that causes the overheating IS the gasoline. Without the gasoline it doesn't matter one whit what your coolant does.

The main CAUSE of the overheating is "Coolant Failure" because without the "Coolant Failure" there would be no overheating regardless of what the SOURCE of the heat was.

As an example, if I take my motorcycle out on the freeway it will not (under almost any "normal" set of conditions) overheat regardless of how fast I go. It will, however, overheat if I put a sheet of cardboard on the front of my radiator. In this case, the heat INPUT remains constant but the heat RETENTION changes.

Now think of that piece of cardboard as "greenhouse gases" and think of the engine as "solar energy".

Up to a certain limit, for any given speed ("solar input"), the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gasses") doesn't matter - BUT beyond that size it ("greenhouse gases") becomes critical and will, eventually, cause catastrophic damage. AND, even if the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") is not critical at X mph ("solar input"), it ("greenhouse gases") may well become critical at X+Y mph ("solar input").

Now if I don't know what speed I am going to be travelling at (and actually have no control over it), doesn't it make sense to try and keep the size of the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") smaller than any recorded speed ("solar input")?

Even though my motorcycle (the Earth) is "red lined" at 10,500 rpm ("solar input"), the engine ("the Sun") can go as high as 12,000 rpm ("solar input") - so a really prudent person would use the 12,000 ("solar input") figure in determining what size the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") should be, wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they do that REGARDLESS of where the cardboard ("greenhouse gases") came from?

In continuation of my previous post (text limit forces me to break my responses)

We have already established (I hope) that your system is not chaotic, but there are some additional issues I want to address

...think of the engine as "solar energy".

Makes zero sense t think of the engine as analogous to "solar energy." You can realize this when you recall that in your analogy it is the engine which is OVERHEATED. Therfore, the engine is analogous to the EARTH.

Up to a certain limit, for any given speed ("solar input")...

The recorded speed is not "solar input." " A gas input in a not so efficient engine (with thermal losses) will give a different speed compared to the same gas input in a more efficient engine. Even two identical engines with identical "gas input" will give different speed if one is in a car with a single driver and the other is in the same car with multiple drivers. The speed is an OUTPUT not an inut and it is affected by many things besides the energy input.

Even though my motorcycle (the Earth) is "red lined" at 10,500 rpm ("solar input"), the engine ("the Sun") ...

Where should I start?

You make many arbitrary decisions regarding the concepts you want to link to the items of your example...

For example, you call the "engine" the "sun" even though you have actually said earlier that the sun is the main source of the heat. I assume that in your simplistic example, the "gas" would be the "sun"

Then you choose to say that the motorcycle is red-lined at 10,500 rpm. Why do not you say that the ENGINE of your motorcycle is redlined at 10,500 rpm which is actually more accurate and agrees with the point I made earlier that since in your example the engine is the item which is "overheated," it makes sense to see the engine as the item which is analogous to the "Earth"?

I have already addressed the difference between "input" and "output."

Do you have any other example to "discuss" as you say that issue of global warming?

 

[pamak]

For one thing, adopting "the establishment" view doesn't mean it's right. It just means that's who's in control.
"inferior" is the wrong word choice.
"heretical" would be better.
And given the state of climate science today, the suggestion is that there's an element of religious zeal in AGW adherents.

"the fact that the majority of the scientists all over the word support a specific theory".
Another poster said essentially the same thing but he bailed on trying to support it.
Why don't we start with you stating with what that specific theory is.
If it's something like defining what the greenhouse effect is you can skip past that and be specific about what you think the majority of scientists support and how you know they do.

I agree that the establishment's view is not always right. No problem with that statement...

As for what theory is inferior or not, it is decided through a scientific debate. Just because these "heretics" have not brought a solid enough theory to convince the vast majority of the scientists about counter theories, it does not mean that there is some global conspiracy in favor of green energy which has become a religious belief among the "heretics"!

Sure, the current dominant beliefs do not necessary express some cosmic "truth" and they may be wrong or partially wrong. It is difficult to know the "truth" in science. In fact, the argument is that it is impossible to be certain about the truth and "prove" that theory "A" describes 100% accurately our universe. Unlike math where we can prove theorems because WE study a system which WE have created, in science we are unable to achieve such "proof" because we study a system which was not created by us.

STILL, despite such limitations, we can still do a good job in comparing alternative models and see which among those answer the most questions and has stood the falsification challenge from our experiments. Usually, enlightening theories convince reasonable people. Hardcore scientists are more passionate about their field than about politics. Einstein turned upside down the rules of physics but still convinced his fellow scientists relatively quickly to accept his theory of relativity . Of course, it was not that they just "accepted" the new theory. They tried to falsify it by different experiments designed to compare the theories predictions with the results of the experiment. They failed to do so, and the more experiments they conducted which showed results that were predicted by the theory the more solid the theory became. And still, it is possible to have something "wrong" in the theory and find some new theory with a "twist" just like we did with Newton's theory despite the fact that his theory stood for centuries the challenge and gave predictions which were verified by many experiments.

So, do you want to undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory? Go for it! I am not arguing that you should not attempt it because you should respect the "establishment." I am saying that if you are not able to convince the scientific establishment, do not try to convince me (the non expert) that your theory is better than the current one and that you are a victim of persecution.

By the way, If you address me then it does not make sense to bring other people's arguments and tell me that they had to back off from their claims. I made a claim about the "consensus" within the scientific community regarding the climate and the human influence and brought links to support my point. I have not seen anybody refuting what I posted...

 

[bubbabgone]

I don't have a favorite. All of the links I provided are more than enough evidence that a majority of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is real. Your denialism is a conspiracy, nothing more.

Okay.
Can I assume you never thought to look at the methodology of any of the consensus surveys?
There are certain qualities common among them.
Some surveyed climate scientists and some counted studies.
The requested sampling may have been extensive but the responses were not.
You can't reach accurate conclusions with a tiny sample of polled scientists that actually responded.
Papers that disagree with AGW get excluded.
But the biggest factor that enabled that 97% conclusion was the subjectivity of the authors conducting the survey.
They decided for themselves that they detected an explicit or implicit endorsement of 97% of the study authors that humans caused global warming.
Even though no explicit position may have been taken.
Sometimes the conclusion was based on the abstract alone, most often it was based on what the survey taker themselves decided was an endorsement of human caused warming.
Scientists complain that their work was misrepresented as endorsing the conclusion.
When a University of Delaware professor of Climatic Research, recreated one of the studies, he saw that only 1 percent of the papers that stated an opinion actually endorsed the conclusion.

In any event what you've posted were "because they said so" arguments.
You can't take a reasoned position when that's all you've exposed yourself to.

 

[Threegoofs]

Okay.
Can I assume you never thought to look at the methodology of any of the consensus surveys?
There are certain qualities common among them.
Some surveyed climate scientists and some counted studies.
The requested sampling may have been extensive but the responses were not.
You can't reach accurate conclusions with a tiny sample of polled scientists that actually responded.
Papers that disagree with AGW get excluded.
But the biggest factor that enabled that 97% conclusion was the subjectivity of the authors conducting the survey.
They decided for themselves that they detected an explicit or implicit endorsement of 97% of the study authors that humans caused global warming.
Even though no explicit position may have been taken.
Sometimes the conclusion was based on the abstract alone, most often it was based on what the survey taker themselves decided was an endorsement of human caused warming.
Scientists complain that their work was misrepresented as endorsing the conclusion.
When a University of Delaware professor of Climatic Research, recreated one of the studies, he saw that only 1 percent of the papers that stated an opinion actually endorsed the conclusion.

In any event what you've posted were "because they said so" arguments.
You can't take a reasoned position when that's all you've exposed yourself to.

Do you think scientists don’t ever talk to each other?

No scientists are disputing these multiple studies, because they all know it’s true, because all you have to do is walk around the AGU meeting and talk to people and attend lectures.

 

[pamak]

Okay.
Can I assume you never thought to look at the methodology of any of the consensus surveys?
There are certain qualities common among them.
Some surveyed climate scientists and some counted studies.
The requested sampling may have been extensive but the responses were not.
You can't reach accurate conclusions with a tiny sample of polled scientists that actually responded.
Papers that disagree with AGW get excluded.
But the biggest factor that enabled that 97% conclusion was the subjectivity of the authors conducting the survey.
They decided for themselves that they detected an explicit or implicit endorsement of 97% of the study authors that humans caused global warming.
Even though no explicit position may have been taken.
Sometimes the conclusion was based on the abstract alone, most often it was based on what the survey taker themselves decided was an endorsement of human caused warming.
Scientists complain that their work was misrepresented as endorsing the conclusion.
When a University of Delaware professor of Climatic Research, recreated one of the studies, he saw that only 1 percent of the papers that stated an opinion actually endorsed the conclusion.

In any event what you've posted were "because they said so" arguments.
You can't take a reasoned position when that's all you've exposed yourself to.

It is not just one study! It is also the public statements of numerous academic and scientific bodies I posted. I ask again: can you produce the statements of academic bodies and professional associations which deny or express serious doubts about the anthropogenic effects in global warming? I mean if you really believe that only 1% of the papers actually endorsed such view and the view of the vast majority of scientists was misrepresented, then you can find such statements, right?

By the way, I have actually read in the past about the attempts of some people to challenge the 97% numbers. In those attempts which I have seen, the doubters do not address the actual claim which talks about the 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists . They often try to lower the percentage by including scientists who are NOT ACTIVELY publishing and whose theories are dated, and scientists who are not climatologists.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What Americans Eat

From The Daily Caller Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor The Green New Deal seems to embrace the anti-beef and dairy industry sentiment of the environmental left. Green New Dealers want to remake American society, including how to produce and eat food. “I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” said one…
Continue reading →

 

[MauiMan]

[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
The Green New Deal Isn’t Just About Energy, It’s Also About Controlling What Americans Eat

[FONT=&]From The Daily Caller Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor The Green New Deal seems to embrace the anti-beef and dairy industry sentiment of the environmental left. Green New Dealers want to remake American society, including how to produce and eat food. “I think it’s pretty clear they want to change people’s consumption habits,” said one…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

She wants us to eat Soylent Green.

 

[Kobie]

From The Daily Caller

Yep, it's bull****!

 

[bubbabgone]

It is not just one study! It is also the public statements of numerous academic and scientific bodies I posted. I ask again: can you produce the statements of academic bodies and professional associations which deny or express serious doubts about the anthropogenic effects in global warming? I mean if you really believe that only 1% of the papers actually endorsed such view and the view of the vast majority of scientists was misrepresented, then you can find such statements, right?

By the way, I have actually read in the past about the attempts of some people to challenge the 97% numbers. In those attempts which I have seen, the doubters do not address the actual claim which talks about the 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists . They often try to lower the percentage by including scientists who are NOT ACTIVELY publishing and whose theories are dated, and scientists who are not climatologists.

I know it's not one study. I said "There are certain qualities common among them."
What makes "actively publishing climate scientists" the criteria in your mind? How large is that universe vs. the universe of all climate scientists.
And it doesn't excuse taking liberties with the results by misrepresenting the studies.

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
​

btw, you say "I have actually read in the past about the attempts of some people to challenge the 97% numbers."
Where did you read that? Skeptical Science?
No surprise. The guy who runs that blog staged one of the most prominent consensus surveys ... the one the above quotes referenced.

 

[bubbabgone]

I agree that the establishment's view is not always right. No problem with that statement...

As for what theory is inferior or not, it is decided through a scientific debate. Just because these "heretics" have not brought a solid enough theory to convince the vast majority of the scientists about counter theories, it does not mean that there is some global conspiracy in favor of green energy which has become a religious belief among the "heretics"!

Sure, the current dominant beliefs do not necessary express some cosmic "truth" and they may be wrong or partially wrong. It is difficult to know the "truth" in science. In fact, the argument is that it is impossible to be certain about the truth and "prove" that theory "A" describes 100% accurately our universe. Unlike math where we can prove theorems because WE study a system which WE have created, in science we are unable to achieve such "proof" because we study a system which was not created by us.

STILL, despite such limitations, we can still do a good job in comparing alternative models and see which among those answer the most questions and has stood the falsification challenge from our experiments. Usually, enlightening theories convince reasonable people. Hardcore scientists are more passionate about their field than about politics. Einstein turned upside down the rules of physics but still convinced his fellow scientists relatively quickly to accept his theory of relativity . Of course, it was not that they just "accepted" the new theory. They tried to falsify it by different experiments designed to compare the theories predictions with the results of the experiment. They failed to do so, and the more experiments they conducted which showed results that were predicted by the theory the more solid the theory became. And still, it is possible to have something "wrong" in the theory and find some new theory with a "twist" just like we did with Newton's theory despite the fact that his theory stood for centuries the challenge and gave predictions which were verified by many experiments.

So, do you want to undermine the anthropogenic global warming theory? Go for it! I am not arguing that you should not attempt it because you should respect the "establishment." I am saying that if you are not able to convince the scientific establishment, do not try to convince me (the non expert) that your theory is better than the current one and that you are a victim of persecution.

By the way, If you address me then it does not make sense to bring other people's arguments and tell me that they had to back off from their claims. I made a claim about the "consensus" within the scientific community regarding the climate and the human influence and brought links to support my point. I have not seen anybody refuting what I posted...

So all that just to admit that the science isn't settled.

Once you become the establishment you don't give it up easily. It's a given.
And the current AGW establishment are the most zealot of the climate bunch.
They have a lot to lose and a lot of political and media support to help make sure it doesn't happen.

And regarding "I made a claim about the "consensus" within the scientific community regarding the climate and the human influence and brought links to support my point. I have not seen anybody refuting what I posted."
Now you have. See #1021.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yep, it's bull****!

Using an ad hominem to avoid the data.

 

[pamak]

I know it's not one study. I said "There are certain qualities common among them."
What makes "actively publishing climate scientists" the criteria in your mind? How large is that universe vs. the universe of all climate scientists.
And it doesn't excuse taking liberties with the results by misrepresenting the studies.

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
​

btw, you say "I have actually read in the past about the attempts of some people to challenge the 97% numbers."
Where did you read that? Skeptical Science?
No surprise. The guy who runs that blog staged one of the most prominent consensus surveys ... the one the above quotes referenced.

I dd not make myself clear. When I said it is not just one "study," I am talking about the study regarding the percentage of papers. And in a study which examines thousands of papers, finding a few cases to argue that the author was off does not discredit the whole study. The author of the study did not read thousands of scientific papers. He used indicators in the abstract section. So, I would not expect a 100% accuracy. But even if one tried to discredit this study, he still cannot deny the obvious statements supporting the anthropogenic factors in global warming of the scientific bodies and academies. I did not see any such organization making a statement denying or expressing its serious concerns about the anthropogenic factors.

I asked you again to give me a list not of individual scientists but of the scientific bodies which support that anthropogenic factors are not likely to be main drivers of global warming or something to that effect. Until you bring such list, you have no case o challenge the claim about the consensus among the scientists!

I do not recall where I read about this study. It was a long time ago. But I do recall and read some attempts to discredit the 97% number by doing things like including scientists who are not actively publishing!

 

[Jack Hays]

I dd not make myself clear. When I said it is not just one "study," I am talking about the study regarding the percentage of papers. And in a study which examines thousands of papers, finding a few cases to argue that the author was off does not discredit the whole study. But even if one tried to discredit this study, he still cannot deny the obvious statements supporting the anthropogenic factors in global warming of the scientific bodies and academies. I did not see any such organization making a statement denying or expressing its serious concerns about the anthropogenic factors. I asked you again to give me a list not of individual scientists but of the scientific bodies which support that anthropogenic factors are not likely to be main drivers of global warming or something to that effect. Until you bring such list, you have no case o challenge the claim about the consensus among the scientists!

I do not recall where I read about this study. It was a long time ago.

The claim of "consensus" is a marker for anti-science argumentation.